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

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

[3]  Chris Toumey Tracing and Disputing the Story of Nanotechnology , 2010 .

[4]  Michaela Mueller Acting in An Uncertain World: An Essay on Technical Democracy , 2011 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[20]  A. Nordmann If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics , 2007, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

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

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

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

[24]  David H. Guston,et al.  The Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies , 2010 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[31]  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 .

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

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

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

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

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

[37]  H. Martin Future shock , 2004, Nature.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[46]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology , 2007 .

[47]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society , 2012, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[57]  Ira Bennett Developing Plausible Nano-Enabled Products , 2008 .

[58]  Engaging the Public in Public Policy , 2009 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[75]  S. Jasanoff Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation , 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives.

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

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

[78]  S. A. Cole National Academy of Sciences (NAS) , 2013 .

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

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

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

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

[83]  Arie Rip,et al.  Positions and responsibilities in the ‘real’ world of nanotechnology , 2019, Nanotechnology and Its Governance.

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

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

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

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

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

[89]  Committee on science and public policy. , 1973, Science.

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

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

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

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