Assessing emerging technologies Methodological challenges and the case of nanotechnologies Torsten Fleischer*,Michael Decker, Ulrich Fiedeler Institute for Technology assessment and Systems analysis (ITAS), Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe Gmbh, P. O. B
and technological trends in the area of nanotechnology and its implications is confronted with the problem that most scientific endeavours of nanotechnology can be allocated to basic research
while most of the technological visions related to nanotechnology are far (N10 years) in the future. Since technology assessment has to integrate the socioeconomic context of a technical product
in the case of nanotechnology a preparing step is necessary which connects the ongoing basic research with the visions communicated either by the scientist themselves or by the media.
Nanotechnology 1. Introduction Emerging technologies pose considerable challenges for dclassicalt technology assessment (TA. If TA focuses on the outcomes or impacts of a technology,
It is no exaggeration to say that the known methodological problems of technology assessment come to a head here. 3. Nanotechnology Nanotechnology is among the most prominent emerging technologies,
scientists and industry representatives that nanotechnology may or will contribute to economic prosperity and sustainable development (for an up-to-date and comprehensive overview see Ref. 3). On the other hand,
nanotechnology has been the subject of an extensive public debate in Europe and the United states. Especially the risks of nanotechnology from the suspected asbestos-like properties of some nanoscopic materials and the resulting dangers for human health to the potential thread by self-replicating nanobots turning the entire world into dgrey
goot got broad media coverage and public awareness. Obviously nanotechnology is a case for technology assessment.
Technology assessment of nanotechnology has to deal with several methodological challenges: First of all: Up to now it is blurred quite what in detail should be considered as dnanotechnologyt and what not.
Until now, there is no definition of nanotechnology that is generally accepted in the scientific community. Perhaps such a definition is impossible at all.
The ddefinitionst proposed and used(?by research policy or its think tanks and consultants are rather broad and unspecific,
Nanotechnology is dealing with functional systems based on the use of sub-units with specific size-dependent properties of the individual sub-units or of a system of those...
Surprisingly, this definition does not refer to a particular part of the length scale where nanotechnology usually is expected to be dat homet.
Common ddefinitionst traditionally limit nanotechnology to structures with a size somewhere between 0. 1 and 100 nm in at least one dimension.
They propose that the name-giving order of magnitude of nanotechnology should not be mentioned in the definition,
According to this definition (but also interpreting other widely used descriptions of the field), nanotechnology is neither a specific technology nor is it a definite group of technologies.
Nanotechnology comprises a wide range of approaches that are quite heterogeneous with regard to their subjects of investigation, possible applications and imaginable periods of realisation.
What does that mean for the technology assessment of nanotechnology? The first part of the answer is rather simple:
Many discussions about nanotechnology tend towards a problematic generalisation. When scientists, politicians, journalists or dpeople in the streetst are discussing nanotechnology,
they all have their own ideas and assumptions, interpretations and examples, scientific approaches and experiences in the back of their head.
or write about nanotechnology das a wholet and very often avoid or prevent a constructive discussion.
Most activities that are considered as R&d in the field of nanotechnology are basic or applied research rather than technology development.
Nanomaterials are an essential part of the overall field of nanotechnology. They can be T. Fleischer et al./
Some nanomaterials-based products and processes are already on the marketplace, many more will very likely be seen in the near or mid-term future.
Nanomaterials show great economic potential e g. by substituting other materials or by making available new functionalities and thus enabling new products and creating new markets.
It is expected also that nanomaterials may contribute to the reduction of the ecological footprint of classical production processes by reducing energy and material consumption.
For nanomaterials, two layers of assessment exist. The first one is the assessment of the impacts of its production.
or about the health and environmental hazards that actually can arise from nanomaterials, the general methodology can be adapted from procedures that are used broadly in the assessment of conventional materials technologies.
Rather than the nanomaterials themselves, their use in new products and processes and their application in existing or new contexts,
Since many nanotechnology-related developments are still in an early phase at present and in the future researchers, developers and users are faced with strategic decisions on the continuation of their efforts again and again.
which the emergence of new technologies is accompanied by mutual co-operation between technology development and impact analysis, between sustainability research and nanosciences,
Such a reflexive procedure surely would take into account the numerous demands from the debate on sustainable research and technology policies. 4. Roadmapping methodology as a tool for technology assessment of nanotechnology?
and/or technology. 4. 2. Roadmapping as a precursor of a TA process for specific nanotechnology applications The situation described above rather broad and largely unstructured field of investigation, mostly enabling technologies at early stages of development,
Many activities that are considered as nanotechnology are closer to R&d for enabling technologies than they are embedded in a product (or process) development,
and technology roadmapping to include it as a precursor into the TA process for selected applications of nanotechnology.
and visionary applications thought up by proponents (and sometimes propagandists) of nanotechnology, about the realism and the realisation periods of these concepts as well as about the potential of competing conventional technologies.
Enable and teach interdisciplinary communication which for nanotechnology researchers is of special importance;!Discover new research options and alternative pathways;!
and risks of nanotechnology. Very often, in these discussions the existing or expected benefits arising from nanotechnology-based
or-related innovations are claimed for nanotechnology. However, some of the ideas for products or visions for applications raise also considerable questions with respect to their nontechnical implications.
Their reference to nanotechnology then is denied frequently, the responsibilities are assigned to the other disciplines involved or other groups participating in the innovation process,
a discussion of these consequences in the context of nanotechnology often refused. Such an argumentative asymmetry for many observers leaves the impression of dishonesty or disguise
which may lead to public distrust and rejection and support disaster assumptions and dystopic fantasies. 4. 3. Roadmapping nanotechnology the trials Currently,
we are following two different lines to test the applicability of roadmapping in nanotechnology and the quality of the outcomes.
Within the project dnano Road SMET that recently has been started, science and technology roadmaps in the domain of nanomaterials will be developed.
In the first phase, an international working group integrating roadmap developers nanomaterials experts and knowledge transfer organisations will build branch specific roadmaps for three different industrial sectors on
which nanomaterials are expected to have major influence. In a second step, these roadmaps shall be adapted to the business culture of small and medium enterprises (SME.
SME are important drivers of some European industrial sectors and potential users of nanomaterials-based innovations.
But they usually don't have either competence or capacity to investigate the potential of nanomaterials for their purposes
or to perform a roadmapping process din houset. Among other goals, the project aims at structuring the R&d field of nanomaterials,
at building a knowledge base for further detailed investigations about the potential of nanomaterials, especially with regard to sustainable development,
but also at being a learning experience and serving as a communication tool for the participants.
and institutes (representing basic research on nanotechnology related phenomena, material researchers and developers, systems engineering, toxicology of nanoscopic structures,
or made possible through the usage of nanomaterials. Some reflections on the role that science roadmapping can play for research organisations
and what further benefits of the roadmapping process beyond structuring the field of nanotechnology can be expected. 5. Summary
Nanotechnology is considered mainly as one of the technological developments to have far-reaching impacts on the industries of this century.
Together with the hopes for nanotechnology's exploitation for wealth creation, competitiveness, sustainability and health, growing concerns about its potential to change ways of living,
Nanotechnology is a clear case for technology assessment. Because of the diversity of scientific and technological approaches pursued under the umbrella of dnanotechnologyt, for TA purposes some preparatory steps are needed.
We propose an adaptation of the concept of science roadmapping and its application to selected segments of the overall field of nanotechnology.
A definition of nanotechnology. Graue Reihe 36, European Academy Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany. 5 T. Fleischer, Technikgestaltung fu r mehr Nachhaltigkeit:
Change 71 (1/2)( 2004) 161 185.12 S. Walsh, J. Elders, International Roadmap on MEMS, Microsystems, Micromachining and Top Down Nanotechnology, MANCEF, Naples
, Florida, 2003.13 Microelectronics advanced research initiative, technology roadmap for nanoelectronics, in: R. Compan o, L. Molenkamp, D. J. Paul (Eds.
At present he is working in several projects concerning technology assessment of nanotechnology. T. Fleischer et al.//Technological forecasting & Social Change 72 (2005) 1112 1121 1121
driven by the confluence of nanotechnology, biotechnology and materials science (Linstone 2011a, 2011b. It is these fundamental changes that give rise to the main challenges of today'sworld.
nanoscience, nanotechnology and nano-artefacts and their social acceptance; stem cells and what they offer and their social dimensions.
but at the nanometre cum atomic scale, where phenomena are unfamiliar and the territory suffused by quantum phenomena,
whether the promises of stem cells or nanotechnology are‘true'.'Instead, the promise of stem cell research or nanotechnology could
either be accepted as meaningful and are acted upon which leads to some new developments that will differ more or less from what was promised
In most OECD countries, for instance, nanotechnology is listed now as top priority; referring to the efforts other governments have planned (Berube 2006.
His research interests concern how emerging technologies such as nanotechnology hydrogen and medical technologies produce novelty and needs.
the leading Dutch research consortium in nanotechnology. References Antonelli, C. 1989. The role of technological expectations in a mixed model of international diffusion of process innovations:
The truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Newyork: Promotheus Books. Borup, M.,N. Brown, K. Konrad,
nanotechnology; dye-sensitised solar cells, technology intelligence 1. Introduction New and Emerging science and Technologies(‘NESTS')are studied increasingly because of their potentially important‘emerging applications'.
This paper illustrates application of the FIP approach for a further case, that of nanotechnology-enhanced solar cells(‘NESCS'.
Today's NESTS are more apt for incorporating science-based advances (e g. biotechnologies and nanotechnologies),
3. 2. The case of DSSCS Nanotechnology entails engineering matter at molecular scale, seeking novel applications of new materials and devices.
Within the context of ongoing empirical analyses of nanotechnology(‘nano')R&d, we focus here on how nanomaterials are being used to enhance the performance of solar cells,
and among organisations. 4. 4. Determine potential applications (Step E) We introduced a new technique called‘cross-charting'to explore the links from technological attributes (e g. particular nanomaterials or nanostructures and particular technical advances) to functional
and advantageous nanomaterials. The idea is that this helps focus monitoring efforts to seek out advances that could facilitate our desired application.
Conversely, we would direct less attention to other nanomaterials and solar cell types that offer less potential gain for our target application.
In this paper and in companion analyses of nanobiosensors, we found value in subdividing the technical elements (e g. distinguishing among various nanostructured materials;
In addition, a faculty member with expertise in innovation processes and nanotechnology joined the three of us (Guo, Huang,
Identifying the emerging roles of nanoparticles in biosensors. Journal of Business Chemistry 7, no. 1: 15 30.
The case of nanotubes. Technological forecasting & Social Change 72, no. 9: 1094 112. O'Regan, B,
Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 10, no. 5: 715 30. Rafols, I,
. and M. Meyer. 2010. Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: Case studies in bionanoscience.
some of them will come to market soon Copper indium diselenide (CIS) Low temperature fabrication Cadmium telluride (Cdte) To improve efficiency (by nanotechnology) Enlarged the effective optical path for absorption...
and holes needed to travel Third generation Cadmium sulphide (Cds) To improve efficiency (mainly by Quantum Dots nanotechnology) Utilisation of materials
Totally new principle (by nanotechnology) Enlarged the effective optical path for absorption DSSCS Is coming to market Organic materials Shorten the path that electrons
Converging technologies, collaboration or fusion of several fields (nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science) have been given attention since the mid-2000s.
resources, and environment 01-D Energy-relateda 03-H Industrial bio-nanotechnology related to energy and environment 05-A Geo-diagnosis technologyb 05-B
and environmenta Health and medical care 03-B Applied bio-nanotechnology 03-E Medical treatment (exogenous factor, metabolic disease,
metallurgy 21 Surface technology, coating 22 Micro-structure and nanotechnology 23 Chemical engineering 24 Environmental technology 25 Handling 26 Machine tools 27 Engines,
and perspectives from the outset of an endeavour in order to properly foster nanotechnology by establishing governance structures able to coordinate interactions of relevant actors.
She explores the role that different types of FTA played in the development of nanotechnology governance in the USA and in Germany.
In both countries, public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
The FTA TOOLS used to develop governance frameworks for nanotechnology in these two countries differ along time.
In both countries, early FTA envisioned innovative future nanotechnologies, but did not support guidance either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation in order to address grand societal challenges.
Comparing these two countries, the main difference lies in the existence of an umbrella organisation in the USA that pools heterogeneous stakeholders
The example of nanotechnology, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80 (3)( 2013) 444 452 (this issue.
A query strategy for nanotechnology has been developed by TPAC at the Georgia Institute of technology 30. We refine our search terms for biosensors based on our earlier research 31
*After combining the nanotechnology search query with the biosensor terms, we obtain 1493 records for NBS.
the nanoparticle based SPR (or local SPR) can provide excellent LOD. However, the current fabrication technology is expensive 32.
it involves nanotechnology and biotechnology, with diverse application possibilities. Different types of technologies may have different developing patterns, especially for those technologies close to basic science, such as biotechnology.
Acknowledgement This research was undertaken at Georgia Tech, drawing on support from the National science Foundation (NSF) through the Center for Nanotechnology in Society (Arizona State university;
Refining search terms for nanotechnology, J. Nanopart. Res. 10 (2008) 715 728.31 L. Huang, Z. C. Peng, Y. Guo, A l. Porter, Identifying the emerging roles of nanoparticles in biosensors, J. Bus. Chem
. 7 (1)( 2010) 15 29.32 D. Erickson, S. Mandal, A. H. J. Yang, B. Cordovez, Nanobiosensors:
optofluidic, electrical and mechanical approaches to biomolecular detection at the nanoscale, Microfluid. Nanofluid. 4 (1 2)( 2008) 33 52.33 G. A. Urban, Micro-and nanobiosensors state of the art and trends, Meas.
but it has been shown that differences in the construction of time play a significant role in the construction of meaning about the future (e g. of nanotechnologies 44).
temporal harmony and dissonance in nanotechnology networks, Time Soc. 15 (2006) 121 139.45 M. Aaltonen, Multi-ontology, sense-making and the emergence of the future, Futures 41 (2009
The example of nanotechnology Petra Schaper-Rinkel AIT Austrian Institute of technology, Donau-City-Straße 1, A-1220 Vienna, Austria a r t i c l e
) have played in the development of nanotechnology governance. In the US, FTA has been used to create visionary concepts
from the first monitoring and forecasting studies on nanotechnology to the establishment of national nanotechnology programs
but rather on the longer-term interplay between the organizational settings in both countries and the future-oriented nanotechnology analysis. In countries such as the US and Germany, where FTA on nanotechnology were already underway in the late 1980s,
Governance Emerging technologies Key enabling technologies Nanotechnology Public engagement Foresight Technology assessment Responsible research and innovation 1. Introduction As science and technology become more central to economic development,
In the case of nanotechnology, a variety of FTA ACTIVITIES have been in use over the last quarter of a century to structure the field itself
and to establish governance structures in the field of nanotechnology. Compared with other countries, the US and Germany started assessing the status and future trends in the area of nanotechnology early on 5,
6 and rank high with regard to R&d spending and output indicators such as publications and patent applications 7,
Understandingwhat nanotechnology is and howit is governed requires first focusing on the governance processes associated with its development
& Social Change emergence of nanotechnology is adjudicated not just in labs, but rather also in processes such as technology forecasting, technology assessment and participatory future-oriented studies, involving scientists, policymakers, media,
what main actors were involved in the future-oriented activities conducted prior to and after the establishment of national nanotechnology programs.
The paper analyzes the role that different types of future-oriented technology analysis played in the development of nanotechnology governance.
In both countries, the public policy activities to foster nanotechnology were accompanied by efforts to establish governance structures to coordinate interactions between actors of the innovation system.
What are the contributions of the distinct future-oriented approaches to the development of nanotechnology governance?
2. Analyzing the role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of nanotechnology 2. 1. Nanotechnology: the field, its definition and its governance The Technical Committee 229 on Nanotechnologies of the International Standardization Organization (ISO) issued a definition of nanotechnology in 2010
which contains the same elements as those used over the last decades: nanotechnologies include understanding and controlling matter
and processes at the nanoscale, where the onset of size-dependent phenomena usually enables novel applications.
Nanotechnologies utilize the properties of nanoscale materials that differ from the properties of individual atoms, molecules,
and bulk matter to create improved materials, devices, and systems that exploit these newproperties. 1 This broad definition covers clusters of technologies that may have different characteristics and applications.
In the context of the US Nanotechnology Initiative, four generations of products were envisioned: the first generation includes passive nanostructures (nanoparticles,
nanostructuredmaterials), followed by a second generation of active nanostructures (e g. targeted drugs and chemicals, actuators),
a third generation of 3-D nanosystems and systems of nanosystems (characterized by various syntheses and assembling techniques),
funding and institutionalization of nanotechnology were linked closely to the ways that various branches of nanoscience
and nanotechnology were anticipated contextualized and as the field called nanotechnology. Many studies in the field of science and technology studies (STS) have shown that nanotechnology is as much a political as a cultural phenomenon 11 14.
Visions, roadmaps, and visionary policy documents have been a main source for analyzing the social and political dimensions of nanotechnology in the broad range of STS,
although the impact of fta itself on the governance of nanotechnology has not been the subject of analysis. The scope of nanotechnology governance covers both anticipating
and realizing future opportunities and identifying and reacting to potential risks. At the turn of the century, nanotechnology was discussed mainly with regard to content (future applications), not with regard to the future decision-making processes and the participation of stakeholders,
which is central to governance. Governance is broader than government covering non-state actors, and is characterized by continuing interactions among network members 15.
Today, future governance is seen as crucial for the development of nanotechnology 16.2.2. Approaching the future of nanotechnology:
the scope of future-oriented technology analysis Several distinct approaches toward anticipating the longer-term implications of nanotechnology have been taken.
Early and radical visions that shaped the field in the late 1980s were published by individual thinkers 17,18.
In the 1990s, studies mapping the field and technology assessment studies included actors and knowledge mainly from science and industry 1, 19 22.
Governments that established nanotechnology funding programs later, such as Denmark, used national level technology foresight processes to prepare
commid=381983 2 Nanotechnology and the governance of nanotechnology are intertwined furthermore with the discourse on converging technologies, referring to the synergistic combination of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive sciences (NBIC),
where a similar governance framework as in the case of nanotechnology is discussed 10 (M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
Res. 10 (2008) 11 29. Indeed, it turns out there are strong analogies between nanotechnology and converging technologies,
though they seem to be very different phenomena with regard to the funding and policy dynamics in the fields.
The main difference is that in the field of nanotechnology the funding strategies were implemented before broader public discourses emerged,
In addition, the term also encompasses new participatory types of future-oriented nanotechnology-related studies and activities, such as dialogues on ethical, legal and social aspects cf. 31.
Despite these different traditions, both countries used FTA to develop governance frameworks for nanotechnology. 3. Future-oriented technology analysis of nanotechnology in the US
and Germany The early history of nanotechnology as an emerging technology is heterogeneous. In the 1980s a first funding program was established in UK that has fallen
Usually, two US visions are seen as the starting point of nanotechnology as an emerging technology. The early individual vision of Eric Drexler, who envisioned a distant future vision of molecular manufacturing in the late 1980s,
The Coming Era of Nanotechnology 17, Drexler developed far reaching new ideas of the possibilities and risks of technologies on the nanoscale.
and his ideas became a disputed reference point in the debate around nanotechnology in the late 1980s and the 1990s.
Hiswork was highly influential in the early history of nanotechnology in that it imaged a new industrial revolution through nanotechnology cf. 11
35,36. 3 The second vision was presented to the broad public in 2000 by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative called Nanotechnology Shaping the World Atom by Atom. 22 3. 1
the US science policy community established an organizational structure around nanotechnologies and developed a vision for nanotechnology R&d.
This started in 1998 when the National science and Technology Council (NSTC), the principal executive body responsible for coordinating science and technology policy,
formally established a specific working group called the Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering, and Technology (IWGN),
which included members of different government departments and agencies. 4 In 1999, the NSTC conducted a series of studies and published reports on the status of and trends in nanotechnologies.
what would then be called nanoscale science and technology. Visits to leading research laboratories in Japan and Europe and workshops held in the United states, Europe,
and Russia were used to gather additional information for worldwide studies in the field of nanostructure science and technologies 37.
In their work within the IWGN, the participating agencies and departments stated their major interests in nanotechnology,
and stated their planned contributions of their programs to the nanotechnology initiative. Over 150 participants and contributors from government, science,
The small section of the IWGN workshop report on the social impact of nanotechnology contains a vision on the future
and how smart they become about the application of nanotechnology solutions. Those societies that 3 Today
most scientists do not give credit to Drexler's contribution to nanotechnology and instead focus on Feynman as the genius behind the origins of the field 11 (C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, science, technology & human values,(2007) 196 220).
Historical analysis indicates that the process of drawing the boundary so as to exclude Drexler's ideas was connected closely with controversies around the question,
para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc. Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485). 4 Participating agencies included the Department of commerce (DOC), Department of Defence (DOD), Defence Advanced Research projects Agency (DARPA), Department of energy (DOE), Department of transportation
446 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 support nanotechnology education, research and development the fastest will thrive in the new millennium 1. These statements illustrate that the report
The report outlined the vision that nanotechnology will lead to the next industrial revolution 1. It recommended a national nanotechnology initiative
‘National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Leading to a New Industrial revolution',should approximately double the Federal government's annual investment in nanoscience,
as the activities of the working group on nanotechnology were linked directly with the preparation of the NNI.
the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the NSTC Committee on Technology (which succeeded the IWGN) called for the involvement of social scientists across the board 38
Since 2004, risk has become the subject of political concern as well as the subject of analysis. Public opinion about nanotechnology
Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) into nanotechnology R&d programs and supported centers for nanotechnology in society.
entitled Nanotechnology research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020 3 combined retrospective and future-oriented analysis documenting developments in nanotechnology from 2000 to 2010
and presented a vision for progress in nanotechnology from 2010 to 2020 3. Besides redefining the R&d goals for nanoscale science and engineering integration,
and presenting concepts of how to establish nanotechnology as a general-purpose technology in the next decade,
that was introduced by social scientists at the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State university. The concept aims at having participatory FTA be taken up into ongoing sociotechnical processes to shape their eventual outcomes at all levels including to the point of the lab 43.
The need to increase multi-stakeholder and public participation in nanotechnology governance is stated as one of the main lessons learned after ten years 3. In 2011, the key architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology at the National science Foundation (NSF) recounted the history
and envisioned the future of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative 16. He distinguishes two foundational phases, called Nano 1 and Nano 2. The first foundational phase (2001 2010),
focused on interdisciplinary research at the nanoscale and was dominated by a science-centric ecosystem. The second foundational phase (2011 2020) is planned to be focused on the integration of nanoscale science
and engineering and the mass use of nanotechnology. The related future governance will be oriented on a user-centric ecosystem
which is expected to become increasingly participatory and will be based on a technosoccioeconomic approach 16. The goals defined in the latest NNI strategic plan of 2011 address this user-centric ecosystem by covering the whole ecosystem of innovation:
and the supporting infrastructure and tools to advance nanotechnology) as well as risk governance (Support responsible development of nanotechnology) 45.
The funding is provided through the NNI member agencies. 6 The Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State (CNS-ASU) is funded by the NSF. 447 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting
safety and societal impacts of nanotechnology as environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology 46 and to develop risk governance for nanotechnology 42.
In the case of nanotechnology, there was no centralized and formal planning process, but rather a coordination of future-oriented activities that allowed the departments involved to develop their own individual agendas
With regard to nanotechnology it seems that for specific issues, as in the case of emerging technologies, the diverse and dynamic environment enables the actors within the pluralistic system to use FTA to build up governance networks
The term technology foresight has not been used with regard to future-oriented activities in nanotechnology, but considering the nano-related FTA of the last fifteen years,
nanotechnology has been on the policy agenda of the federal German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) since the late 1990s.
The nanotechnology related activities of BMBF, the main public agency in Germany in charge of promoting pre-commercial research and development,
The BMBF commissioned several forecasting studies on nanotechnology-related fields starting in the early 1990s.
summarizing the process and results of the forecasting exercises for nanotechnology in general and for various subfields of nanotechnology,
including fullerenes, synthetic supramolecular systems, nanotubes, and nanobiology. These reports provided information on the technology field
visiting conferences and other relevant actors internationally, organizing expert panels on different aspects of nanotechnology,
these early monitoring and forecasting activities were followed by an initiative of the BMBF to establish the first six national nanotechnology competence centers with annual funding.
At the onset of the German national nanotechnology initiative, officially started in the late 1990s by widely publicized funding programs for nanotechnology,
In 2003, the BMBF developed a national strategy for future funding and support of nanotechnology.
Nanofab (electronics, nanotechnology for high performance ICT components. Nanoforlife (pharmaceuticals, medical technology nanotechnology for new medical therapies and diagnostics.
Nanomobil (automotive sector, nanotechnology for resource-saving automobiles. 7 These networks represent organizations that have been funded by the Ministry before.
Especially industrial players such as Bayer, Degussa, Siemens, Zeiss, industry-oriented organizations of applied science such as Fraunhofer-Institutes,
Before special nanotechnology funding programs were installed, they received funding from other programs of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)( e g.,
448 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change 80 (2013) 444 452 Nanolux (optics industry, nanotechnology for energy efficient lighting.
Nanochem (production and safety assessment of nanomaterials for industrial applications. In 2003 the Office of Technology assessment at the German Parliament conducted a broad technology assessment on nanotechnology 49.
In 2006, the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) established the Nanokommission a stakeholder commission on nanotechnologies as part of the federal government's high-tech strategy.
The commission, which worked in two phases until 2011, identified more than 25 examples of German dialogue processes concerned with the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies.
These unrelated processes cover dialogues at the federal and state levels as well as stakeholder dialogues and processes of public understanding of science and technology 50.
and risks of nanotechnologies and to discuss the responsible use of nanomaterials. In 2007, the Nano-Initiative Action Plan 2010 emerged as an important part of the high-tech strategy of the German government.
Through the action plan, other federal ministries8 finally joined the German nanotechnology initiative more than fifteen years after the firstmonitoring and forecasting activitieswere conducted.
However, the next strategic document, the Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015 refers to only some initiatives of other ministries and agencies (mainly with regard to regulation,
A broader concept of responsible development of nanotechnology in general was developed not (only the identification of risks for safe and responsible handling) 52.
One of the recommendations published in the Nanokommission's final report in 2011 is that the German federal government should establish a national cross-departmental internet platform providing information on developments and activities in the field of nanotechnologies 51.
and this institutional fragmentation can also be observed with regard to the governance of science, technology and innovation in the field of nanotechnology. 4. Comparing the US and Germany 4. 1. Timing and intervention Between the late 1980s and the late 1990s,
FTA aimed mainly at assessing the potential of the field known today as nanotechnology. Several industrial countries established their first programs in that field in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
But only in the end of the 1990s were disconnected the formerly fields of nanoscale science and engineering brought together under the broader umbrella definition of nanotechnology.
FTA ACTIVITIES were used in this early stage to facilitate a common understanding, develop visions, build up policy networks, as well as shape and prepare funding programs.
On the one hand, the emergence and increase of participatory FTA ACTIVITIES is a positive reflection of increasing public attention to nanotechnology after the funding programs were established.
when nanotechnology risks was perceived first as problems and became the subject of global discussion among NGOS 54 and reinsurance companies 55.
Participatory processes as well as different concepts of responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology were triggered by global debates on the risks of nanotechnology. 4. 2. International screening
The US Interagency Working group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology (IWGN) published a worldwide study on Nanostructure Science and Technology in 1999.
analyzing nanotechnology related activities in the US 6 . While the US NNI continued this international screening
The forward-looking activities of the US nanotechnology initiative have had a major impact on the future orientation within the US political realm with regard to nanotechnology governance
The NNI's early nanotechnology assessment studies indicated to the public that policy was based on scientific knowledge information
and conclusion FTA ACTIVITIES were used to shape the emerging field of nanotechnology in the early stages (priority-setting
and preparation of funding programs) and to influence the national innovation systems by implementing nanotechnology programs and nanotechnology regulatory structures in later stages.
the field later called nanotechnology. Expert-driven FTA ACTIVITIES were used in the first stages to build a common understanding
These early activities brought together the formerly unconnected fields of nanoscale science and engineering under a broad definition of nanotechnology and served as the foundation in developing long-term R&d visions and strategies.
Both in the US and Germany, actors conducting early FTA did not claim to have a broad impact on public policy,
In both countries, early FTA envisioned innovative future nanotechnologies but did not provide guidance either for future innovative governance or for using nanotechnology for disruptive innovation to address grand societal challenges.
The implication for future emerging technologies is that the methodology and practice of FTA should consider the governance dimension from the beginning by acknowledging that monitoring
and in spreading the idea that nanotechnology would become one of the key enabling technologies of the 21st century.
Coherent and powerful statements of what the future governance of nanotechnology should aim to accomplish can be seen as a precondition that could potentially lead to binding prioritization of the goals to be reached by using nanotechnologies.
The updated nanotechnology vision in the US 3 is envisioning the involvement of a broader range of experts and stakeholders and addresses societal challenges through a sophisticated concept of future nanotechnology governance.
The US nanotechnology governance is oriented conceptually toward responsible research and innovation and broad participation. It has established broad networks with a focal organization as the basis for implementing its strategic vision.
The German nanotechnology policy in contrast, has no continuously operating nano-related inter-organizational setting;
Working group on Nanoscience, Nanostructure Science and Technology, in: A Worldwide Study, 1999.6 G. Bachmann, in:
Innovationsschub aus dem Nanokosmos, VDI Technologiezentrum, Düsseldorf, 1998, p. 220.7 J. Youtie, P. Shapira, A. Porter, Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries
Res. 10 (2008) 981 986.8 K. Blind, S. Gauch, Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany, J. Technol.
Transf. 34 (2009) 320 342.9 M. C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools, AICHE J. 50 (2004) 890 897.10 M. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies, J. Nanopart.
Res. 10 (2008) 11 29.11 C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology, Sci. Technol.
Values (2007) 196 220.12 A. Nordmann, No future for nanotechnology? Historical development vs. global expansion, in:
Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, in: Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Springer, 2010.15 R. A w. Rhodes, Understanding governance:
Stud. 28 (2007) 1243 1264.16 M. Roco, The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years, J. Nanopart.
Res. 13 (2011) 427 445.17 K. E. Drexler, Engines of creation, The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, Anchor Press, New york, 1987.18 K. E. Drexler
, C. Peterson, G. Pergamit, Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology Revolution, William Morrow, New york, 1991.19 G. Bachmann, Technologieanalyse Nanotechnologie, VDI Technologieanalyse, in:
VDI, Düsseldorf, 1994.20 POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, in: Making it in Miniature Nanotechnology Report Summery, POST, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology policy, London, 1996, p. 4. 451 P. Schaper-Rinkel/Technological forecasting & Social Change
80 (2013) 444 452 21 I. Malsch, Nanotechnology in Europe: Experts'Perceptions and Scientific Relations Between Sub-areas, Brussels Luxembourg, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, 1997.22 National science and Technology Council, Nanotechnology, in:
Shaping the World Atom by Atom, 1999, p. 12 S, Washington. 23 L. M. Pytlikzillig, A j. Tomkins, Public engagement for informing science and technology policy:
what do we know, what do need we to know, and how will we get there?
Policy Res. 28 (2011) 197 217.24 M. Powell, D. L. Kleinman, Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making:
Sci. 17 (2008) 329 348.25 R. Zimmer, R. Hertel, G.-F. Böl, Bfr Consumer Conference Nanotechnology, Federal Institute for Risk assessment, Berlin
, 2009.26 P. Dannemand Andersen, B. Rasmussen, M. Strange, J. Haisler, Technology foresight on Danish nanoscience and nano-technology, Foresight, J. Futur.
Chang. 76 (2009) 1187 1197.35 C. Milburn, Nanotechnology in the age of posthuman engineering: science fiction as science, Configurations 10 (2002) 261 296.36 S. Kaplan, J. Radin, Bounding an emerging technology:
para-scientific media and the Drexler Smalley debate about nanotechnology, Soc. Stud. Sci. 41 (2011) 457 485.37 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Nanostructure Science and Technology, R&d Status and Trends in Nanoparticles, Nanostructured Materials,
and Nanodevices, 1999.38 M. C. Roco, W s. Bainbridge, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: NSET Workshop Report, National science Foundation (NSF), 2001.39 E. Fisher, Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI:
planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program, Technol. Soc. 27 (2005) 321 328.40 M d. Cobb, Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology, Sci.
Commun. 27 (2005) 221 239.41 M d. Cobb, J. Macoubrie, Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trusts, J. Nanopart.
Res. 6 (2004) 395 405.42 O. Renn, M. C. Roco, Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance, J. Nanopart.
Res. 8 (2006) 153.43 D. Barben, E. Fisher, C. Selin, D. H. Guston, Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology:
foresight, engagement, and integration, in: O. A. Edward, J. Hackett, Michael E. Lynch, Judy Wajcman (Eds.
Soc. 24 (2002) 93 109.45 NSTC, National science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology, The National Nanotechnology Initiative:
Washington. 46 M. C. Roco, Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology, How the U s. Government is Dealing with the Immediate and Long-term issues of this New technology, Environmental science & Technology, 2005.
Chang. 77 (2010) 1448 1456.48 A. Zweck, G. Bachmann, W. Luther, C. Ploetz, Nanotechnology in Germany:
Responsible Use of Nanotechnologies: Report and Recommendations of the German Federal government's Nanokommission for 2008,2008. 51 Nanokommission of the German Federal government, Responsible use of nanotechnologies:
report and recommendations of the German Nanokommission 2011, in: W.-M. Catenhusen, A. Grobe (Eds.
Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), 2011, Berlin. 52 BMBF, Action Plan Nanotechnology 2015, BMBF, Bonn, 2011.53 T
Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience, Res. Policy 37 (2008) 888.54 ETC Group action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration), Size matters!
Nanotechnology. Small Matter, Many Unknowns, 2004, p. 57s, Zürich. 56 B. Wynne, Public participation in science and technology:
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011