Publication details for Professor Phil MacnaghtenMacnaghten, P.M., Kearnes, M.B. & Wynne, B. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the Social Sciences? Science Communication. 2005;27:268-291.
- Publication type: Journal papers: academic
- ISSN/ISBN: 1075-5470, 1552-8545
- DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281531
- Keywords: Nanotechnology, Governance, Upstream public engagement, Imaginaries.
- View online: Online version
- Durham research online: DRO record
Author(s) from Durham
In this article we argue that nanotechnology represents an extraordinary opportunity to build in a robust role for the social sciences in a technology that remains at an early, and hence undetermined, stage of development. We examine policy dynamics in both the United States and United Kingdom aimed at both opening up, and closing down, the role of the social sciences in nanotechnologies. We then set out a prospective agenda for the social sciences and its potential in the future shaping of nanotechnology research and innovation processes. The emergent, undetermined nature of nanotechnologies calls for an open, experimental, and interdisciplinary model of social science research.
Adam, B. 1998. Timescapes of modernity. The environment and invisible hazards. London, New
Bauman, Z. 1991. Modernity and ambivalence. New York: Cornell University Press.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Bennett, I., and D. Sarewitz. Forthcoming. Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture.
Bentley, T., and J. Wilsdon. 2003. The adaptive state: Strategies for personalising the public realm. London: Demos.
Better Regulation Task Force. 2003. Scientific research: Innovation with controls. London:
Better Regulation Task Force.
Bloomfield, B. P., and T. Vurdubakis. 1995. Disrupted boundaries: New reproductive technologies and the language of anxiety and expectation.
Social Studies of Science 25:533–51.
Brown, N. 2003. Hope against hype—accountability in biopasts, presents and futures. Science Studies 16(2): 3–21.
Brown, N., and M. Michael. 2003. A sociology of expectations:
Retrospecting prospects and
prospecting retrospects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management
Brown, N., B. Rappert, and A.Webster, eds. 2000. Contested futures—A sociology of prospective techno-science. England: Aldershot.
Castells, M. 1996. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.
de Sousa Santos, B., ed. 2003. Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). 2004. Nanotechnology offers potential to bring jobs, investment and prosperity—Lord Sainsbury. Press release from the Department of Trade and Industry, July 29.
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)/Office of Science and Technology (OST). 2005. OST grant scheme—Sciencewise: Engaging society with science and technology.
Drexler,K. E. 1986. Engines of creation: The coming era of
Erikson, K. 1994. A new species of trouble: The human experience of modern disasters. London:
W. W. Norton & Company.
ETC Group. 2003. The big down. Atomtech: Technologies converging at the NanoScale.Winnipeg,
Canada: ETC Group.
European Commission. 2004. Towards a European strategy on nanotechnology.
European Environment Agency. 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: The Precautionary Principle 1896–2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.
Fleck, L. 1979. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago:
University of Chicago
Grint, K., and S. Woolgar. 1997. The machine at work: Technology, work and organization.
Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, S. Mayer, and B.Wynne. 1997. Uncertain
modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain. Lancaster, UK:
Grove-White, R., P. Macnaghten, and B.Wynne. 2000.Wising up: The public and new technologies.
Lancaster, UK: Lancaster University.
Guston, D., and D. Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment.
Technology in Society
Hedgecoe, A., and P. Martin. 2003. The drugs don’t work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics. Social Studies of Science 33(2):
HMGovernment. 2005. Response to the Royal Society and Royal Society of Engineering report:
Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties.
HMTreasury/Department of Trade and Industry/Department of Education and Skills. 2004. Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014.
London: HM Treasury.
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2004. Too little too late? Government investment in nanotechnology. Fifth report of session 2003–2004. London:
House of Lords. 2000. Science and technology—third report: Science and society. London:
House of Lords.
HRHThe Prince ofWales. 2004. Menace in the minutiae. The Independent on Sunday, July 11.
Jessop, B. 2000. The state and the contradictions of the knowledge-driven economy. In Knowledge, space, economy, edited by B. Daniels, N. Henry, and J. Pollard. London:
Jonas, H. 1984. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Joy, B. 2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(4): 238–263.
Kearnes, M. B., R. Grove-White, P. Macnaghten, J.Wilsdon, and B.Wynne.
nano? Learning the lessons, interrogating the comparison. Science as Culture.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 2004. The politics of nature: How to bring the sciences into democracy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Law, J., and W. E. Bijker, eds. 1992. Shaping technology/building
sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Law, J., and J. Hassard. 1999. Actor network theory and after. Oxford:
Lux Research. 2004. The nanotech report 2004: Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology. 3d ed. New York: Lux Research Inc.
MacKenzie, D. 1992. Economic and sociological explanation of technical change. In Technological change and company strategy, edited by R.W.
Coombs, P. Saviotti, andV.Walsh, 25–48.
London: Academic Press Ltd.
MacKenzie, D., and J.Wajcman, eds. 1999. The social shaping of technology.
Open University Press.
Macnaghten, P. 2004. Animals in their nature: A case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and “nature.” Sociology
Macnaghten, P., R. Grove-White, J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne. 2003.
Nanotechnology, risk and
sustainability: Moving public engagement upstream. ESRC Proposal.
Marcus, G. 1995. Introduction. In Technoscientific imaginaries, edited by G. Marcus. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Marris, C., B. Wynne, P. Simmons, and S. Weldon. 2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe. Final report of the PABEresearch project funded by the Commission of European Communities, contract number: FAIR CT98–3844 (DG12 - SSMI).
National Human Genome Research Institute. 2004. About ELSI: About the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) program. Available from http://www.genome.gov/10001754.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) InteragencyWorking Group on Nanscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN). 2000. National Nanotechnology
to the next industrial revolution. Washington, DC: NSTC.
Nature. 2003. Nanotechnology is not so scary. Nature 421(6921): 299.
———. 2004. Going public. Nature 431(7011): 883.
Noble, D. 1977. America by design: Science, technology, and the rise of corporate capitalism.
New York: A. A. Knopf.
———. 1997. The religion of technology: The divinity of man and the spirit of invention. New
York: A. A. Knopf.
Nordmann, A. 2004. Converging technologies—Shaping the future of European societies.
Brussels: European Commission.
Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. 2001. Re-Thinking science.
Knowledge and the public in
an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Pinch, T. J., andW. E. Bijker. 1984. The social construction of facts and
artefacts: Or howthe sociology
of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.
Social Studies of
Science 14: 399–441.
Power,M. 2004. The risk management of everything: Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. London:
Prigogine, I. 1997. The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York,
London: The Free Press.
Ramsay, S. 2001. Ethical implications of research on the human genome.
Rip, A., and R.Kemp. 1998.Technological change. In Human choice and climate change, edited by S. Rayner and E. Malone. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.
Rip, A., T. Misa, and J. Schot, eds. 1995. Managing technology in
The approach of constructive
technology assessment. London: Thomson.
Roco, M., and W. Bainbridge, eds. 2001. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rose, N. 2001. The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture & Society
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP). 1998. Setting environmental standards.
London: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE). 2004. Nanoscience and
nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
Royal Society. 2005. Government commits to regulating nanotechnologies but will it deliver?
Royal Society press release, Feb 25. Available from http://www.royalsociety.ac.uk/ news.asp?id=2976.
Sarewitz, D., R. A. Pielke Jr., and R. Byerly Jr., eds. 2000. Prediction:
Science, decision making,
and the future of nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Shapin, S. 1994. A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, G. 2004. Nanotechnology: Friend or foe? Science in Parliament
Squier, S. M. 1995. Babies in bottles: Twentieth century visions of reproductive technology.
Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Stirling, A. 2005. Opening up or closing down? Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology. In Science, citizenship and globalisation, edited by M. Leach, I.
Scoones, and B. Wynne. London: Zed.
Stirling, A., G. Davies, and J. Burgess. 2004. Deliberative mapping:
Briefing papers. London
and Sussex, Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex, and Environment and Society Research Unit (ESRU), University College London.
Suchman, L., and L. Bishop. 2000. Problematizing “innovation” as a critical project. Technology and Strategic Management 12(1): 327–333.
Urry, J. 2003. Global complexity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
van Lente, H. 1993. Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological development.
Ph.D. diss., Twente University. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
van Lente, H. and A. Rip. 1998. Expectations in technological
developments: An example of
prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In Getting new technologies together, edited by C. Disco and B. J. R. van der Meulen, 195–220. Berlin, New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
Verran, H. 1998. Re-imagining land ownership in Australia.Postcolonial Studies 1(2): 237–254.
Wilsdon, J., and R. Willis. 2004. See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Wilsdon, J., B. Wynne, and P. Macnaghten. 2005. The nano dialogues: Four experiments in upstream public engagement. Sciencewise proposal.
Winner, L. 1977. Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wood, S., R. Jones, and A. Geldart. 2003. The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. London: Economic and Social Research Council.
Wynne, B. 1988. Unruly technology: Practical rules, impractical discourses and public understanding.
Social Studies of Science 18(1): 147–167.
———. 1991. Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values
———. 1995. The public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J.
and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
———. 2001. Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10(4): 445–481.
———.2003. Societal aspects of nanotechnology: Misunderstanding science? Paper presented at EuroNanoForum Conference, December 10–12.