Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Narratives of Mastery and Resistance: Lay Ethics of Nanotechnology

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

Abstract

This paper contributes towards a lay ethics of nanotechnology through an analysis of talk from focus groups designed to examine how laypeople grapple with the meaning of a technology ‘in-the-making’. We describe the content of lay ethical concerns before suggesting that this content can be understood as being structured by five archetypal narratives which underpin talk. These we term: ‘the rich get richer and the poor get poorer’; ‘kept in the dark’; ‘opening Pandora’s box’; ‘messing with nature’; and ‘be careful what you wish for’. We further suggest that these narratives can be understood as sharing an emphasis on the ‘giftedness’ of life, and that together they are used to resist dominant technoscientific and Enlightenment narratives of control and mastery which are encapsulated by nanotechnology.

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. Banks et al. [3], for example, examine the ways in which laypeople make ethical judgements around prenatal sex selection, identifying expressions of instinct, rational argument, reference to principles, use of personal experience, analogies and examples and slippery slope arguments within discussions.

  2. Several of these feature in the extract below, taken from a European Commission strategy document:

    Without a serious communication effort, nanotechnology innovations could face an unjust negative public reception. An effective two-way dialogue is indispensable, whereby the general public’s views are taken into account and may be seen to influence decisions concerning R&D policy. The public trust and acceptance of nanotechnology will be crucial for its long-term development and allow us to profit from its potential benefits. It is evident that the scientific community will have to improve its communication skills. (European Commission 2004: 19)

  3. These included the 2005 NanoJury UK, a citizen’s jury; the 2004–06 Small Talk programme, which sought to coordinate science communication-based dialogue activities; Democs, a conversation game designed to enable small groups of people to engage with complex public policy issues; the Nanodialogues project (2005–6), a series of practical experiments to explore whether the public can meaningfully inform decision-making processes related to emerging technologies in four different institutional contexts; and the ESRC funded ‘Moving Public Engagement Upstream’ project (2004–06), set up to examine the contribution of nanotechnology to sustainable development by developing socially and environmentally-sensitive governance processes which move the site of public engagement upstream.

  4. The groups were: a church group; a student environmental and social justice group; a group of (female) users of organic products and alternative therapies; a group of (male) ‘confident supporters’ of technology; a group with interests in local community involvement; and a group who saw themselves as having management responsibilities in their workplaces.

  5. All names have been changed to ensure anonymity, although the gender of the speaker is indicated by the name given; in this case, ‘Sam’ is male. ‘Mod’ represents the researcher charged with moderating the discussion.

References

  1. Babbage F (2004) Augusto Boal. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Bainbridge WS (2002) Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 4(6):561–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banks S, Scully JL, Shakespeare T (2006) Ordinary ethics: lay people’s deliberations on social sex selection. New Genet Soc 25(3):289–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bensaude-Vincent B (2004) Two cultures of nanotechnology? Hyle 10(2):65–82

    Google Scholar 

  5. BMRB Social Research (2004) Nanotechnology: views of the general public. Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the Nanotechnology study. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Castellini OM, Walejko GK, Holladay CE, Theim TJ, Zenner GM, Crone WC (2007) Nanotechnology and the public: effectively communicating nanoscale science and engineering concepts. J Nanopart Res 9(2):183–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Currall SC, King EB, Lane N, Madera J, Turner S (2006) What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nat Nanotechnol 1(3):153–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dupuy J-P (2000) The mechanization of the mind: on the origins of cognitive science. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  10. European Commission (2004) Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology. Luxembourg: Commission of the European Communities

  11. Felt U, Wynne B (Eds) (2007) Science and governance: taking european knowledge society seriously. Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission, Brussels

  12. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4, no. 1 (April 1): 27–52. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0081-z

  13. Feynman R (1960) There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom. Engineering and Science

  14. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2004) From our readers: public attitudes to nanotech in Europe and the United States. Nat Mater 3(8):496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gaskell G, Ten Eyck T, Jackson J, Veltri G (2005) Imagining nanotechnology: cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States. Public Underst Sci 14(1):81–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gavelin K, Wilson R, Doubleday R (2007) Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve, London

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heller A (2006) European master-narratives about freedom. In: Delanty G (ed) Handbook of European social theory. Routledge, London, pp 257–265

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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 

  19. Irwin A, Wynne B (1996) Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Kearnes MB (2008) Informationalising matter: systems understandings of the nanoscale. Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2(1):99–111

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kjolberg K, Wickson F (2007) Social and ethical interactions with nano: mapping the early literature. NanoEthics 1(2):89–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Law J (2004) After method: mess in social science research. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies—Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lyotard J-F (1979) The postmodern condition: a report on knowledge. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  26. Macnaghten P (2009) Researching technoscientific concerns in the making: narrative structures, public responses and emerging nanotechnologies. Environ Plann A. 41, Advance online publication. doi:10.1068/a41349

  27. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington

  28. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15(2):221–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nerlich B, Clarke DD, Ulph F (2007) Risks and benefits of nanotechnology: how young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health Risk & Society 9(2):159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Nordmann A (2005) Noumenal technology: reflections on the incredible tininess of nano. Techne 8(3):3–23

    Google Scholar 

  31. Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2007) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. Project On Emerging Nanotechnologies, The Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars, Washington

  32. Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2008) Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., Washington

    Google Scholar 

  33. Responsible Nano Code (2008) Information on the responsible nano code initiative. Responsible Futures, London

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sandel MJ (2004) The case against perfection: what’s wrong with designer children, bionic athletes, and genetic engineering. The Atlantic Online, 2004

  35. Sandel MJ (2007) The case against perfection: ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Harvard University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sandler R (2009) Nanotechnology: the social and ethical issues. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schutz H, Wiedemann PM (2008) Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 17(3):369–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Scully JL, Banks S, Shakespeare TW (2006) Chance, choice and control: lay debate on prenatal social sex selection. Soc Sci Med 63(1):21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scully JL, Shakespeare T, Banks S (2006) Gift not commodity? Lay people deliberating social sex selection. Sociol Health Illn 28(6):749–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Song R (2002) Human genetics: fabricating the future. Darton, Longman and Todd, London

    Google Scholar 

  41. Strassnig M (2008) Ethics is like a book that one reads when one has time: exploring lay ‘ethical’ knowledge in a public engagement setting. Dissertation: University of Vienna

  42. Toumey C (2005) Apostolic succession. Sci Eng 68(1&2):16–23

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wynne B (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genet 9(3):211–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Sarah R. Davies

  2. Durham University, Durham, UK

    Phil Macnaghten

Authors
  1. Sarah R. Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phil Macnaghten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah R. Davies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davies, S.R., Macnaghten, P. Narratives of Mastery and Resistance: Lay Ethics of Nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4, 141–151 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0096-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-010-0096-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation