Insights from the FORLEARN Mutual learning Process, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 2006, Joint research Centre/European commission. 32 G. P. Hodgkinson, G. Wright, Confronting strategic
A case for critical systems thinking in nanotechnology Denis Loveridge, Ozcan Saritas Manchester Institute of Innovation research, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9pl Manchester, UK a r
The current paper discusses the application of the‘situation'cum CSH metaphor for the case of nanoscience,
nano-technology and nano artifacts that are being adopted widely in areas such as materials, ICTS, and medicine. As a result of the growing interest for nano-field, nanoartiifact are now reaching the consumer markets within a large number of branches.
and health risks of nano artifacts along with the ethical and legal issues arising as a result of the widespread use of these products.
ethical and social impacts of nanosciences,-technologies, and-artifacts. The paper suggests that Inclusive foresight, reinforced with the principles of CSH, can be of use in the nano-field providing wider stakeholder representation during the research and development processes.
and environmentally responsive nano artifacts. 2009 Published by Elsevier Inc. Keywords: Foresight Inclusivity Critical systems Heuristics Nanotechnology 1. Institutional Foresight Institutional Foresight programmes(‘Foresight'hereafter) now occupy a prominent position in the minds of public policy makers.
In the 1990s most of these programmes were driven by the economic mantra of technologically dependent competitiveness and its importance to national economies.
is the purpose of this paper. 1. 1. History Current Foresight studies attempt to create collective anticipations, usually related to technology,
and methods used in technology forecasting, indeed initially the Japanese studies were called‘technology forecasts 'and were based on US experience of the Delphi method.
As a result, there are two general shapes to Foresight studies that flow from early decisions about their procedures and management structure.
but so far Foresight has depended on expert technological opinion where inclusivity has been interpreted as seeking opinions from a larger number of the typical experts.
Inclusivity is a matter of creating trust across a wide range of communities in discussions of future developments, especially in science and technology.
and technology and has paid relatively little attention to the third. The case for inclusivity comes directly out of the need to recognise the following:
-The assumption that all technologies are desirable and that people possess an infinite‘plasticity'toward the adoption of ever more invasive, complicated, if not complex technologies-The lack of trust between all the parties involved, especially between the‘expert'community and the general public,
which has undergone such a marked erosion in recent years with the shift towards a postmodern world 1209 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221-A dissatisfaction
'a well known concept in brain science (see 6), toward the adoption of ever more invasive technologies: this is now widely questioned.
In an example of foresight in this connection, Loveridge 7 outlined the way that computer and communication technologies might evolve into‘information technology',with its widespread adoption throughout society,
In the 1950s outsiders to whatever policy making processes there were began to reject the notion of infinite plasticity toward the adoption of new technology.
It was a time of immense confidence in science and technology, and their applications to improve wealth creation
Formal rejection of the notion of infinite plasticity came in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the growth of technology assessment (TA) and the creation of the Office of Technology assessment (OTA) in the USA,
the deleterious side effects of technology, or the attempts to deal with social problems through the procedures of science hang on the answers to questions that can be asked of science
and technology the non-expert's view about desirability will be as important. The last of Barker and Peters fields (6) is clearly inaccessible even to the expert community who make up the committees that advise policy makers;
Nano-technology, as will be discussed later, lies in the same ground as GMOS. 2. Expectations of Inclusive foresight The sheer practical arduousness of attempting to run Inclusive foresight in the way outlined below means that expectations of it need to be modest,
what are and what are not desirable future situations°Prioritising the choices that have to be made among the outcomes of Foresight Avoid the assumption that people have infinite plasticity toward new technology Increase trust between policy makers, business and the general public,
when products and services based on new technologies are rejected when they are launched or soon afterwards Create policy processes amenable to current and future issues within the characteristics of trans science (Weinberg ibid.)
Academic social research Trade unions Issue groups including the Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Intermediate Technology development Group and other similar organisations Grass roots organisations Minority groups, such as women
All the experiments that have been made spread Foresight well beyond the conventional sphere of technology alone. 3. 1. Policy requirements for inclusivity For policy purposes the minimum conditions for Inclusive foresight then seem to be:
as does 1 above 3. Greater opportunity for participation from all levels, ages and gender throughout the scientific and technology community,
5. Admission of the social influence on the directions taken by science and technology from within and without the scientific and technology community 6. Greater attention to the question of desirability,
and technology have been the traditional focus for Foresight: even there inclusivity has not often been an important feature.
The traditional hierarchies of science and technology have tended to dominate even where there have been specific efforts to widen participation.
Conditions for inclusivity in science and technology need to address this concern. In 9 above, there is a concern for the psychology of information overload;
23.1217 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 5. Foresight's democratic deficit and nano artifacts The root of Foresight's deficit lies
or rejects the desirability of nano artifacts. Immediately this raises questions of inclusivity and exclusivity, and of the nature of what is colloquially, vaguely and incorrectly called‘nanotechnology'.
'The clash between the general notions of inclusivity and exclusivity, and how it might be ameliorated have been discussed earlier
The Sources of Knowledge part of the metaphor draws attention to the use of the term nano artifacts.
of any kind that depends on the systemic interaction between nanoscience, nano-technology and the artifacts themselves for their evolution into desirable artifacts:
Furthermore, the omnibus term‘nanotechnology'misleads the participants in any Foresight study into believing that they are confronting a homogeneous and coherent technology
Nano artifacts depend on the convergence of sets of sciences and technologies, elsewhere called genus sciences and technologies 23, of very different kinds for their evolution into feasible and (hopefully) desirable artifacts.
The difference between nano artifacts and their biotechnological counterparts is more extreme as will become clearer later
even though biotechnological artifacts too require the convergence of sets of sciences and technologies for their evolution.
The public and corporate worlds The public acceptance of nano artifacts Public participation in Foresight. Much of this interaction concerns the current drive toward regulation
or severely restrict the future evolution of nano artifacts many of which are already on sale and widely accepted as desirable artifacts including high factor sun screens, tennis racquets reinforced with carbon nanotubes,
car body parts incorporating carbon nanotubes, dendrimers and many other artifacts. Regulation, product liability, case law and patent law have existed long
and though created for different circumstances will certainly apply to nano artifacts. The influence of the EU's Code of conduct (the Code hereafter) for nanoscience
nano-technology and nano artifacts is a further matter shaping the future situation surrounding the nano-field.
The seven principles of the Code are: Precaution Inclusiveness though not in the sense used in this paper Integrity Better and constant vigilance to assess developments
and effectiveness of governance Realising societal benefits Credibility and trust for good governance and openness to public scrutiny of risks and expectations Protection of fundamental rights in the absence of the precautionary principle through unavoidable situations.
technological feasibility and artifact desirability of a nano artifact. 1218 D. Loveridge, O. Saritas/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1208 1221 participation in Foresight relating to these issues.
and patenting are major themes for Foresight relating to the dynamic evolution of nano artifacts and the situations that arise as a result.
The spectrum of feasible and possible nano artifacts is very wide. Foresight then needs to appreciate how public acceptance
or rejection of nano artifacts may shift according to the nature of the artifacts presented to the public.
Critical to public acceptance is the growth of a critical mass of opinion favourable to any particular form of nano artifact and its supporting sciences and technologies:
and briefly sets out how the metaphor relates to nano artifacts and their enabling sciences, and technologies.
Underlying the discussion is the contention that, as practiced, institutional Foresight contains a democratic deficit characterised by exclusivity as the extent of public participation is restricted.
The future of nanotechnologies and their impacts on society require widespread participation in elucidating their acceptability in society.
Such process will contribute to the development of more socially and environmentally responsive nano artifacts. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Denis Loveridge and Penny Street,
1978 95, Futures 14 (3)( 1982) 205 239 June 13 D. Loveridge, Foresight seven paradoxes, International Journal of Technology management 21 (7/8
Converging technologies at the nanoscale: the making of a new world? Technology and Strategic management 20 (1)( 2008) 29 44 January 24 P. Berg, et al.
Potential Biohazards of RECOMBINANT DNA Molecules, Science (1974) 303. Denis Loveridge is an Honorary Visiting professor and Ozcan Saritas is a Research fellow:
An application to prospecting futures of the responsible development of nanotechnology Douglas K. R. Robinson STEPS, University of Twente, Enschede, The netherlands a r t i c l e i n
Received 24 november 2008 Received in revised form 15 july 2009 Accepted 17 july 2009 Potentially breakthrough science
and technologies promise applications which may radically affect society. Nanotechnology is no exception, promising many benefits through nano-enabled applications across multiple sectors and with the potential of affecting many parts of our society.
At present, during its early stages, a wide variety of actors are anticipating both on the potential benefits and risks of the development of nanotechnologies and their embedment into markets and into society.
Thosewishing to coordinate and develop appropriate governance strategies for nanotechnologies need to consider both thewide spectrumof nanotechnology research and development lines,
the governance landscape surrounding nanotechnology and the application areas it will affect, and how these may co-evolve with each other.
This paper presents a research project that took the recent activities in and around the notion of Responsible Research and Innovation of nanotechnologies as an opportunity to develop support tools for exploring potential co-evolutions of nanotechnology and governance arrangements.
This involved the inclusion of pre-engagement analysis of potential co-evolutions in the form of scenarios into interactive workshop activities, with the aim of enabling multi-stakeholder anticipation of the complexities of co-evolution. 2009
Co-evolutionary scenarios Selection environment Nanotechnology Responsible development Anticipatory coordination 1. Introduction The path to innovation is journey-like, certainly so for radical innovation.
Retrospective studies of emerging technology applications/products (from disciplines of Management and Sociology of Innovation) reveal that the journeys twist
and dynamics in the environments the hopeful technology may encounter. For those wishing to enable beneficial technology applications stemming from potentially breakthrough areas of science and technology, such as nanotechnology,
this complexity increases as we shift from retro-to prospective analysis of potential paths to innovation
In the field of nanotechnology these challenges are compounded further due to the early stage of nano developments
and risks that may become reality as nanotechnology matures. It is uncertain what sort of sectors will be impacted
(or created) by nanotechnology innovations and how the regulatory, economic and societal landscapes will co-evolve.
Therefore, those wishing to develop strategies for managing nanotechnology emergence not only face the general challenge of prospecting possible pathways for innovation they also are challenged to prospect the changing environments
robinson@emerging technologies. eu. 0040-1625/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j. techfore. 2009.07.015 Contents lists available at Sciencedirect Technological forecasting
& Social Change 1. 1. Anticipatory coordination for the responsible development of nanotechnology These general challenges become very specific in the case of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
There is a call for anticipatory governance 1 often phrased as the need for responsible development of nanotechnology or responsible innovation in nanotechnology,
1 where activities are underway to enable those nanotechnologies which would provide benefit whilst constraining those that may cause harm.
But the potential breakthrough nature of nanotechnologies as enablers of radically new applications may mean a complex reconfiguration of the environments that a nanotechnology innovation may traverse during its‘lifetime'from concept to well embedded technology in our society.
Only then can effective strategies be developed to shape the emerging nanotechnology governance arrangement. Such an emerging reconfiguration of actor relations, their roles and responsibilities is particularly striking in nanotechnology in the diverse activities in
and around Responsible Research and Innovation of Nanotechnology. 2 That is why it became the subject of a research project
and workshop within a programme of future-oriented technology analysis (FTA) in a nanotechnology research network called Frontiers. 3 The FTA ACTIVITIES in this network revolve around multi-(potential) stakeholder workshops where the aim is to explore the complex dynamics in and around specific areas of nanotechnology important for the Frontiers
Network of Excellence (Frontiers Noe). The objective of the programme was to gain a deeper understanding of issues,
uncertain and involve multiple actors working at multiple levels shot through with anticipatory strategies and expectations on risks and benefits of the emerging technology field.
This creates a requirement for rich and easy to digest strategic intelligence for which can prepare the ground for interactive workshops on complex and highly uncertain topics such as nanotechnology.
This approach is developed as a support tool for Constructive technology assessment (Constructive TA), see Box 1, and incorporates what we call endogenous futures into scenarios
governance of new and emerging nanotechnologies has become a highly visible debate, disagreements on efficacy of current governance arrangements proliferate,
(or are in the process of being formed to shape possible new configurations of roles and responsibilities in the development of nanotechnology.
and the unfolding innovation journeys of technology development have not been developed to date. Such scenarios require insight into co-evolutionary dynamics,
which aim to coordinate activities in enabling nanotechnologies for research in the life sciences. The Technology assessment Programme was part of the Science to Industry work package and the Ethical and Societal Aspect package,
and was led by the author. 1223 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 There is increasing recognition that innovation emergence is a nonlinear process,
However, for breakthrough technologies, the factors that shape the pathways may be evolving too! An example could be the regulatory landscape
which would enable certain technology options and constrain others. The arrangements of the industrial sector could also enable
and constrain certain technology options. Of course the technology options themselves may shape the landscapes that they encounter could initiate a change in industrial sectors, in regulation etc.
Nanotechnology, even at this nascent stage, is stimulating a lot of speculation on shifts in these landscapes leading to a desire to explore the potential mutual co-evolution of nanotechnologies
and the various environments (industrial, market, society, regulation, research, etc.).5 To this end it was necessary to create a scenario method
theory and concepts Recent thinking about innovation adds up to a general idea that technology emergence is a process of innovation and selection shot through with anticipations (c. f. quasi-evolutionary
Paradigms, trajectories and expectations offer partial understanding of how new technologies emerge, but have not answered these questions,
institutional and social factors in shaping a technology. 4 Braun for example describes the early notions of innovation as being characterised by a‘linear'view of innovation as an automatic spill over process between basic knowledge
and technological application whilst recent notions regard innovation as being nonlinear and recursive interactions between a variety of actors participating in the quest for innovation. 8. 5 These environments,
which enable and constrain certain technology options, I will call selection environments. 1224 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting
They acknowledged the concentric bias of the enactor perspective (technology developers and promoters who project a linear path from their technology option into the future described in Box 1) and attempted to broaden this concentric bias by taking into consideration open-ended nature of their projections and structured explorations of the journey-like
nature of actual emergence. In this project on RRIWE add a further conceptualization using the idea of arenas of innovation and selection
in order to get close to the real issues being explored through the CTA. Building of the notions and gaps given above,
This landscape will have different characteristics at different stages of technology/product emergence and is shaped by broader framing conditions and by anticipatory coordination on the part of technology developers and promoters,
as well as those who seek to control and select options. With this in mind, I propose the Innovation chain+framework as a way of presenting this situation.
the latter being typical for potentially radical and breakthrough innovations). Detailing in brief, in this visualization an innovation traverses a complex mosaic of arenas of innovation
Within this mosaic certain technology options are enabled whilst others are constrained. The arenas for innovation and selection are shown here as bubbles where each arena represents a particular socio-technical configuration carrying
Thus the innovation journey (represented in Fig. 1 as a branching line) is made up of a path to innovation (a pathway represented by the bubbles in the centre of Fig. 1) where the emerging technology itself
which journeys through these bubbles. 7 The technology (and its socio-technical network) shifts and reconfigures based on the arenas it encounters,
and is a combination of technology studies, innovation and management studies, and path dynamics which adds up to a mosaic of arenas,
+8 Still the focus of technology developers in their FTA ACTIVITIES, focus on paths (such as roadmapping) rather than journeys.
the IC+provides a game board for locating emerging technologies and evolving arenas and thus a way of framing our scenarios.
and coevoluution of technologies and the IC+we need some indications of how paths-to-innovation may emerge
and insights into the transition from present into future. 2. 3. Endogenous futures While new (emerging science and technology introduce novelties,
emerging irreversibilities facilitate specific technological paths making it easier to act and interact whilst constraining others making it more difficult to do something else.
When technology is involved, irreversibilities are solidified further in configurations that work 30. The concept of configuration that works applies to artefacts and systems,
Van Merkerk and Robinson 9 show examples from the field of lab-on-a-chip technology and how expectations have an effect on selection choices of pathways to follow,
and creating scenarios for a CTA exercise. 3. Evolving selection environments, and their internalisation 3. 1. A project is initiated In Autumn 2007 (as still the case 2 years on) there was an increasing emphasis on societal impact and embedment of nanotechnology applications.
Ideas of responsible development of nanotechnology have been in circulation for a while now, but by the end of 2007 they were solidifying into policy and regulation.
Thus, there was an occasion to launch a technology assessment exercise, with the aim of bringing together actual and potential players involved in nanotechnology governance to share perspectives,
explore possibilities and draw out some recommendations to guide both the Nanotechnology R&d network (Frontiers) who initiated the project as others exploring potential governance approaches.
As part of the project within Frontiers, I carried out case research into the field, analysed the recent history
and current situation and developed three co-evolutionary scenarios showing plausible playings out of technology innovations
and how they emerged and co-evolved with shifting regulatory, economic, societal landscapes. These provided input into a daylong multistakeeholde interactive workshop where the complex interactions of potential governance arrangements
At the time of the workshop (December 2007) the situation in and around nanotechnology involved mostly the discussion of Environment, Health and Safety aspects (EHS/HES) and other nanotoxicity related discussions,
and workshops on the nano governance issue. 9 For example the nanoelectronics industry coordination efforts described in 34 which would lie in the coordinating bodies box of the IC+diagram.
and the role of technology platforms which came about through institutional entrepreneurship between the framing conditions, the bubbles and the coordinating bodies. 1227 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222
. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 It is not in the scope of this paper to detail the case history of the emergence of RRI for nanotechnology,
including codes of conduct for nanotechnology, some prepared by authorities like the European commission, others offered by one or another firm,
about pressures towards valorisation of research as well as lack of uptake in sectors that could profit from the possibilities offered by nanoscience and nanotechnology.
Box 1 The Constructive technology assessment goal of reflexivity rather than prediction. For early stage and highly uncertain fields of technology development, prediction is a tough task.
Another approach would be to shift the focus of strategy articulation away from relying on prediction in its strictest sense,
Constructive technology assessment (Constructive TA) 6 10 as a reflexive strategy articulation support system taking as its starting point ongoing socio-technical dynamics is particularly suitable for such a purpose.
In the case of the Frontiers Noe for nanotechnology, the programme involved research and preparation of these scenarios an input to 1-day multi-stakeholder workshops
Garud and Ahlstrom 12 describe two perspectives of such technology assessment, those of technology developers and promoters they term insiders (that focus on innovation through enactment cycles)
and outsiders (who focus on comparing and selecting options through selection cycles). This has been developed further by Rip 13
production and use of nanoparticles and the consideration of risks of nanotechnology. 10 Fig. 3 visualizes this (up to 2008.
but are unclear on how to target nano broadly beyond the current focus on nanoparticles. Firms are reluctant to start reporting the DEFRA voluntary reporting initiative was mentioned as having limitations
and new ways of managing them e g. the Risk Framework for Nanotechnology put forward by the unusual alliance of Dupont and Environmental Defence.
and elsewhere) but have been ad hoc and mainly centred around technology developer outreach programmes. Also, there is something like a regulation void,
I have placed innovation journeys at the micro-level, technology developer coordination attempts at the meso-level and selector coordination and control at the macro-level.
and technology developers begin to start anticipating on societal acceptance of products. Proliferation of engagement/communication approaches at the micro-level allows justification of societal awareness as a strategy for ensuring societal acceptance.
Ad hoc public engagement exercises act as a lubricant to continue nanotechnology developments across the board. However, one project in particular captures people's attention,
or FTA mechanisms that are reflexive of the wider complexities of new and emerging technologies? Who should be involved and when?
in general most public engagement activities initiated by R&d actors focused more on enlightening the general public on the potentials of nanotech R&d-engagement as a lubricant against public friction.
Drug delivery becomes a key driver in nanotechnology. Rapid developments in nano means the consequent burgeoning number of delivery methods leads to increasingly bewildering regulatory protocols.
Anticipation on further regulatory delays sees shift in private investments from nano to other promising technologies.
concerned about 2nd generation effects of nanoparticles argued for a moratorium on nanoparticles for medical purposes until toxicity tests tailored for these particles would be done.
Lack of lifecycle thinking in nanoparticles and engineered tissue causes real concerns by both environmental agencies (the former) and clinicians (the latter.
Production, storage and distribution in both the manufacture of nanoparticle based therapeutics and use in the clinics is an ongoing concern,
as well as quality control of nanoparticles and bioaccumulation uncertainties (particularly in liver, spleen and bone marrow). Public funding agencies form a blanket ban on financing nanoparticulate delivery systems.
1) Instrumental motivations legitimising R&d activities as a policy to ensure that technology is held not back by public skepticism;(
and links them up with overall strategies in motivations for engagement around nanotechnology. 12 The scenario focused on the engagement aspects of RRI, the roles of various actor groups, the strategies and how the interactions played out.
The scenario in Box 3 looks at a specific cluster of innovations in nanoparticle based drug delivery.
Early stage technologies are fragile and too early selection may inhibit novel solutions. The same for regulation-nanocodes enable in this scenario
In this case a technology 12 Nanodiablog crosses all three motivations for engagement. The normative motivation is set down in the EU Action plan
This approach to engagement stems from an anticipation by nanotech developers of public friction which leads to enlightenment and legitimisation strategies.
One technology entrepreneur uses the Nanodiablog with a substantive motivation for engagement to improve the product.
but allows progress in technology development through self regulation and self quality control. The codes are particularly enabling for medical devices,
Finland begins to invest in nanotechnology for paper processing (a major contributor to the Finnish economy.
and others lead to the inclusion of engagement programmes in technology R&d programmes to inform
and communicate the benefits of nanotechnology. There is a proliferation of such projects across (and initiated by) the nano R&d domain focussing on enabling public acceptance.
Gaps in regulation widen as nanotechnologies become increasingly more complex existing laws which could be applied to products (medical devices) are equipped less to oversee products and processes such as active nanostructures
which cross many sectors and can be applied in many settings. The accident with the Finnish worker opens up nano governance once again and a number of lines of R&d grind to a halt pending further investigation.
Regulatory actions retroactively cover all Nanomaterials and products on the market become identified and recalled pending certification. 1233 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting
roles and responsibilities of researchers and the issues around risk of nanoparticles. The scenario in Box 4 will be shown in more detail in Section 5. 4. 2. The effect of these scenarios in the workshop The three scenarios together covered the various positions and expectations of those actors active in the debate around RRI.
The daylong workshop was comprised of a number nanotechnology researchers, a ministry of health representative, a large chemical company, a trade union representative, a nanotechnology industry association,
and a number of technology assessment scholars. The elements and actors were recognised by the participants with praise about the plausibility of such scenarios.
The co-evolution of regulatory approaches and technology options was discussed also throughout the workshop, although not directly quoted in the discussions,
and are agreed to Coordination of governance stemming from technology promoters see Fig. 1..Government instigated voluntary reporting,
Thus technology promoters dominate..Not all actors in R&d sign up to the codes, the broadness of principles causes concerns with some actors a large pharmaceutical company states,
The lack of clarity and small print is unsettling for early stage technologies. Uncertainty in possible inroads for litigation and liability is covered not by such codes,
this is a stylised quote announced by a large pharmaceutical company in a meeting in November 2007 on Nanomedicine 38..
but allow progress in technology development through self regulation and self quality control Misalignments enabling for some: A continuation of the situation given in Fig. 3 becoming an emerging irreversibility (not quite path dependency but a situation becoming increasingly entrenched of a patchwork of soft law options.
researchers and technology developers do not feel pressure and continue with their R&d unabated. This was inspired by interviews at an annual meeting of the Frontiers Noe,
Similar developments can be seen for crime scene investigation and civil security technologies, where advanced diagnostics,
forensics and identification technologies were stimulated the focus by government grants, small companies begin to commercialise this technology Broader context of comparable innovation journeys:
these other fields are added to compare to the medical device innovation journeys later in the scenario..
One example, Finland begins to invest in nanotechnology for paper processing (a major contributor to the Finnish economy) Anticipatory coordination and lock in:
and developments in nanotechnology for the paper sector Lock in as path enabling: other governments look on with envy at the focus of Finnish nanotechnology.
This is a mirror of anticipatory coordination in other geographical regions 39,40..Government official Nanotechnology promises to revolutionise all industry sectors, paper production could seriously be enhanced through nanotechnology and as a small country,
Finland should focus resources on what is most beneficial for us. Other national governments look with envy at the rapidity of developments of the targeted nano programmes of Finland.
and other engagement exercises lead to the inclusion of engagement programmes in technology R&d programmes to inform
and communicate the benefits of nanotechnology. There is a proliferation of such projects across (and initiated by) the nano R&d domain focussing on enabling public acceptance.
but have little effect because of the lock in enabling technology development but constraining comparative selector input..Some issues of workers safety voiced but related to non-nano issues
and processing of nanomaterials. He suggested that an industry association (such as his own) could play that role..
Emergence of platform technologies with applications in multiple sectors and comprising of ever increasing complexity of functional nano-elements (multifunctional tailored nanoparticles, highly integrated Lab on a chip, Moore than More integrating of semiconductors
increasing complexity of governance of platform technologies. This highlights another issue of where to locate responsibility for nanotechnology in applications,
as nano is an enabling technology, and just contributes to the functioning of a large system. Key question:
why focus on nano?.5. 2. 2011 2012 nanoproducts proliferate The Precautionary principle is promoted within codes but framed by self-assessment mechanisms
I see that many technology promoters take an adverse stance towards precaution, connecting it to a halt (moratoria) on technology progress.
This was placed in the text to provoke a discussion..Innovation actor's quality not assured. Voluntary codes align best practice
Regulators rely on current law (or modifications of them) for nanomaterials and applications. REACH13 is used but is identified as a blunt instrument by labour organisations as it fails to cover certain substances in very small quantities Differing positions between enactors and comparative selectors:
but the major emphasis lies on the fact that nano regulation is difficult due to increasing complexity law is equipped less to oversee products and processes such as active nanostructures
However, there is alignment in the complicated relationships between technology platforms (multi-functionalised nanoparticles, and other functional macromolecular systems) and the various applications/sectors (they have become embedded),
Further diagnostics reveal nanoparticulate aggregation directly linked with the Finnish paper mill (specificity of tailored nanoparticles enables the identification of source of particle) Trigger creating window of opportunity for repositioning and realignment of nanotechnology governance:
This element of the narrative was inspired by NIOSH 2004 which raised concerns around the manufacturing of nanoparticles.
What previously enabled technology development constrains its embedment into markets: as medical nano enters the clinics user issues begin to emerge (previously unarticulated requirements come about.
This example is linked to a presentation given by manufacturing firm in the London meeting November 2007 on Nanomedicine.
One medic was quoted saying The technologists missed the boat early on, they should have listened to user needs rather than contemplating far off utopian and dystopian sci-fi futures Consequence of division of RRI labour:
Finnish economy begins to suffer due to the high sunk investments into nanotechnology based infrastructure. Public outcry as consumer organisations identify major issues in a number of sectors which could hold potential risk with no protection for the consumer (the house of cards collapses) Window of opportunity for selectors:
and previous (technology promoter dominated) governance arrangements collapse..5. 4. Total recall By 2014 Nanotech employs approximately 2. 3 million workers globally.
Nano has become a many headed hydra which is difficult to tame, one popular scientific journal headlines One look at the Nano Medusa turns regulators to stone.
while some nanomaterials will be produced below that level. 1236 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 standards causes complication:
Regulatory actions retroactively cover all nanomaterials and products on the market become identified and recalled pending certification.
Whilst for nanomedicine and bionanotechnology the clamour for tests and rapid certification hampers technological progress
other nano-promises as in Beyond Moore (nanoelectronics and nanophotonics) take the lead for the time being Winners
6. Evaluation and discussion These co-evolutionary scenarios can prepare the ground for discussion of complex potential radical technologies via the combination of endogenous futures, the IC+framework and deep case research into actors
In this case they were used by participants as a resource for discussing the complexities of potential multi-actor multilevel de/re alignments and the effects on nanotechnology emergence.
of maintaining a patchwork of soft law options to facilitate nanotechnology innovation, positions taken on precaution,
the emergence of windows of opportunity for action (stemming from the Finnish worker case being part of the coevollutio of emerging nanotechnology options in paper production and risk and regulation landscape),
entanglements due to sunk investments (Finnish policy), collective decision on technology developer side for soft law, etc.
and overcome barriers to introduce their nanotechnology into society. The IC+framework provides a gameboard to bring together linear/concentric perspectives with complexity,
and integration, The Handbook of Science and Technology studies, 2007.2 H. te Kulve, A. Rip, Engagement Requires Investment in Pre-engagement:
Mapping and Scenarios for Emerging technologies. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Study of Science (4s) in Montreal, Quebec, 2007.3 A. Rip, H. te Kulve, Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios, in:
E. Fisher, C. Selin, J. M. Wetmore (Eds. The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Presenting Futures, vol. I, Springer, Berlin, 2008.4 F. W. Geels, Towards sociotechnical scenarios and reflexive anticipation:
using patterns and regularities in technology dynamics, in: K. H. Sørensen, R. Williams (Eds. Shaping technology, Guiding Policy:
Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Cheltenham (UK), Northampton (MA, USA), Edward Elgar, 2002.5 A. H. van de ven, D. E. Polley, R. Garud, S. Venkataraman
, The Innovation journey, Oxford university Press, Oxford, 1999.6 D. K. R. Robinson, T. Propp, Multi-path mapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in Emerging s&t, Technol.
Shaping technology, Guiding Policy; Concepts, Spaces and Tools, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2002.8 J. Schot, A. Rip, The past and future of constructive technology assessment, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 54 (1997) 251 268.9 R. van Merkerk, D. K. R. Robinson, The interaction between expectations, networks and emerging paths:
a framework and an application to Lab on a chip technology for medical and pharmaceutical applications, Technol.
18 july September 2006) 411 428 Numbers 3 4,-4. 10 R. van Merkerk, R. E. H. M. Smits, Tailoring CTA
for emerging technologies, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 75 (3 march 2008) 312 333.11 P. Larédo, E. Jolivet, E. Shove, S. Raman, A. Rip, E. Moors, B. Poti, G
of new technology: making use of recent insights from sociology and economics of technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg.
Manag. 7 (4)( 1995) 417 431.13 A. Rip, A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance and its ironies, in:
The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1987.16 K. Green, R. Hull, A. Mcmeeking, V. Walsh, The construction of the techno-economic:
networks vs. paradigms, Res. Policy 28 (1999) 777 792.17 S. Bakker, H. van Lente, M. Meeus, Arenas of expectations for hydrogen technologies, Innovation studies Utrecht (ISU) Working
Paper Series, Working Paper#08.19,2009. 18 H. van Lente, Promising Technology The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological developments.
Ph d Thesis, University of Twente. Delft: Eburon Press. 1993.19 G. Dosi, Technical paradigms and technological trajectories a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technological change, Res.
Policy 11 (3)( 1982) 147 162.20 R. R. Nelson, S g. Winter, In search of useful theory of innovation, Res.
Getting New technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin New york, 1998.22 M. Callon, Techno-economic networks and irreversibility, in:
Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, Routledge, London, 1991, pp. 132 161.23 B. de Laat, Scripts for the future technological foresight, strategic analysis and socio technical networks:
in science and technology, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 18 (2006) 285 298.14 Targeted (and used) for transition policy. 4 15 Used for open-ended roadmapping by technology developers at early stages of development 6. 16 Used for exploring industrial/sectorial alignment/misalignments. 17 See Haico
te Kulve's work on Food Packaging for a thorough description of this approach 2. Also see the work of Alireza Parandian,
33 1238 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239 30 A. Rip, R. Kemp, Technological change, in:
Analysis, participation and power in the social appraisal of technology, in: M. Leach, I. Scoones, B. Wynne (Eds.),
Science and Citizens, Globalization and the Challenge of Engagement, Zed Books, London, 2003.32 B. Laurent, Engaging the public in nanotechnology?
34 R. van Merkerk, R. E. H. M. Smits, Tailoring CTA for emerging technologies, Technol. Forecast.
Change 75 (3 march 2008) 312 333.35 A. Rip, M. van Amerom, Emerging de facto Agendas Around Nanotechnology:
Springer, 2009.36 M. Kearnes, A. Rip, The Emerging Governance landscape of Nanotechnology, in S. Gammel, A. Lösch, A. Nordmann (eds.
Akademische Verlagsanstalt, 2009.37 Mayer Brown, Minutes of Debate on Governance Initiatives for the European Nanotechnology Community in the Public and Private Sectors European commission, Brussels, December 5th 2007.38 Investing
Medical Nanotechnologies II, Royal College of Surgeons, London, UK, Nov 28 29 2007 (www. nano. org. uk). 39 A. Delemarle, D. K. R
technology platforms and institutional entrepreneurship, Paper Presented at the Triple Helix Conference, Turin, May 18 21 2005.40 D. K. R. Robinson, A. Rip, V. Mangematin, Technological agglomeration
and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Special issue on Nanoscale research, Res. Policy 36 (2007) 871 879.41 A. Nordmann, If and then:
a critique of speculative nanoethics, Nanoethics 1 (2007) 31 46. Douglas K. R. Robinson obtained his Undergraduate and Masters degree in Physics and Space science and Technology at the University of Leicester (UK), Universität Siegen (Germany) and International Space University in Strasbourg (France.
His Phd manuscript focuses on challenges for putting Constructive TA type approaches into practice, through methodology and application development and is about to be submitted at the time of publication of this article.
and creation with a focus on innovative design in high technology industries. Alongside this, he is also a part-time Technical Analyst at the Institute of Nanotechnology (UK) focusing on nanotechnologies in the agrifood sector. 1239 D. K. R. Robinson/Technological forecasting & Social Change 76 (2009) 1222-1239
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011