Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Being Responsible: Multiplicity in Responsible Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 13))

Abstract

‘Responsible development’ has risen to become a key normative framework for nanotechnology. The technology’s governance landscape is fundamentally structured through a discourse of responsibility, in which political tools such as public engagement, voluntary reporting and soft law are mobilised so as to enable innovation. To call for responsibility has, indeed, become somewhat trite. In this essay we take not the normative demand for responsibility, but its operationalisation, as our analytical focus, arguing that it is important not to underestimate the term’s practical flexibility and discursive multiplicity. To illustrate this point we consider firstly the range of ways in which ‘responsibility’ is articulated within the literature on higher education and sociology of science; and, secondly, how notions of responsible development are understood, and acted upon, in two different US sites: an academic research centre, and the nanotechnology private sector. Through mapping something of the diversity of ‘responsibility’ and the dynamics which shape its various articulations we start to fill out the complexities of operationalising – rather than merely calling for – nanotechnology’s responsible development.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

References

  • Barben, D., E. Fisher, C. Selin, and D.H. Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed, ed. E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman, 979–1000. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbosa, N., and A.P. Faria. 2011. Innovation across Europe. How important are institutional differences? Research Policy 40(9): 1157–1169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corolleur, C.D.F., M. Carrere, and V. Mangematin. 2004. Turning scientific knowledge into capital. The experience of biotech startups in France. Research Policy 33(4): 631–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, R.T., and R.F. Price. 1999. The social responsibility of science and the public understanding of science. International Journal of Science Education 21(7): 775–785.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S.R. 2011. Nanotechnology, business, and anticipatory governance. CNS-ASU Report #R11-0004, Center for Nanotechnology in Society. Arizona State University. Tempe, AZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S.R., and C. Selin. 2012. Energy futures: Five dilemmas of the practice of anticipatory governance. Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture 6(1): 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S.R., C. Selin, G. Gano, and A. Guimarães Pereira. 2013. Finding futures: A spatio-visual experiment in participatory engagement. Leonardo 46(1): 76–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. 2005. Unholy alliances. Nature 405(6788): 739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Ridder-Vignone, K. 2012. Public engagement and the art of nanotechnology. Leonardo 45(5): 433–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drenth, P.J.D. 2006. Responsible conduct in research. Science and Engineering Ethics 12(1): 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dupont and EDF. 2007. Nano risk framework. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense – Dupont Nano Partnership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant, J., G. Evans, and G.P. Thomas. 1989. The public understanding of science. Nature 340: 11–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2004. Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2008. Commission recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. 2007. Ethnographic invention: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2): 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forge, J. 2000. Moral responsibility and the ‘ignorant scientist’. Science and Engineering Ethics 6(3): 341–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilmer, P.J., and M. DuBois. 2002. Teaching social responsibility: The Manhattan Project: Commentary on “the six domains of research”. Science and Engineering Ethics 8(2): 206–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glerup, Cecilie, and Maja Horst. 2014. Mapping ‘social responsibility’ in science. Journal of Responsible Innovation: 1–20. doi:10.1080/23299460.2014.882077

  • Groves, C., F. Lori, R. Lee, and E. Stokes. 2011. Is there room at the bottom for CSR? Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. Journal of Business Ethics 101(4): 525–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2010. The anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. Journal of the Korean Vacuum Society 19(6): 432–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2014. Understanding ‘anticipatory Governance.’ Social Studies of Science 44(2): 218–242. doi:10.1177/0306312713508669.

  • Guston, D.H., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagendijk, R., and A. Irwin. 2006. Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44(2): 167–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M.A., and H. Wagenaar. 2003. Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in practice. London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, A., and B. Salter. 2012. Anticipatory governance: Bioethical expertise for human/animal chimeras. Science as Culture 21(3): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41: 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. 2008. When it pays to ask the public. Nature Nanotechnology 3(10): 578–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karinen, R., and D.H. Guston. 2010. Toward anticipatory governance: The experience with nanotechnology. In Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, ed. M. Kaiser, M. Kurath, S. Maasen, and C. Rehmann-Sutter, 217–232. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M.B., and A. Rip. 2009. The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In Jenseits Von Regulierung: Zum Politischen Umgang Mit Der Nanotechnologie, ed. S. Gammel, A. Losch, and A. Nordmann, 97–121. Berlin: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M.B., P. Macnaghten, and J. Wilsdon. 2006. Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjølberg, K.L., and R. Strand. 2011. Conversations about responsible nanoresearch. NanoEthics 5(1): 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kowal, J.P. 1980. Responsible science reporting in a technological age. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 10(4): 307–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupp, F., and C. Holliday. 2005. Let’s get nanotech right. The Wall Street Journal, June 14, p. B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurath, M. 2010. Nanotechnology governance. Science, Technology, and Innovation Studies 5(2): 87–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., and H. Etzkowitz. 1998. The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy 25(3): 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., M.B. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27(2): 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, E., and C. Kelty. 2010. Responsibility and nanotechnology. Social Studies of Science 40(3): 405–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R.K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. R.K. Merton, 223–266. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael, M. 2002. Comprehension, apprehension, prehension: Heterogeneity and the public understanding of science. Science, Technology, and Human Values 27(3): 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative. n.d. National nanotechnology initiative. http://www.nano.gov/nanotech-101/what/definition. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.

  • Owen, R., and N. Goldberg. 2010. Responsible innovation: A pilot study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Risk Analysis 30(11): 1699–1707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R., P. Macnaghten, and J. Stilgoe. 2012. Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy 39(6): 751–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, R., and E. Fisher. 2011. Legislating the laboratory? Promotion and precaution in a nanomaterials company. Biomedical Nanotechnology 726: 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randles, S. 2008. From nano-ethicswash to real-time regulation. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12(3): 270–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Responsible Nano Code. 2008. Information on the responsible nano code initiative. London: Responsible Futures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C., B. Harthorn, D. Guston, and P. Shapira. 2011. Innovative and responsible governance of nanotechnology for societal development. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(9): 3557–3590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuurbiers, D. 2011. What happens in the lab: Applying midstream modulation to enhance critical reflection in the laboratory. Science and Engineering Ethics 17(4): 769–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, A. 2009. Green dreams of reason. Green nanotechnology between visions of excess and control. NanoEthics 3(2): 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J., and A. Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scriebinger, L., and M. Scraudner. 2011. Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 36(2): 154–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selin, C., and P. Boradkar. 2010. Prototyping nanotechnology: A transdisciplinary approach to responsible innovation. Journal of Nano Education 1(1–2): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley-Egan, C. 2010. The ambivalence of promising technology. NanoEthics 4(2): 183–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shelley-Egan, C., and S.R. Davies. 2013. Nano-industry operationalizations of ‘responsibility’: Charting diversity in the enactment of responsibility. Review of Policy Research 30(5): 588–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J., R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten. 2013. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy 42(9): 1568–1580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swierstra, T., and J. Jelsma. 2006. Responsibility without moralism in technoscientific design practice. Science, Technology & Human Values 31(3): 309–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Burg, S. 2009. Taking the “soft impacts” of technology into account: Broadening the discourse in research practice. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 23(3–4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Max. 1949. On the methodology of the social sciences. Glencoe: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wender, B.A., R.W. Foley, D.H. Guston, T.P. Seager, and A. Wiek. 2012. Anticipatory governance and anticipatory life cycle assessment of single wall carbon nanotube anode lithium ion batteries. Nanotechnology, Law and Business 9(3): 101–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, L. 2005. The Medawar Lecture 1998 is science dangerous? Philosophical transactions. Royal Society. Biological Sciences 360(1458): 1253–1258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Sarah R. Davies & Maja Horst

  2. Department of Organization, Copenhagen Business School, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Cecilie Glerup

Authors
  1. Sarah R. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cecilie Glerup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maja Horst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah R. Davies .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Decisions on Emerging Technologies (CIGA), University of Padova, Rovigo, Italy

    Simone Arnaldi

  2. Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)/Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Arianna Ferrari

  3. Department of Philosophy, Sociology Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Paolo Magaudda

  4. Department of Philosophy, Sociology Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Francesca Marin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Davies, S.R., Glerup, C., Horst, M. (2014). On Being Responsible: Multiplicity in Responsible Development. In: Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., Marin, F. (eds) Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation