We all live in a yellow submarine, a tiny submarine, a nanosubmarine.
 


                                                                                                 
READING NAME AGENDA ITEM

 Toumey, C. (2006) "National Discourses on Democratizing Nanotechnology." Quaderni 61: 81—101





















Langdon Winner's testimony to the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology Wednesday, April 9, 2003. http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/testimony.htm

 

Molly Danskin

About the suggested citizen panels:

I really like this idea, and believe that the concept would be even better if applied to juries for all sorts of societal-impact decisions, but would the public be willing to give up their time to do this? It implies a general lean towards more direct democracy decisions, rather than the primarily straight-up representative democracy style seen today.  Would the end decision always be what the panel decides, or would it be more town-board style were the panel suggests, and appointed/ elected officials make the final judgment? This also reminds me of caucuses and primary voting


Andrew Starr
 Another comment on the citizen panels:
Would these tend to favor the wealthy, as they have more time to leave work in order to participate.  I have a hard time seeing someone who is working 2 jobs being able to participate in a citizen panel

Tracy Breslin
 Winner says most technologies are moving towards sustainability, an important topic among design today, whereas nanotechnology is still on the path of conquering nature.  How is nanotechnology really conquering nature?  Yes, it is breaking nature down to the smallest atoms and molecules, but is it really harmful to sustainability?

Grant Boucher

“More recently, however, as some unhappy consequences of this ham-fisted approach have surfaced, many scientists, engineers, designers, and entrepreneurs have affirmed that seeking harmony with nature is a more promising technological and economic approach. Unfortunately, this recognition seems to have escaped the enthusiasts of nanotechnology for whom the prospect of conquering nature right down to the last molecule and atom seems positively invigorating.” How might people utilize nanotechnology to working with nature rather than to conquering nature?


Galen Frechette "In writings on nanotechnology, there seems little willingness to ask: What are society's basic needs at present? What basic goals define our sense of well-being going forward?" "What we find instead is a kind of opportunistic means-to-ends logic." "In sum, what we see here are tools that evolve quickly in response to a variety of internal research priorities and then go opportunistically looking for things to do. And, of course, one can always find something."  I think that a part of the issue could be that the scientists and nanotechnologists are mostly well-off white men, who's only problems may be getting a girlfriend.  And so they do not have a sense of "society's basic needs at present" or problems the rest of the world outside of theirs may be dealing with.  I wonder what those who live in poverty or situations less fortunate than those of the scientists and nanotechnologists would pursue if they were the ones developing nanotechnologies.

Heather Lautman
Langdon states, "Real choices need to be identified, studied, and acted upon despite recurring efforts to say, "Sorry, you're too late. Your participation won't be needed, thanks." "

The example that Langdon gives in regards to Rachel Carson is interesting because from earlier discussions, it relates back to Drexler. We discussed how Drexler was discredited and many of the arguments against him are similar to those discribed with Rachel Carson.
 

Grant Kovach
 "In that light, I believe Congress should seek to create ways in which small panels of ordinary, disinterested citizens, selected in much the way that we now choose juries in cases of law, be assembled to examine important societal issues about nanotechnology. The panels would study relevant documents, hear expert testimony from those doing the research, listen to arguments about technical applications and consequences presented by various sides, deliberate on their findings, and write reports offering policy advice."

Joyce Chow
"In the common sense sequence, one begins by asking: What are our needs? What fundamental purposes define our inquiries? After the basic social ends have been clarified, compared, debated, and evaluated, we then move on to make choices among existing means, including newly developed technical devices."

Innovation usually results from study and experimentation. If we go by this notion of defining our social basic needs to drive technical means, does this take away from innovation? Is innovation important to our society?

Mike Pennisi

Winner values the opinions of ordinary, disinterested citizens in guiding the path of nanotechnology. He is also wary of "internal research priorities", which often lead to an means-to-ends logic by ignoring our basic needs. In “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” 12% of benefits of nanotechnology identified by disinterested citizens were best categorized as "general progress". Doesn't this indicate that the public actually supports an opportunistic, means-to-ends logic?


Dan Schaffer
 "It is time to reject the idea there are only a few designated stakeholders that are qualified to evaluate possibilities, manage the risks, and guide technology toward beneficial outcomes."  I feel like someone could write an entire paper on this subject alone.  How can it be possible to allow anyone and everyone with an opinion to participate.  The civilian panel chosen at random is a reasonable approach, but these solutions just push for a representative democracy.  At that time, companies will essentially be controlled by the "government" of elected opinions.  Perhaps if these officials take on the responsibility without pay, or technical allegiance to the nation, just as county, state, or regional officials, there could be some way around federal control of corporations.

 

Alex Lamparski
 Is anything truly inevitable? Winner brings up the need for a social community that accepts an idea, if this community is just a derivative of a past community coxed by the right people to move a certain way, then this is not inevitable instead it is political party. Growing older is inevitable, but is the attempt at self improvement?
  Andrew Krushelnyski
 At the beginning of the reading where Prof. Winner talks about how people looking for the most gain in the short run are the first to speak out and usually speak out the most.  Well I feel like this is always the case.  We are a society based upon what can benefit me now and make me the most money the fastest way possible, even if it isnt very good in the long run.  I really dont see this underlying way of life changing.  The automobile is a great example of this.  Therefore I feel that either society needs to reconstruct how we go along putting new ideas into effect or limitations need to be implemented.

Wilson Center: “Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/news/docs/macoubriereport.pdf



Sarah Petzold 		An interesting study. I was glad to read that a study had been
 conducted on the public perception of nanotechnology. It seemed like it was a thorough study, I wonder what had been done as a result of the report. The funding had been provided by the NSF, but what did they do with the information? Intriguingly enough the problem of government trust was the major issue with nanotechnology and the public perception.

Rachel Ferebee
 When does informing the public turn into propaganda?  Whose role is it to inform the public - industry, government, researchers?

Christine O'Rourke
 "The need for a voice for the public and the lack of information available to consumers about technology decision-making were strong threads throughout the study." I could understand that the public wants to be involved in how the money is being spent for nanotechnology but isn't that already being done considering that everyone votes for their representatives in the government?

Jim McKenna
 Why do people have less trust in the white house and congress than regulatory agencies considering the regulatory agencies have allowed products such as asbestos, dioxin, lead paint, Prozac, PCBs, and Agent Orange to hit the market for public use?

Galen Frechette


"General Progress. Benefits related to general progress account for 12% of benefits identified (general advancement - 5%, human race progress - 2%, and general knowledge advancement - 5%). "


What is "human race progress"?  Im just looking for a definition because I feel like in discussions that involve notions of progress there is an assumption that there is an unspoken consensus as to the understanding and meaning of the notions of progress.



Andrew Nelson

Finally, higher education (college degree or higher) was related to low trust in government to manage any risks. No other demographic variable showed any significant link. (bottom of page 5)


I saw this and it just made me wonder what the cause for that is.  Could it be that people with higher education don't just take what they are told to be truth?  Any other reasons?

 

 Matt Naples
 Specific Concerns of Nano tech, did not include environmental effects. Why?

Ishan Gaur
 Trust in Regulatory Agencies and Congress:

"Low Initial Awareness of the Role of Government Agencies

Low Trust in Congress

Regulatory Agencies Fared Much Better"

I found this interesting because the survey said that the people taking it did not know much about Nanotech but still trusted independent organizations over Congress (selected by the majority of the public)
Nick Pidgeon and Tee Rogers-Hayden “Opening up nanotechnology dialogue with the publics: Risk communication or 'upstream engagement'?” Health Risk and Society 2007, vol. 9, no 2 (112 p.). Adam Neisius
 A bit of a meta commentary as I cannot access the damn article myself, but would it help to give the people access to semi-current articles from peer reviewed journals so they could get it from the horse's mouth so to speak or would it not help as it would be too technical?  Would a better option be a publication or website run by people in the various fields that would accurately summarize various recent articles in non-technical terms without portraying insane projects as soon to be realized or national bias (looking at you New Scientist and Popular Mechanics)?

Jason Bernardo
 How can we best involve the public in discussion about the risks of nanotechnology?  Is it reasonable to try to get the public's approval before research takes place and and is it even possible for the public to decide which path to take?

Charlie Senness

Andrew Cunningham (p8) "To take just one example of a key social shaping factor, the very fact that public engagement, relatively absent at the dawn of nuclear or GM ages, is currently being deployed in a variety of ways marks out nanotechnologies from other technologies (controversial or otherwise) that have emerged in the past."  Are we getting better at identifying things that will harm us, or are we just getting more paranoid?


James Johnston 		The ideal of a debate in a Jury setting does allow for a bottom up approach for policy. It also allows the public to tackle broad new future technologies before they come out. However what happens when treads and societial notions are incorrect. (e.g. Absenth which was banned almost universally has been reinstated in several countries for consumption) Should the current practices of research and development be marginalized?