Constructive Technology Assessment of Emerging Nanotechnologies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Constructive Technology Assessment of Emerging Nanotechnologies Experiments in Interactions i Graduation Committee: Chair: prof.dr. P.J.J.M. van Loon Secretary: prof.dr. P.J.J.M. van Loon University of Twente Promoter: prof.dr. A. Rip University of Twente Members: prof.dr. P-B Joly University Paris-Est prof.dr. H. van Lente University of Utrecht / University of Maastricht prof.dr. J. Grin Amsterdam University prof.dr. S. Kuhlmann University of Twente prof.dr. A. Groen University of Twente prof.dr.ir D.H.A. Blank University of Twente © Douglas Keith Raymond Robinson The front and back cover image was taken from Stock.XCHNG (www.sxc.hu) free online image repository and is used in accordance with the Image Licence Agreement allowing for royalty free use in books and promotional material. The photograph was taken by David-Kingsley Kendel and provided royalty free to Stock.XCHNG. Printed by Ipskamp drukkers BV, Enschede, NL. ii CONSTRUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT OF EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES EXPERIMENTS IN INTERACTIONS DISSERTATION to obtain the degree of doctor at the University of Twente, on the authority of the rector magnificus, prof.dr. H. Brinksma, on account of the decision of the graduation committee, to be publicly defended on Thursday the 25th of November 2010 at 13h15 by Douglas Keith Raymond Robinson born on the 16th of December 1978 in Newport (Casnewydd), Wales, United Kingdom iii This dissertation is approved by the promotor prof.dr Arie Rip iv Acknowledgements Thanking all of those who have facilitated the research activity presented in this dissertation would stretch to a chapter in of itself. There were nanoscientists, companies, analysts and many researchers in STS and innovation studies who have been part of my academic life during the preparation of this dissertation. I thank you all, if not by name. There were a number of people who played a major role in the development of this thesis who deserve to be singled out for their contribution. I would like to thank Arie Rip for his support as a promotor and mentor both as part of this research activity and elsewhere. Arie has provided guidance inside and outside of the office without which this dissertation would never have materialised. In the same way, I would like to thank Tilo Propp as a friend, a colleague, drinking and intellectual sparring partner throughout my PhD activity. I am grateful to the Frontiers Network of Excellence, particularly Jan-Willem Weener, Rolf Vermeij, Vinod Subramaniam and Monique Snippers for having faith in a PhD student and providing financial and moral support during the development and evolution of my CTA experiments. I would like to thank Catherine Paradeise and Philippe Larédo for their support and comments during my stay at Le Laboratoire Techniques, Territoires et Sociétés (LATTS) at the Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées from September 2008 - April 2009 –supported by the PRIME Network of Excellence. Also, many thanks to Aurélie Delemarle for our interactions in the PRIME Nanodistricts project and during my time in LATTS. Also worthy of acknowledgement is Rutger van Merkerk, for a fun year in the world of lab-on-a- chip and an invaluable experience in what collaboration can lead to. I would like to thank Evelien, Hilde, Marjatta, Marcia and Gerdien for their patience and help with administrative issues throughout my time at STəPS. I would like to thank the WTMC graduate school for the broad spectrum of topics that I was exposed to during the workshops and summer schools that were part of the programme. Particularly, many thanks go out to the Paul Wouters, Annemiek Nelis, Els Rommes and Sally Wyatt for their advice around being an STS researcher and for organising fun and intellectually fulfilling events. Finally I would like to thank those who have provided support outside of my work; Froberry, Raybee, Mam, Danny, the Howe, Mikeyboy, Scooby Dave, Janne, Emily, Two Steps Abby and of course Grishka, a perfect little chap. This thesis was printed with financial support from the Dutch Graduate School of Science, Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC) and STəPS. v vi Table of Contents PART I Chapter 1 Topic and theme of the thesis 3 PART II Chapter 2 Technology agglomeration and emergence of nanodistricts 37 Chapter 3 Tracking the evolution of new and emerging S&T via 53 statement-linkages Chapter 4 Multi-path mapping as a tool for reflexive alignment in 81 emerging S&T Chapter 5 Co-evolutionary Scenarios 109 PART III Chapter 6 Insertion as a necessary element of CTA 145 Chapter 7 Developing empirical CTA 193 Chapter 8 Conclusions and reflections 231 APPENDICES Appendix 1 Integrated microfluidics for single and multiple cell analysis 251 Appendix 2 siRNA delivery innovation providing new tensions and 303 opportunities Appendix 3 The role of images of molecular machines inside and outside 349 the lab Appendix 4 Responsible research and innovation in nanotechnology 385 Appendix 5 Socio-technical and innovation issues and opportunities in 443 implant R&D Bibliography 493 Summary 511 Samenvatting 517 Curriculum Vitae 522 vii viii PART I 1 Introduction 2 Chapter 1 Chapter 1 Topic and theme of the thesis 1.0 Introduction In January 2003, the Dutch R&D consortium NanoNed (at first supported by special NanoImpulse funding) started its work, and from the beginning it included a component on Technology Assessment and Societal Aspects of Nanotechnology, organized as an additional “flagship”, labelled TA NanoNed. The pre-history of the consortium is interesting in its own right (and a glimpse is offered in Robinson, Rip & Mangematin, see Ch. 2). Important for the topic of this dissertation is that the proposal to have such a component on Technology Assessment and Societal Aspects of Nanotechnology was an initiative of the nano-scientists who pushed for the consortium, who had seen the discussions in the US and wanted to make sure that societal aspects of nanotechnology would be considered at an early stage. To begin with they invited Arie Rip (University of Twente), who had a record of working on technology assessment, to draw up a research program, building on the approach of Constructive Technology Assessment (see further below, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). That research program was the framework for the work presented in this dissertation. In this program, Constructive TA is conducted at an early stage of technology development, so as to be able to feed back into ongoing choices and strategies, i.e. to contribute to the ongoing construction of the new technology. It has three components: (1) analysis and diagnosis of ongoing developments, including expectations about the potential embedding in society; (2) anticipation on further developments and their embedding in society; (3) feedback of insights into ongoing discussions and choices. When doing concrete Constructive TA projects, one, or another, component can be emphasized over others. In the work for this dissertation, a decision was made at an early stage to take component (3) as an integral part of the methodology through the “insertion” (see 1.3) of the work into the world of nanoscientists and nanotechnologists. As it turned out, the European Network of Excellence Frontiers was receptive to this approach, and willing to fund the interactive exercises that were part of the methodology. With this brief introduction, it is visible already that in the case of nanotechnology, Constructive TA need not just be an exercise done by an analyst and then offered to technology developers and other actors interested in the emerging technology. These exercises are actually welcomed (and funded) by the technology developers and technology promoters, who see them as necessary to anticipate on societal 3 embedding, including possible reactions from various societal actors. In more theoretical terms: there is always co-evolution of technology and society, but anticipations are becoming more important, so that the co-evolution will be more reflexive. This overall change towards more reflexive co-evolution is the backdrop against which the work for this dissertation was carried out. It shaped the thinking about, and the design of, the approach, which is now formulated as contributing to increasing reflexivity of co-evolution, in addition to the concrete aims of improving technological development by having broader aspects taken into account. And it made such an approach feasible; because actors were recognizing the importance of being reflexive, even while they would also be constrained by their identification with further technological development (what I will call an ‘enactor’ perspective (see 1.2.3)). This first chapter will discuss the backdrop developments and on that basis, formulate research themes for the CTA approach. It will also offer a selective review of relevant literature, and define what needs to be done to turn the overall and somewhat programmatic CTA approach into an empirical venture that can be evaluated as to what it is able to achieve. Finally, it will specify the empirical approach that was developed and applied, including the element of “insertion” in the nanoworld. The next four chapters are published papers that present the analytic and diagnostic approach (component 1) and tools for anticipation (component 2). Chapters 6 and 7 present findings: insights derived from insertion in the nano-world, and insights based on analysis of the dedicated exercises that were done (the details are provided in the Appendices). Chapter 8, the final chapter, offers overall conclusions, and returns to the question of co-evolution of technology and society becoming more reflexive. 1.1 Emerging holes in the wall separating nanotechnology developments and society 1.1.1 Promising nanoscale technology Novel science and technologies emerge with both promises of enabling tremendous innovation potential and recognition of (and even warnings about) the enormous uncertainties and often unknowns.