Abstract

There is a growing literature on how scientific experts understand risk of technology related to their disciplinary field. Previous research shows that experts have different understandings and perspectives depending on disciplinary culture, organizational affiliation, and how they more broadly look upon their role in society. From a practice-based perspective on risk management as a bottom-up activity embedded in work place routines and everyday interactions, we look, through an ethnographic lens, at the laboratory life of nanoscientists. In the USA and Sweden, two categories of nanoscientists have been studied: upstream scientists who are mainly electrical and physical engineers and downstream scientists who are toxicologists, often with a more multidisciplinary background, including physics, chemistry, biology, and engineering. The results show that although the two groups of scientists share the same norms of appropriate laboratory conduct to promote safety and good science practice, they have very different perspectives on risk with nanomaterials. Upstream scientists downplay risk; they emphasize the innovative potential of the new materials to which they express an affectionate and personalized stance. The downstream scientists, instead, focus on the uncertainties and unpredictability of nanomaterials and they see some materials as potentially highly dangerous. The results highlight the ambiguous and complex role of scientific experts in policy processes about the risk and regulation of nanotechnology.

Highlights

  • Nanomaterials are compounds manipulated at the nanometer scale, i.e., the level of single atoms and molecules

  • Processoriented risk assessment focuses on nanomaterials in themselves as a potential threat, while product-oriented risk assessment targets products made from nanomaterials

  • We focus on laboratory work practice and understandings of risk of two categories of scientific experts (USA and Sweden) working with nanomaterials

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Nanomaterials are compounds manipulated at the nanometer scale, i.e., the level of single atoms and molecules. A main finding was that Bupstream^ scientists (who directly work with developing nanomaterials) downplay risk, while Bdownstream^ scientists (who study the effects of nanomaterials) accentuate risk Powell explains this finding by arguing that different scientists (depending on disciplinary orientation) assume different roles in society, that is to say, whether they see themselves as vehicles of technological innovation and progress or as advocates of public and environmental health and safety. Three clusters of science roles vis-àvis regulation were identified: Bcautious innovators^ (favoring local regulation and public involvement), Bnanoregulators^ (emphasizing top down regulation emanating from national and international levels), and Btechnology optimists^ (who were skeptical about regulation, and who thought that nanotechnology should be allowed to fast advance without interference) In another American study of scientists’ views on regulation of nanotechnology, Corley et al [50] found some disciplinary differences: chemists were less in favor of regulation than biologists. Views about responsibilities of stakeholders, and broader socio-political values had some explanatory power

Method
Findings
Discussion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call