Erik Fisher

Midstream Modulation of Technology: Governance From Within

Public “upstream engagement” and other approaches to the social control of technology are currently receiving international attention in policy discourses around emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. To the extent that such approaches hold implications for research and development (R&D) activities, the distinct participation of scientists and engineers is required. The capacity of technoscientists to broaden the influences on R&D activities, however, implies that they conduct R&D differently. This article discusses the possibility for more reflexive participation by scientists and engineers in the internal governance of technology development. It reviews various historical attempts to govern technoscience and introduces the concept of midstream modulation, through which scientists and engineers, ideally in concert with others, bring societal considerations to bear on their work.

Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development

This paper argues that the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development (RD and mounting pressure to conduct technology development with more effective regard to societal considerations. The tension emerges when comparing various ‘Program Activities’ set forth in the Act that require divergent policy models, by which the legislation attempts to balance international competition with concern over the perceived risks of nanotechnology applications. By prescribing the integration of societal and technical concerns during nanotechnology R&D, the Act could mark a radical shift in S&T policy in so far as it allows the consideration of societal concerns to influence technological activities and outcomes. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Lab-scale intervention Science & Society Series on Convergence Research

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 …

Mapping the integrative field: taking stock of socio-technical collaborations

Responsible innovation requires that scientific and other expert practices be responsive to society. We take stock of various collaborative approaches to socio-technical integration that seek to broaden the societal contexts technical experts take into account during their routine activities. Part of a larger family of engaged scholarship that includes inter- and transdisciplinarity as well as stakeholder and public engagement, we distinguish collaborative socio-technical integration in terms of its proximity to and transformation of expert practices. We survey a variety of approaches that differ widely in terms of their integrative methods, conceptions of societal context, roles, and aspirations for intervention. Taking a handful of “communities of integration” as exemplars, we then provide a framework for comparing the forms, means, and ends of collaborative integration. We conclude by reflecting on some of the main features of, and tensions within, this developing arena of practical inquiry and engagem...

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

Research thrives on integration of natural and social sciences

E merging collaborations between social and natural scientists face challenges, as you acknowledge (Nature 462, 825–826, 2009). But, like A. D. Manning and J. Fischer in Correspondence (Nature 463, 425; 2010), you sidestep a practical question that keeps many laboratory doors closed: what if interactions with ‘soft’ scientists harm the quality of my ‘hard’ research? The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (ASU) has collaborated with natural scientists since 2005. It also hosts the Socio-Technical Integration Research project (http://cns.asu.edu/stir), which embeds social scientists in 20 labs across ten nations on three continents — represented by three authors of this letter, plus the project’s coordinator. Social researchers learn the theory and observe the methods of their laboratory counterparts, but they also introduce a protocol that unpacks social and ethical dimensions of the lab science itself in a real-time, hands-on, collaborative manner. The social scientists, their methods and enquiries become embedded in the laboratory during each 12-week engagement study. We find that such integrative activities can trigger changes in laboratory practices — expanding the values and questions considered, and the alternatives that are perceived as viable. For example, reflections on responsible innovation generated novel ideas for antenna structures and nanoparticle synthesis for researchers at ASU’s Center for Single Molecule Biophysics. Such developments often advance research and sometimes advance deliberation on public values. For laboratory scientists, thinking and talking about the broader dimensions of their work in an integrated way need not entail a sacrifice in productivity. Rather, efforts to enhance scientific creativity and societal responsiveness can be mutually reinforcing. Erik Fisher School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University, PO Box 873902, Tempe, Arizona 85287-390, USA e-mail: efisher1@asu.edu Simon Biggs School of Process, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Leeds, UK Stuart Lindsay The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, USA Jie Zhao School of Materials Science and Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, China

Socio-technical Integration Research: Collaborative Inquiry at the Midstream of Research and Development

Midstream modulation is a framework for relating changes in research and innovation to changes in practitioners’ contextual awareness. It is used by the socio-technical integration research (STIR) program to help elucidate and enhance the capacities of laboratory practitioners to participate more deliberately in the governance of science, technology and innovation. STIR involves collaborative inquiry between embedded humanists or social scientists and the scientists, engineers and others who host them. The collaborative inquiry takes place during routine research and innovation activities, generating feedback that can modulate these activities in real-time. Reflexive midstream modulations can disrupt and enhance the conditions under which research and innovation practitioners engage the social and ethical contexts of their work. This chapter presents the conceptual backbone and the overall philosophy behind midstream modulation, and surveys the concrete outcomes that typically result from laboratory engagement studies.

Increasing conservation impact and policy relevance of research through embedded experiences.

Asresearchersinconservationscienceandthefieldofscience, technology, and society, we believe Rudd’s (2011) framework, described in “How Research-Prioritization Exercises Affect Conservation Policy,” for conceptualizing research has practical value. Rudd explores means to increase research impacts through techniques such as big-question exercises and exercises to determine best practices. As an additional means to increase the impact and policy relevance of conservation research, we suggest researchers embed themselves in the daily working environment of other communities, such as government offices, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or disparate scientific fields, to learn about the constraints and opportunities that influence conservation work in these communities. In his thorough treatment of research impacts, Rudd presents the benefits and shortcomings of two frameworks for understanding and improving research impacts on policy in theory and in practice. Following Beyer (1997) and Amara et al. (2004), his first framework classifies research impacts as conceptual (policy makers are sensitized to new issues and change their beliefs), instrumental (policy decisions are affected directly by results of scientific research), and symbolic (results of scientific research are used to support established policy positions). In his second framework, which he bases on Shaxson (2009), Rudd classifies research issues into 4 domains according to the extent that scientific knowledge is fully developed and the policy issue is clearly articulated: domainofuncertainty(lowscientificknowledge,lowpolicy articulation), domain of evidence (low scientific knowledge, high policy articulation), domain of partisanship (high scientific knowledge, low policy articulation), and domain of best practices (high scientific knowledge, high

Responsible healthcare innovation: anticipatory governance of nanodiagnostics for theranostics medicine

Theranostics signals the integrated application of molecular diagnostics, therapeutic treatment and patient response monitoring. Such integration has hitherto neglected another crucial dimension: coproduction of theranostic scientific knowledge, novel technological development and broader sociopolitical systems whose boundaries are highly porous. Nanodiagnostics applications to theranostics are one of the most contested and potentially volatile postgenomics innovation trajectories as they build on past and current tensions and promises surrounding both nanotechnology and personalized medicine. Recent science policy research suggests that beneficial outcomes of innovations do not simply flow from the generation of scientific knowledge and technological capability in a linear or automatic fashion. Thus, attempts to offset public concerns about controversial emerging technologies by expert risk assurances can be unproductive. Anticipation provides a more robust basis for governance that supports genuine healthcare progress. This article presents a synthesis of novel policy approaches that directly inform theranostics medicine and the future(s) of postgenomics healthcare.

The public value of nanotechnology

Science and innovation policy (SIP) is typically justified in terms of public values while SIP program assessments are typically limited to economic terms that imperfectly take into account these values. The study of public values through public value mapping (PVM) lacks widely-accepted methods for systematically identifying value structures within SIP and its public policy processes, especially when there are multiple stakeholder groups. This paper advances the study of public values in SIP using nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) policy by demonstrating that quantitative analysis of value statements can provide a credible and robust basis for policy analysis. We use content analysis of over 1,000 documents with over 100,000 pages from major contributors to the NSE policy discourse to identify and analyze a wide range of public value statements. Data analysis and reduction methods reveal a multifactor structure of public values that has been consistently cited by a range of actors in an NSE research policy network.