Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Cynthia Selin (1)
  
• 关键词：Plausibility ; Deliberation ; Social implications of nanotechnology ; Foresight
• 刊名：Science and Engineering Ethics
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：December 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：17
• 期：4
• 页码：723-737
• 全文大小：172KB
• 参考文献：1. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. / The Economic Journal, / 99, 116鈥?31. CrossRef
  2. Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. (2008). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), / The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed., pp. 979鈥?000). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  3. Bell, W. (1997). / Foundations of futures studies: Human science for a new era. New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA: Transaction Publishers.
  4. Bennett, I. (2008). Developing plausible nano-enabled products. In E. Fisher, C. Selin, & J. Wetmore (Eds.), / Yearbook for nanotechnology in society (pp. 149鈥?55). Berlin: Springer. CrossRef
  5. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (Eds.). (2000). / Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Burlington VT: Ashgate.
  6. Collingridge, D. (1980). / The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin鈥檚 Press.
  7. Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006). Contradictory intent? U.S. federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. / Science and Public Policy, / 33(1), 5鈥?6. CrossRef
  8. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). / Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRef
  9. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1991). A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In R. Costanza (Ed.), / Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (pp. 137鈥?52). New York: Columbia University Press.
  10. Geels, F. W., & Smit, W. A. (2000). Failed technology futures: Pitfalls and lessons from a historical survey. / Futures, / 32(9), 867鈥?85. CrossRef
  11. Grupp, H., & Linstone, H. A. (1999). National technology foresight activities around the globe: Resurrection and new paradigms. / Technological Forecasting and Social Change, / 60, 85鈥?4. CrossRef
  12. Guston, D. H. (2011). Participating despite questions: Toward a more confident participatory technology assessment, commentary on: 鈥淨uestioning 鈥楶articipation鈥? A critical appraisal of its conceptualization in a flemish participatory technology assessment鈥? / Science and Engineering Ethics / 17, this issue.
  13. Guston, D. H., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. / Technology in Culture, / 24, 93鈥?09.
  14. Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., & Wajcman, J. (Eds.). (2007). / The new handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.). Berlin: MIT Press.
  15. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). / States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. New York: Routledge.
  16. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). / Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  17. Macnaughten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? / Science Communication, / 272, 268鈥?91. CrossRef
  18. Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. / The Antioch Review, / 8, 193鈥?10. CrossRef
  19. Michael, M. (2000). Futures of the present: From performativity to prehension. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), / Contested futures: A sociology of prospective techno-science. Aldershot: Ashgate.
  20. Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. J. (2007). Refining search terms for nanotechnology. / Journal of Nanoparticle Research, / 10, 715鈥?28. CrossRef
  21. Public Law 108鈥?53, 117 STAT. 1923. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003.
  22. Rip, A., Misa, T., & Schot, J. (Eds.). (1996). / Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.
  23. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. / Science Technology and Human Values, / 32(2), 196鈥?20. CrossRef
  24. Selin, C. (2008). Sociology of the future: Tracing stories of technology and time. / Sociologic Compass, / 2(60), 1875鈥?895.
  25. Selin, C., & Hudson, R. (2010). Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue. / Technology in Society, / 32(3), 173鈥?82. CrossRef
  26. Tsoukas, H., & Sheperd, J. (Eds.). (2004). / Managing the future: Foresight in the knowledge economy. Malden MA: Blackwell.
  27. Van der Heijden, K. (2005). / Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley.
  28. Van Notten, P., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M. B. A., & Rothman, D. S. (2003). An updated scenario typology. / Futures, / 35(5), 423鈥?43. CrossRef
  29. Wack, P. (1984). Scenarios: The gentle art of re-perceiving: A thing or two learned while developing planning scenarios for royal dutch/shell. / Harvard Business School Working Paper, pp. 1鈥?7.
  30. Williams, R. (2006). Compressed foresight and narrative bias: Pitfalls in assessing high technology futures. / Science and Culture, / 4, 327鈥?48. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Cynthia Selin (1)
  
  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
  

文摘

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.