Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
← Back to Search

Bounding An Emerging Technology: Para-scientific Media And The Drexler-Smalley Debate About Nanotechnology

S. Kaplan, Joanna Radin
Published 2011 · Sociology

Cite This
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
‘Nanotechnology’ is often touted as a significant emerging technological field. However, determining what nanotechnology means, whose research counts as nanotechnology, and who gets to speak on behalf of nanotechnology is a highly political process involving constant negotiation with significant implications for funding, legislation, and citizen support. In this paper, we deconstruct a high-profile moment of controversy about nanotechnology’s possibilities: a debate between K. Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley published as a ‘point—counterpoint’ feature in 2003 in Chemical & Engineering News. Rather than treat the debate as a stand-alone episode of scientific controversy, we seek to understand the forces that enabled it to be seen as such an episode. We introduce the term ‘para-scientific’ media to make explicit how certain forms of publication intervene in the dissemination of technical knowledge as it travels beyond its supposed site of production. The existence of para-scientific media is predicated on intimate association with formalized channels of scientific publication, but they also seek to engage other cultures of expertise. Through this lens, we show that Drexler and Smalley were not only independent entrepreneurs enrolling Chemical & Engineering News as a site of boundary work; members of the para-scientific media actively enrolled Drexler and Smalley as part of a broader effort to simplify a complex set of uncertainties about nanotechnology’s potential into two polarized views. In this case study, we examine received accounts of the debate, describe the boundary work undertaken by Drexler and Smalley to shape the path of nanotechnology’s emergence, and unpack the boundary work of the para-scientific media to create polarizing controversy that attracted audiences and influenced policy and scientific research agendas. Members of the para-scientific media have been influential in bounding nanotechnology as a field-in-tension by structuring irreconcilable dichotomies out of an ambiguous set of uncertainties. We conclude with thoughts about the implications of this case study for studies of science communication, institutional entrepreneurship and the ethics of emerging technologies.
This paper references
Prey. New York: HarperCollins
M Press. Crichton (2002)
Nanotech pioneer, Nobel laureate Richard Smalley dead at 62. Rice University press release
10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00085.x
Drawing the Boundaries of Nanoscience — Rationalizing the Concerns?
M. Kaiser (2006)
he situated the blog as emerging at a moment when nano sits between 'vision and pragmatism -Drexler and Smalley
Lovy
10.2139/ssrn.1478181
Entrepreneurship and the Construction of Value in Biotechnology
S. Kaplan (2008)
10.1111/j.1475-3995.2007.00591.x
Letter to the editor
S. Nadarajah (2007)
Chemical & Engineering News, conducted
10.1177/0170840607078958
Institutional Entrepreneurship as Embedded Agency: An Introduction to the Special Issue
R. Garud (2007)
10.2307/3178817
'Silence, Miss Carson!' Science, Gender, and the Reception of Silent Spring
M. Smith (2001)
10.1177/030631290020003006
The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses
S. Hilgartner (1990)
Drexler and Smalley: Views from the gallery
M. Wendman (2004)
10.1111/0735-2751.00132
Social Skill and the Theory of Fields*
N. Fligstein (2001)
Drexler Counters
K E Drexler (2003)
Denialism: Drexler vs
D Berube (2004)
Cultures of expertise and the management of globalization: Toward the re-functioning of anthropology
D Holmes (2005)
Engines of Creation
K. E. Drexler (1986)
10.2307/2654345
Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line
T. Gieryn (1999)
10.1353/CLA.0.0003
Collaboration Today and the Re-Imagination of the Classic Scene of Fieldwork Encounter
D. Holmes (2008)
for a careful discussion of the scientific merits of Smalley's 'fat fingers' argument and Drexler's rebuttal in the C&EN debate
See Bueno (2004)
10.5860/choice.35-5468
Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution
T. Cook (1998)
Of deficits, deviations, and dialogues: Theories of public communication in science and technology
M Bucchi (2008)
Mody CM (2009) Introduction, Special issue on history of nanotechnology
C Milburn (2008)
10.1109/MTAS.2004.1371635
Denialism: Drexler vs. Roco
D. Berube (2004)
10.1021/CEN-V081N044.P041
WHAT'S THAT STUFF?
R. Mullin (2003)
Made available to the authors by consent of Drexler and Lounsbury
K Eric Oral History Of
10.5860/choice.46-2030
Nanoconvergence: The Unity of Nanoscience, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science
W. Bainbridge (2007)
10.1177/0306312708098605
Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to the Bayh-Dole Act.
E. Berman (2008)
10.1086/228951
The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model
S. Hilgartner (1988)
10.1177/1075547005281532
Introduction—Nanotechnology and the Public
Bruce V. Lewenstein (2005)
The Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Advisory Board Act' introduced by Rep
Box 3, Folder 3. Note Smalley's distinction between work done in the scientific press and what he calls the
Letter
10.1007/978-94-009-5239-3_1
Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers
R. Whitley (1985)
Silence Ms. Carson!
R Smalley (2003)
10.5860/choice.30-5017
Nanosystems - molecular machinery, manufacturing, and computation
K. E. Drexler (1992)
10.1080/23808985.1991.11678793
Setting the Media’s Agenda: A Power Balance Perspective
Stephen D. Reese (1991)
10.1086/368708
Cold Fusion and Hot History
Bruce V. Lewenstein (1992)
10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN0901-76
Of chemistry, love and nanobots.
R. E. Smalley (2001)
R-NY) were also on the list, as well as a range of other notable players
Sherwood Boehlert
2003d) Open Letter
KE Drexler (2003)
Actual funding for the NNI since its inception has been (in millions of US dollars
10.1001/JAMA.1988.03410130177052
How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States
Michael D. Oppenheim (1988)
10.1080/00033790802657855
Genesis Redux: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Artificial Life
Daniel J. Nicholson (2011)
Scientists and Journalists: Reporting Science as News
S Friedman (1986)
On physics, fundamentals, and nanorobots: A rebuttal to Smalley's assertion that self-replicating mechanical nanorobots are simply not possible. Institute of Molecular Manufacturing
K E Drexler
10.1007/S11051-005-7526-2
The Public and Nanotechnology: How Citizens Make Sense of Emerging Technologies
D. Scheufele (2005)
10.1080/07341510500103735
Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future
W. Mccray (2005)
2003e) Drexler Counters
KE Drexler (2003)
10.5860/choice.43-2283
Global assemblages : technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems
A. Ong (2005)
On the basic concept of 'nano-technology
N Taniguchi (1974)
Bucky balls, fullerenes, and the future: An oral history interivew with Professor Richard R
Davis-Floyd R Cox
Introduction: Historicizing ‘popular science
JR Engineering. Topham (2009)
10.1177/016224399602100302
Representing Uncertainty in Global Climate Change Science and Policy: Boundary-Ordering Devices and Authority
S. Shackley (1996)
Interview by the authors with Rudy Baum
Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against 'molecular assemblers
R Baum
10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN0496-94
Waiting for Breakthroughs
G. Stix (1996)
Marking Time: On the Anthropology of the Contemporary
P. Rabinow (2007)
10.5860/choice.36-3298
Science in Public: Communication, Culture and Credibility
J. Palen (1999)
10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN0901-32
Little Big Science.
G. Stix (1999)
Small Wonders, Endless Frontiers: A Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative
(2002)
10.1001/JAMA.1995.03530200076047
Selling Science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology
D. H. Mark (1995)
Para-sites : a casebook against cynical reason
G. E. Marcus (2000)
Mediating the Message: Theories of Influences on Mass Media Content
P. Shoemaker (1995)
examines the dichotomy between 'science' and 'superstition' in terms of popular science
John Burnham (1987)
10.1177/1081180X06286701
Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate
Matthew C. Nisbet (2006)
Available at www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0560.html (accessed 15
10.2307/3105094
Science in action : How to follow scientists and engineers through society
W. Bijker (1988)
10.1177/0306312708097288
The Long History of Molecular Electronics
Hyungsub Choi (2009)
10.2307/3069292
INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THE SPONSORSHIP OF COMMON TECHNOLOGICAL STANDARDS: THE CASE OF SUN MICROSYSTEMS AND JAVA *
R. Garud (2002)
On physics, fundamentals, and nanorobots: A rebuttal to Smalley’s assertion that self-replicating mechanical nanorobots are simply not possible
KE Drexler (2001)
Nanotechnology and the public
B V Lewenstein (2005)
Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics
R Whitley (1985)
Undated email correspondence from Mihail Roco to Smalley, Richard E. Smalley Papers, Chemical Heritage Foundation
Scientists in government: Framing the environmental and societal implications of nanotechnology
J Radin (2004)
10.1162/posc.2009.17.2.144
Modeling Molecules: Computational Nanotechnology as a Knowledge Community
Ann E Johnson (2009)
Available at www.foresight.org/nano/Letter.html
K E Drexler
Nanofallacies: Of chemistry, love and nanobots
Content. White Plains (2001)
Open letter to Richard Smalley
KE Drexler (2003)
Nanotechnology in the media: A preliminary analysis
B V Lewenstein (2007)
10.1021/CEN-V081N022.P038
CITRUS CHEMISTRY BOOSTS DRUGS: Small company bets on grapefruit compounds that enhance the oral bioavailability of drugs
A. Rouhi (2003)
10.2307/2095325
Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional
T. Gieryn (1983)
10.2307/27694868
In Sputnik's Shadow: The President's Science Advisory Committee and Cold War America
Zuoyue Wang (2008)
10.1016/J.RESPOL.2008.02.002
Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change
S. Kaplan (2008)
10.1177/1075547007312068
Mediating Uncertainty
M. F. Ebeling (2008)
10.1002/SMJ.188
Cultural Entrepreneurship: Stories, Legitimacy and the Acquisition of Resources
Michael Lounsbury (2001)
Drexler KE (2001) Machine-phase nanotechnology
York Wiley (2001)
Toward closure: An open letter from K. Eric Drexler to Prof. Richard Smalley -Part II
K E Drexler
Taking the pulse of chemical science
R. Rawls (2003)
10.1002/9780470696569.CH13
Cultures of Expertise and the Management of Globalization: Toward the Re‐Functioning of Ethnography
D. Holmes (2008)
10.5465/20159610
Institutional Entrepreneurship in Emerging Fields: HIV/AIDS Treatment Advocacy in Canada
S. Maguire (2004)
An open letter to Richard Smalley
KE 74–75. Drexler (2003)
Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields
D MacKenzie (1996)
10.1142/9789812773975_0003
The drexler-smalley debate on nanotechnology: Incommensurability at work?
O. Bueno (2004)
10.4324/9781003074960-5
Why The Future Doesn't Need Us
Joy Bill (2003)
10.5040/9781838710477.0043
The Incredible Shrinking Man
Richard Matheson (1995)
10.1177/030631298028002009
Knowing Machines
R. Bud (1998)
10.4135/9781412972024.n83
의제형성(agenda-building)의 정치학
하상복 (2011)
Scientists in government: Framing the environmental and societal implications
J Press. Radin (2004)
Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions
D Berkowitz (1992)
10.1177/0162243906296918
Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology
Cynthia Selin (2007)
10.1142/9789812773975_0002
Two Cultures of Nanotechnology
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent (2004)
10.5860/choice.46-4983
Nanovision: Engineering the Future
C. Milburn (2008)
Productive Nanosystems: A Technnology Roadmap. Battelle Memorial Institute and Foresight Nanotechnology Institute. Available at www.foresight.org/ roadmaps/Nanotech_Roadmap_2007_main.pdf
Foresight Battelle
A tale of two nanotechnologies (a personal account with a peculiar history)
KE Drexler (2005)
10.1177/0306312709351762
Responsibility and nanotechnology
E. McCarthy (2010)
10.1038/SCIENTIFICAMERICAN0901-74
Machine-phase nanotechnology.
K. Drexler (2001)
Big whig history and nano narratives: Effective innovation policy needs the historical dimension
C M Mody
More recently, government-affiliated nanotechnology supporters have presented the 'convergence' of nano, bio, and artificial intelligence as the bright future of federally funded big science
(2007)
Made available to the authors by consent of Drexler and Lounsbury
Email correspondence from K. Eric Drexler to the authors
10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/009
The meaning of `public understanding of science' in the United States after World War II
Bruce V. Lewenstein (1992)



This paper is referenced by
10.1177/1075547019860848
Science Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry? Apologies for Scientific Misconduct
Felicitas Hesselmann (2019)
10.1016/j.respol.2019.103911
Organizational innovation efforts in multiple emerging market categories: Exploring the interplay of opportunity, ambiguity, and socio-cognitive contexts
J. Lo (2020)
From Field Consensus to Fragmentation : How Means-ends Decoupling Hinders Progress on Grand Challenges
S. Grodal (2015)
10.1108/S0733-558X20170000051010
Opportunity, Status, and Similarity: Exploring the Varied Antecedents and Outcomes of Category Spanning Innovation
Tyler Wry (2017)
From Bench to Brand and Back: The Co-Shaping of Materials and Chemists in the Twentieth Century
P. Teissier (2017)
10.1075/pbns.308.01luz
Chapter 1. Connecting traditional and new genres: Trends and emerging themes
María-José Luzón (2019)
Patterns in the Emergence of Nanotechnology: The Case of Fullerenes
S. Kaplan (2011)
Intimate cartographies : body maps and the epistemic encounter in China and Britain, 1893-1985
Lan Angela Li (2016)
Public understanding of nanotechnology in Spain
J. Ferri (2012)
10.1075/pbns.308.03meh
Chapter 3. The case of the scientific research article and lessons concerning genre change online
Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher (2019)
10.1162/LEON_a_00442
Images and Imaginations: An Exploration of Nanotechnology Image Galleries
Kathryn de Ridder-Vignone (2012)
10.1080/10572252.2017.1287361
Crowdfunding Science: Exigencies and Strategies in an Emerging Genre of Science Communication
Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher (2017)
The Diverse Ecology of Electronic Materials
Cyrus C. M. Mody (2017)
10.1177/0001839212452254
Cyrus Mody: Instrumental Community: Probe Microscopy and the Path to Nanotechnology
Sarah Kaplan (2012)
10.1007/S11024-013-9224-Z
“The Ennobling Unity of Science and Technology”: Materials Sciences and Engineering, the Department of Energy, and the Nanotechnology Enigma
Matthew N. Eisler (2013)
10.1016/J.TECHSOC.2013.10.005
Exploring imaginative geographies of nanotechnologies in news media images of Italian nanoscientists
S. Arnaldi (2014)
10.1016/J.RESPOL.2014.01.010
Do Innovation Measures Actually Measure Innovation? Obliteration, Symbolic Adoption, and Other Finicky Challenges in Tracking Innovation Diffusion
Andrew J. Nelson (2014)
Promising, contesting and abandoning nanotechnology: dynamics of unrealised promises, expectations, and engagement with nanotechnology in the Australian context
S. McGrail (2011)
10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2012.10.007
The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology
P. Schaper-Rinkel (2013)
10.1109/NMDC.2018.8605869
Ethics in Nano Education, but First the Ethics of Nano Education
Cyrus C. M. Mody (2018)
10.2217/nnm.15.176
Assessing the future: past and present visions of nanomedicine.
Nils Kubischok (2015)
10.1287/orsc.2016.1063
With Whom Do Technology Sponsors Partner During Technology Battles? Social Networking Strategies for Unproven (and Proven) Technologies
Susan K. Cohen (2016)
The Expansion of Science Policy in the United States in Three Cases: rDNA Research, The Human Genome Project, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative
M. Sullivan (2018)
10.1177/0001839217744555
Field Expansion and Contraction: How Communities Shape Social and Symbolic Boundaries
S. Grodal (2018)
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar