A map of the nanoworld: Sizing up the science, politics, and business of the infinitesimal

Munshi, Debashish; Kurian, Priya; Bartlett, Robert V.; Lakhtakia, Akhlesh

doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.08.003

Cited by 24 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In charting a map of the nanoworld, Munshi et al (2007) show how power plays out in the core struggles to not only define what constitutes nanotechnology but also around the ways in which the field should be developed and regulated (p446).…”

Section: Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there is much also to be said about the control of science and technology itself: science politics more than public politics. According to Munshi et al (2007), serious attention to governance matters had been slow to appear in any of the major nanotechnology discourse nodes, with the most significant literatures developing first in law, scientometrics, and humanistic analysis of ideology. By 2009, however, a small amount of literature has emerged on nanotechnology governance, although much of it is a rather superficial acknowledgment of the potential political implications of nanotechnology and the occasional applications of well-established political theories, concepts, and methods to nanotechnology policies and expected consequences.…”

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There can also be regional variances. Munshi et al (2007) refer to the distinctions between US and UK definitions (1 and 100 nanometres (nm) for the former, between 0.2 and 100 nm for the latter). The 'A to Z' of nanotechnology (2009) from Australia, sourced from the National Nanotechnology Institute, claims US and UK definitions to be analogous, with the Japanese at variance with the 50 to 100nm range classified as 'ultrafines'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Munshi et al (2007) The fiction of the real can be, of course, both utopian and dystopian. The proclaimed limitless capacities of nanotechnology to manipulate matter as we know it has also opened up fears about the destructive potential of a technology without harness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Nanotechnology, Society, and Environment

Murphy¹,

Munshi²,

Kurian³

et al. 2011

Comprehensive Nanoscience and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SynopsisNanotechnology talk is moving out of its comfort zone of scientific discourse. As new products go to market and national and international organizations roll out public engagement programs on nanotechnology to discuss environmental and health issues, various sectors of the public are beginning to discuss what all the fuss is about. NonGovernmental Organizations have long since reacted; however, now the social sciences have begun to study the cultural phenomenon of nanotechnology, thus extending discourses and opening out nanotechnology to whole new social dimensions. We report here on these social dimensions and their new constructed imaginings, each of which is evident in the ways in which discourses around nanotechnology intersects with the economy, ecology, health, governance, and imagined futures. We conclude that there needs to be more than just an 'environmental, legal and social implications', or 'ELSI', sideshow within nanotechnology. The collective public imaginings of nanotechnology include tangles of science and science fiction, local enterprise and global transformation, all looking forward towards a sustainable future, while looking back on past debates about science and nature. Nanotechnology is already very much embedded in the social fabric of our life and times. IntroductionThe six volumes in this series have described powerful opportunities that nanotechnology presents for society, as represented by those of us who work within and around the physical sciences. But how is nanotechnology represented to and understood by the rest of society? What are the risks, benefits and other perspectives of nanotechnology that can be said to be shared knowledge among and between nano-specialists and non-specialists?Much of the discussion on nanotechnology covered in this chapter is often placed under the banner of environmental health and safety (EHS) issues or environmental, legal and social implications (ELSI), separating them from the science of nanomaterials. We prefer, however, to fix our gaze on the shared visions of technological specialists and nonspecialists alike when imagining a world with nanotechnology. As nanotechnology is seen as an important future development, scientific, technological, health and environmental issues associated with its application are expected to be closely linked to wider social, ethical and cultural concerns.This chapter focuses then on what can broadly be called the 'public imaginary' of nanotechnology. In this context, the term 'public' needs to be defined better. We refer 3 here to 'publics' rather than a singular public, reflecting the contemporary sociological view that science and technology is understood and used by various different public contexts, and that scientists of different hues are also part of these publics. We do not have the space here to present a detailed case about why understanding public perspectives on science is important. But the various perspectives of nanotechnology here will present enough evidence about the complexities of nanotechn...

show abstract

Section: Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Nanotechnology, Society, and Environment

Murphy¹,

Munshi²,

Kurian³

et al. 2011

Comprehensive Nanoscience and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…that generate a significant amount of literature; 4) social science and humanities researchers who tend to focus on the social, economic, political, legal, religious, philosophical, and ethical implications of nanotechnology; 5) fiction writers with imaginative scenarios, both utopian and dystopian; 6) political activists, particularly those with an environmental worldview, who tend to extend to nanotechnology the issues long raised by them with regard to biotechnology; 7) journalists and popular science writers who report on current events, perspectives, and funding regimes relating to the field; and 8) John Q. and Jane D. Public, who have yet to significantly grapple with or discuss nanotechnology in any depth [20].…”

Section: The Promisementioning

confidence: 99%