Ira Bennett

Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States

‘Nanotechnology’ is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, and despite ongoing disagreements about how ‘nanotechnology’ ought to be defined, narratives emerging from a diversity of sources share the notion that the societal impacts of nanotechnology could be transformational, perhaps radically so, in social realms as diverse as privacy, workforce, security, health, and human cognition. One consequence of this shared belief is a nascent effort to understand, anticipate, and perhaps manage the implications and dynamics of the societal impacts of nanotechnology. A rapidly expanding menu of conferences and reports, sponsored by governmental and non-governmental bodies in the US and Western Europe, attest to a growing concern about the societal effects of nanotechnology (e.g. Roco and Bainbridge, 2001; ETC, 2003; Meridian Institute, 2005; Wilsdon and Willis, 2004; Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004). In the US, a federal initiative to fund nanoscale science and engineering (NSE) research was accompanied at its inception in 2000 by a commitment to support a parallel, if substantially smaller, research effort on societal implications. Three years later, the US Congress actually passed legislation to mandate the expansion of this effort. In this paper we ask: what roles are the social sciences playing in the emerging co-evolution of nanotechnology and society, and, crucially, how do those roles come to be defined? To probe this question, we look to the US experience in constructing three brief narratives of our own to illustrate the evolution of: (1) NSE research; (2) speculations and concerns about the implications of nanotechnology; and (3) government commitment to supporting research on the societal implications of nanotechnology. Conspicuously absent from these stories is the influence of several decades of scholarship on the interactions of science, technology, and society. The community of science and technology studies (‘science studies’ hereafter) and science and technology policy scholars seem to have engaged with the challenges of nanotechnology only when stimulated by the Science as Culture Vol. 15, No. 4, 309–325, December 2006

Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures?

‘Science fact, not science fiction’ is an oft-heard refrain in the world of technology assessment and forecasting. Yet, as a literary form, science fiction offers a unique approach to thinking longer term about technology: one grounded in narratives that are people-centric, future-oriented, and focused on non-linear dynamics across the interaction of multiple technologies, value-laden images of future societies, questions of meaning and identity, and enduring symbols and problem framings. Building on this approach, we suggest in this paper that new socio-literary techniques, inspired by science fiction, could offer significant contributions to the governance of new and emerging technologies by improving the capacity to reflexively assess the social dynamics of socio-technical systems. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Developing Plausible Nano-Enabled Products

Visions of the future are often purposefully constructed to compel groups or individuals to take specific actions. In this chapter, Bennett adds his voice to those scholars and practitioners who claim that technological visions should not be simply consumed or rejected, but developed and discussed. He describes his experiences in developing nanotechnology-enabled product descriptions for a scenarios project at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University. As do other projects in this volume (Rip and te Kulve, ch. 4; Currall et al., ch. 7; Türk, ch. 9; Goorden et al., ch. 14), this one seeks interdisciplinary input from technical experts as a basis to assist various social groups to think through and evaluate different nanotechnology futures. In order to ensure that these visions are “plausible,” however, Bennett seeks to create “neutral” product descriptions that contain “as little overt bias as possible” (compare Lösch, ch. 9 and Williams, ch. 22). Bennett’s goal is to facilitate a conversation about goals, values, and possibilities rather than create enthusiasm for a specific future. – Eds.

An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions: the case of nanotechnology governance

Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio-technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude complexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity-exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post-normal science framework to assist in the enhancement or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy panaceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symptomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision-makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals.

Integrating Public Deliberation into Engineering Systems: Participatory Technology Assessment of NASA's Asteroid Redirect Mission

ABSTRACT We discuss an experiment employing participatory technology assessment (pTA), a public deliberation method for eliciting lay citizen input prior to making decisions about science and technology to inform upstream engineering decisions concerning technical aspects of NASA’s Asteroid Initiative. In partnership with NASA, the Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology network conducted a pTA forum on NASA’s Asteroid Initiative in 2014. The goal of the exercise was to assess citizens’ values and preferences about potential asteroid detection, asteroid mitigation, and exploration-based technologies associated with NASA’s Initiative. This article discusses the portion of the forum that focused on the Asteroid Redirect Mission, an effort to redirect an asteroid into lunar orbit that astronauts can study. The forum sought public input on two options for performing the mission that NASA included in technical assessments to make a down select decision: Option A to capture a 10-meter-diameter asteroid; or Option B to redirect a several-meters-diameter boulder from the surface of a larger asteroid. We describe the values and perceptions participants had about Option A and B, how these results were used by NASA managers, and the impact the results of the pTA had on the down select.

Panelists’ Reports by State: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin (a–f)

It is the belief of this group that NBIC technologies present important challenges and opportunities that we must face; we have the utmost confidence that facing them will lead to a better future. The multidisciplinary spectrum of these technologies is so vast that special attention should be paid to the implications, benefits, and risks of human enhancement as a rising field of research and development. The ethical, social, economic, and political consequences of NBIC technologies will be present in everyday life. Special care should be taken to avoid excessive prudence or reckless adoption. Our decisions now will affect both the present and the future of humanity and life.

Scientists: listen up!

C. Reddys Editorial “Scientist citizens” (13 March, p. [1405][1]) underscores the need for scientists to better explain their work to policy-makers and the general public. If we as scientist citizens want to be understood, we should begin by listening. ![Figure][2] CREDIT: JUPITERIMAGES