Public “upstream engagement” and other approaches to the social control of technology are currently receiving international attention in policy discourses around emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. To the extent that such approaches hold implications for research and development (R&D) activities, the distinct participation of scientists and engineers is required. The capacity of technoscientists to broaden the influences on R&D activities, however, implies that they conduct R&D differently. This article discusses the possibility for more reflexive participation by scientists and engineers in the internal governance of technology development. It reviews various historical attempts to govern technoscience and introduces the concept of midstream modulation, through which scientists and engineers, ideally in concert with others, bring societal considerations to bear on their work.
Allenby, B. R., & Richards, D. J. (Eds.). (1994). The greening of industrial ecosystems. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
2.
Bennett-Woods, D., & Fisher, E. (2004, August). Dilemmas in nanotechnology: Towards a new paradigm for analysis and dialogue. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology and the Society of Social Studies of Science, Paris, France.
3.
Bijker, W. (1995). Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Bijker, W., Hughes, T., & Pinch, T. (1989). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Bonds, P. J. (2003, December). Technology administration: Nanotechnology: Economic opportunities, societal and ethical challenges. Keynote address given at NanoCommerce, Chicago.
6.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8.
Collingridge, D. (1981). The social control of technology. London: Macmillan.
9.
Fisher, E. (2005). Lessons learned from the ELSI program: Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program. Technology in Society, 27, 321-328.
10.
Fisher, E., & Benassi, M. (2003, June). Writing as design: Integrating composition and product design in the undergraduate engineering curriculum. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Nashville, TN.
11.
Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006a). Contradictory intent? U.S. federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy, 33(1), 5-16.
12.
Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R. L. (2006b, November). Midstream modulation of nanotechnology research in an academic laboratory. Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Chicago.
13.
Gorman, M. E, Groves, J. F., & Catalano, R. K. (2004). Societal dimensions of nanotechnology. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23(4), 55-62.
14.
Guston, D. (2004). Forget politicizing science. Let’s democratize scienceIssues in Science and Technology, 21(1), 1-4.
15.
Guston, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1-2), 93-109.
16.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Science and Society. (2000, February 23). Science and technology—Third report: Science and society. London: House of Lords.
17.
Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3), 349-358.
18.
Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva, 41, 223-244.
19.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics: Vol. 1 (pp. xix-xxvii). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference.
20.
Kass, L. R. (2006, January). Forbidding science: Some beginning reflections. Paper presented at the conference Forbidding Science: Balancing Freedom, Innovation, Security & Precaution, Tempe, AZ.
21.
Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 12-30.
22.
Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Law, J. (1987). Technology and heterogeneous engineering: The case of Portuguese expansion. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 111-134). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Macnaughten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication, 27, 1-24.
26.
Martin, M. W., & Schinzinger, R. (1996). Ethics in engineering (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
27.
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point.
28.
Mitcham, C. (1994a). Engineering design research and social responsibility. In K. S. Shrader-Frechette (Ed.), Research ethics (pp. 153-168). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
29.
Mitcham, C. (1994b). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Mitcham, C. (1999). Why the public should participate in technical decision making. In R. von Schomberg (Ed.), Democratising technology: Theory and practice of a deliberative technology policy (pp. 39-50). Hengelo, the Netherlands: International Centre for Human and Public Affairs.
31.
Mitcham, C. (2003a) Co-responsibility for research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(2), 273-290.
32.
Mitcham, C. (2003b). Professional idealism among scientists and engineers: A neglected tradition in STS studies. Technology in Society, 25, 249-262.
33.
Mitcham, C., & Frodeman, R. (2004). New dimensions in the philosophy of science: Toward a philosophy of science policy. Philosophy Today, 48(5/5), 9-14.
34.
Newberry, B. (in press). Are engineers instrumentalists?Technology in Society.
35.
Nordan, M. M. (2005, November 17). Nanotech environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks: Action needed (Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science). Available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full05/nov%252017/Nordan.pdf
36.
Pielke, R. A., Jr., & Byerly, R., Jr. (1998). Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today, 51(2), 41-46.
37.
Rejeski, D. (2005). Introduction. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (p. 5-5). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/techassessment.pdf
38.
Roco, M., & Bainbridge, S. (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
39.
Rip, A. (2002). Co-evolution of science, technology and society. Expert review for Bundesministerium Bildung und Forchung Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as managed by Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
40.
Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—and its ironies. In J. Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82-100). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
41.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. Resources and Technology, 2, 327-399.
42.
Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (1995). Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.
43.
Rodemeyer, M. (2005). Back to the future: Revisiting OTA ten years later. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 6-13). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/techassessment.pdf
44.
Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of illusion: Science, technology and politics of progress. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
45.
Sarewitz, D. (2005). This won’t hurt a bit: Assessing and governing rapidly advancing technologies in a democracy. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 14-21). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/techassessment.pdf
46.
Sarewitz, D., & Woodhouse, E. (2003). Small is powerful. In A. Lightman, D. Sarewitz, & C. Desser (Eds.), Living with the genie: Essays on technology and the quest for human mastery (pp. 63-83). Washington DC: Island.
47.
Schot, J. (1992). Constructive technology assessment and technology dynamics: The case of technology dynamics. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 17, 36-56.
48.
Schot, J., & Rip, A. (1997). The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 54, 251-268.
49.
Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford.
50.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1991). Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
51.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1995). Technology assessment. In W. Reich (Ed.), Encyclopedia of bioethics (2nd rev. ed., Vol. 5, pp. 2484-2490). New York: Macmillan.
52.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Thompson, E. P. (1968). The making of the English working class (New ed.). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
54.
21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Public Law 108-153 (2003).
55.
U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science. (2003). Report 108-89 (S. Boehlert, U.S. House of Representatives, 108th Congress, 1st Session). Washington, DC: Author.
56.
U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (1989). Human Genome Initiative hearing. Washington, DC: Author.
57.
Van den Ende, J., Mulder, K., Knot, M., Moors, E., & Vergragt, P. (1998). Traditional and modern technology assessment: Toward a toolkit—A research methodology and learning strategy for social impact assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 58(1), 5-21.
58.
Van de Poel, I. (2000). On the role of outsiders in technical development. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3), 383-397.
59.
Vanderburg, W. H. (1995). Preventive engineering: Strategy for dealing with negative social and environmental implications of technology. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 121(3), 155-160.
60.
Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
61.
Wilsdon, J. (2005). Paddling upstream: New currents in European technology assessment. In M. Rodemeyer, D. Sarewitz, & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), The future of technology assessment (pp. 22-29). Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/techassessment.pdf
62.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
63.
Wilsdon, J., Wynne, B., & Stilgoe, J. (2005). The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters. London: Demos.
64.
Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65.
Winston, R. (2005). Foreword. In J. Wilsdon, B. Wynne, & J. Stigloe (Eds.), The public value of science: Or how to ensure that science really matters (pp. 11-13). London: Demos.
