Search

The concept of ‘responsibility’ is part of an evolving responsibility language, in place since the late 18th century. It allows emerging and evolving, and stabilising, ‘divisions of moral labour’ to be discussed. The handling of dangerous knowledge is discussed as an example, including contemporary biosecurity issues and their regulation.

This book charts the development of nanotechnology in relation to society from the early years of the twenty-first century. It offers a sustained analysis of the life of nanotechnology, from the laboratory to society, from scientific promises to societal governance, and attempts to modulate developments.

The eventual performance and application of emerging technologies such as nanotechnology is uncertain, and their further effects on society are even more uncertain. While aspects of the division of moral labour in the nanotechnology world can be criticized, the solution is not to dispense with the division of moral labour. The ‘real’ world is full of references to accepted and/or desired roles and responsibilities of various actors. The various actors involved fall back on their own positions and what they see as their ‘mandate’ to justify their visions and actions. In the real world, ethical reflexivity of actors is caught between individual agency and institutional role. Interestingly, the industrialists’ view of the role of non-governmental organizations referred to a division of moral labour, starting with a practical observation. Division of moral labour is a general phenomenon in our society. Actually, one sees the opening up of existing divisions of moral labour in a number of ways.

New and emerging technologies, especially nanotechnologies with the structural uncertainties about their eventual functionalities and risks, are a challenge to governance. What is striking is how much actual governance is already occurring in and around nanotechnology without any particular actor being responsible for the emerging governance arrangements. Mapping what is happening in terms of societal agenda-building about risks of nanotechnology, including voluntary codes of conduct and calls for responsible development, allows me to flesh out the notion of de facto governance by showing how it works in the domain of nanotechnologies. This then leads me to speculate about a further governance arrangement: the internalization of requirements of ‘responsible development’ of nanosciences and nanotechnologies in actual technological and product-development choices and strategies.

In its current Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020, the European Commission identified Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a cross-cutting issue. The responsibility for RRI as a cross-cutting issue lies with the subprogramme Science with and for Society (SwafS). A recurrent theme in the SwafS Expert Advisory Group meetings was the lack of clarity about what RRI is supposed to be. This is an entrance point into a broader reflection on RRI discourse being like the new clothes of the emperor – or perhaps there is not even an emperor (yet). What is happening in and around RRI can be interpreted as conferring reality on this emperor (RRI) by clothing him.

In this interview, Arie Rip talks to Jane Calvert about his life in STS and the history and future of the field. He begins in the late 1960s, when he started teaching a course in “chemistry and society.” He then gives a first-hand account of the formation of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) and the Society for the Social Studies of Science (4S), and the growth of research in the “melting pot” that STS became. He goes on to discuss recent work on new and emerging technologies and responsible research and innovation. His narrative shows the connections, historically and in the present, between the different strands of STS, including sociological work, science policy and innovation studies. He argues that we are seeing a “mainstreaming” of STS as it permeates other academic disciplines and arenas such as government agencies and charities. He suggests that this mainstreaming may mean STS will disappear as an independent discipline. In her reflection following the interview, Jane Calvert focuses on Rip’s point that STS is both a social movement and an academic discipline. She argues that this raises questions about what type of work we want to do as STS researchers, and how much freedom we have to choose.

This paper addresses the dynamic sociotechnical construction of automotive-energy infrastructures, based on the case of ethanol fuel in Brazil in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Energy infrastructure projects are afforded but also constrained by technical and institutional “residues” of previous initiatives and achievements. The notion of “knots” is introduced to explore how sociotechnical entanglements interlinking elements from distinct levels of the societal fabric become stabilized and shape subsequent developments. This extension of the sociotechnical approach is shown to be fruitful to better understand the embedding of ethanol fuel in the process of evolution of the automotive-energy infrastructure in Brazil during the 20th century. This then offers building blocks for analysis and design of energy infrastructures in general.

The paper explores transformative ways to address Grand Challenges, while locating them in a broader diagnosis of ongoing changes. Coping with Grand Challenges is a challenge in its own right, for policy as well as for science, technology, and innovation actors. The paper presents building blocks for a next generation of innovation policies, and it discusses the opportunities offered by new constellations of actors and their concertation. Future innovation policy designs can build on ‘creative corporatism’, a concept in which governments (or related international alliances) can adopt the crucial role of facilitating broader, more diverse ‘varieties of cooperation’ in advanced capitalist economies.

In the 1984 Policy Memorandum on Integration of Science and Technology in Society (to which I had contributed when seconded to the Ministry of Education and Sciences at the time), there was a plea for broadening design and development of technology by including more aspects and more actors, and to see this as a constructive way of doing technology assessment (Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen 1984). On the basis of the Policy Memorandum, a Netherlands Organization for Technology Assessment (now Rathenau Institute) was established in 1986. One of its first projects was to develop this general plea into an approach, to be called Constructive Technology Assessment (CTA). The Report (Daey Ouwens et al. 1987) had case studies offering diagnoses, theory derived from technology dynamics, and some proposals.

Long-term epistemic and institutional developments are essential to understand present changes (and their discussion) of science in society. Particularly important are the emergence and stabilization of protected spaces. At the micro-level, as laboratories where experimental conditions can be controlled. At the macro-level, as a social contract where science would be neutral but also contribute to progress. And eventually, also at the meso-level, where universities and funding agencies functioned in terms of self-organized disciplines. The alignment of these levels in the regime of “Science, The Endless Frontier” is now opening up. One can trace how universities and funding agencies are responding to the new situation. The challenge for scientists and science institutions is how to live in “unprotected” spaces.

Science and technology can, and should, play a role in meeting “grand challenges” of society. But how, exactly?

As part of the procedure when I applied for the chair of Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Twente, I had to give a presentation about a topic of my own choice. So on April 13, 1987, the Appointment Committee could listen to me presenting ‘Repertoires en gekoppelde sociale werelden’. In my introduction, I noted that ‘construction of technology’ could be the central theme for research in De Boerderij group, and for teaching in the WWTS degree course (WWTS = Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society).

Technological innovation in context has been studied by economists and sociologists of technical change and innovation. I shall present the insights and perspectives from this body of literature (including some of my own work), in order to highlight the dynamics of technological innovation processes and the possibilities to influence them – by managers, as well as governmental and societal actors. These actors often work with a limited view of the complexities of technological change and innovation, and they might do better if they were to use recent insights, as I have argued previously (Rip, 1995). Thus, a further topic, visible between the lines of my main expose, is the relation between the ‘theory’ – i.e. insights from social scientific studies – and the ‘practice’ of policy or action.

The Technology Assessment (TA) Program established in 2003 as part of the Dutch R&D consortium NanoNed is interesting for what it did, but also as an indication that there are changes in how new science and technology are pursued: the nanotechnologists felt it necessary to spend part of their funding on social aspects of nanotechnology. We retrace the history of the TA program, and present the innovative work that was done on Constructive TA of emerging nanotechnology developments and on aspects of embedding of nanotechnology in society. One achievement is the provision of tools and approaches to help make the co-evolution of technology and society more reflexive. We briefly look forward by outlining its successor program, TA NanoNextNL, in place since 2011.

Introduction: There is an increasing interest in nanotechnology-enabled drug delivery systems which are expected to have significant impacts for health care. The economic and societal aspects are uncertain, even ambiguous, at this stage of development, and often not addressed, or only as part of the promises about present options. Areas covered: In our review we will report on assessments of actors regarding economic and societal aspects and, occasionally, of expected impacts. Topics discussed include: present and future markets of nano-enabled drug delivery, industry dynamics, regulation, cost-effectiveness, and broader ethical issues. We also include a brief discussion of anticipatory activities of actors who are concerned about these aspects. Expert opinion: Performance of nano-enabled drug delivery, a necessary step to have future impacts at all, needs to be improved further, and in interaction with demands of users along the product value chain and with further stakeholder such as regulatory agencies and health insurers. When supported by analysis of societal embedding of new products and scenarios, this allows relevant societal and economic aspects to be taken into account at an early stage. A key issue in realizing impacts will be liability, and roles and responsibilities of technology developers and stakeholders more generally.

Since the early 2000s, investment into research and development in the nanosciences and nanotechnologies has been increasing, leading to a diverse array of research centres, dedicated firms, and hubs around the world. They might be analysed as industrial districts, but there is still little actual production involved. In any case, they are sites to trace three local-global interactions (in nanotechnology as a domain of research and application) that have not always been looked at this way: (1) global promises and work towards realizing them; (2) technological platforms; (3) institutional entrepreneurs realizing things locally inspired by the global promise and using it as a resource. We might still speak of nanodistricts, but it would be a new kind of district compared with the classical Marshallian notion.

Newly emerging science and technologies (NEST) are shaped by dynamics of promises. There is a paradoxical effect: diffuse and open-ended promises are forceful in policy discourse, but may hinder the realisation of these promises. Innovation actors are reluctant to invest in concrete developments because the promises are open-ended, and eventual demand is not articulated. This is a structural issue, and leads to ‘waiting games’ in which actors are entangled. We show how the occurrence of waiting games is linked to dual dynamics of promises in two fields where nanotechnology offers an open-ended (‘umbrella’) promise: organic and large area electronics and nano-enabled drug delivery. Based on such understanding of dynamics, our scenario exercises explored strategies to overcome waiting games

While the innovation literature offers many insights about the dynamics of innovations and to some extent their embedding in society, the contexts in which this happens are often treated as specific and/or contingent. After a brief theoretical discussion of co-evolutionary and actornetwork theories, I show that there are general patterns (‘layers’) in the context, in particular, niches, regimes and socio-technical landscapes. A new ‘layer’ of institutionalized anticipatory co-ordination is emerging, stimulated by the challenge of handling emerging technologies like nanotechnology. The analysis in terms of ‘layers’ raises questions about what the scope of agency can be.

Engagement with stakeholders and civil society is increasingly important for new scientific and technological developments. Preparation of such engagements sets the stage for engagement activities and thus contributes to their outcomes. Preparation is a demanding task, particularly if the facilitating agent aims for timely engagement related to emerging technologies. Requirements for such preparation include understanding of the emerging science & technology and its dynamics. Multi-level analysis and socio-technical scenarios are two complementary tools for constructing productive engagement. Examination of the emergence of nanotechnologies in the food packaging sector demonstrates how these tools work. In light of recent policy demands for responsible innovation, but also more generally, the role of organizers of engagement activities is one that deserves reflection insofar as it can extend beyond that of preparation and facilitation.

How does one know what is the right way to visualize the invisible nanoscale? Practices in the visualization processes are studied by moving about in the fi eld of nanoscience/technology. Nine important aspects of visualization processes have identified. Based on nanoscientists’ responses to a small survey, it is argued that some of these aspects–preparatory techniques–which link up to the experimenter’s and visualization regress, are invisible to nanoscientists. Here tacit rules are followed in the production process of visualizations. This contrasts with presentational aspects where nanoscientists are faced with choices, and have to discuss and defend them. Here it is still impossible to follow tacit rules. These presentational aspects might also be closed down in further development of nanotechnology. The paper asks whether it might be important to keep choices visible.

This paper looks at how citations are perceived among scientists. Based on a questionnaire survey it traces the repertoire of views and experiences about citations that could be found among Norwegian scientists that had published highly cited papers. Their views circle around three issues: the relation between the quality (or importance or significance) of a paper and its citation history; the importance of visibility and how different sorts of factors play a role in determining citation in general and high citation in particular; and the fairness (or lack of fairness) of the system. Taken together, the respondents’ answers and comments offer an informal (and fragmented) sociology of citations and their role in the world of science. In the final section we discuss the relevance of our findings in respect to the increasing use of citation indicators in science policy and research evaluations.

Nanoscience is full of promises. However, these promises often do not take into account the realities of product development and the limited coupling with scientific research. On the basis of literature and earlier projects, we have developed a mapping methodology (“bridging gaps in the innovation chain”) and explored it for a particular case, scanning tunnelling microscopy in the liquid phase with two possible applications. The methodology can be used instrumentally, to improve valorisation of scientific research, but also reflexively, to enable scientists (particularly junior scientists) to gain a better understanding of the possible societal contexts of their work.

Scientists in academia have struggled to adjust to a policy climate of uncertain funding and loss of freedom from direction and control. How UK life scientists have negotiated this challenge, and with what consequences for their research and the research system, is the empirical entrance point of this paper. We find that policy impacts can be modulated and buffered by strategies and compromises devised and deployed at research performer level. This shifts conceptualisation from terms of responses to one of more or less proactive strategies of scientists and science organisations which add up, intentionally or unintentionally, to shifts in the overall system. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

The world of nanotechnology is full of folk theories. Actors attempt to capture patterns in what is happening and be reflexive about them, so as to do better the next time. A clear example is the diagnosis of an impasse in agro-food GM technologies, coupled to statements about the need to avoid such impasses with nanotechnology. Since there is a claim that such patterns will recur (if we don't change our ways), there is generalization, so one can speak of a theory—here about public reactions to new technology. Calling it a folk theory implies that it evolves in ongoing practices, and serves the purposes of the members of the various practices. In this example, these would be nanotechnologists, policy makers for nanotechnology, other scientists and technologists, science watchers and commentators. What characterizes folk theories is that they provide orientation for future action.

The old division of labour between fundamental and applied or problem-oriented research has almost disappeared, and with it, the functional distinctions between universities, public labs and industrial and other private research. Doctoral research training can then also become diversified in terms of its content and its location. Closer analysis of ongoing changes, in particular, the emergence of a regime of strategic science, is necessary to specify requirements for a career in science in the coming decades. Disciplines as we know them may not be of major importance, but interdisciplinarity as such is not the answer. For universities, the key challenge is to diversify and recombine, both cognitively and institutionally, into what I call a post-modern university, which includes overlaps and alliances with centres (of excellence and relevance), public labs and various private organizations. In such a university, a doctoral student can wend his or her way through the types of locations, just as is to be expected of his or her later career.

National research priorities are often the outcome of negotiations between multiple research stakeholders. These stakeholders include groups of research ‘users’, which means that the negotiation processes are no longer controlled by ‘science’. In this paper, we explore the use of the ideographic term ‘users’ in the discourse surrounding the negotiation processes between a New Zealand funding agency, a research institute and an industry body. The case study highlights the implications of translating the ideographic user collective, as it appears in policy, into an individual representative to participate in a negotiation process. The design of negotiation processes should, therefore, recognize that ‘ideal’ user representation may be an unobtainable goal. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

In their efforts to change organizations, managers and change consultants are time and again confronted with the limited controllability of organizations, the complexity and indeterminacy of change processes and the uncertain and ambiguous effects of their actions. In short, they are confronted with chaos. Some managers and consultants try to enhance their (illusion of) control over organizations by attempting to reduce chaos, while others accept and embrace chaos and base their change practice on it. This article focuses on the second group. Based on a study of literature and a series of interviews with experienced change consultants, a typology is developed, in which an enlightened modern, an ironic, and a postmodern way of coping with chaos in change processes is elaborated. The typology may help change consultants and managers with the development of their way of working and the articulation of their professional identity.

There is much with which to agree in the discussion paper of Collins & Evans (2002) on a 'normative theory of expertise' as the next step in science studies, but also much with which to disagree. While I have a problem with their various rhetorical strategies,' I strongly agree with Collins and Evans that a normative theory of expertise is an important challenge for science studies at the present time (2002: 237, 239) .2 However, I found their paper curiously disappointing in how they address that challenge. There are three items in their paper that qualify for a normative theory, or the beginnings of such a theory. First, Collins and Evans emphasize that there is expertise, often 'experience-based', which is not recognized by certification (2002: 238).3 They do not follow-up on how one can recognize such expertise, and recognize it at an early stage, perhaps as a competence. Although this may well be impossible, one might be able to improve the processes of recognition. Second, they emphasize that more 'extension', i.e. more participation by non-specialists, is not always better. This point deserves to be reiterated, and further articulation is important. Collins and Evans appear to suggest that the actual, 'optimal', extension is to be decided on a case-by-case basis. At least, that is the way they discuss their cases (2002: 261-65). Third, they emphasize that one can usefully start with esoteric sciences as a model, and with the experience of the sociologist studying such sciences as a heuristic. That this is indeed part of a normative theory is visible in phrases such as