Thanks to Fern Wickson and her co-authors Khara Grieger and Anders Baun, I get to write about nanotechnology metaphors and narratives as per their paper, Nature and Nanotechnology: Science, Ideology and Policy in the International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society (open access which means anyone is free to download a copy of the paper).
From the paper’s abstract,
In discussions of nanotechnology, it has become increasingly common to emphasise the importance of ‘responsible governance’. This study focused on the issue of environmental governance and was specifically interested in critically exploring the relationship between nature and nanotechnology. It began by characterising a range of narratives commonly told about nature and nanotechnology and suggested that each of these was a story that began with particular assumptions, values and beliefs and ended in support for particular fields of research.
In other words, the narratives are framing devices rooted in particular values and beliefs which in and of themselves will lead you in a particular direction.
Before I go on, I have to comment about this paper’s discussion of a definition in light of yesterday’s posting about the European Commission’s recommendation for a definition focused on the 1 nm to 100 nm size. From the paper,
Both the beginning and the end of this range remain subject to debate. Some claim that it should extend as low as 0.1nm (because atoms and some molecules are smaller than 1nm) and as high as 300nm (because the unique properties of the nanoscale can also be observed above 100nm). The boundaries of ‘the nanoscale’ are highly significant in both scientific and political terms because they have the possibility to affect everything from funding, to risk assessment and product labelling. [emphases mine] (p. 6 paper version, p. 2 PDF)
By the way, this was a footnote to a very thoughtful introduction of nanotechnology and some of the debates concerning it. From the paper,
Both social and natural scientists regularly invoke the concept of nature when talking about nanotechnology. They do this, however, in a variety of ways, each of which can be understood as a kind of narrative, or story, that begins with particular assumptions, values and beliefs (what we will collectively refer to as ideologies) and ends in support for particular fields of research. While everyone may agree that scientists, policy makers and citizens should work to ensure that nanotechnology does not harm ‘nature’ or ‘the environment’, there are very different ideas about what these concepts mean, what constitutes harm, and the reasons why we might wish to avoid it. When people talk about the relationship between nanotechnology and nature, the ideologies underlying the different narratives – and the way the narratives support particular fields of research – generally remain hidden. Each of the stories is presented as a statement of fact, a description of the way things really are. Seeing the role different ideological matrixes play in these narratives is crucial to understanding what is really at stake in debate and decision-making on nanotechnology. (p. 7 in print version, p. 3 PDF)
Nine narratives are described,
- Nanotechnology As Nature [here’s the metaphor]
- Nanotechnology Inspired By Nature
- Nanotechnology Improving On Nature
- Nanotechnology Using Nature
- Nanotechnology Transgressing Nature
- Nanotechnology Restricted By Nature
- Nanotechnology Controlling Nature
- Nanotechnology Threatening Nature
- Nanotechnology Treating Nature
For the purposes of the paper, the authors have focused on two narratives:
- Nanotechnology Threatening Nature
- Nanotechnology Treating Nature
I noted that the ‘threatening’ narrative was treated first which suggests something about the narrative of the paper itself. Possibilities that come quickly to mind include bias on the writers’ part, it’s a more compelling story due to the inherent conflict, or there’s more information (it was almost double the length of the ‘treating’ narrative).
My one major concern with the paper has to do with the way that the toxicological research was summarized and consolidated. From the report,
Major findings within the field of nanotoxicology include adverse effects from exposure to single and multi-walled carbon nanotubes (CNTs), fullerenes (such as C60), quantum dots and nanoparticles of titanium dioxide (TiO2), zinc oxide (ZnO), silver (Ag), copper oxide (CuO), and iron oxide (Fe2O3) (Handy, Owen & Valsami-Jones 2008; O’Brien & Cummins 2008; Stone et al, 2010). Most studies that investigate human health implications of nanomaterials have focused on respiratory effects, partially due to the asbestos-like characteristics of CNTs (SCENIHR 2007; Li et al. 2007) and indeed, recent studies have confirmed asbestos-like similarity of some multi-walled CNTs in inducing pathogenic behaviour (Poland et al. 2008; Takagi et al. 2008). Ecotoxicity studies performed with nanomaterials have documented adverse effects in several different species, including bacteria, algae, invertebrates, crustaceans, fish, mammals, and a few plant species (Baun et al. 2008a). Most of these studies use species typical for risk assessment processes and in 2009, only 89 published peer-reviewed studies investigated effects of nanomaterials on environmentally-relevant species (Stone et al, 2010). The uptake of nanoparticles into plants, and their subsequent transfer into food chains, is an environmental concern that remains largely uninvestigated, however, one recent study documented negative effects on ryegrass seedling growth and root tissues from the absorption of ZnO nanoparticles on root surfaces (Lin & Xing 2008). (p. 12 in print version, p.8 PDF)
There’s a lot more to the titanium dioxide discussion than you’d guess from reading the preceding paragraph. Nanosunscreens (as I’ve noted previously) are recommended (reluctantly* as they noted in 2009) by the Environmental Working Group over other more conventional sunscreens.
* When we began our sunscreen investigation at the Environmental Working Group, our researchers thought we would ultimately recommend against micronized and nano-sized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide sunscreens. After all, no one has taken a more expansive and critical look than EWG at the use of nanoparticles in cosmetics and sunscreens… July, 9 2009 posting
Getting back to Wickson, et al, in summarizing the ideologies for each narrative the order and 2:1 ratio remains intact. From the conclusion,
When we debate whether nanotechnology will threaten or treat nature, in important ways we are disagreeing about what we think the human relationship to nature is or should be and how we understand the world around us. Seeing the narrative character of the way we describe the relationship between nature and nanotechnology helps make visible the role ideology and values play in shaping scientific research and technological development. This opens a space for science policy to be subject to more broad-based discussion and debate, as well as for decision making in this field to become more reflective. All of this is arguably required if we are to have truly responsible environmental governance of nanotechnology. (p. 18 paper version, p. 14 PDF)
Overall, I find this to be a compelling approach to the discussion about regulation and nanotechnology and hope that it is further pursued. Perhaps next time the authors could reveal the secrets behind their own narrative strategies and provide some insight into how their ideologies informed their writing decisions.
ETA July 9, 2010, From Fern Wickson (lead author): Thanks for engaging with our paper in your blog, I appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions in terms of revealing our own ideologies and interests in future work.
Of course part of the problem was the limited space we had available
(word length restrictions of the journal) and the breadth of
literature and ideas we were already trying to summarise – as you note
there is certainly more to say about things like the toxicity of
titanium dioxide nanoparticles, much more to say in fact! In terms of
the 2:1 ratio, partly this was simply a feature of the dominance of
this narrative and the amount of research on the topic, however, it is
also partly linked to our prior research interests which have focused
on uncertainties associated with science for policy, how to understand
concepts such as environmental harm, and how to make policy decisions
in the face of uncertainties relating to toxicology. In my case I can
also say that it is because I am personally sceptical of technological
fixes to environmental damage and somewhat concerned about the
potential impacts of nanoparticles. I can not say that these beliefs
are necessarily shared by the other authors though.
In short, I agree with you that it would have been consistent for us
to talk about our own beliefs, assumptions and values and how these
shaped the paper, and while we felt constrained by practicalities, it
could certainly be a good topic for future exploration 🙂
Thank you Fern Wickson. I appreciate the discussion of the constraints and some of the issues with writing papers for publication. As we are talking about one’s own beliefs, assumptions and values it seems only fair to reveal a few of my own:
Myself, I’m stuck between the proverbial ‘rock and hard place’. I’m deeply cautious (and on occasion when the hype becomes too much, suspicious) about attempts to ‘fix things’ using technological means given the problems they’ve already caused. I’m pragmatic enough to realize that it hasn’t all been bad news and not all risks and problems can be anticipated. I strongly believe that we need many thinkers and doers working, if not harmoniously, certainly together.
