Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 1/2013

01.04.2013 | Original Paper

Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications

verfasst von: Haico te Kulve, Kornelia Konrad, Carla Alvial Palavicino, Bart Walhout

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 1/2013

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Expectations in the form of promises and concerns contribute to the sense-making and valuation of emerging nanotechnologies. They add up to what we call ‘de facto assessments’ of novel socio-technical options. We explore how de facto assessments of nanotechnologies differ in the application domains of water and food by examining promises and concerns, and their relations in scientific discourse. We suggest that domain characteristics such as prior experiences with emerging technologies, specific discursive repertoires and user-producer relationships, play a key role in framing expectations of nanotechnology-enabled options. The article concludes by suggesting that domain-specific discourses may lead to undesirable lock-ins into specific de facto assessments pre-structuring anticipatory strategies of actors.
Vorheriger Artikel Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed
Nächster Artikel Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
In this article we use a rather broad notion of concerns, which does not only refer to risks, but includes concerns about the feasibility of promises as well. Limited attention has, at least to date, been paid to concerns within the sociology of expectations literature [20‐23], although generally supposed to fulfil a similar role as promises [1, 22].
 
2
Initially we also explored potential sources for non-scientific discourse as for instance industry (association) journals and mass media. However, it turned out to be difficult to find sufficient coverage for a meaningful analysis, indicating that the discourse on nanotechnology for food and water is only emerging. This holds particularly in the case of water. Furthermore, by concentrating on the scientific discourse we avoided the need to account for national specifics in the discourse, which are likely to cross-cut non-scientific discourses.
 
3
NANO + WATER + SUPPLY for retrieving water-related articles, and NANOTECHNOLOGY + FOOD for retrieving food-related articles.
 
4
To enhance intercoder reliability, analyses of promise-concern statements were discussed and, if necessary, adjusted between the researchers.
 
5
In addition, within a domain, the arenas in which expectations are voiced and by whom, will affect the substance of expectations. For instance, the tone of articles in the journal Nature Nanotechnology tends to be more promissory compared to the domain journals. While beyond the scope of the present study, it would be worthwhile to study how assessments differ across spaces in a specific domain of application.
 
6
There are additional considerations why ‘nano-tinkering’ with water technologies may be assessed as more desirable than food. Tinkering with food may be considered as unnatural and therefore undesirable, even if much food is nowadays engineered. Purified water may speak to more natural notions of water and therefore desirable.
 
7
There are multiple meanings within one domain, but some are particularly salient.
 
8
Given the size and scope of our sample the findings should be treated with some caution. Still, core differences have also been corroborated in interviews and talks the authors conducted with experts in the two domains.
 
9
For a similar argument in the context of public engagement see [82].
 
Literatur
1.
Borup M, Brown N, Konrad K, Van Lente H (2006) The sociology of expectations in science and technology. Tech Anal Strateg Manag 18(3/4):285–298CrossRef
2.
Rip A, Van Amerom M (2010) Emerging de facto agendas surrounding nanotechnology: two cases full of contingencies, lock-outs, and lock-ins. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Governing future technologies: nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime. Springer, pp 131–155
3.
Selin C (2007) Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–220CrossRef
4.
Wood S, Geldart A, Jones R (2008) Crystallizing the nanotechnology debate. Tech Anal Strateg Manag 20(1):13–27CrossRef
5.
Drexler KE, Smalley RE (2003) Point-counterpoint. Chem Eng News 81(48):37–42
6.
Swanson EB, Ramiller NC (1997) The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organ Sci 8(5):458–474CrossRef
7.
Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2011) Action plan nanotechnology 2015. BMBF, Bonn/Berlin
8.
9.
Balannec B, Gésan-Guiziou G, Chaufer B, Rabiller-Baudry M, Daufin G (2002) Treatment of dairy process waters by membrane operations for water reuse and milk constituents concentration. Desalination 147:89–94CrossRef
10.
Bonifacio LD, Ozin GA, Arsenault AC (2011) Photonic nose–sensor platform for water and food quality control. Small 7(22):3153–3157CrossRef
11.
Sekhon BS (2010) Food nanotechnology - an overview. Nanotechnol Sci Appl 3:1–15
12.
Van der Bruggen B, Mänttäri M, Nyström M (2008) Drawbacks of applying nanofiltration and how to avoid them: a review. Sep Purif Technol 63:251–263CrossRef
13.
Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (2000) Introducing Contested Futures: From Looking into the Future to Looking at the Future. In: Brown N, Rappert B, Webster A (eds) Contested futures: a sociology of prospective techno-science. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 3–20
14.
Konrad K, Markard J, Ruef A, Truffer B (2012) Strategic responses to fuel cell hype and disappointment. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 79(6):1084–1098CrossRef
15.
Van Lente H, Rip A (1998) The rise of membrane technology: from rhetorics to social reality. Soc Stud Sci 28(2):221–254CrossRef
16.
Lucivero F, Swierstra T, Boenink M (2011) Assessing expectations: towards a toolbox for an ethics of emerging technologies. Nanoethics 5(2):129–141CrossRef
17.
Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1(1):31–46CrossRef
18.
Parandian A, Rip A, Te Kulve H (2012) Dual dynamics of promises, and waiting games around nanotechnologies. Tech Anal Strateg Manag 24(6):565–582CrossRef
19.
Van Merkerk RO, Robinson DKR (2006) Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: expectations, agendas and networks in Lab-on-a-chip technologies. Tech Anal Strateg Manag 18(3–4):411–428CrossRef
20.
Kitzinger J, Williams C (2005) Forecasting science futures: legitimising hope and calming fears in the embryo stem cell debate. Soc Sci Med 61(3):731–740CrossRef
21.
McGrail S (2010) Nano dreams and nightmares: emerging technoscience and the framing and (re)interpreting of the future, present and past. J Futur Stud 14(4):23–48
22.
Nehrlich B, Halliday C (2007) Avian flu: the creation of expectations in the interplay between science and the media. Sociol Health Illn 29(1):46–65CrossRef
23.
Tutton R (2011) Promising pessimism: reading the futures to be avoided in biotech. Soc Stud Sci 41(3):411–429CrossRef
24.
Rip A (1986) Controversies as informal technology assessment. Knowl Creation Diffus Util 8(2):349–371
25.
Schaeffer GJ, Uyterlinde MA (1998) Fuel cell adventures. Dynamics of a technological community in a quasi-market of technological options. J Power Sources 71:256–263CrossRef
26.
DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160CrossRef
27.
Burri R (2009) Coping with uncertainty: assessing nanotechnologies in a citizen panel in Switzerland. Public Underst Sci 18(5):498–511CrossRef
28.
Davies S (2011) How we talk when we talk about nano: the future in laypeople’s talk. Futures 43(3):317–326CrossRef
29.
Michael M, Brown N (2004) The meat of the matter: grasping and judging xenotransplantation. Public Underst Sci 13(4):379–397CrossRef
30.
Petersen A, Anderson A (2007) A question of balance or blind faith? Scientists’ and science policymakers’ representations of the benefits and risks of nanotechnologies. Nanoethics 1(3):243–256CrossRef
31.
Priest S, Greenhalgh T, Kramer V (2010) Risk perceptions starting to shift? U.S. citizens are forming opinions about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 12(1):11–20CrossRef
32.
Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2011) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German press. Sci Commun 34(1):5–29CrossRef
33.
Aldrich HE, Pfeffer J (1976) Environments of organizations. Annu Rev Sociol 2:79–105CrossRef
34.
Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Corley EA (2011) From enabling technology to applications: the evolution of risk perceptions about nanotechnology. Public Underst Sci 20(3):385–404CrossRef
35.
Gupta N, Fischer ARH, Van der Lans IA, Frewer LJ (2012) Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis. J Nanopart Res 14. doi:10.​1007/​s11051-012-0857-x
36.
Swierstra T, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1(1):3–20CrossRef
37.
Brown N, Kraft A (2006) Blood ties: banking the stem cell promise. Tech Anal Strateg Manag 18(3/4):313–327CrossRef
38.
Hedgecoe A (2010) Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Soc Stud Sci 40(2):163–186CrossRef
39.
Gangadharan D, Harshvardan K, Gnanasekar G, Dixit D, Popat KM, Anand PS (2010) Polymeric microspheres containing silver nanoparticles as a bactericidal agent for water disinfection. Water Res 44(18):5481–5487CrossRef
40.
Hillie T, Hlophe M (2007) Nanotechnology and the challenge of clean water. Nat Nanotechnol 2(11):663–664CrossRef
41.
Jones R (2007) Can nanotechnology ever prove that it is green? Nat Nanotechnol 2(2):71–72CrossRef
42.
Kim SJ, Ko SH, Kang KH, Han J (2010) Direct seawater desalination by ion concentration polarization. Nat Nanotechnol 5(4):297–301CrossRef
43.
Li Q, Mahendra S, Lyon DY, Brunet L, Liga MV, Li D, Alvarez PJJ (2008) Antimicrobial nanomaterials for water disinfection and microbial control: potential applications and implications. Water Res 42(18):4591–4602CrossRef
44.
Chen G-C, Shan X-Q, Wang Y-S, Wen B, Pei Z-G, Xie Y-N, Liu T, Pignatello JJ (2009) Adsorption of 2,4,6-trichlorophenol by multi-walled carbon nanotubes as affected by Cu(II). Water Res 43(9):2409–2418CrossRef
45.
Dror-Ehre A, Adin A, Markovich G, Mamane H (2010) Control of biofilm formation in water using molecularly capped silver nanoparticles. Water Res 44(8):2601–2609CrossRef
46.
Liga MV, Bryant EL, Colvin VL, Li Q (2011) Virus inactivation by silver doped titanium dioxide nanoparticles for drinking water treatment. Water Res 45(2):535–544CrossRef
47.
Liu L, Liu Z, Bai H, Sun DD (2012) Concurrent filtration and solar photocatalytic disinfection/degradation using high-performance Ag/TiO2 nanofiber membrane. Water Res 46(4):1101–1112CrossRef
48.
Xu B, Li D-P, Li W, Xia S-J, Lin Y-L, Hu C-Y, Zhang C-J, Gao N-Y (2010) Measurements of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in water samples with nanofiltration pretreatment. Water Res 44(18):5376–5384CrossRef
49.
Crane RA, Dickinson M, Popescu IC, Scott TB (2011) Magnetite and zero-valent iron nanoparticles for the remediation of uranium contaminated environmental water. Water Res 45(9):2931–2942CrossRef
50.
Celik E, Park H, Choi H, Choi H (2011) Carbon nanotube blended polyethersulfone membranes for fouling control in water treatment. Water Res 45(1):274–282CrossRef
51.
Shannon MA (2010) Water desalination: fresh for less. Nat Nanotechnol 5(4):248–250CrossRef
52.
Li XX, Cao C, Han SJ, Sim SJ (2009) Detection of pathogen based on the catalytic growth of gold nanocrystals. Water Res 43(5):1425–1431CrossRef
53.
Simate GS, Iyuke SE, Ndlovu S, Heydenrych M (2012) The heterogeneous coagulation and flocculation of brewery wastewater using carbon nanotubes. Water Res 46(4):1185–1197CrossRef
54.
Alpatova AL, Shan W, Babica P, Upham BL, Rogensues AR, Masten SJ, Drown E, Mohanty AK, Alocilja EC, Tarabara VV (2010) Single-walled carbon nanotubes dispersed in aqueous media via non-covalent functionalization: effect of dispersant on the stability, cytotoxicity, and epigenetic toxicity of nanotube suspensions. Water Res 44(2):505–520CrossRef
55.
56.
Heinlaan M, Kahru A, Kasemets K, Arbeille B, Prensier G, Dubourguier H-C (2011) Changes in the Daphnia magna midgut upon ingestion of copper oxide nanoparticles: a transmission electron microscopy study. Water Res 45(1):179–190CrossRef
57.
Petosa AR, Brennan SJ, Rajput F, Tufenkji N (2012) Transport of two metal oxide nanoparticles in saturated granular porous media: role of water chemistry and particle coating. Water Res 46(4):1273–1285CrossRef
58.
Sheng Z, Liu Y (2011) Effects of silver nanoparticles on wastewater biofilms. Water Res 45(18):6039–6050CrossRef
59.
Tiede K, Tear SP, David H, Boxall ABA (2009) Imaging of engineered nanoparticles and their aggregates under fully liquid conditions in environmental matrices. Water Res 43(13):3335–3343CrossRef
60.
Zhang H, Smith JA, Oyanedel-Craver V (2012) The effect of natural water conditions on the anti-bacterial performance and stability of silver nanoparticles capped with different polymers. Water Res 46(3):691–699CrossRef
61.
Kiser MA, Ryu H, Jang H, Hristovski K, Westerhoff P (2010) Biosorption of nanoparticles to heterotrophic wastewater biomass. Water Res 44(14):4105–4114CrossRef
62.
Chaudhry Q, Castle L (2011) Food applications of nanotechnologies: an overview of opportunities and challenges for developing countries. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(11):595–603CrossRef
63.
Chun AL (2009) Will the public swallow nanofood? Nat Nanotechnol 4:790–791CrossRef
64.
Cushen M, Kerry J, Morris M, Cruz-Romero M, Cummins E (2012) Nanotechnologies in the food industry – recent developments, risks and regulation. Trends Food Sci Technol 24(1):30–46CrossRef
65.
Duncan TV (2011) The communication challenges presented by nanofoods. Nat Nanotechnol 6(11):683–688CrossRef
66.
Chen H, Yada R (2011) Nanotechnologies in agriculture: new tools for sustainable development. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(11):585–594CrossRef
67.
Bradley EL, Castle L, Chaudhry Q (2011) Applications of nanomaterials in food packaging with a consideration of opportunities for developing ountries. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:604–610CrossRef
68.
Chaudry Q, Castle L (2011) Food applications of nanotechnologies: an overview of opportunities and challenges for developing countries. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:595–603CrossRef
69.
Fernández A, Cava D, Ocio MJ, Lagarón JM (2008) Perspectives for biocatalysts in food packaging. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:198–206CrossRef
70.
Lagaron JM, Lopez-Rubio A (2011) Nanotechnology for bioplastics: opportunities, challenges and strategies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:611–617CrossRef
71.
Mahalik NP, Nambiar AN (2010) Trends in food packaging and manufacturing systems and technology. Trends Food Sci Technol 21(3):117–128CrossRef
72.
Sorrentino A, Gorrasi G, Vittoria V (2007) Potential perspectives of bio-nanocomposites for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 18:84–95CrossRef
73.
Fang Z, Bhandari B (2010) Encapsulation of polyphenols - a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:510–523CrossRef
74.
Fathi M, Mozafari MR, Mohebbi M (2012) Nanoencapsulation of food ingredients using lipid based delivery systems. Trends Food Sci Technol 23:13–27CrossRef
75.
Miller DD (2010) New leverage against iron deficiency. Nat Nanotechnol 5:318–319CrossRef
76.
Dickinson E (2012) Use of nanoparticles and microparticles in the formation and stabilization of food emulsions. Trends Food Sci Technol 24(1):4–12CrossRef
77.
Pérez-López B, Merkoçi A (2011) Nanomaterials based biosensors for food analysis applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 22(11):625–639CrossRef
78.
Rip A (2006) Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Sci Cult 15(4):349–365CrossRef
79.
Rollin F, Kennedy J, Wills J (2011) Consumers and new food technologies. Trends Food Sci Technol 22:99–111CrossRef
80.
Nature Nanotechnology (2010) Nanofood for thought. Nat Nanotechnol 5:89CrossRef
81.
National Research Council (2006) A matter of size: triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. National Research Council, Washington, D.C
82.
Schwarz C (2012) Firing and restricting imagination: tackling the double-edged character of analogies in debates about emerging technosciences. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference of the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies, Enschede, The Netherlands, 22–25 October
Metadaten
Titel
Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications
verfasst von
Haico te Kulve
Kornelia Konrad
Carla Alvial Palavicino
Bart Walhout
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2013
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0168-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2013

NanoEthics 1/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Introduction

Anticipating the Societal Challenges of Nanotechnologies

Original Paper

Discovering Specific Conditions for Compliance with Soft Regulation Related to Work with Nanomaterials

Original Paper

Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?

Original Paper

DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: an Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry

Original Paper

Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed

Original Paper

Meta-Regulation and Nanotechnologies: The Challenge of Responsibilisation Within the European Commission’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research