Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The promise of scientific and technological innovation – particularly in fields such as nanotechnology – is increasingly set against what has been articulated as a deficit in public trust in both the new technologies and regulatory mechanisms. Whilst the development of new technology is cast as providing contributions to both quality of life and national competitiveness, what has been termed a ‘legitimacy crisis’ is seen as threatening the vitality of this process. However in contrast to the risk debates that dominated the technological controversies of the late 1990s the vitality of technological innovation is now cast as vulnerable to lack of public confidence and trust in the regulatory and governance structures upon which such innovation depends. In order to address this deficit in public trust, science policy has increasingly turned to the social sciences, suggesting that public values might be incorporated into the development of nanotechnology at an early stage. Public ambivalence therefore constitutes the problem addressed by the increasingly central role that public engagement and participation play in contemporary science policy. Although the recent proliferation of public engagement activities is premised on the need to address this ambivalence through direct engagement, we re-interpret ambivalence as an engaged – rather than passive – mode of relating to technological determinism. Whilst the move toward forms of direct public engagement might be regarded as symptomatic of the emergence of affective mode of governance we interpret public ambivalence as a nested set of enthusiasms and anxieties. Accordingly we suggest that public engagement might be re-thought, utilising ambivalence as a creative resource, rather than as the problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The COPUS programme is a grant scheme initiated in 1987 by the Committee on the Public Understanding of Science.

  2. This policy change is also evident in the authors’ informal communications with policy makers. In conversation a civil servant, responsible for science communication, reflected on the emergence of consensus upstream public engagement, commenting that ‘5 years ago we were doing science communication, yesterday it was dialogue, and today we are doing upstream engagement’.

  3. As above.

  4. The Public Understanding of Science model was first articulated, in policy terms, in the Bodmer Report [30] See [31] for a genealogy policy developments from the public understanding model to a ‘new mood for dialogue’ as outline in the House of Lords Science and Society Report.

  5. This research was conducted during the ESRC funded project: Nanotechnology, Risk and Sustainability: Moving Public Engagement Upstream. The project used a sample of five in-depth focus groups, each of which met twice, with a gap of 1 week between the sessions. Participants were recruited on the basis of their existing participation in local community or political issues, but with no prior involvement or exposure to nanotechnology. See [13] for further details of this research and methodologies utilised.

  6. Isin is close here to a number of authors who have commented on the emergence of fear as a new political discourse in the context of the current ‘war on terror’ [41, 43, 44].

  7. See also [50] and [51] for recent articulations of deliberation in relation to nanotechnology.

References

  1. Blair T (2002) Science matters (speech). Available at: (http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1715.asp)

  2. Anderson B (2007) Hope for nanotechnology: anticipatory knowledge and the governance of affect. Area 39(2):156–;165

    Google Scholar 

  3. Macnaghten PM, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. HM Treasury/Department of Trade and Industry/Department of Education and Skills (2004) Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014. HM Treasury, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baumann Z (1991) Modernity and ambivalence. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baumann Z (1997) Postmodernity and its discontents. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10(3):445–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beck U (1992) Risk society: towards a new modernity. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beck U, Giddens A, Lash S (eds) (1994) Reflexive modernisation: politics, tradition and the aesthetic in modern social order. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kerr A, Cunningham-Burley S (2000) On ambivalence and risk: reflexive modernity and the new human genetics. Sociology 34(2):283–304

    Google Scholar 

  12. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kearnes MB, Macnaghten M, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kearnes MB, Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the agriculture biotechnology controversy in the UK. Sci Cult 15(4):291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. HM Government (2005) The Government’s outline programme for public engagement on nanotechnologies. Department of Trade and Industry, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. European Commission (2004) Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  18. Arnall AH (2003) Future technologies, today’s choices: nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and Robotics. Greenpeace, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wood S, Jones R, Geldart A (2003) The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Economic and Social Research Council, London

    Google Scholar 

  20. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy Engineering, London

    Google Scholar 

  21. Better Regulation Task Force (2003) Scientific research: innovation with controls. Better Regulation Task Force, London

    Google Scholar 

  22. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1998) Setting environmental standards. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2000) Science and society. HMSO, London

    Google Scholar 

  24. Involve (2005) The Nanotechnology Engagement Group: an introduction. Involve, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Department of Trade and Industry/Department for Education and Skills/HM Treasury (2006) Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014: annual report 2006. HMSO, Norwich

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hagendijk RP (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva 42:41–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Irwin A (2006) The politics of talk: coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Soc Stud Sci 36(2):299–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. European Commission (2002) Science and society action plan. Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wynne B (1995) The public understanding of science. In: Jasanoff S, Markle GE, Peterson JC, Pinch T (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 361–388

    Google Scholar 

  30. Royal Society (1985) The public understanding of science. The Royal Society, London

    Google Scholar 

  31. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  32. Michael M, Brown N (2005) Scientific citizenships: self-representations of xenotransplantation’s publics. Sci Cult 14(1):39–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Weber M (1962) Basic concepts in sociology. Peter Owen, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rose N (1999) Powers of freedom: reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  35. Eliasoph N (1998) Avoiding politics: how Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Young IM (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  38. Grove-White R, Macnaghten P, Mayer S, Wynne B (1997) Uncertain world: genetically modified organisms, food and public attitudes in Britain Lancaster. Lancaster University, in association with Unilever, Lancaster, UK

  39. Irwin A, Wynne B (2000) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  40. Anderson B (2006) Becoming and being hopeful: towards a theory of affect. Environ Plann D 35(5):733–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Massumi B (2005) Fear (The spectrum Said). Positions 13(1):31–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Isin I (2004) The neurotic citizen. Citizsh Stud 8(3):217–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Furedi F (2005) Politics of fear: beyond left and right. Continuum, London

    Google Scholar 

  44. Curtis A (2005) The power of nightmares. BBC, UK (screened: 18 January 2005)

  45. Cohen J (1989) Deliberative democracy and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit P (eds) The good polity. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 17–34

    Google Scholar 

  46. Dryzek JS (1996) Democracy in capitalist times: ideals, limits, and struggles. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dryzek JS (1990) Discursive democracy: politics, policy and political Science. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  48. Joss S, Durant J (eds) (1995) Public participation in science: the role of consensus conferences in Europe. The Science Museum, London

  49. Joss S (1999) Public participation in science and technology policy- and decision-making – ephemeral phenomenon or lasting change? Sci Public Policy 26(5):290–293

    Google Scholar 

  50. Schomberg R, Pereira AG, Funtowicz S (2005) Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment: a working document from the European Commission Services. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  52. Elam M, Bertilsson M (2003) Consuming, engaging and confronting science: the emerging dimensions of scientific citizenship. Eur J Soc Theory 6(2):233–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hagendijk RP, Irwin A (2006) Public deliberation and governance: engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva 44:167–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Benhabib S (1996) Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kearnes MB (2006) Chaos and control: nanotechnology and the politics of emergence. Paragraph 29(2):57–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kearnes MB (2007) (Re) making matter: design and selection. Area 39(2):143–;155

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mody C (2006) Small, but determined: technological determinism in nanoscience. In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 95–130

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editors of this special issue and an anonymous reviewer of this paper, for their productive comments. All errors remain, of course, our own.

This paper draws on the ESRC funded project: Nanotechnology, Risk and Sustainability: Moving Public Engagement Upstream (ESRC: RES-338-25-0006). All quoted focus group material stems from this project. We would like to thank the other members of the research team (including Robin Grove-White, Phil Macnaghten, and James Wilsdon).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography, Durham University, Durham, UK

    Matthew Kearnes

  2. Centre for the Social and Economic Aspects of Genomics, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Brian Wynne

Authors
  1. Matthew Kearnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Wynne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Kearnes.

Additional information

This paper draws on the ESRC funded project: Nanotechnology, Risk and Sustainability: Moving Public Engagement Upstream (ESRC: RES-338-25-0006).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kearnes, M., Wynne, B. On Nanotechnology and Ambivalence: The Politics of Enthusiasm. Nanoethics 1, 131–142 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0014-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0014-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation