Center For Nanotechnology In Society Research Articles

An assessment of engaged social science research in nanoscale science and engineering communities

AbstractIncreased funding of nanotechnology research in the USA at the turn of the millennium was paired with a legislative commitment to and a novel societal research policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology. Innovative policy discourses at the time suggested that such work could engage a variety of publics, stakeholders, and researchers to enhance the capacity of research systems to adapt and be responsive to societal values and concerns. This article reviews one of two federally funded social science research centers—the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University(CNS-ASU)—to assess the merits of this form of engaged social science research in which social science contributes not only to traditional knowledge production but also to the capacity of natural science and engineering researchers and research communities for greater reflexivity and responsiveness, ultimately producing more socially robust research systems.

Research network emergence: Societal issues in nanotechnology and the center for nanotechnology in society

Abstract This article looks at the creation of a network of researchers of social issues in nanotechnology and the role of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) in the creation of this network. The extent to which CNS-ASU is associated with the development of a research network around the study of social issues in nanotechnology is examined through geographic mapping of co-authors and citations of center publications, network analysis of co-authors of papers on social issues in nanotechnology, and a disciplinary analysis of these papers. The results indicate that there is an extensive network of co-authorships among researchers studying social issues in nanotechnology with CNS-ASU at the center of this network. In addition, papers written by center members and affiliates integrate a diverse range of disciplines. Qualitative data are used to interpret some of the ways that citation occurs.

Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives

Interest in evaluating non-economic social outcomes of science and technology research has risen in policy circles in recent years. The interest in social impacts of research has not yet given rise to a great proliferation of useful, valid techniques for evaluating such impacts. This study presents detailed case studies of four US National Science Foundation (NSF) programs/initiatives to provide a framework for understanding diverse efforts at addressing social impacts, and to suggest some important gaps in our research approaches for assessing socio-economic impacts of research. The four cases studied − the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR), the Innovation Corps (I-Corps), the Arizona State University Center for Nanotechnology in Society, and the NSF “Broader Impacts” criteria—were chosen for their diversity in intent and modality but operating within a single agency. The cases are compared based on criteria important for assessing socio-economic outcomes: the initiative’s modality, enabling policy vehicle, benefit guarantor, distribution and appropriability of benefits, specificity of beneficiary, social-economic range, and timing of the benefit stream. The paper concludes with a discussion of the most pressing methodological and theoretical issues that need addressing for greater progress in assessing social impacts.

Seeing the city: photography as a place of work

During the Futurescape City Tours, sponsored by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society, citizens engaged in an urban walking experience that involved observing, documenting and deliberating about the past, present and future of technology in the urban environment. Central to this experience was the use of photography as the place of work where the citizen-photographers created a visual language to grant meaning and structure to their experience and deliberations. Drawing on Barthe’s (1980) idea of semiology as a construction of meaning through the exploration and identification of systematic regularities of signs and objects, as well on Benjamin’s (1999) notion that there is no photography without discourse, this paper demonstrates what these individuals see as their relationship to their city as portrayed through photographic observations. This paper aims to empirically illustrate the uses and power of an image to mediate discourse and representations of technological change in the city. Further, it opens a scholarly conversation on role of visual cultures in the construction of the necessary capacities among individuals to critically reflect on their role as technological citizens toward better understanding pathways to sustainability. To do so, we conducted a visual ethnography of the participants’ photographic images and captions. By pushing the boundaries of photography beyond an artistic practice into the realm of public engagement, we demonstrate the ways in which “a camera is a tool for learning how to see without a camera,” as Dorothea Lange once stated.

The wrong people for the job?

The ‘‘demands of the day’’ to which the title refers concern the problems associated with doing ethical anthropology in the twenty-first century. Rabinow and Stavrianakis intend to draw lessons for anthropologists from their experiences as participant observers attempting to collaborate with scientists on analyzing ethical issues in biological research. But they come across as naive and inexperienced about engaging scientists in ethical discourse and recount an unhappy tale illustrating exactly the sorts of things anthropologists should not do, without deriving any helpful suggestions from their mistakes. Seemingly unaware of the growing philosophical literature on ethics and values in science, the authors fail to draw on past work and attempt to re-create the field anew. Neither anthropologists nor philosophers interested in the ethics of scientific research will find much of value here. Rabinow and Stavrianakis were involved in two projects funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF). From 2006 to 2010, Rabinow directed the component dealing with ethical and social aspects of research conducted by the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center (SynBERC), a consortium of biologists and engineers from University of California—Berkeley, University of California—San Francisco, Harvard, MIT, and Stanford. SynBERC was involved in creating synthetic DNA that includes novel genes. Stavrianakis joined Rabinow on this project a few months after its inception. He was also invited to participate in a second project concerning the social consequences of nanotechnology, the SocioTechnical Integration Research project (STIR) at the Arizona State University Center for Nanotechnology in Society.

Erratum to: Measuring the development of a common scientific lexicon in nanotechnology

Acknowledgments This research is supported by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (National Science Foundation Awards 0531194 and 0937591). Philip Shapira further acknowledges additional support from the Project on Emerging Technologies, Trajectories and Implications of Next Generation Innovation Systems Development in China and Russia (Economic and Social Research Council, grant reference ES/J012785/1). The findings in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the research sponsors.

Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States

This paper reviews efforts of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) to begin to build capacity for public engagement with science in the United States. First, the paper sets a context in the US of the current challenges to democracy and for science. It then reviews the literature on the accomplishments of the National Citizens' Technology Forum (NCTF) on nanotechnology and human enhancement, held in 2008, as well as some caveats that emerged from that enterprise. It concludes with a brief discussion of two kinds of activities - participation in the World Wide Views process organized by the Danish Board of Technology, and methodological innovations that include more concrete and experiential modes of engagement - that have spun off from the NCTF.

Editorial (End of the Beginning and Public Health Pharmacogenomics: Knowledge in ‘Mode 2’ and P5 Medicine)

Vural Ozdemir1,*, Erik Fisher2, Edward S. Dove1, Hilary Burton3, Galen E. B. Wright4, Mario Masellis5,*, and Louise Warnich4,* 1Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada 2School of Politics and Global Studies, Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Center for Nanotechnology in Society, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA 3Foundation for Genomics and Population Health, 2 Worts Causeway, Cambridge, UK 4Department of Genetics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa 5L.C. Campbell Cognitive Neurology Research Unit, Sunnybrook Research Institute, Department of Medicine (Neurology), Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Participating Despite Questions: Toward a More Confident Participatory Technology Assessment

While the important challenges of public deliberations on emerging technologies are crucial to keep in mind, this paper argues that scholars and practitioners have reason to be more confident in their performance of participatory technology assessments (pTA). Drawing on evidence from the 2008 National Citizens' Technology Forum (NCTF) conducted by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University, this paper describes how pTA offers a combination of intensive and extensive qualities that are unique among modes of engagement. In the NCTF, this combination led to significant learning and opinion changes, based on what can be characterized as a high-quality deliberation. The quality of the anticipatory knowledge required to address emerging technologies is always contested, but pTAs can be designed with outcomes in mind-especially when learning is understood as an outcome.

Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology

The national-level scenarios project NanoFutures focuses on the social, political, economic, and ethical implications of nanotechnology, and is initiated by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU). The project involves novel methods for the development of plausible visions of nanotechnology-enabled futures, elucidates public preferences for various alternatives, and, using such preferences, helps refine future visions for research and outreach. In doing so, the NanoFutures project aims to address a central question: how to deliberate the social implications of an emergent technology whose outcomes are not known. The solution pursued by the NanoFutures project is twofold. First, NanoFutures limits speculation about the technology to plausible visions. This ambition introduces a host of concerns about the limits of prediction, the nature of plausibility, and how to establish plausibility. Second, it subjects these visions to democratic assessment by a range of stakeholders, thus raising methodological questions as to who are relevant stakeholders and how to activate different communities so as to engage the far future. This article makes the dilemmas posed by decisions about such methodological issues transparent and therefore articulates the role of plausibility in anticipatory governance.

떠오르는 기술들에 대한 예비 협치

아리조나 주립대학교의 사회 속의 나노기술 센터(CNS-ASU)는 미국 자연과학기금(NSF)에서 지원하는 나노 스케일 과학 및 공학 센터(NSEC)이다. 이 센터는 나노기술의 '예비 협치'(anticipatory governance)의 전략적 비전을 위한 실시간 기술 평가를 구현한다. 이 비전을 달성하기 위하여, CNS-ASU는 몇 개 대학의 연구사업을 통합할 뿐 아니라 예견(그럴듯한 미래 시나리오), 집적(사회인문과학을 나노스케일 과학기술과 연계) 및 참여(대중에게 홍보) 등 세 개의 주요 활동을 통합한다. CNS-ASU는 교육 훈련 활동을 할 뿐만 아니라 대중 소통과 비공식적 과학 교육을 실시한다. 이 논문은 이 사업은 전통적인 위험 관리 체계를 뛰어 넘는 사회적 차원의 연구를 포함한 예비 협치의 내용과 전략적 전망을 논술하고 있다. The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) is a Nano-scale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC) funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF). It implements an agenda of "real-time technology assessment" (RTTA) in pursuit of a strategic vision of the "anticipatory governance" of nanotechnologies. To achieve this vision, CNS-ASU unifies research programs not only across several universities but also across three critical, component activities: foresight (of plausible future scenarios), integration (of social science and humanities research with nano-scale science and engineering), and engagement (of publics in deliberations). CNS-ASU also performs educational and training activities as well as public outreach and informal science education. This paper elaborates the Center's strategic vision of anticipatory governance and its component activities, especially in the context of extending the concerns of societal dimensions research beyond the traditional risk paradigm.

Lab‐scale intervention

From mobile phones and laptop computers to in vitro fertilization and social networks on the Internet, technological devices, products and services are increasingly shaping the lives of people around the world. The pervasiveness of technology and the underlying science that makes it possible has led to a certain ambivalence: most people trust that ‘science’ will eventually help them to live longer, healthier and happier lives. However, they also feel increasingly uncomfortable about certain new technologies, often those that challenge or improve on ‘nature’. Genetically modified crops, gene therapy, stem cell research, cloning, renewed interest in nuclear power: the list of controversial topics involving science and technology is growing steadily and debates on these topics regularly occupy centre stage in public and political arenas. > …the research process itself constitutes a largely overlooked opportunity for addressing social concerns Policy‐makers have responded by calling for increased attention to be paid to the ethical, legal and social aspects of scientific research and technological developments. In particular, new and emerging areas of research—such as genomics, synthetic biology and nanotechnology—have been accompanied by studies of their broader societal implications as well as public‐engagement efforts, in order to guide research and development in ways that respect societal concerns. Such attempts to shape technological trajectories have traditionally occurred both before scientific research, for example, through research policy, technology assessment or public participation, and afterwards, through regulations or market mechanisms. Although these stages are crucial points at which to intervene, the research process itself constitutes a largely overlooked opportunity for addressing social concerns. Indeed, if one acknowledges the central role that scientific research has in the innovation process, this is an area well worth examining. Shaping technological trajectories will, at some point, include shaping the very research processes that help to characterize them (Fisher et al , 2006). Social and …

Nano-Buzz: Societal Dimensions of Emerging Technologies

Try googling “nano buzz”—I got 3,430,000 hits just now. Exclude the roughly two thirds (at least 2,060,000) that are in reference to Apple’s nano iPod, a new technology that is only discursively “nano” (no nanoscale technology involved). What you’re left with is the result of a complex interplay of federal US policy, global R&D on an enormous scale, and a burgeoning debate in civil society at home and abroad. The world is truly abuzz about nanoscience, nanotechnologies and, increasingly, the societal implications of their development and dissemination. The NSF-funded Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California at Santa Barbara (CNS-UCSB) is a new national epicenter for nano-buzz analysis.

Anthropological Research at the UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society

On Oct 6, 2005, the National Science Foundation announced its new awards under the Nanotechnology in Society initiative. Their banner headline read "New Grants Are Awarded to Inform the Public and Explore the Implications of Nanotechnology", in an effort to "…greatly expand efforts to inform the general public about nanotechnology, and to explore the implications of that fast-moving field for society as a whole" (NSF 2005). Two new Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSEC), each designated a national Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS), were funded, the first ever to be dedicated entirely to societal issues concerning nanotechnology.