The common scientific metaphor linking microscopic phenomena to new or subvisible worlds in images and text has also been used to describe nanoscale phenomena. However, on closer examination, some images of the nanoscale reveal a shift away from the trope’s association with microscopic worlds and toward participatory, computer-generated worlds. This shift articulates different relations between the nanoscale and the macroscopic scale, relations that also affect how we position ourselves in relation to nanoscale phenomena and so affect the formation of nanotechnology. These different relations also create different ways to understand the nanoscale, scientific communication, and the shaping of scientific knowledge.
AlpersS. (1983). The art of describing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BaconF. (1863). The new organon: Or true directions concerning the interpretation of nature (SpeddingJ.EllisR. L.HeathD. D., Trans.). Boston, MA: Taggard & Thompson. (Original work published 1620). Retrieved from http://www.constitution.org/bacon/nov_org.htm
3.
BairdD.ShewA. (2004). Probing the history of scanning tunneling microscopy. In BairdD.NordmannA.SchummerJoachim (Eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale (pp. 145-156). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
4.
BaradK. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
BlackM. (1962). Models and metaphors. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
7.
BraumanJ. (1991). Room at the bottom. Science, 254, 1277.
8.
BrownT. (2003). Making truth: Metaphor in science. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
9.
BuchwaldJ. (2000). How the ether spawned the microworld. In DastonL. (Ed.), Biographies of scientific objects (pp. 203-225). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
BurkeK. (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.
CrandallB. C. (Ed.). (1996). Nanotechnology: Molecular speculations on global abundance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
13.
CrommieM. F.LutzC. P.EiglerD. M. (1993). Confinement of electrons to quantum corrals on a metal surface. Science, 262, 218-220.
14.
DastonL.GalisonP. (2007). Objectivity. New York, NY: Zone Books.
15.
DrexlerK. E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York, NY: Doubleday.
16.
EdieJ. (1976). Speaking and meaning: The phenomenology of language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17.
EdwardsP. (1997). The closed world: Computers and the politics of discourse in cold war America. Cambridge: MIT Press.
18.
EiglerD. (1999). From the bottom up: Building things with atoms. In TimpG. (Ed.), Nanotechnology (pp. 425-436). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
19.
ElkinsJ. (1994). Art history and the criticism of computer-generated images. Leonardo, 27, 335-342.
20.
ElkinsJ. (1995). The object stares back: On the nature of seeing. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
21.
ElkinsJ. (1999). The domain of images. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
22.
FahnestockJ. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
23.
FeynmanR. (1961). There’s plenty of room at the bottom. In GilbertH. D. (Ed.), Miniaturization (pp. 282-296). New York, NY: Reinhold. (Reprinted from Engineering & Science, 23, 1960). Retrieved from http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html
24.
FordB. (1993). Images of science: A history of scientific illustration. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
FrankelF. (2005). Capturing quantum corrals. American Scientist, 93, 261.
26.
GalisonP. (1996). Computer simulations and the trading zone. In GalisonP.StumpD. (Eds.), The disunity of science: Boundaries, contexts, and power (pp. 118-157). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
27.
GimzewskiJ. K.JoachimC. (1999). Nanoscale science of single molecules using local probes. Science, 283, 1683-1688.
28.
GreyF. (1993). STM-based nanotechnology: The Japanese challenge. Advanced Materials, 5, 407-410.
29.
GrossA. (2007). Darwin’s diagram: Scientific visions and scientific visuals. In FleckensteinK.HumS.CalendrilloL. T. (Eds.), Ways of seeing, ways of speaking: The integration of rhetoric and vision in constructing the real (pp. 52-80). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
30.
GrossA. (2009). Toward a theory of visual-verbal interaction: The example of Lavoisier. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 39, 147-169.
31.
HackingI. (1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
32.
HaylesN. K. (1999). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and informatics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
HellerE. (2000). Condensed-matter physics: Electrons in the looking glass. Nature, 403, 489-491.
34.
HelmreichS. (1998). Silicon second nature: Culturing artificial life in a digital world. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
HookeR. (1665). Micrographia: Or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses. With observations and inquiries thereupon. London, England: Jo. Martyn.
KellerE. (1995). Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth-century biology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
39.
KellerE. (1996). The biological gaze. In RobertsonG.MashM.TicknerL.BirdJ.CurtisB.PutnamT. (Eds.), Futurenatural: Nature, science, culture (pp. 107-121). New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
KellerE. (2002). Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
KushmerickJ. G.KandelS. A.HanP.JohnsonJ. A.WeissP. S. (2000). Atomic-scale insights into hydrodesulfurization. Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 104, 2980-2988.
42.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1979). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
43.
LatourB. (1986). Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. In KuklickH. (Ed.), Knowledge and society: Vol. 6. Studies in the sociology of culture past and present (pp. 1-40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
44.
LopezJ. J. (2007) Notes on metaphors, notes as metaphors: The genome as musical spectacle. Science Communication, 29, 7-34.
45.
LopezJ. J. (2008). Nanotechnology: Legitimacy, narrative, and emergent technologies. Sociology Compass, 2, 1266-1286.
46.
LöschA. (2006). Anticipating the futures of nanotechnology: Visionary images as means of communication. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18, 393-409.
47.
LöschA. (2010). Visual dynamics: The defuturization of the popular “nano-discourse” as an effect of increasing economization. In KaiserM.KurathM.MaasenS.Rehman-SutterC. (Eds.), Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 89-108). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
48.
LynchM.WoolgarS. (Eds.). (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
49.
MaasenS.WeingartP. (1995). Metaphors: Messengers of meanings. Science Communication, 17, 9-31.
50.
MilburnC. (2008a). Atoms and avatars: Virtual worlds as massively-multiplayer laboratories. Spontaneous Generations, 2, 63-89.
51.
MilburnC. (2008b). Nanovision: Engineering the future. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
52.
MilburnC. (2010). Digital matters: Video games and the cultural transcoding of nanotechnology. In KaiserM.KurathM.MaasenS.Rehman-SutterC. (Eds.), Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime (pp. 109-127). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
53.
MillerA. I. (2000). Metaphor and scientific creativity. In HallynF. (Ed.), Metaphor and analogy in the sciences (pp. 147-164). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
54.
MirkinC. (2001). Nanotechnology: Fact or fiction. Chemical & Engineering News, 79, 185.
55.
MulhallD. (2002). Our molecular future: How nanotechnology, robotics, genetics, and artificial intelligence will transform our world. Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
NordmannA. (2004). Nanotechnology’s worldview: New space for old cosmologies. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 23, 48-54.
62.
OrtonyA. (Ed.). (1993). Metaphor and thought (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
63.
PauwelsL. (Ed.). (2006). Visual cultures of science: Rethinking representational practices in knowledge building and science communication. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth University Press.
64.
Quantum Corral. (1993). Science, 262, 5131.
65.
RichardsI. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. London, England: Oxford University Press.
66.
SallingC. T.LagallyM. G. (1994). Fabrication of atomic-scale structures on Si(001) surfaces. Science, 265, 502-506.
67.
SchönD. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137-163). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
68.
SelinC. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32, 196-220.
69.
ShewA. (2008). Nanotech’s history: An interesting, interdisciplinary, ideological split. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28, 390-399.
70.
StaffordB. (1994). Artful science: Enlightenment, entertainment, and the eclipse of visual education. Cambridge: MIT Press.
71.
StollE. P. (1991). Picture processing and three-dimensional visualization of data from scanning tunneling and atomic force microscopy. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 35, 67-77.
72.
TimpG. (Ed.). (1999). Nanotechnology. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
73.
ToumeyC. (2005). Apostolic succession: Does nanotechnology descend from Richard Feynman’s 1959 talk?Engineering & Science, 68, 16-23.
74.
ZwierleinA. (2000). Queen Mab under the microscope: The invention of subvisible worlds in early modern science and poetry. In FrenkJ. (Ed.), Spatial change in English literature (pp. 69-97). Trier, Germany: Wissenschaftlicher.
