Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures

  • Chapter
Presenting Futures

Part of the book series: The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society ((YNTS,volume 1))

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arnall, A.H. 2003. Future Technologies. Today’s Choices. Nanotechnology, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics: A Technical, Political and Institutional Map of Emerging Technologies. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, I. and D. Sarewitz. 2006. Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture 15(4): 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bijker, W. 1993. Do Not Despair: There is Life after Constructivism. Science, Technology and Human Values 18(4): 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. 1976. Knowledge and Social Imageryu. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, N. 2003. Hope Against Hype—Accountability in Biopasts, Presents, and futures. Science Studies 16(2): 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. 1980. The Social Control of Technology. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. 1992. The Management of Scale: Big Organizations, Big Decisions, Big Mistakes. London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, S. and S. Leith. 2005. Public Participation: Agoras, Ancient and Modern, and a Framework for Science—Society Debate. Science and Public Policy, 32(2); 137–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry. 2003. GM Nation? The Findings of the Public Debate. London: Department of Trade and Industry. DTI/Pub 6914/0.5k/09/03/NP.URN03/1292). Available at http://dti.gov.uk

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, M. 1986. Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, K.E. 1986. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, K.E., C. Peterson and G. Pergamit. 1991. Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution. New York: William Morrow and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. 2001. Playing God? Human Genetic Engineering and the Rationalization of Public Bioethical Debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, W., Fleck, J. and R. Williams. 1998. Exploring Expertise: Issue and Perspectives. In R. Williams, W. Faulkner, and J. Fleck, eds., Exploring Expertise (pp. 1–27). Basingstoke: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. 2005. Lessons Learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications Program (ELSI): Planning Societal Implications Research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society 27(3): 321–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleck, J., Webster, J., and R. Williams. 1990. The Dynamics of I.T. Implementation: A Reassessment of Paradigms and Trajectories of Tevelopment. Futures 22: 618–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogelberg, H. and H. Glimell. 2003. Bringing Visibility to the Invisible: Towards a Social Understanding of Nanotechnology. Göteborg: Göteborg University. Available at www.sts.gu.se/publications/sts_report_6.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M.E. 2002. Levels of Expertise and Trading Zones: A Framework for Multidisciplinary Collaboration. Social Studies of Science 32(5–6): 933–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Miller, P., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., and B. Wynne. 2004. Bio-to-Nano? Learning the Lessons, Interrogating the Comparison. Lancaster: Lancaster University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2002. CRIs in the Wilderness: Towards Centers for Responsible Innovation in the Commercialized University. Theme paper for the 4th Triple Helix Conference, Copenhagen, 6–9 November 2002, mimeo. Appearing in modified version in Guston (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2004. CRIs in the Wilderness: Toward Centers for Responsible Innovation in the Commercialized Academy. In D. Stein, ed., Buying in or Selling Out: Essays in the Commercializtion of the American Research University, (pp. 161–174). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real Time Technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D. 1988. Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism as a Site of Discourse on the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3): 575–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, K. 2000. Large Policy Issues for Small Scale Sechnology (Report prepared for the American Institute of Chemical Engineers & the National Science Foundation). Journal of Engineering and Public Policy 4. Washington Internships for Students of Engineering (Washington, DC). Available at http://www.wise intern.org/journal00/khathaway2000.pdf. Accessed June 15th, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. 1983. Networks of Power. Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky, S. and Golding, D., eds. 1992. Social Theories of Risk. London: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. and H. Etzkowitz. 2003. Can ‘the Public’ Be Considered as a Fourth Helix in University-Industry-Government Relations? Report of the Fourth Triple Helix Conference. Science and Public Policy: 30(1): 55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lighthill, J. 1973. Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey. In Science Research Council, Artificial Intelligence: A Paper Symposium, mimeo. London: Science Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, J. 2004. Bridging the Gaps: Science Fiction in Nanotechnology. HYLE—International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 10(2): 129–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1993. Risk: A Sociological Theory. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. 1998. The Certainty Trough. In R. Williams, W. Faulkner, and J. Fleck, eds., Exploring Expertise (pp. 325–329). Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman, eds. 1985. The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCain, L. 2002. Informing Technology Policy Decisions: The US Human Genome Project’s Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Programs as a Critical Case. Technology in Society 24: 111–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnyusiwalla, A.D., S. Abdallah and P.A. Singer. 2003. ‘Mind the Gap’: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14: R9–R13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, D. 1979. Social Choice in Machine Design: The Case of Automatically Controlled Machine Tools. In A. Zimbalist, ed., Case Studies on the Labour Process (pp. 18–50). New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Science and Technology. 2005. The Government’s Outline Programme for Public Engagement on Nanotechnologies. London: HM Government. Available at www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/programme12.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T. and W. Bijker. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other, Social Studies of Science 14(3): 399–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radder, H. 1992. Normative Reflexions on Constructivist Approaches to Science and Technology. Social Studies of Science 22(1): 141–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratner, M. and D. Ratner. 2003. Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. 2005. There Is Mainstreaming, Loss of Critical Distance: Are STS Scholars Finally Growing Up? Presentation to workshop ‘Does STS Mean Business Too?’ Oxford, Said Business School, 29 June 2005, mimeo.Available at www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/downloads/sts2-rip.pdf. Accessed June 15th, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Misa, T.J. and J. Schot, eds. 1995. Managing Technology in Society: The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment. London and New York: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. and J. Schot. 2002. Identifying Loci for Influencing the Dynamics of Technological Development. In K.H. Sørenson and R. William, eds., Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools (pp. 155–172). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C. and Bainbridge, W.S., eds. 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C. and W.S. Bainbridge. 2002. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology, and Cognitive Science (NBIC). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C. and R. Tornellini, eds. 2002. Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications. Luxembourg: European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, H. and S. Rose, eds. 1976. The Radicalisation of Science. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: The Royal Society/The Royal Academy of Engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. and R. Williams. 2002a. Concepts, Spaces and Tools for Action? Exploring the Policy Potential of the Social Shaping of Technology Perspective. In K.H. Sørenson and R. Williams, eds., Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools (pp. 133–154). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, S. and R. Williams. 2002b. Social Shaping of Technology: Frameworks, Findings and Implications for Policy, with Glossary of Social Shaping Concepts. In H. Knut, K.H. Sørenson and R. Williams, eds., Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools (pp. 37–132). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saari, E. and R. Miettinen. 2001. Dynamics of Change in Research Work: Constructing a New Research Area in a Research Group. Science, Technology & Human Values 26(3): 300–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. and W.D. Kay. 2006. The GMO-nanotech (Dis)analogy? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26(1): 57–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J. 1992. Constructive Technology Assessment and Technology Dynamics: The Case of Clean Technologies. Science, Technology & Human Values 17(1): 36–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer, J. 2004. Bibliography of Studies on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. In D. Baird, A. Nordmann and J. Schummer, eds., Discovering the Nanoscale (pp. 311–316). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific American: The Editors. 2001 Megabucks for Nanotech. Scientific American 285(3): 8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236(17 April): 280–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Society for Social Studies of Science. 2004. Public Proofs, Science, Technology, and Democracy—Preuves Publiques, Science, Technologie et Démocratie. Proceedings of the Joint Conference of The Society for Social Studies of Science (4S) and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST). Paris: Ecole des Mines de Paris, Centre de Sociologie de l’innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørenson, K.H. 2002. Social Shaping on the Move? On the Policy Relevance of the Social Shaping of Technology Perspective. In K.H. Sørenson and R. Williams, eds., Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools (pp. 17–34). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørenson, K.H. 2004. Cultural Politics of Technology: Combining Critical and Constructive Interventions? Science Technology & Human Values 29: 184–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørenson, K.H. and R. Williams, eds. 2002. Shaping Technology, Guiding Policy: Concepts, Spaces and Tools. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinardi, G. and R. Williams, eds. 2005. The Governance Challenge of Break Through Science and Technology. In C. Lyall and J. Tait, eds., New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment (pp. 45–66). Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starr, C. 1969. Social Benefit versus Technological Risk. Science 165 (19 September): 1232–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. 2001. Encounters with the Information Society: Personal and Social Issues in the Appropriation of New Media Products in Everyday Life: Adoption, Non-adoption, and the Role of the Informal Economy and Local Experts. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Research Centre for Social Sciences, The University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, J. and R.Williams. 2005. The Wrong Trousers? Beyond the Design Fallacy: Social Learning and the User. In D. Howcroft and E.M. Trauth, eds., Critical Information Systems Handbook (pp. 194–221). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stix, G. 1996. Waiting for Breakthroughs. Scientific American 274(4): 36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stix, G. 2001. Little Big Science. Scientific American 285(3): 94–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J. and R. Williams. 1999. Policy Approaches to Research and Development: Foresight, Framework and Competitiveness. Science and Public Policy 26(2): 101–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Biobank (2003) Ethics and Governance Framework. Stockport: UK Biobank. Available at www.ukbiobank.ac.uk. Accessesd September 24th 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. and A. Rip. 1998a The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rhetorics to Social Reality. Social Studies of Science 28(2): 221–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lente, H. and A. Rip. 1998b. Expectations in Technological Developments: an Example of Prospective Structures to Be Filled in by Agency. In C. Disco and B. van der Meulen, eds., Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order (pp. 203–229). New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J.D. 1989. Testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. US Congress, Senate Hearing 101–528, 9 November 1989, p. 13. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M., Hoogma, R., Lane, B., and J. Schot. 1999. Experimenting with Sustainable Transport Innovations. A Workbook for Strategic Niche Management. Seville/Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, R., Stewart, J. and R. Slack. 2005. Social Learning and Technological Innovation: Experimenting with ICTs. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. 1980. Do Artefacts Have Politics? Daedalus 109: 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. 2003. Testimony to the Committee on Science of the US House of Representatives on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology House Committee on Science, Hearings, Wednesday, 9 April 2003. Available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/winner.htm. Accessed 15 June 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, S., Jones, R., and A. Geldart. 2003. The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., Hess, D., Breyman, S. and B. Martin. 2002. Science Studies and Activism: Possibilities and Problems for Recontructivist Agendas. Social Studies of Science 32(2): 297–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S. 1991. The Turn to Technology in Social Studies of Science. Science, Technology & Human Values 16(1): 20–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 2001. Creating Public Alienation: Expert Cultures of Risk and Ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10(4): 445–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

    Robin Williams

Authors
  1. Robin Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

    Erik Fisher , Cynthia Selin  & Jameson M. Wetmore ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Williams, R. (2008). Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures. In: Fisher, E., Selin, C., Wetmore, J.M. (eds) Presenting Futures. The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8416-4_22

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation