Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’

Anticipatory governance is ‘a broad-based capacity extended through society that can act on a variety of inputs to manage emerging knowledge-based technologies while such management is still possible’. It motivates activities designed to build capacities in foresight, engagement, and integration – as well as through their production ensemble. These capacities encourage and support the reflection of scientists, engineers, policy makers, and other publics on their roles in new technologies. This article reviews the early history of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the United States, and it further explicates anticipatory governance through exploring the genealogy of the term and addressing a set of critiques found in the literature. These critiques involve skepticism of three proximities of anticipatory governance: to its object, nanotechnology, which is a relatively indistinct one; to the public, which remains almost utterly naïve toward nanotechnology; and to technoscience itself, which allegedly renders anticipatory governance complicit in its hubris. The article concludes that the changing venues and the amplification within them of the still, small voices of folks previously excluded from offering constructive visions of futures afforded by anticipatory governance may not be complete solutions to our woes in governing technology, but they certainly can contribute to bending the long arc of technoscience more toward humane ends.

[1]  G. Miller,et al.  The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies and a Limitless Future , 2014, NanoEthics.

[2]  D. Guston Building the capacity for public engagement with science in the United States , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[3]  D. Guston “Daddy, Can I Have a Puddle Gator?”: Creativity, Anticipation, and Responsible Innovation , 2013 .

[4]  Arie Rip,et al.  Responsible Innovation: Multi‐Level Dynamics and Soft Intervention Practices , 2013 .

[5]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs , 2013, Scientometrics.

[6]  Ângela Guimarães Pereira,et al.  Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation , 2012 .

[7]  Jan Youtie,et al.  Program-level assessment of research centers: Contribution of Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers to US Nanotechnology National Initiative goals , 2012 .

[8]  Gaymon Bennett,et al.  Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology , 2012 .

[9]  F. Wickson,et al.  Public engagement coming of age: From theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology , 2011 .

[10]  Michael D. Cobb Creating informed public opinion: citizen deliberation about nanotechnologies for human enhancements , 2011 .

[11]  Chris Toumey,et al.  Tracing and Disputing the Story of Nanotechnology , 2010 .

[12]  D. Guston The Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies , 2010 .

[13]  Alan L. Porter,et al.  The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology , 2010, Scientometrics.

[14]  S. Mcgrail Nano dreams and nightmares: emerging technoscience and the framing and (re)interpreting of the future, present and past , 2010 .

[15]  S. Fuller The New Behemoth , 2010 .

[16]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Envisioning nanotechnology: New media and future-oriented stakeholder dialogue , 2010 .

[17]  S. Jasanoff Book Review: Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation , 2010 .

[18]  Alfred Nordmann,et al.  A forensics of wishing: technology assessment in the age of technoscience , 2010, Poiesis Prax..

[19]  Christopher Kelty,et al.  Responsibility and nanotechnology , 2010 .

[20]  Wolfgang J. Liebert,et al.  Towards a prospective technology assessment: challenges and requirements for technology assessment in the age of technoscience , 2010, Poiesis Prax..

[21]  Wolfgang J. Liebert,et al.  Collingridge’s dilemma and technoscience , 2010, Poiesis Prax..

[22]  Jennifer Kuzma,et al.  Unpackaging synthetic biology: Identification of oversight policy problems and options , 2010 .

[23]  D. Husereau,et al.  Personalized Medicine Beyond Genomics: New Technologies, Global Health Diplomacy and Anticipatory Governance. , 2009, Current pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine.

[24]  Paul Rabinow,et al.  Synthetic biology: ethical ramifications 2009 , 2009, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[25]  Simon Brown,et al.  The new deficit model. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[26]  Michelle Murphy,et al.  Anticipation: Technoscience, life, affect, temporality , 2009 .

[27]  L. Fuerth Foresight and anticipatory governance , 2009 .

[28]  Monika Kurath,et al.  Informing, involving or engaging? Science communication, in the ages of atom-, bio- and nanotechnology , 2009, Public understanding of science.

[29]  Erik Fisher,et al.  Lab‐scale intervention , 2009, EMBO reports.

[30]  L. Bell Engaging the Public in Public Policy , 2009 .

[31]  J. Youtie,et al.  How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology? , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[32]  Steve Fuller,et al.  Edward J. Hackett;, Olga Amsterdamska;, Michael Lynch;, Judy Wajcman (Editors).The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. xi + 1,080 pp., illus., indexes. Third edition. Cambridge, Mass./London: MIT Press, 2007. $55 (cloth). , 2009 .

[33]  Jane Calvert,et al.  The role of social scientists in synthetic biology , 2009, EMBO reports.

[34]  S. Fuller Review of The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edition, by Hackett, E. J., Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M. and Wajcman, J. (eds.) , 2009 .

[35]  Hyungsub Choi,et al.  The Long History of Molecular Electronics , 2009 .

[36]  Eun-Sung Kim,et al.  Directed Evolution: A Historical Exploration into an Evolutionary Experimental System of Nanobiotechnology, 1965–2006 , 2008 .

[37]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  The Sociology of the Future: Tracing Stories of Technology and Time , 2008 .

[38]  Clark A. Miller,et al.  Thinking longer term about technology: is there value in science fiction-inspired approaches to constructing futures? , 2008 .

[39]  Pierre-Benoit Joly,et al.  Lost in Translation? The Need for ‘Upstream Engagement’ with Nanotechnology on Trial , 2008 .

[40]  J. Moor,et al.  Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology , 2007 .

[41]  H. Nowotny How Many Policy Rooms are There? , 2007 .

[42]  Andrew Webster,et al.  Crossing Boundaries Social Science in the Policy Room , 2007 .

[43]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Dazzled by the Mirage of Influence? , 2007 .

[44]  W. Mccray,et al.  MBE deserves a place in the history books. , 2007, Nature nanotechnology.

[45]  D. Guston The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University and the Prospects for Anticipatory Governance , 2007 .

[46]  Robin Williams,et al.  Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures , 2006 .

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

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

[49]  Rosalyn W. Berne,et al.  Nanotalk: Conversations With Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology , 2005 .

[50]  W. Patrick McCray,et al.  Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future , 2005 .

[51]  Edward J. Hackett,et al.  Tokamaks and turbulence: research ensembles, policy and technoscientific work , 2004 .

[52]  Jon M. Peha,et al.  Science and Technology Advice for Congress , 2003 .

[53]  Joy Bill,et al.  Why the future doesn’t need us , 2003 .

[54]  T. Gieryn Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line , 1999 .

[55]  David H. Guston,et al.  Introduction: The end of OTA and the future of technology assessment , 1997 .

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

[57]  Bruce Bimber,et al.  The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment , 1996 .

[58]  Ralph E. Hoffman,et al.  The Gene Wars: Science, Politics, and the Human Genome , 1996 .

[59]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , 1995 .

[60]  Tânia Margarete Mezzomo Keinert,et al.  Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector , 1993 .

[61]  F. Thompson Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services , 1983 .

[62]  D. W. Bronk,et al.  National Science Foundation: Origins, hopes, and aspirations. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[63]  R. Bowers Committee on science and public policy. , 1973, Science.

[64]  A. Etzional Understanding of science. , 1972, Science.

[65]  C. Lindblom THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[66]  U. Boehm Acting In An Uncertain World An Essay On Technical Democracy , 2016 .

[67]  P. Rossel,et al.  The Discipline of Anticipation: Exploring Key Issues , 2014 .

[68]  David H. Guston,et al.  National Citizens’ Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement , 2013 .

[69]  Clark A. Miller,et al.  Introduction: Ethics and anticipatory governance of nano-neurotechnological convergence , 2013 .

[70]  Sabine Maasen,et al.  Governing Future Technologies : Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime , 2010 .

[71]  Robert Lee,et al.  CSR in the UK nanotechnology industry: attitudes and prospects , 2010 .

[72]  Wolfgang J. Liebert,et al.  Collingridge ’ s dilemma and technoscience An attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science , 2010 .

[73]  Risto Karinen,et al.  Toward Anticipatory Governance: The Experience with Nanotechnology , 2009 .

[74]  Mario Kaiser,et al.  Futures Assessed: How Technology Assessment, Ethics and Think Tanks Make Sense of an Unknown Future , 2009 .

[75]  Astrid Schwarz,et al.  Lure of the “Yes”: The Seductive Power of Technoscience , 2009 .

[76]  Peter Schüßler,et al.  “Nanoscience is 100 Years Old.” The Defensive Appropriation of the Nanotechnology Discourse within the Disciplinary Boundaries of Crystallography , 2009 .

[77]  Ira Bennett,et al.  Developing Plausible Nano-Enabled Products , 2008 .

[78]  Colin Milburn,et al.  Nanovision: Engineering the Future , 2008 .

[79]  D. Guston,et al.  Anticipating the ethical and political challenges of human nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[80]  John Stone,et al.  Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , 2007 .

[81]  W. Bainbridge,et al.  Nanotechnology: Societal Implications - I. Maximising Benefits for Humanity , 2006 .

[82]  W. Patrick McCray,et al.  :Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz , 2006 .

[83]  H. Martin,et al.  Equal treatment under the law , 2004, Nature.

[84]  Günter Bächler,et al.  Conflict Transformation through State Reform , 2004 .

[85]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

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

[87]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the PostNormal Age , 2001 .

[88]  R. Pielke,et al.  Prediction : science, decision making, and the future of nature , 2000 .

[89]  C. Cranor Are genes us? : the social consequences of the new genetics , 1994 .

[90]  B. Feltmate Barriers to achieving sustainable development in North America: Historical naivety, media limitations and non-anticipatory governance , 1993 .

[91]  Eugene Garfield Current Comments ” , 1986 .

[92]  Helge Toutenburg,et al.  The Social Control of Technology , 1982 .