Nanobiotechnology as a “converged” technological platform (CT = Converging Technologies) is discussed in relation to discourse within civil society. The conflicts and ethical debates surrounding nanobiotechnology can be intuited from these larger discursive frames of reference. Complimenting Glimell and Fogelberg's (2003) research documenting an emergent epistemic culture amongst scientists researching and working on nanotechnologies, and more recent research on the multiple meanings of nanotechnology in the political economy (Wullweber, 2007), this paper traces an emergent ethnography of engaged actors within civil society as they develop discursive and mobilization repertoires. Whilst on occasion ambivalent about the combination of specific promises and risks in relation to nanobiotechnology, in general a broad critique of the politics of technology is emerging as a counter epistemology or “Master Frame” (Snow & Benford, 1992) amongst certain predisposed UK civil society groups. Converging Technologies provide the issue around which this broad critique is solidifying. Thus whilst many of the specific risks raised by nanobiotechnology (and other CT) are definitively new, many of the p?tential risks and grievances, have been raised before in relation to other issues of scientific and environmental controversy, often by the same actor groups. Thus convergence is a useful metaphor for appreciating that broader frame of reference from within which the emerging conflicts and ethical debates about nanobiotechnology are being situated.
If you go ten, fifteen years in the future, you're not going to be able to distinguish between what's nano technology, what's bio technology, what's information technology or what's genetic engineering. They're all going to be the same kind of technologies … just employed in different ways and different places. (“Mike”, technology watchdog campaigner, in interview January 2004)
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
References
Aldred, M., Crawford P., Savarirayan R., & Savulescu J. (2003) ‘It’s only teeth - are there limits to genetic testing?’ Clinical Genetics 63 (5), 333-339.
Altmann, J. (2004) Military Uses of Nanotechnology: Perspectives and Concerns. Security Dialogue 35 (1): 61-79.
Bauer, M. (ed) (1995) Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauer & Gaskell (eds) (2003) Biotechnology: The Makings of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bauman, Z. (1994) Postmodern Ethics. London: Blackwell.
Bey, H. (1991) TAZ. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia.
Bijker, W.E. (1987) The Social Construction of Bakelite: Towards a Theory of Invention, in Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., & Pinch, T.J. (eds), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology (pp. 159-187). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Birch, K. (2006) The Neoliberal Underpinnings of the Bioeconomy: The Ideological Discourses and Practices of Economic Competitiveness. Genomics, Society and Policy 2 (3): 1-15.
Brown, N. & Michael, M. (2003) A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retro-spects, Technology Analysis and Strategic Development 15 (1): 3-18.
Bowring, F. (2003) Science, Seeds & Cyborgs: Biotechnology and the Appropriation of Life. London: Verso.
Bucchi (2004) Can Genetics Help Us Rethink Communication? Public Communication of Science as a ‘Double Helix’. New Genetics and Society 23 (3) (December): 269-283.
CMP Científica (2002) Nanotech: The Tiny Revolution. http://www.cmp-científica.com/
Collins, H.M. & Evans, R.J. (2002) The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience. Social Studies of Sciences 32 (2) (April): 235-296.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and the Council Concerning the Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006 of the European Community for Research, Technological Development and Demonstration. Brussels, 21.2.2001, COM (2001) 94 final.
Corporate Watch (2005a) How Many Anti-Nano Angels Can Dance on the Head of a Pin?.
Corporate Watch newsletter no 22, February/March 2005, www.corporatewatch.org
Corporate Watch (2005b) Nanotechnology: What It Is and How Corporations Are Using It. Corporate Technologies briefing no.1, www.corporatewatch.org
Corporate Watch(2007) Nanomaterials: Undersized, Unregulated & Already Here. www.corporatewatch.org
Department of Trade and Industry/Office of Science and Technology (2002) New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology www.nano.gov/agency_rpts.htm
Diani, M. (1992) Analysing Social Movement Networks, in Diani, M. & Eyerman, R. (eds), Studying Collective Action, (pp 107-125) Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Diani, M. (1995) Green Networks: A Structural Analysis of the Italian Environmental Movement. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Doherty, Plows, & Wall (2003) Studying Local Activist Communities Over Time: Direct Action in Manchester, Oxford and North Wales 1970-2001. Paper given at European Sociological Association, Social Movements stream, Murcia September 23-27, 2003.
Drexler, K.E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology. New York: Doubleday.
ETC (2003) The Little BANG Theory. http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/comBANG2003.pdf
ETC Group Communiqué (May/June 2004) Issue #85 Nanotech News in Living Colour: An Update on White Papers, Red Flags, Green Goo (and Red Herrings).
Evans & Plows (2005) Discriminating Citizens: Making Judgements About Science. Cardiff University Working Paper number 69. http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/schoolsanddivisions/academicschools/socsi/publications/ workingpaperseries/numeric-61-70.html
Evans, R., & Plows, A. (2007) Listening Without Prejudice? Re-Discovering the Value of the Disinterested Citizen. Social Studies of Science 37 (6): 827-854.
Evans, R., Plows, A., & Welsh, I. (2007) Towards an Anatomy of Public Engagement with Medical Genetics, in Atkinson, P. & Glasner, P. (eds), New Genetics, New Identities (pp.139-157). London: Routledge.
Fischer, F. (2000) Citzens, Experts and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press.
Foresight Institute (2000) Foresight Guidelines on Molecular Nanotechnology, www.foresight.org/guidelines
Fukuyama (2002) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Genewatch (2000) Briefing 11: Privatising Knowledge, Patenting Genes: The Race to Control Genetic Information. http://www.genewatch.org/Patenting/briefs.htm#Brief11
Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Glasner, P. (2002) Beyond the Genome: Reconstituting the New Genetics. New Genetics and Society 21 (3): 267-277.
Glasner, P. & Rothman, H. (2004) Splicing Life? The New Genetics and Society. Aldershot, Hants, England/Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Glimell, H. & Fogelberg, H. (2003) Bringing Visibility to the Invisible: Towards A Social Understanding of Nanotechnology. Göteborg: Göteborg University. http://www.sts.gu.se/publications/STS_report_6.pdf
Granovetter, M.S. (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78 (6): 1360-1380.
Green Action (2004) Technology, Politics and Democracy. Green Action briefing for the European Peoples Global Action 2004 conference, held in Serbia. http://www.mallusk.net/grassroots-gathering/greenaction.html
Grove-White, R., Macnaghten, P. & Wynne, B. (2000) Wising Up: The public and New Technologies. Lancaster: IEPPP, Lancaster University.
Habermas, J. (2003) The Future of Human Nature. Oxford: Polity Press.
Hammersley, M. (ed) (1993) Social Research: Philosophy, Politics and Practise. London: Sage.
http://www.demos.co.uk/media/pressreleases/pressreleases2004/pressreleasepaddlingupstream/
http://www.genetics-and-society.org/analysis/opposing/203_berlin_report.html
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip = 0&id = 1374
http://science.slashdot.org/science/05/01/18/2120255.shtml?tid = 191&tid = 155
http://www.sustainabletechnologies.ac.uk/Project%20pages/site/brief10.htm www.wired.com/wired/current.html
Horlick-Jones, T., Walls, J., Rowe, G., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Murdock, G., & O’Riordan, T. (2007) The GM Debate: Risk, Politics and Public Engagement. Taylor & Francis, London: Routledge
Irwin, A., & Michael, M. (2003) Science, Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead, UK: Oxford University Press.
Joy, B. (2000) Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us. Wired: 8.04, www.wired.com/wired/current.html
Kerr, A. Cunningham-Burley, S., & Amos, A. (1998a) The New Genetics and Health: Mobilizing Lay Expertise. Public Understanding of Science 7: 41-60.
Kerr, A. Cunningham-Burley, S., & Amos, A. (1998b) ‘Drawing the Line: An Analysis of Lay People’s Discussion About the New Genetics’, Public Understanding of Science 7: 113-133.
Kerr, A., & Shakespeare, T. (2002) Genetic Politics - From Eugenics to Genome. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mae-Wan Ho (2003) Living with the Fluid Genome. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluidGenome.php
Mayer, S. (2002) From Genetic Modification to Nanotechnology: The Dangers of “Sound Science”, in Gilland, T. (ed), Science: Can We Trust the Experts? (pp. 1-15). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
McAdam, D. (1986) Recruitment to High-Risk Activism: The Case of Freedom Summer. American Journal of Sociology 92: 64-90.
Melucci, A. (1996) Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. New York: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mnyusiwalla, A. et al. (2003)“Mind the Gap”: Science and Ethics in Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14 (3): R9-R13.www.iop.org/EJ
MulCahy (1993) Rhetorics of Hope and Fear in the Great Embryo Debate. Social Studies of Science 23 (4), 721-742.
Nelkin, D. (1995) Forms of Intrusion: Comparing Resistance to Information Technology and Biotechnology in the USA, in Bauer, M. (ed), Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology (pp. 379-90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nordmann, A. (2004) Converging Technologies - Shaping the Future of European Societies. Report to the European Commission.
Plows, A. (2003) Praxis and Practice: The ‘What, How and Why’ of the UK Environmental Direct Action (EDA) Movement in the 1990’s. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Bangor. http://www.iol.ie/∼mazzoldi/toolsforchange/papers.html#counter
Plows (2004a) Mapping the Emergent Complexity of ‘Social Movement Society Engagement with Human Genetic Technologies: Implications for Social Movement Theory. Paper prepared for: Meetings of Research Committee 47 of the International Sociological Association (ISA) in conjunction with Centre d’Analyse et d’Intervention Sociologique (CADIS) at EHESS, Paris, June 11-12, 2004.
Plows (2004b) Activist Networks in the UK: Mapping the Build-Up to the Anti-Globalization Movement’, in Carter, J. & Morland, D. (eds), Anti-Capitalist Britain. Cheltenham: New Clarion Press (pp 95-113).
Plows, A. & Boddington, P. (2006) ‘Troubles with Biocitizenship?’, in Genomics, Society and Policy 2 (3): 115-135.
Purdue, D. (2000) Anti-GentiX: The Emergence of the Anti-GM Movement. Aldershot, UK, Avebury.
Roco, M.C. & Bainbridge, W.S. (2002) Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science. NSF/DOC-sponsored report.
Rolison, D.R. (2002) Nanobiotechnology and Its Societal Implications, in Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities & Societal Implications. EC-NSF 3rd Joint Workshop on Nanotechnology, Lecce, Italy, 31 January-1 February 2002.
Rose, N. & Novas, C. (2005) Biological Citizenship. In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Edited by Ong, A.; Collier, S., Oxford: Blackwell, (pp. 439-463).
Routledge, P. (2003) Convergence Space: Process Geographies of Grassroots Globalization Networks. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 28 (3): 333-349.
Royal Society (2003) Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip = 0&id = 1374
Royal Society report (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. www.royalsoc.ac.uk
Salter, B. & Jones, M. (2002) Regulating Human Genetics: The Changing Politics of Biotech no-logy Governance in the European Union. Health, Risk and Society 4 (3): 325-340.
Schummer, J. (2004) Multidisciplinarity, Interdisciplinarity, and Patterns of Research Collaboration in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59 (2004): 425-465.
Seel, B. & Plows, A. (2000) Coming live and direct: strategies of Earth First! in Seel, B, Paterson, M and Doherty, B (Eds), Direct Action in British Environmentalism, pp. (London: Routledge).
Sexton, S. (2001) If Cloning Is the Answer, What Was the Question? Power and Decision-Making in the Geneticization of Health. International Journal of Sustainable Development 2001 4 (4): 407-433.
Snow, D. & Benford, R. (1992) Master Frames and Cycles of Protest, in Morris, A.D. & Mueller, C. (eds), Frontiers in Social Movement Theory (p. 137). London/New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sweeney, A.E., Seal, S., & Vaidyanathan, P. (2003) The Promises and Perils of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Exploring Emerging Social and Ethical Issues. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 23 (4): 236-245.
Szerszynski, B. (2002) Ritual Action in Environmental Protest Events. Theory, Culture and Society 19 (3) (2002): 51-69.
Szerszynski, B. (2005) Beating the Unbound: Political Theatre in the Laboratory Without Walls in Stewart, in Nigel, Giannachi, & Gabriella (eds), Performing Nature: Explorations in Ecology and the Arts. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 181-197.
Tarrow, S. (1998 2nd ed) Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action, and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wall, D. (1999) Earth First! and the Anti-roads Movement. London: Routledge.
Welsh, I. (2000) Mobilising Modernity: The Nuclear Moment. London: Routledge.
Welsh, I. & Chesters, G. (2002) Reflexive Framing and Ecology of Action: Engaging with the Movement ‘For Humanity Against Neoliberalism’ . Paper Given at XV World Congress of Sociology: Session Globalization and the Environment.
Welsh, I & Chesters G. (2004) “The Rebel Colours of S26: Social Movement: ‘Frame-work’ dur-ing the Prague IMF/WB protests”, Sociological Review, 52(3): 314-335.
Welsh, I & Chesters G. (2005) Complexity and Social Movement: Process and Emergence in Planetary Action Systems, Theory Culture and Society, 25(5):187-211.
Welsh, I., Plows, A., & Evans, R. (2007) Human Rights and Genomics: Science, Genomics and Social Movements at the 2004 London Social Forum New Genetics and Society 26 (2) (August 2007): 123-135.
Whittier, N. (1995) Feminist Generations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Willis, R. & Wilsdon, J. (2004) See Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs To Move Upstream, London: Demos.
Wolbring, G. (2006) The Unenhanced Underclass, in Miller, P. & Wilsdon, J. (eds), Better Humans? The Politics of Human Enhancement and Life Extension (pp. 122-128). London: Demos. http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/betterhumanscollection
World Health Organization (2004) Priorities for Research to Take Forward the Health Equity Policy Agenda. Report from the WHO Task Force on Health System Research Priorities for Equity in Health, pdf doc 47.
Wood, S., Richard, J., & Geldart, A. (2004) The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. ESRC report. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/esrccontent/DownloadDocs/Nanotechnology.pdf
WTEC Panel (1998) Nanostructure Science and Technology: A Worldwide Study. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology.
Wullweber, J. (2007) Enclosure of Knowledge and the Emergence of a Global Nano-Divide. Paper presented at International Studies Association 48th Annual Convention.
Wynne, B. (1995) Public Understanding of Science, in Jasanoff, S., Markle, J.C., Peterson, J.C., & Pinch, T. (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 361-388). London: Sage.
Wynne, B. (1996) May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide, in Lash, S. Szerszynski, B., & Wynne, B. (eds), Risk, Environment & Modernity: Towards a New Ecology (pp. 27-83). London: Sage.
Wynne, B. (2006) Public Engagement as a Means of Restoring Public Trust in Science- Hitting the Notes, but Missing the Music?, Community Genetics 9: 211-220.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Plows, A., Reinsborough, M. (2008). Nanobiotechnology and Ethics: Converging Civil Society Discourses. In: Jotterand, F. (eds) Emerging Conceptual, Ethical and Policy Issues in Bionanotechnology. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 101. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8649-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8649-6_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-8648-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-8649-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)