MIDSTREAM MODULATION OF NANOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH IN AN ACADEMIC LABORATORY

No clear implementation methods exist for US legislation on integrating societal considerations into nanotechnology research and development. An empirical study was thus undertaken to investigate the possibility and utility of “sociotechnical integration” during nanoscale engineering research in an academic setting. For twelve weeks, an “embedded humanist” interacted with three graduate engineering researchers to identify and assess opportunities for influencing research decisions in accordance with societal concerns. The study focused not on the nature of societal concerns, but on the nature of engineering decisions, and on the potential capacity of researchers to perform integration by “modulating” their decisions. Engineering research decisions were found to be subject to societal influences, and researchers were found to become aware of the possibility of modulating their decisions accordingly. The interactions were not found to hamper research and were found to add value to research. No attempt was made to alter research decisions, only to stimulate awareness of the possibility of doing so. Still, one researcher did alter several decisions as a result of the study. Midstream modulation represents a promising approach for implementing US nanotechnology policy.

[1]  Roop L. Mahajan,et al.  Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development , 2006 .

[2]  Michael E. Gorman,et al.  Societal dimensions of nanotechnology , 2004, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[3]  David H. Guston,et al.  Real-time technology assessment , 2020, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[4]  Anne Trine Kj Ørholt,et al.  Small is Powerful , 2002 .

[5]  A. Rip,et al.  The past and future of constructive technology assessment , 1997 .

[6]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust , 2004, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[7]  W. Bainbridge,et al.  Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2001 .

[8]  H. Lasswell A pre-view of policy sciences , 1971 .

[9]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Designing Engineers , 1994 .

[10]  A. C. Van Gorp,et al.  Ethical issues in engineering design safety and sustainability , 2005 .

[11]  Matthew Kearnes,et al.  Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences? , 2005 .

[12]  H. Lasswell Must science serve political power , 1970 .

[13]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Nanotechnology: Societal Implications - Maximizing Benefit for Humanity. Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop Held in Arlington, Virginia on 3-5 December 2003 , 2005 .

[14]  Ira Bennett,et al.  Too Little, Too Late? Research Policies on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology in the United States , 2006 .

[15]  John Gardner,et al.  The Policy Process , 1987 .

[16]  E. Juengst Self-Critical Federal Science? The Ethics Experiment within the U.S. Human Genome Project , 1996, Social Philosophy and Policy.

[17]  Wiebe E. Bijker,et al.  Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change , 1995 .