Dear colleagues!
We invite papers for a special issue in the journal “NanoEthics: Studies of
New and Emerging Technologies”.
After the hype is before the hype – from bio to nano to AI: What can we
learn from public engagement in nanosciences and nanotechnologies?
Since the early 2000’s, Nanosciences and nanotechnologies (NST) have been
massively promoted in many parts of the world. Two things were striking about
these policies: first, the hype surrounding NST; second, the prominence of
public engagement—citizen dialogue, deliberation and participation—in NST
discourse and policy. Nanotechnology became a laboratory for the programmatic
and practical development of a range of forms of public engagement such as
“upstream” and “midstream engagement”, or policy approaches that
prominently integrate public engagement such as “anticipatory governance”,
“real-time technology assessment”, or “responsible research and
innovation”.
From bio to nano: A major reason for this noticeable rise of public engagement
in NST are the food scandals and technology controversies in the late
1990’s, in particular the controversy over genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). These controversies came to be seen as the result of elites’
reductionist and arrogant approach to the public. To avoid a similar public
backlash against NST authorities and decision-makers in science and politics
should open doors for public engagement and humble dialogue. Obviously, the
public crisis around GMOs had triggered a learning process.
From nano to AI: Today, the hype surrounding NST has waned and so have
concerns that nanotechnology might fall prey to a public backlash. Nothing
comparable to the public backlash against GMOs ever happened to Nano. In fact,
NST hardly became controversial. Meanwhile, new technology hypes pervade the
public discourse. Synthetic biology, genetic editing or Artificial
Intelligence (AI) are recent examples. In each case, we observe parallels to
the discourses on public engagement in NST. In the case of AI, for example,
prominent researchers and think tanks warn against a public backlash if policy
makers and funders fail to foster public support through public engagement.
From bio to nano to AI: We suggest that social learning processes intertwined
with technology hypes pervade these and other arenas of technology governance.
While the GM controversy had a visible (albeit not yet fully understood)
effect on the NST field, today, we ask which lessons can be drawn – and have
been drawn by science policy actors – from the NST field? Where do we stand
today after 20 years of public engagement in nanotechnology and other emerging
technologies, and what is there to learn for the “new governance” of most
recently hyped technologies such as AI?
Possible topics include:
Societal effects and social learnings of Public Engagement (PE)
- How can we conceptualize the social learning processes which seem to
manifest in technology governance over the past twenty years? Have new
patterns of interpretation been established regarding the nature of a
successful or failed technology governance? If so, how can they be described
and distinguished from the “old” patterns of interpretation?
- Does the fact that NST mostly remained uncontroversial mean that the
early emphasis on public engagement in the NST field made it more “socially
robust”, “democratic” and “reflexive”? Have the right “lessons”
been drawn (from the past for the future)?
- Why and how does the trend toward public engagement manifest itself in
different national political cultures? How did certain public engagement
formats travel across national borders in the NST policy field?
PE between hype and reflexivity
- What happens after the hype? With enthusiastic/dystopian discourse
subsiding, do public engagement activities also vane? What happened to the
engagement hype and to ambitious policy metaphors such as “upstream
engagement”? Have they been forgotten? Will they reappear, or be reinvented,
with the next big techno hype?
- For the social sciences nanotechnology has provided an opportunity to
step up research and policy intervention. How can the role/agency of the
social sciences in public engagement processes be conceptualized? In which way
has this role changed in the past 20 years? Which role conflicts or normative
dilemmas arise from it?
PE between strategic and transformative uses
- Did public engagement (ever) make a difference in the governance of
NST or other emerging technologies? How have public engagement initiatives
been integrated (or ignored) in the governance of NST and other emerging
technologies?
- Has public engagement had identifiable impacts on policies or
institutions related to NST or other fields of technoscientific discourse and
policy? Did public engagement have the effect of problematizing, shifting or
even reshaping epistemic and political demarcation lines between the public,
scientific expertise and policy subsystems? What can we expect for the
future?
Several formats are available. We specifically invite original research
papers. In addition, contributions can come in the form of shorter discussion
notes, communications and responses, letters, art-science interactions,
interviews or anecdotes, and book reviews.
Schedule
Proposals: May 5th 2019
First Draft: August 31st 2019
Final draft: January 31st 2020
Please, send proposals to both Franz Seifert (fseifert@gmx.at
) and Camilo Fautz (c.fautz@mailbox.org
)
___
EASST's Eurograd mailing list
Eurograd (at) lists.easst.net
Unsubscribe or edit subscription options: http://lists.easst.net/listinfo.cgi/eurograd-easst.net
Meet us via https://twitter.com/STSeasst
Report abuses of this list to Eurograd-owner@lists.easst.net
