Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate

Abstract

Much of the initial commentary on nanotechnology assumed, implicitly or explicitly, that nanotechnology represented a radical discontinuity from existing science and technology. The birth of the nanotechnology debate was marked by the differences of opinion as to whether the technology's outcomes would be positive or negative. The authors trace the journey from this polarized debate to the current discussion of nanotechnology, finding that the latter is still conducted in the parameters set by the initial utopian and dystopian extremes. Yet the discussion now focuses on defining the technology and identifying the social and ethical issues, which are often reduced to the potential risks of toxicity and the need for public engagement. The authors argue that nanotechnology is erroneously treated as homogeneous and is under-analysed; it is the very diversity and transdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology that makes it distinctive and interesting to social science enquiry. In this way, it may yet be prototypical of Gibbons et al. ’s ‘Mode 2’ science. The focus of social science research should be less on the implications of nanotechnology, and more on its creation, the processes through which it develops and the alternative perspectives underlying this. The authors conclude by outlining core elements of a social science agenda for nanotechnology.

Keywords:

• nanotechnology
• social science
• Drexler
• environmental risks
• privacy
• transhumanism
• public engagement in science
• geographical clusters
• Mode 2 science
• upstream engagement
• interdisciplinarity