Nanotechnology . . . What Is It Good For? (Absolutely Everything): A Problem Definition Approach
2010; Wiley; Volume: 27; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00441.x
ISSN1541-1338
AutoresEric Lindquist, Katrina N. Mosher‐Howe, Xinsheng Liu,
Tópico(s)Sustainability and Climate Change Governance
ResumoReview of Policy ResearchVolume 27, Issue 3 p. 255-271 Nanotechnology . . . What Is It Good For? (Absolutely Everything): A Problem Definition Approach Eric Lindquist, Eric Lindquist Texas A&M UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorKatrina N. Mosher-Howe, Katrina N. Mosher-Howe Texas A&M UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorXinsheng Liu, Xinsheng Liu Texas A&M UniversitySearch for more papers by this author Eric Lindquist, Eric Lindquist Texas A&M UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorKatrina N. Mosher-Howe, Katrina N. Mosher-Howe Texas A&M UniversitySearch for more papers by this authorXinsheng Liu, Xinsheng Liu Texas A&M UniversitySearch for more papers by this author First published: 11 May 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00441.xCitations: 15Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract Problem definition studies focus on the ways in which problems are characterized in the political domain, and how they can be used strategically to limit or expand policy participation. Nanotechnology entrepreneurs are vying for resources in the political domain while strategically linking their nano-solution to multiple and ambiguous problems. This article considers the evolution of nanotechnology as a solution, and the linked problems from a problem definition perspective. We consider how nanotechnology has been defined over time, in the scientific community and in the media, through development of a database of problem and solution definitional change. We find that, over time, advocates have defined the solution from a more narrow perspective while maintaining the overall ambiguity of the problem set. We suggest that the problem definition perspective is a viable framework for understanding the fluid and complex dynamics of science and technology issues and offer several suggestions for further research. References Arnall, A. H. (2003). Future technologies, today's choices. London: Greenpeace Environmental Trust. Aronson, N. (1982). Nutrition as a social problem: A case study of entrepreneurial strategy in science. Social Problems, 29(5), 474–487. Batt, C. A. (2002). Realizing the potential of nanobiotechnology. Food Technology, 56, 31–32. Baumgartner, F. B., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Berger, E. (2003, May 4). Experts discuss nanotechnology for energy crisis. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved July 2007, from http://www.chron.com/ Chang, J. (2003, June 16). Venture capital activity heats up in nanotechnology and catalysis. Chemical Market Reporter, 263, 17. Chang, K. (2008, May 21). In study, researchers find nanotubes may pose health risks similar to asbestos. New York Times, p. 22. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational chaos. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–18. Crow, M. M., & Sarewitz, D. (2000). Nanotechnology and societal transformation. Presented at the National Science and Technology Council Workshop on Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Daviter, F. (2007). Policy framing in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 654–666. Dean, C. (2008, August 12). Handle with care. New York Times. Retrieved August 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com Drexler, K. E. (1990). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York: Anchor Books. Dunlop, C. (2007). Up and down the pecking order, what matters and when in issue definition: The case of rbST in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 39–58. Economist. (2003, March 15). Beyond the nanohype. The Economist, 366, 28. Economist.com. (2002, December 5). Trouble in nanoland. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=1477445 ETC Group. (2003). The big down: From genomes to atoms. ETC Group. Feynman, R. P. (1960). There's plenty of room at the bottom. Engineering Science (Cal Tech), 23, 22–36. Fiber Optics News . (2003, July 14). Nanotechnology: The next fantastic optical voyage. Fiber Optics News, 23, 1. Firn, D., Harvey, F., & Smith, P. (2003, March 19). Will nanotech become the next biotech bubble? Financial Times, p. 13. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53–78. Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn't need us. Retrieved March 7, 2002, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html Kim, E. (2008). Directed evolution: A historical exploration into an evolutionary experimental system of nanobiotechnology, 1965–2006. Minerva, 46, 463–484. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives and public policies, 2nd ed. New York: Harper Collins. Kirby, A. (2003). Nanotech may spark fierce ethical row. Retrieved October 7, 2003, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2758191.stm Knight, H., & Pierce, J. (2003). To kill a technology. Engineer, 291, 24–29. Kondracke, M. M. (2005, April 25). Congress must increase Bush's science budget. Roll Call. Retrieved July 2007, from http://www.rollcall.com Kuennen, T. (2004, July). Small science will bring big changes to roads. Better Roads, pp. 20–30. Lane, N., & Kalil, T. (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Present at the creation. Issues in Science and Technology, 21(4), 49–54. Lindquist, E. (2002). Setting the agenda in the transportation policy domain: The rise of intelligent vehicle highway systems. PhD dissertation, Texas A&M University. Lindquist, E. (2006). Survival and institutionalization of an idea: The rapid rise of intelligent vehicle-highway systems. Review of Policy Research, 23(4), 887–902. Mason, J. (2003). Nano Inc. vs. Nano think. Retrieved September 2, 2003, from http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/02/nanotechnology/print.html McCray, W. P. (2005). Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. History and Technology, 21, 177–203. McCray, W. P. (2009). From lab to iPod: A story of discovery and commercialization in the Post-Cold War era. Technology and Culture, 50, 68–81. Mutz, A. (2002). Nanotechnology part one: Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://www.codesta.com/knowledge/market/nanotech_part_one_taxonomy/index.jsp National Research Council (NRC). (2002). Small wonders, endless frontiers: A review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: National Research Council. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Princen, S. (2007). Agenda-setting in the European Union: A theoretical exploration and agenda for research. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 21–38. Princen, S., & Rhinard, M. (2006). Crashing and creeping: Agenda-setting dynamics in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 13, 1119–1132. Raloff, J. (2003, August 20). Big worries about little tubes. Science News, 164, 142. Regalado, A. (2003, July 25). Greenpeace warns of pollutants from nanotechnology. Wall Street Journal, p. B1. Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). Problem definition: An emerging perspective. In D. A. Rochefort & R. W. Cobb (Eds.), The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda (pp. 1–31). Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Roco, M. C. (1999). Nanoparticles and nanotechnology research. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 1, 1–6. Roco, M. C. (2007). Presentation at the National Science Foundation Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education review panel meeting. Arlington, VA, July. Roco, M. C. (2008). Presentation at the National Science Foundation Principal Investigator meeting, Arlington VA, August 28. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Royal Society U.K. (2003). Focus on nanotechnology. Retrieved October 16, 2003, from http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/phil_maths/nanotechnology.html Schattschneider, E. E. (1961). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. Selin, C. (2007). Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 196–220. Service, R. F. (2000). Is nanotechnology dangerous? Science, 290, 1526–1527. Singer, N. (2008, December 4). New products bring side effects: Nanophobia. New York Times. Retrieved December 2008, from http://www.nyt.com Stix, G. (2001). Little big science. Scientific American, 285, 32. U.S. House of Representatives. Appropriations Committee, Agriculture Subcommittee. (2005). Statement of Dr. Joseph J. Jen, Undersecretary, Research Education and Economics, United States Department of Agriculture. U.S. House of Representatives. Appropriations Committee, Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. (2005). Statement of Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. House of Representatives. Science Committee, Research Subcommittee. (2005). Statement of Sean Murdock, Executive Director, NanoBusiness Alliance. U.S. Senate. Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee. (2004). Testimony—Fiscal 2005 Appropriations Defense . U.S. Senate. Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. (2004). Testimony—Border Security Measures . U.S. Senate. Energy and Natural Resources Committee. (2004). Testimony—Sustainable Electricity Generation . U.S. Senate. Judiciary Committee. (2004). Testimony—Bioterrorism Detection and Response . USA Weekend . (2003, Feb 28March 2). Clothes for the slob in your life. USA Weekend, p. 12. Volpe Center. (1999). Effective global transportation in the twenty-first century: A vision document. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. Walker, J. L. (1977). Setting the agenda in the U.S. Senate: A theory of problem selection. British Journal of Political Science, 7, 3–45. Weiss, J. A. (1989). The powers of problem definition: The case of government paperwork. Policy Sciences, 22, 97–121. Weiss, R. (2005, March 28). Nanotech is booming biggest in U.S., report says. Washington Post. Retrieved July 2007, from http://www.washingtonpost.com Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology. Swindon, UK: Economic and Social Research Council. Yonas, G., & Picraux, S. T. (2000). National needs drivers for nanotechnology. Presented at the Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Workshop, Arlington, VA. Citing Literature Volume27, Issue3May 2010Pages 255-271 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)