Tag Archives: Christopher Coenen

Call for Papers: NanoEthics (special issue): After the hype is before the hype (Deadline for proposals: May 5, 2019)

I got the notice for this special issue of NanoEthics (After the hype is before the hype) in my email this morning (April 16, 2019). Not being familiar with the journal I did a little searching.

NanoEthics (a Springer journal):

Studies of New and Emerging Technologies
Editor-in-Chief: Christopher Coenen
ISSN: 1871-4757 (print version)
ISSN: 1871-4765 (electronic version)
Journal no. 11569
…
Provides a needed forum for informed discussion of ethical and social concerns related to nanotechnology

Counterbalances fragmented, opinionated public discussion

Discussion is informed by the physical, biological and social sciences and the law
Nanoscale technologies are surrounded by both hype and fear. Optimists suggest they are desperately needed to solve problems of terrorism, global warming, clean water, land degradation and public health. Pessimists fear the loss of privacy and autonomy, “grey goo” and weapons of mass destruction, and unforeseen environmental and health risks. Concern over fair distribution of the costs and benefits of nanotechnology is also rising
Introduced in 2007, [emphasis mine] NanoEthics: Ethics for Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale provides a needed forum for informed discussion of ethical and social concerns related to nanotechnology, and a counterbalance to fragmented popular discussion.
While the central focus of the journal is on ethical issues, discussion extends to the physical, biological and social sciences and the law. NanoEthics provides a philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of ethical and societal considerations and policy concerns raised by nanotechnology.

Abstracted/Indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, Social Science Citation Index, Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition, SCOPUS, INSPEC, Google Scholar, AGRICOLA, Current Contents / Social & Behavioral Sciences, EBSCO Academic Search, EBSCO Book Review Digest Plus (H.W. Wilson) , EBSCO Discovery Service, EBSCO Humanities Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCO Humanities International, EBSCO Humanities Source, EBSCO Nanotechnology Collection: India , EBSCO OmniFile Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCO STM Source, EBSCO TOC Premier, ERIH PLUS, Ethicsweb, Expanded Academic, Gale, Gale Academic OneFile, Humanities Abstracts, Humanities Index, Materials Business File-Steels Alerts, Mechanical and Transportation Engineering Abstracts, OCLC WorldCat Discovery Service, ProQuest ABI/INFORM, ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database, ProQuest Business Premium Collection, ProQuest Central, ProQuest Health & Medical Collection, ProQuest Health Research Premium Collection, ProQuest Materials Science & Engineering Database, ProQuest Philosophy Database, ProQuest Science Database, ProQuest SciTech Premium Collection, ProQuest Technology Collection, ProQuest-ExLibris Primo, ProQuest-ExLibris Summon, Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts, The Philosopher’s Index

Here’s the text from the April 16, 2019 email announcement,

Dear colleagues!

We invite papers for a special issue in the journal “NanoEthics: Studies
of New and Emerging Technologies”.

AFTER THE HYPE IS BEFORE THE HYPE – FROM BIO TO NANO TO AI: WHAT CAN
WE LEARN FROM PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN NANOSCIENCES AND NANOTECHNOLOGIES?

Since the early 2000’s, Nanosciences and nanotechnologies (NST) have
been massively promoted in many parts of the world. Two things were
striking about these policies: first, the hype surrounding NST; second,
the prominence of public engagement–citizen dialogue, deliberation and
participation–in NST discourse and policy. Nanotechnology became a
laboratory for the programmatic and practical development of a range of
forms of public engagement such as “upstream” and “midstream
engagement”, or policy approaches that prominently integrate public
engagement such as “anticipatory governance”, “real-time technology
assessment”, or “responsible research and innovation”.

From bio to nano: A major reason for this noticeable rise of public
engagement in NST are the food scandals and technology controversies in
the late 1990’s, in particular the controversy over genetically modified
organisms (GMOs). These controversies came to be seen as the result of
elites’ reductionist and arrogant approach to the public. To avoid a
similar public backlash against NST authorities and decision-makers in
science and politics should open doors for public engagement and humble
dialogue. Obviously, the public crisis around GMOs had triggered a
learning process.

From nano to AI: Today, the hype surrounding NST has waned and so have
concerns that nanotechnology might fall prey to a public backlash.
Nothing comparable to the public backlash against GMOs ever happened to
Nano. In fact, NST hardly became controversial. Meanwhile, new
technology hypes pervade the public discourse. Synthetic biology,
genetic editing or Artificial Intelligence (AI) are recent examples. In
each case, we observe parallels to the discourses on public engagement
in NST. In the case of AI, for example, prominent researchers and think
tanks warn against a public backlash if policy makers and funders fail
to foster public support through public engagement.

From bio to nano to AI: We suggest that social learning processes
intertwined with technology hypes pervade these and other arenas of
technology governance. While the GM controversy had a visible (albeit
not yet fully understood) effect on the NST field, today, we ask which
lessons can be drawn – and have been drawn by science policy actors –
from the NST field? Where do we stand today after 20 years of public
engagement in nanotechnology and other emerging technologies, and what
is there to learn for the “new governance” of most recently hyped
technologies such as AI?

POSSIBLE TOPICS INCLUDE:

Societal effects and social learnings of Public Engagement (PE)

–       How can we conceptualize the social learning processes which
seem to manifest in technology governance over the past twenty years?
Have new patterns of interpretation been established regarding the
nature of a successful or failed technology governance? If so, how can
they be described and distinguished from the “old” patterns of
interpretation?

–       Does the fact that NST mostly remained uncontroversial mean that
the early emphasis on public engagement in the NST field made it more
“socially robust”, “democratic” and “reflexive”? Have the right
“lessons” been drawn (from the past for the future)?

–       Why and how does the trend toward public engagement manifest
itself in different national political cultures? How did certain public
engagement formats travel across national borders in the NST policy
field?

PE between hype and reflexivity

–       What happens after the hype? With enthusiastic/dystopian
discourse subsiding, do public engagement activities also vane? What
happened to the engagement hype and to ambitious policy metaphors such
as “upstream engagement”? Have they been forgotten? Will they reappear,
or be reinvented, with the next big techno hype?

–       For the social sciences nanotechnology has provided an
opportunity to step up research and policy intervention. How can the
role/agency of the social sciences in public engagement processes be
conceptualized? In which way has this role changed in the past 20 years?
Which role conflicts or normative dilemmas arise from it?

PE between strategic and transformative uses

–       Did public engagement (ever) make a difference in the governance
of NST or other emerging technologies? How have public engagement
initiatives been integrated (or ignored) in the governance of NST and
other emerging technologies?

–       Has public engagement had identifiable impacts on policies or
institutions related to NST or other fields of technoscientific
discourse and policy? Did public engagement have the effect of
problematizing, shifting or even reshaping epistemic and political
demarcation lines between the public, scientific expertise and policy
subsystems? What can we expect for the future?

Several formats are available. We specifically invite original research
papers. In addition, contributions can come in the form of shorter
discussion notes, communications and responses, letters, art-science
interactions, interviews or anecdotes, and book reviews.

SCHEDULE

Proposals: May 5th 2019

First Draft: August 31st 2019

Final draft: January 31st 2020

Please, send proposals to both Franz Seifert (fseifert@gmx.at) and
Camilo Fautz (c.fautz@mailbox.org)

Not being familiar with either of the organizers, I also searched for them online.

Franz Seifert has been an independent social scientist since 2000 according to his CV (on academia.edu). At a guess, he’s based in Austria. I found his CV quite interesting, both it and his list of publications is extensive, all of it related to the topic of the special issue.

Camilo Fautz is a member of the scientific staff at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (Germany) and a PhD student, if his profile page is up-to-date. He too has a number of papers on ‘relevant to the special issue’ topics listed on his profile page.

Good luck with your submissions.

Call for papers for the 2018 S.NET (Society for the Studies of New and Emerging Technologies) Annual Meeting

Leave a reply

S.NET once stood for Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies and then the name started changing with the most recent being, Society of the Studies of New and Emerging Technologies. As I noted in my 2017 end-of-year comments (Dec. 30, 2017 posting), the nano blogosphere is also shifting as nanotechnology is being absorbed into and enables other scientific and technical efforts.

S.NET is celebrating its 10th year at their annual meeting, which will be held in Maastricht (Netherlands). Here’s their call for papers,

2018 Annual S.NET Meeting

Image: Geert Budenaerts, Wikimedia

CALL for PAPERS.

The 10th annual S.NET meeting will take place June 25-27, 2018 at the Faculty of Arts and Social Science, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. The theme is Anticipatory Technologies: Data and Disorientation.

Invitation

S.NET invites contributions to the tenth annual meeting of The Society for the Study of New and Emerging Technologies (S.NET), to be held at Maastricht University, the Netherlands, on June 25 – 27, 2018. The three-day conference will assemble scholars, practitioners and policy makers from around the world interested in the development and implications of emerging technologies.

About S.NET

S.NET is an international association that promotes intellectual exchange and critical inquiry about the advancement of new and emerging technologies in society. The aim of the association is to advance critical reflection from various perspectives on developments in a broad range of new and emerging fields, including, but not limited to, nanoscale science and engineering, biotechnology, synthetic biology, cognitive science, ICT and Big Data, and geo-engineering. Current S.NET board members are: Michael Bennett (chair), Marianne Boenink, Ana Delgado, Clare Shelley-Egan, Chris Toumey, Poonam Pandey, Christopher Coenen, Colin Milburn, Kornelia Konrad, Nora Vaage, Maria Belen Albornoz, and Ryan LaBar.

Conference Theme: Anticipatory technologies – data and disorientation

Any effort on new and emerging technologies unavoidably deals with the non-existing and the speculative. The future is permanently mobilized to promote decisions and policies regarding the science, technology and society nexus. Anticipatory technologies like predictive policing and preventive medicine promise to give us better epistemic access and practical control over the future. The basic irony, however, is that anticipatory technologies do not only increase data but also disorientation. Is the disorientation vis-á-vis the future in spite of the astonishing growth of data, or can it be a result of that growth? Does the growing control over future events in terms of risk make people more acutely aware of what they don’t control? Contributions are invited that explore existing ways in which the future is mobilized, technologically mediated, and economically exploited; that map the manifold ways it is contested both in discourse and in action; and that reflect on the extent to which new technologies ironically undermine our faith in the future.

Key note speakers

Prof Cyrus Mody is an historian of recent science and technology and has published on the history of nanotechnology and micro-electronics. He studies the commercialization of academic research, countercultural science and technology, and the longue durée of responsible research and innovation. He worked at Rice University, Texas, the NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society and now has a chair at Maastricht University.

Prof Marjolein van Asselt has a strong profile on governance, risk and uncertainty in both academic and policy circles. Currently she is member of the Dutch Safety Board and was a member of the Scientific Council for Government Policy for many years. She has a Governance chair at Maastricht University.

Third key note speaker to be announced.

Themes, topics and conference strands for the 10th Annual Meeting

S.NET encompasses communities, perspectives, and methodologies from across the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences, and welcomes contributions from technology developers and other practitioners. The program committee invites contributions from the full breadth of disciplines, methodologies, and perspectives, as well as from applied, participatory, and practical approaches to studying these emerging fields. Regionally or internationally comparative perspectives are especially welcome. Possible themes and topics have been organized into one overarching conference theme and six ‘strands’. While applicants are asked to indicate the strand relevant to the topic of their paper, submissions dealing with themes or topics outside the present strands are also welcome.

R&D practices and the dynamics of new and emerging sciences and technologies

Research networks & collaborations, ways of organizing research & development, emerging research fields, practices of ‘doing’ new and emerging fields of science and technology, including historical and philosophical studies of these practices.

Innovation and the use of new and emerging sciences and technologies

Innovation networks and systems, commercialization, implications for industry structures, translation from lab to practice, application and use of products and other innovations, critical analyses of growth and consumption, including economic, social and cultural approaches of innovation processes.

Governance of newly emerging sciences and technologies

Regulations, anticipatory governance practices, risk assessment, risk concerns, (constructive) TA, forms of public participation and engagement, including critical evaluation of forms of governance.

Visions and cultural imaginaries of newly emerging sciences and technologies

Promises, expectations, visions, science fiction, imagination, socio – technical change, moral change, role of media, including assessments of such visions and analyses of their role in innovation processes.

Publics and their relations to newly emerging science s and technologies

Science communication, risk communication, public engagement, participation and discourses on NEST, science museums, informal science learning initiatives, including critical evaluation of such initiatives and the notion of ‘publics’.

Politics and ethics of new and emerging sciences and technologies

Responsible innovation, (in)equality, equity, development, global and social distribution of benefits and risks, sustainability, ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ impacts of emerging technologies, including theoretical perspectives on NEST and global developments.

How to apply

S.NET encourages proposals for individual papers, posters, traditional panels, roundtable discussions and other innovative formats. Abstracts should be approximately 250 words in length. Proposals for panel sessions should include a general introduction and abstracts of the separate contributions. Proposals should include the theme or strand to which the abstract/panel session is submitted. If an abstract fits more strands, or does not fit the existing strands, simply note that in your submission. The deadline for abstract submissions is March 2, 2018; send your abstract in PDF form to 2018snet@gmail.com. All submitters will be notified about the results of the review process by the end of April 2018. Details of the submission process are available online: www.maastrichtsts.nl/snet.

The local organizing committee

Tsjalling Swierstra, Harro van Lente, Nora Vaage, Conor Douglas, Danielle Shanley, Darian Meacham, Cindy van Montfoort, Jacqueline Graff.

Location

Maastricht is an ancient Roman city of some 120.000 inhabitants in the south of The Netherlands and has a beautiful medieval inner-city. Generally known as the venue of the Treaty of Maastricht, it has a distinctly international orientation. Maastricht can easily be reached by plane, train and car. Maastricht University is internationally oriented; its students come from all over the world. The Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASoS) is located in the centre of Maastricht.

Good luck!

FrogHeart

Commentary about nanotech, science policy and communication, society, and the arts

Tag Archives: Christopher Coenen

Call for Papers: NanoEthics (special issue): After the hype is before the hype (Deadline for proposals: May 5, 2019)