Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Technology Assessment (TA) Program established in 2003 as part of the Dutch R&D consortium NanoNed is interesting for what it did, but also as an indication that there are changes in how new science and technology are pursued: the nanotechnologists felt it necessary to spend part of their funding on social aspects of nanotechnology. We retrace the history of the TA program, and present the innovative work that was done on Constructive TA of emerging nanotechnology developments and on aspects of embedding of nanotechnology in society. One achievement is the provision of tools and approaches to help make the co-evolution of technology and society more reflexive. We briefly look forward by outlining its successor program, TA NanoNextNL, in place since 2011.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “[European Technology Platforms] provide a framework for stakeholders, led by industry, to define research priorities and action plans on a number of technological areas (…). Since they are developed through dialogue among industrial and public researchers and national government representatives, they also contribute to create consensus and to improve alignment of investment efforts. (http://cordis.europa.eu/technology-platforms/home_en.html, last visited 20 November 2012). See also Rip [19].

  2. See Kearnes and Rip [10], who refer for examples to Roco and Bainbridge [27], and Krupp and Holliday [12].

  3. Since then, the usual acronym in Europe and elsewhere is ELSA, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects; and occasionally, E3LSA, Economic, Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects.

  4. Arie Rip has led TANanoNed, Harro van Lente is now directing TA NanoNextNL.

  5. See www.nanoned.nl

  6. The TA component was included because acting director David Reinhoudt had noted what was happening in the US [27] and wanted to be pro-active (this was 2002). So he asked Rip to spend a million euro on a TA Nano program a write up of a few pages would be sufficient.

  7. This was noted earlier [4, 27]. For general public engagement exercises the situation is still the same, but there are few attempts to create “societal panels”, e.g. to advise research councils about priorities in certain areas.

  8. See www.rathenau.nl

  9. See www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen/

  10. Garud and Ahlstrom [6] discuss the diagnosis in terms of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, while we prefer ‘enactors’ and ‘comparative selectors’ [15] or ‘receptors. One reason is that also within the nanotechnology world one can distinguish enactors and comparative selectors, e.g. business customers buying nano-materials.

  11. A concrete indication of credibility pressure is how external actors (government agencies, commentators, and reviewers of NanoNed) found the inclusion of TA in the NanoNed program very important.

  12. The work on the eighth thesis [33] was funded through the Faculty of Management and Governance of the University of Twente, as part of the so-called matching budget of the TA NanoNed Program. The research questions were relevant for the TA NanoNed Program, but were not derived from the Constructive TA core diagnosis of the TA NanoNed Program.

  13. See: www.nanonextnl.nl

  14. At the programme level, such an activity helps to improve legitimacy of the consortium and its being funded with public money.

References

  1. Den Boer D, Rip A, Speller S (2009) Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: a methodology which enhances reflexivity. Technol Soc 31(3):295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dorbeck-Jung B, Van Amerom M (2008) The hardness of soft law in the United Kingdom: state and non-state regulatory conceptions related to nanotechnological development. In: Verschuren J, Schooten-van der Meer H (eds) The state legislature and non-state law. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 129–150

    Google Scholar 

  3. Doubleday R (2007) Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 2:211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fisher E, Rip A (forthcoming) Responsible innovation: multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

  5. Garud R, Ahlstrom D (1997) Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. J Eng Technol Manag 14:25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? the final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hanssen L (2009) From transmission toward transaction. Design requirements for successful public participation in communication and governance of science and technology. Dissertation, University of Twente

  8. Joly P-B, Rip A, Callon M (2010) Reinventing innovation. In: Arentsen M, Van Rossum W, Steenge B (eds) Governance of innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–32

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kearnes M, Rip A (2009) The emergent goverance landscape of nanotechnology. In: Gammel S, Lösch A, Nordmann A (eds) Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Heidelberg, pp 97–121

    Google Scholar 

  10. Krabbenborg L (forthcoming) The challenge of public-sphere type interactions between enactors of nanotechnology and civil society actors. Dissertation, University of Groningen

  11. Krupp F, Holliday C (2005) Let’s get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, June 14. Management Supplement, B2

  12. Parandian A (2012) Constructive TA of newly emerging technologies. Stimulating learning by anticipation through bridging events. Dissertation, Technical University Delft

  13. Parandian A, Rip A, Te Kulve H (2012) Dual dynamics of promises and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies. Tech Anal Strat Manag 24(6):565–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4):349–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rip A (2009) Futures of ELSA. EMBO Rep 10(7):666–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rip A (2010) De facto governance of nanotechnologies. In: Goodwin M, Koops B-J, Leenes R (eds) Dimensions of technology regulation. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen, pp 285–308

    Google Scholar 

  17. Rip A (2012) Futures of technology assessment. In: Decker M, Grunwald A, Knapp M (eds) Der Systemblick auf Innovation–Technikfolgenabschätzung in der Technikgestaltung. Edition Sigma Verlag, Berlin, pp 29–39

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rip A (2012) The context of innovation journeys. Creat Innov Manag 21(2):158–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rip A, Robinson DKR (forthcoming) Constructive technology assessment and the methodology of insertion. In: Van de Poel I, Doorn N, Schuurbiers D, Gorman ME (eds) Opening up the laboratory: approaches for early engagement with new technologies. Wiley-Blackwell

  20. Rip A, Shelley-Egan C (2010) Positions and responsibilities in the “real” world of nanotechnology. In: von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies. Options for framing public policy. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, pp 31–38

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rip A, Te Kulve H (2008) Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. In: Fisher E, Selin C, Wetmore JM (eds) The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume I: presenting futures. Springer, Berlin, pp 49–70

  22. Rip A, Van Amerom M (2010) Emerging de facto agendas around nanotechnology: two cases full of contingencies, lock-outs, and lock-ins. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies. Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 131–155

  23. Robinson DKR (2009) Co-evolutionary scenarios: an application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76:1222–1239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Robinson DKR (2010) Constructive technology assessment of emerging nanotechnologies. Experiments in interactions. Dissertation, University of Twente

  25. Robinson DKR, Propp T (2008) Multi-path mapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in emerging S&T. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75:517–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers). Available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf

  27. Ruivenkamp M (2011) Circulating images of nanotechnology. Dissertation, University of Twente

  28. Schot J, Rip A (1997) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 54:251–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shelley-Egan C (2011) Ethics in practice: responding to an evolving problematic situation of nanotechnology in society. Dissertation, University of Twente

  30. Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Te Kulve H (2011) Anticipatory interventions in the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society. Dissertation, University of Twente

  32. Van der Most F (2009) Research councils facing new science and technology. The case of nanotechnology in Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. Dissertation, University of Twente

  33. Van Est Q, Malsch I, Rip A (2004) Om het kleine te waarderen. Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. Rathenau Instituut, The Hague, Werkdocument 93

    Google Scholar 

  34. Van Lente H (1993) Promising technology. Dissertation, University of Twente

  35. Van Lente H, Bakker S (2010) Competing expectations: the case of hydrogen storage technologies. Tech Anal Strat Manag 22(6):693–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Van Lente H, Van Til J (2007) A combined roadmapping-cluster approach for emerging technologies. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 3(2):121–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Van Lente H, Van Til J (2008) Articulation of sustainability in the emerging field of nanocoatings. J Clean Prod 16:967–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Merkerk RO (2007) Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies: a CTA of Lab on a chip technology. Dissertation, Utrecht University

  39. Van Merkerk RO, Van Lente H (2005) Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technologies: the case of nanotubes. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 72:1094–1111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science, Technology and Policy Studies (STePS), School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands

    Arie Rip

  2. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Harro van Lente

Authors
  1. Arie Rip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Harro van Lente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harro van Lente.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rip, A., van Lente, H. Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed. Nanoethics 7, 7–16 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0171-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation