NSF and the Societal Dimensions of Nano-science and Technology
by R.D. Hollander
September 2003
This document provides an update on NSF activities on societal dimensions of nano-science and technology. I encourage readers to contact me (rholland@nsf.gov) with any comments about research and educational efforts on societal dimensions that NSF should be encouraging.
Background:
The National Research Council Report Small Wonders, published in 2002, provides a good review of the development of nanoscale science and technology research and of the development of the societal implications emphasis within it. The NRC committee that issued the report commended NSF for its role in establishing the multiagency Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), to coordinate the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). It recommended strongly that “NSET develop a new funding strategy to ensure that the societal implications of nanoscale science and technology become an integral and vital component of the NNI.” (p. 3, pp.48-9) Indeed, it recommended that NNI allocate funds directly to the NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), to help to assure this result.
The report offered two major reasons for its position. (1) Besides their potential for economic growth and innovation, new developments in and from nanoscience and technology also may be “diverse, difficult to anticipate, and sometimes disruptive.” (p.31) (2) Examination of the evolution of nanoscience and technology also offers “a unique opportunity for developing a fuller understanding of how technical and social systems affect each other.” (pp. 31-32) Such an understanding could mitigate problems from (1).
In its discussion, the committee drew heavily on results from a workshop that NSET sponsored in September 2000 and the resulting report, “Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology" . The NSF report was published in a volume with the title of that workshop, edited by Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, by Kluwer Academic Publishing, 2001.
The workshop report classifies research on societal dimensions into three thematic areas: The Interactive Process of Innovation and Diffusion, Unintended and 2nd Order Consequences, and Ethical Issues and Public Involvement in Decision Making. (pp. 10-13) It notes that novel educational efforts for and with social scientists will be needed if they are to participate knowledgeably in research on the field, and that the education of nano-scientists, engineers and technicians will need to incorporate attention to its societal and ethical implications as well. (pp. 13-14) The report outlines the various social science approaches, ranging from ethnography to economic analysis, that can play a role in understanding societal dimensions of nanoscience and technology, and points to the kinds of indicators, databases and statistical compilations that would be useful. (pp. 14-16)
The final section of the opening chapter makes numerous recommendations about ways to develop programs on societal dimensions. In particular, it recommends a high degree of openness and public involvement and the establishment of short-term and long-term goals. It suggests activities that public and private sector organizations can undertake to promote research in this area. (pp. 16-19)
Current Status:
NSF award activity on societal dimensions was minimal in fiscal years 2001 and 2002, but picked up strongly in fiscal year 2003. Changes in eligibility requirements may lead to additional applications from investigators in the social and behavioral sciences, ethics and values studies, research on science and technology, and science and technology studies in fiscal year 2004. These are positive signs.
NSF made two major Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Teams awards in societal dimensions in 2003. Lynne Zucker at UCLA is directing a project to establish a “Science and Commercialization NanoBank.” It will build an integrated database, which will be made available as a public, web-deployed digital library (DL) called NanoBank.org. The database will be useful to researchers pursuing social-science analyses, as well as investors and firms seeking to allocate investment to promising new technologies, policymakers attempting to assess the effects of alternative policy proposals, and nano scientists and engineers, who will be able to trace relevant research. The award abstract is available at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0304727. Davis Baird at the University of South Carolina is directing the other NIRT award. Titled “From Laboratory to Society: Developing an Informed Approach to Nanoscale Science and Technology, the grant focuses on outreach and research activities to examine concepts of understanding and control for purposes of achieving effective democratic deliberation about nanoscale research and technology. The award abstract is at: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0304448.
NSF also supported two Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education projects to develop undergraduate programs incorporating courses on societal dimensions. John Jaszczal at Michigan Technological University heads a team to prepare modules and problem sets about nano-science and its applications, and to develop a course on societal implications; abstract, https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0304439. Paul Petersen directs the Rochester Institute of Technology project on “Nanotechnology: principles, applications, ethics and social change”; abstract: https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0304439.
The 2003 competition for the National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network required that the network include administrative and managerial competence in the social sciences in its coordinating structure. Several nodes of the Network must include research in the social and behavioral sciences and related fields. Funding for the Network is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2004 and continue for five years. The finalists in the competition have provided plans to fulfill this requirement, which should help to build capacity for consideration and analysis of the socio-technical implications of support for and sequelae from nanoscale science and engineering activities.
Several Nano Centers are being encouraged to undertake research and related activities on the societal dimensions themes and in the ways suggested by the reports. A number of requests for supplements for work of this kind are under consideration. Currently, the RPI and UIL-Urbana Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for Directed Assembly of Nanostructures (NSEC Grant DMR-0117792; PIs: Richard Siegel, RPI and Kenneth Schweizer, UIL) has a component on socioeconomic implications. Researchers are compiling a database of 140 nanotechnology companies and a set of questions for nanoscientists and engineers, asking about their research and views about future applications and impacts. They are also testing a protocol to interview company representatives about their decisions to invest and their impacts to date. See a brief description of the research at www.rpi.edu/dept/nsec/research_socio.html.
A related Federal inter-agency activity in which NSF is participating may have implications for research on societal dimensions of nanoscience and technology. It emphasizes drawing together research in the areas of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Called NBIC Convergence, it promotes a new research umbrella intended to “explore the exciting opportunities technology integration now offers for revolutionary new products that will improve human performance.” Information about the conference NBIC Convergence 2003, scheduled for February 5-7, 2003, is available at www.infocastinc.com