Tracing interdisciplinarity of converging technologies at the nanoscale: A critical analysis of recent nanotechnosciences

Abstract

Besides ‘innovation’, ‘interdisciplinarity’ is one of the most popular buzzwords frequently used in present-day science policy. At the same time, however, ‘interdisciplinarity’ is vague and misty; the term is not well defined. In order to clarify its meaning, I classify different types of interdisciplinarity. By making use of analytical classification I show that a specific type of interdisciplinarity is involved in the nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC) scenario on converging technologies (Roco–Bainbridge report of the US National Science Foundation). I argue that the NBIC scenario is based on a ‘technoobject-oriented interdisciplinarity’. This type of interdisciplinarity will be contrasted with the research program of the European Union on converging technologies (CTEKS) that widens the circles of convergence and aims to promote a different (‘problem-oriented’) type of interdisciplinarity.

Keywords:

• science policy
• technology assessment
• knowledge society
• nanotechnology
• interdisciplinarity
• innovation
• philosophy of science
• technology and interdisciplinarity

Notes

1. It is interesting to note that the position of the Roco–Bainbridge report is close to classic positivism and its normative demarcation between science and pseudo-science/metaphysics/non-science.

2. Various definitions of nanotechnology coexist (Schmid et al. 2006).

3. The mesocosm, macrocosm or megacosm do not seem to possess their own supervenient properties. This is, of course, a strong claim and reveals the straight naturalistic viewpoint that is based on the (classical) conviction of a continuous cause-and-effect nexus of the world, especially a naturalistic line from the nanocosm to the macrocosm. The phrase ‘shaping the world atom-by-atom’ neglects classical engineering sciences on scales of the microcosm, mesocosm, macrocosm or megacosm and just focuses on the nanocosm.

4. Science and technology were not perceived ambivalently, partly because the negative side-effects were not yet known.

5. However, there are other approaches to nanotechnology and to converging technologies in the USA, besides others; see, for instance, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (www.crnano.org/), the Nanoethics Group (www.nanoethics.org/) and the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University. See also the European Nanotechnology Gateway (www.nanoforum.org/) and the International Nanotechnology and Society Network (www.nanoandsociety.com/).

6. See, for instance, Hentig (1972), Kockelmans (1979), Ropahl (1981) Chubin et al. (1986), Mittelstraß (1987), Thompson Klein (1990), Bechman and Frederichs (1996), Jaeger and Scheringer (1998), Euler (1999), Weingart and Stehr (2000), Decker (2001) and Schmidt (2005).

7. In other words: ‘All interdisciplinary activities are rooted in the ideas of unity and synthesis, evoking a common epistemology of convergence’ (Klein 1990, 11).

8. However, beside unity there were various other elements such as problem orientation that constitute the motivation of interdisciplinarity.

9. In philosophy this is called ‘neural ontology’.

10. Ontological reductionism is known as the stance stating that the world consists (totally) of atoms or other fundamental material entities (‘materialism’) or, on the contrary, of mental entities (‘idealism’).

11. This holds, although very recently the ‘new experientalism’ has broadly argued in favour of it.

12. For instance, see Mainzer (1996).

13. In other branches it is clear that hermeneutics is not reducible to empirical measurement and quantitative objectivity; empirical measurement and data analysis methodologies are not reducible to hermeneutics.

14. ‘Nature’, as far as the protagonists of biomimicry are concerned, ‘reaches its goals efficiently and economically, with a minimum of available energy and resources’ (Benyus 2002).

15. Construction and reconstruction, intervention and representation, here: technology/engineering science and biology are merged. Biomimicry not only aims to produce knowledge, but also to produce technical artifacts. Analogies play an important methodological role.

16. Compare for instance, Mantegna and Stanley (2000).

17. Of course, social scientists have mainly focused on this point—but neglected other, more ‘internal’ elements. Up to now it is unclear what the basic criteria are to specify anything as a ‘problem’. The term ‘problem’ remains an unspecified label. A ‘philosophy of problems’ has not been developed until now. However, ‘interdisciplinarity’ considers that their problems are science-external, societal pressing, and policy relevant. Obviously, sciences (= societal-external = sciences-internal) are regarded from the perspective of society (= science-external = societal-internal).

18. Compare Decker (2001).

19. However, the motives and purposes could be very different.

20. If we go further, we may add that it is doubtful whether we can find a meaningful understanding of interdisciplinarity in the NBIC scenario. The NBIC-advocates eliminate the tension between reductionism and anti-reductionism that is essential for a meaningful understanding of interdisciplinarity. They mainly argue in favour of a technoscientific reductionism, which is based on the metaphysical understanding of a unity of Nature.

21. Immanuel Kant linked in his Critique of Pure Reason the manipulation and construction of nature on the one hand with understanding on the other hand: we understand nature only as far as we can constitute and construct her!

22. The European Commission draws attention to CTs in the 2003 issue of the Foresighting Europe newsletter. It featured a report about two NBIC conferences in the US that considered Converging Technologies for the Improvement of Human Performance. The newsletter's editorial continued: ‘In order to deal with the questions developed in the US NBIC report, the Commission envisages the establishment of a high level expert group on Converging Technologies.’

23. Further: ‘CT modules should be introduced at secondary and higher education levels to synergize disciplinary perspectives and to foster interaction between liberal arts and the sciences’ Nordmann et al. 2004, 4–5). ‘Commission and Member States need to recognize and support the contributions of the social sciences and humanities in relation to CTs, with commitments especially to evolutionary anthropology, the economics of technological research and development, foresight methodologies and philosophy’ (Nordmann et al. 2004, 4). ‘A permanent societal observatory should be established for real-time monitoring and assessment of international CT research, including CTEKS … That the Commission implement a “EuroSpecs” research process for the development of European design specifications for converging technologies, dealing with normative issues in preparation of an international “code of good conduct” … The integration of social research into CT development should be promoted through Begleitforschung (“accompanying research” alongside science and technology R&D)’ (Nordmann et al. 2004, 4).