ORIGINAL PAPER

Centre and Periphery of Nano—A Norwegian Context

Kåre Nolde Nielsen & Trond Grønli Åm &

Rune Nydal

Received: 15 December 2010 /Accepted: 2 March 2011 /Published online: 27 March 2011# The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract This work describes the nano field in Norwayas currently emerging in the dynamics between twoforms of nano research activities described along acentre-periphery axis. 1) There are strategic researchinitiatives committed to redeem the envisioned potentialof the field by means of social and material reorganisa-tion of existing research activities. This activity is seenas central as it is one of our premises that the standardcirculating nano vision implies such a work of reorgan-isation. The fact that nano is often taken as aparadigmatic example of the shift from Mode-1 toMode-2 research, supports this assumption. 2) Inparallel to this activity, a wide variety of researchprojects pursuing nano strategies are being funded. Weregard such research activity as peripheral in so far asthe activity is not marked by being committed to thecirculating nano vision, as may often be the case. In the

process of reorganising, this article argues, the researchactivity at the periphery provides a crucial arena fordiscussing and validating what is to be achieved throughthe work of reorganisation that takes place at the centre.Our analysis is informed by two Norwegian cases. Weexamine a major nano research initiative at a Norwegianuniversity as a centre and a research project utilisingnanoparticles in fish vaccines as a periphery.

Keywords Centre and periphery . Conceptualisationsof nanotechnology .Mode-1 andMode-2

What is Nano?—Once Again

It has proven difficult to clarify what nano is as ascientific field. The question of what nano is iscomplicated as it is entangled in normative questionsof what the point or the purpose of the field is. Why isthis activity called nano worth pursuing, what justifiesthe investments and the promises being made, theclaims of uniqueness or added value of subsumingapparently disparate activities under the heading ofnano? Such questions reflect not only concerns of thescientific communities but also legitimate concerns ofvarious stakeholders like politicians, funding agenciesand NGOs.

The questions of what nano is have been particu-larly importunate since the difficulties of clarifyingwhat nano is in turn reflects transitions in norms thatunderlie judgments of worth assigned to scientific

Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98DOI 10.1007/s11569-011-0110-6

K. N. Nielsen (*)GenØk—Centre for Biosafety,Forskningsparken,Breivika 9294 Tromsø, Norwaye-mail: kare.nolde.nielsen@genok.no

T. G. Åm :R. NydalDepartment of Philosophy,Norwegian University of Science and Technology,7491 Trondheim, Norway

T. G. Åme-mail: trond.am@ntnu.no

R. Nydale-mail: rune.nydal@ntnu.no

fields as such. Nano constitutes an arena for revisitingbasic ideals for knowledge producing activities. Atransition in such ideals follows from what hasbroadly been suggested and discussed in terms of ashift from Mode 1 to Mode 2 [8, 21] or as a shift fromacademic to post-academic science [35]. We situatethe controversy on how to conceptualise nano againsta background of these analyses. What nano is, oraspires to be, we argue, needs to be articulated andexamined in light of these trends towards Mode-2research conditions. Following the way we situatenano as a field that is part of these trends, we identifya vision of the field of nano.

This nano vision, as we shall return to shortly,holds out expectations of what can be achieved in thelong run—achievements that are conditioned by highinvestments and reconstructions of existing researchsystems. In the current situation, in times where suchreconstructions are advocated and attempted carriedout, the field of nano appears to emerge in thedynamics of what we describe as a centre-peripheryaxis. What we describe as activities in the peripheryof nano provide an arena for evaluation of what is tobe achieved by the reorganisation prescribed by thenano vision. As a point of departure for thesediscussions we clarify how nano may be conceptual-ised respectively from a Mode-1 and a Mode-2perspective.

Seen from the perspective of Mode-1 researchconditions, academic driven research is valued since itis considered to condition genuine knowledge seekingresearch activity. Attempts to clarify the character-istics of a given field would accordingly have a focuson the epistemic specificity of the field’s researchpotentials, as for instance made possible by noveldiscoveries, innovative technologies, methodologiesor theories. In the case of nano, most attempts todefine the field are of this kind, as they refer to theengineering of nano-structures that utilise specificproperties exclusively delivered through engineeringat the nanoscale (often, but not necessarily, specifiedin the range up to about 100 nm). The followingdefinition provides an example of the sort, a defini-tion presented to us by researchers in the nano-vaccine project we have studied:

‘The design, characterization, production, andapplication of structures, devices, and systemsby controlled manipulation of size and shape at

the nanometer scale (atomic, molecular, andmacromolecular scale) that produces structures,devices, and systems with at least one novel/superior characteristic or property’ [3].

The controversy of nano bears witness of thedifficulty of such definitions. How to capture theexclusive ‘nanoness’ of the variety of projects that rununder the heading of nano? That is—why do suchdefinitions capture something of importance, justify-ing the isolation of various activities as somethingcalled nano? Failing to see how such definitions mayprovide a normative line of demarcation for a field,some critics even conclude that nano is hyped, that itis an empty signifier, a bubble, a fashion or simply afunding strategy [5, 14, 29, 34]. What is challengedhere, one could say, is the scientific integrity of thefield of nano. Accusations of hype reveal disappointedexpectations of what it takes of a field to be referred toas a scientific field. The field has come to be presentedin ways that does not seem to be worthy of our trust.The questioning of the scientific integrity of nanobegan shortly after the term nanotechnology firstappeared in the 1970s [29] and it has endured eventhough we in parallel have witnessed a dramaticgrowth in number of nano research institutions [28],nano-publications [17], nano-patents [11], nano-conferences, nano-journals and even nano-products.

Seen from the perspective of Mode-1 research,then, it makes sense to focus on research potentials ofengineering at the nanoscale when seeking to clarifywhat nano is. Such definitions then, have a demar-cating function, as they define the type of activity thatis to be called nano. Such definitions however, call forsome justifications of why such activities are worthpursuing at a generic level: what is the added value ofdescribing various projects utilising what is defined asnano strategies under the same heading? Investiga-tions of what nano is, which depart from definitionsof the kind given above, however, have apparentlynot resulted in answers of the sort. On the contrary,the nano label on many research activities that rununder the heading of nano appears incidental in so farthe projects might as well have been inscribed into anumber of different fields.

In talking to a range of different researchers, wewere struck by the fact that the ‘nano’ concept did notappear to serve a specific analytical purpose in theirresearch. It was for instance not referring to, to use

88 Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98

one of Rheinberger’s [25] terms, an epistemic objector research system, that were not yet fully establishedor articulated by the nano term. Their research couldas well be described under other headings; it wasdifficult to see the added value of the concept of nano.Observations like these, gave rise to our identificationof the periphery of nano. In some research commu-nities, it simply appeared to be common knowledgethat nano projects were, in most cases, largely aquestion of renaming. Even if their work certainlycould be described as nano research, according toformal definitions, the fact that it was named as nano,they emphasised, did not make a difference for theirresearch activity.

In other research communities however, nanoappeared to play a decisive role. The term appearedto communicate something of vital importance for thecommunity; the notion expressed a vision for aparticular powerful research strategy worth pursuing.This vision, we suggests, reflects judgments of worthof a scientific field that become visible as we considernano as entrenched in contemporary trends describedamong other things as a shift to Mode-2 researchconditions.

An important feature of the trends towards Mode-2research concerns the way context or problem drivenresearch is valued and nurtured. In contrast toacademic driven research, context driven research is,so to speak, geared towards application from the verybeginning. Although these changes have not neces-sarily been welcomed as desirable, the rise of thenano field has been taken to represent a paradigmaticexemplar of the reality of such changes (see forinstance [2, 13, 20, 33]). As a result, according tothese analyses, novel large and high priority fieldslike nano impose radical, and possibly even irrevers-ible, changes in the way science is performed,organised and managed. We do not seek to makeclaims to whether or not these changes are desirable,but we consider it to be an open question. What weclaim, however, is that the vision of nano is moreappropriately expressed in terms of Mode-2 research.We will in the following take a look at standardpresentations of the field of nano in order tosubstantiate this claim.

As Shew and Baird have noticed, a particular storytends to be reproduced in various forms as nano-technologists present the field. They call it the‘standard story’ [29, 30].The standard story of nano

is a story of the scientific and industrial potentials ofnano inscribed into a story of the history of thescientific field. It is a story of the kind we often findin scientific textbooks, as described by Thomas Kuhnand others. Such stories are first of all historicalreconstructions that, although often not accountablewith respect to historical facts, play a legitimate rolein capturing crucial features of the current state ofthe art of the field for the purpose of introducing itto newcomers. The standard story, Shew and Bairdobserves, typically start with Feynman’s famous talk‘There is plenty of room at the bottom’, which istypically presented as an inspiration for scientists todevelop technological infrastructures that enablenew opportunities for design at the atomic andmolecular level. The developments of stunning instru-ments like STM and ATM, as the story typically goes,was not only inspired by Feynman’s vision but alsoinspired scientist across all standard disciplines ofscience to explore potentials of intervening at ‘thebottom’ of material structures. The stories come invarious forms, but the point of these stories, as we readShew’s and Baird’s argument, is to draw our attentionto revolutionary commercial opportunities of theunique properties released in creating interdisciplinaryvenues for controlled technological manipulations atthe nanoscale.

There are three connected elements of the standardstory account of nano. These three elements are forinstance expressed in a condensed form in theopening of the influential report, Societal Implica-tions of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, writtenfor the US National Science Foundation just afterthe National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) wasestablished:

‘A revolution is occurring in science andtechnology, based on the recently developedability to measure, manipulate and organizematter on the nanoscale—1 to 100 billionth ofa meter. At the nanoscale, physics, chemistry,biology, materials science, and engineeringconverge toward the same principles and tools.As a result, progress in nanoscience will havevery far-reaching impact’ [26].

This excerpt succinctly connects three importantthemes: 1) A current revolution follows novel nano-scale sensitive technologies which are conditioned by2) a convergence of traditional disciplines that in turn

Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98 89

3) will have far-reaching socioeconomic impact. Thestandard story, then, revolves around nanoscalesensitive interventions, but communicates an under-standing of nano that is more oriented towards contextof application as compared to typical definitions ofnano that provide a focal point for controversies ofhow to define the field. The three-component standardstory does not only address a broader political,industrial and public audience, but also scientificcommunities that aim at promoting the field at ageneric level. A centre of nano, we suggest, is heldtogether by these three connected elements. Thecombination made it possible to stabilise somethingcalled nano, build expectations of economic potentialsof high investments and joint efforts of dispersedscientific activities. At the centre we find initiatives,programs and strategies committed to the realisationof this standard nano vision. The vision calls for areorganisation of how research is done. It is a visionthat carries promises of improvement following sucha reorganisation. We do not question the scientificstatus of the vision, that is, the legitimacy of thevision. But, like any other scientific visions, theexpectation expressed in the vision need not befulfilled. At present, we claim, nano research activityat the periphery provides a crucial test arena forvalidation of visions expressed at the centre.

Individual projects that are pursuing nano strate-gies constitutes arenas for validating discussions ofwhat one can possibly achieve if research is reorgan-ised in accordance to the prospects of the nano vision.This critical potential follows from the way experi-mental sciences are anchored in epistemic commit-ments to the dynamics of experimentation. As Hans-Jörg Rheinberger [25], Karin Knorr-Cetina [15], IanHacking [9] and others have pointed out, experimen-tation is an open ended activity marked by the pursuitof building robust reproducible laboratory settings, an‘experimental system’, through which research ques-tions themselves may be articulated and clarified.Experimental systems are not only crucial for theidentity of the field, they are also self-vindicatingunits. The nano projects, which we understand asbeing in the periphery, have a weak nano identity inthe sense that the projects may as well have beeninscribed into other field categories. Most concretenano projects may reside in the periphery in thissense. They apply nano strategies without beingcommitted to them as such. The nano strategies are

part of what is adjusted and possibly even abandonedin the self-vindicating process of building workableexperimental systems for the resolution of researchquestions being formulated in the same process. Theperiphery, therefore, plays a crucial role in exploringthe validity of the generic nano vision of the centre.While peripheral projects may be inscribed into nanoas it is conceived of at the centre, they primarilyremain committed to the resolution of specificscientific questions. It is in the periphery that thepromises of nano strategies ultimately are to make asignificant difference as nano strategies merge into arange of different research contexts—i.e. the nano-revolution. But it is also in this very research processthat the expectations of the potentials of nano need tobe demonstrated. The peripheries, we suggest then,constitute important arenas for proofs of conceptwithin nano as successful nano projects may servethe function as model exemplars of the field.

Our centre-periphery model of nano may not onlyhelp explain how nano on the one hand has expandedinto so many areas of research, technology, andbusiness, while it on the other hand may seem proneto collapse once it is critically scrutinised as a newscientific field along established epistemic measures.Our model may also help explain the difficulty ofconceptualising nano by drawing attention to how thenano vision expresses a Mode-2 research vision.While we do not pretend to hold a position fromwhich the future of nanotechnology as a field may beforecasted, we suggest the centre-periphery model asa way to enable an improved grip on some of itssignificant contemporary dynamics.

Our centre-periphery analysis is inspired by earlierscholarly work analysing how hierarchal centre-periphery structures tie together the scientific com-munities of a field [12, 27, 32]. The community, giventhese analyses, functions through power relationshipsone need to be aware of and pay attention to whenscientific truths are communicated and evaluated.Given that decisive developments of a field needs topass through central sectors of a community, thisaffects more peripheral sectors as it sometimes induceobedience, imitation and deliverables of subsidiaries.

The centre-periphery dynamics in the case of nano,however, is marked by the fact that the field wentglobal before it had reached a mature state. There hasnot been, as it were, a centre delivering coreknowledge to be consumed, imitated, opposed or

90 Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98

modulated in the periphery. There has not been a clearexemplary centre in which researchers at the periph-ery could mirror, submit or adjust their professionalidentity as nano researchers. The centre, in ouranalysis, has primarily been expressed as a scientificvision that, at least in an early stage, seems to beworked out in particular scientific contexts that appearperipheral.

In our account of the centre and periphery of nano,the relation between centre and periphery can hardlybe said to be hierarchal in the sense that the peripheryrepresent a weak imagery of the research activity atthe centre. On the contrary, the periphery may play amuch more significant role in ongoing verificationsand adjustments of the nano vision at the centre.

Two Norwegian Cases

This work is informed by two case studies respectivelyof a centre and a periphery in a Norwegian researchsetting.

As a centre, we have examined the NTNU Nano-Lab at the Norwegian University of Science andTechnology (NTNU), located in Trondheim in midNorway. NTNU NanoLab is a strategic initiative thataims at strengthening NTNU’s national position as acentre for engineering and technological sciences bybuilding capacities for nanotechnology research anddevelopment. Our knowledge of this case stems fromsemi-structured interviews, document materials, par-ticipation in research seminars and collaboration interms of being invited to strengthen ethical dimen-sions of the initiative through research, seminars andteaching. The interviews were conducted from spring2008 until autumn 2010. They include interviewswith nano scientists, toxicologists, strategic coordina-tors, lobbyists, funding agents and persons involvedwith the nanotechnology study program.

As a periphery we have examined a researchproject that aims at using nanoparticles to make moreefficient salmon vaccines. This project is located atthe Faculty of Biosciences, Fisheries and Economicsat the University of Tromsø in Arctic Norway. Ourknowledge of the vaccine case stem from semi-structured interviews with the project leader and theproject participants as well as structured and unstruc-tured discussions in seminars, workshops and visits oflaboratory facilities. The interviews were conducted

in spring 2009. Our encounters with the fish vaccineproject stem from an attempt to situate the ELSAresearch project (in which the present work is funded)in a research context where scientists were both beingresearched and welcomed to contribute to theresearch.

Nano at the Centre: A Strategic Nano Initative

We examine a major strategic initiative for developingnanotechnology research in Norway named NTNUNanoLab. While the NTNU NanoLab is not the onlysuch initiative in Norway, there is no doubt that ittakes on a central role in a contemporary Norwegiannanotechnology research landscape.1 As a strategicresearch initiative, NTNU NanoLab is not organised,built and adjusted through the work of articulatingand seeking answers to specific research questions ina way characteristic of laboratory work. While theinitiative hosts concrete nano research projects,NTNU NanoLab itself is better understood as anorganisation pursuing a strategic plan for promotingnano research. This includes building clean roomfacilities, and establishing educational programs,coordinating and facilitating interdisciplinary researchactivities. As an organisational unit, NTNU Nano-Lab’s objective is not to pursue research but tofacilitate the release of scientific and commercialresearch potentials of nanotechnology. Informed by,and committing to, the vision of the standard story ofnano, it takes on a nano identity characteristic forwhat we identify as the centre of nano.

The Empty Room

In 2002 a committee was appointed by the rector atNTNU at the time, the physicist Eivind Hiis Hauge.The committee included international as well as localnanotechnology researchers appointed for the evalua-tion and planning of activities within nanotechnology

1 Initiatives at four institutions (IFE, SINTEF, UiO and NTNU)have been particularly important in the early attempts toestablish nanotechnology in Norway. Together, and partly injoint efforts, these received 80% of the 337 mill NOK allocatedfor funding research within the first period of the program‘Nanotechnology and new materials’ (NANOMAT) of theResearch Council of Norway.

Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98 91

at NTNU ([22]:2). An ambitious plan for construc-tion of an ‘infrastructure for nanotechnology’,suggested by the committee, was approved by theboard of NTNU in March 2005.2 The board granted145 million NOK (about 18 million EUR), repre-senting the largest singular investment ever approvedat NTNU. The plan for a new master programme innanotechnology was simultaneously supported bythe resolution. The mission given to NTNU Nano-Lab, as it is presented in an annual report was to a)‘coordinate nanotechnological research and capitalinvestments at NTNU’, b) ‘build, equip and operate anew state-of-the-art laboratory for nanotechnologicalresearch and education’ and c) ‘promote a new 5 yearMSc program in nanotechnology’ ([23]:2). Themaster programme started in the fall of 2006 andthe first part of the laboratory facility was officiallyopened in May 2007.

In introducing nanotechnology, the committeereport reproduces a variant of the standard story ofnanotechnology ([22]: 6–7). The story begins with‘one of 20th century hallmark science lectures’,namely Feynman’s lecture ‘There is plenty of roomat the bottom’. The talk ‘put forward a vision ofexciting new discoveries related to the manufactureof materials and devises at the nanometer scale’.Feynman predicted the possibility to write the entireEncyclopaedia Britannica within an area of a pinhead,which was confirmed as IBM wrote an IMB logo bymeans of STM in 1989. This demonstration, accordingto the report, represents the first of three symbolicmilestones in the history of nanotechnology; the top-down approaches. Bottom up approaches, like man-made self-assembled structures, represents the secondmilestone while the US president Bill Clintonsfinancial plan for nanotechnology constitutes the thirdand final milestone. The report wraps up the story bystating that the

‘[c]ontrol of matter at the atomic or molecularlevel implies tailoring the fundamental proper-ties, phenomena, and processes exactly at thescale where the basic properties are deter-mined. In this context nanotechnology couldimpact the production of almost all productsproduced by humans […].’ [The impact of

nanotechnology…] ‘would be at least as sig-nificant as the combined influence of micro-electronics, medical imaging, computer-aidedengineering, and man-made polymers devel-oped in the past’ ([22]:7).

In reproducing this standard story of the incrediblepotential powers of the field, the report communicatesthe need for some extraordinary measures to be takenin order to promote the field at NTNU. Given itshistory and aspiration of taking a national lead inengineering fields, NTNU appeared to be a properplace for such an imitative. Hauge is well respected asa visionary driving force for the initiative during hisrectorship. In an interview he is portrayed as notbeing sure what ‘kind of offspring he would bring tolife when he fostered the nanotechnology researcharea at NTNU. But he figures that the new kid on theblock will be a healthy one!’[18]. Hauge mediatedwhat appeared to be a strong conviction in manyscientific circles: Whatever this thing called nano is,or would turn out to become, it appeared to be worththe efforts and investments it would take to bring thefield to life.

We understand the NTNU NanoLab to be theorganisational unit established in order to bring thefield to life. Its action should be the one of facilitation.As the report stressed, the important function of thestaff that were to be hired in the organisation, shouldbe the one of creating multidisciplinary venues thatallow for cross-fertilisation of ‘founding disciplines’of nano (that is basic disciplinary fields like physics,chemistry, biology) ([22]:26). One should not designlaboratory facility for specific research purpose of theone to be hired. The task was, to put it in ametaphorical way, to create the empty room designedto release the potential envisioned under the headingof nano.

The clean room laboratory facilities of NTNUNanoLab need to be empty in a literal sense due to theneed to control factors like airborne particle contam-inations, chemical evaporations, acoustic noise andground vibrations. The true potentials of these emptyrooms however, will only be released if NTNUNanoLab manages to fuse a complementary set ofcompetences. This called for deliberation about whatarchitecture, instruments and organisation of thelaboratory would work for potential users of thefacilities. Such issues were for instance topics of2 NTNU board meeting. Protokoll 2005. 15.03.2005, S-sak 30/05

92 Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98

series of ‘NanoLab user meetings’, which wereinstrumental for the organisation’s work of promotingcross-disciplinary cooperation. The response theleader of NTNU NanoLab Erik Wahlström gave toour question of what defines nanotechnology illus-trates how important this task is considered to be.

‘What I really think is nanotechnology is whenyou really work interdisciplinary. When yousay—ok—this is nanoscale and it is natural towork interdisciplinary—and we do it too’ [ourtranslation].

One would need to get to the point where thisform of collaboration is sparked in the context ofthe clean room facilities that enable nano research.This emphasis on the need of having researcherscollaborating in novel ways is a recurrent topic ofthe researchers we interviewed. Asked about thevision for bringing about NTNU NanoLab, Haugeresponded:

‘Well, you can start by putting in the negative. Ifyou haven’t acquired the infrastructure by whichone can operate experimentally on that lengthscale, then you have in a certain sense definedyourself out of the world. There is so much ofthe scientific activity within electronics, chem-istry, physics, bio taking place there [on thatlength scale]—that it is…it’s simply out of thequestion not to […]. That is my starting point.And when I put it like that, it is in recognitionthat nano is something generic, it is not aspeciality, it is a platform for doing manydifferent things. So—what will turn out to befruitful, what will be the success or failure ofour nanolab, that I do not know—I will not takethe role of a prophet. […] So I really believethat it is the generic character of the field thatmakes it an imperative to be there […]. [O]nething is what one will accomplish here in termsof research, but one needs to educate naturalscientists and civil engineers that can enter theNorwegian society in many functions, and ifnano doesn’t exist in Norway on a properinternational level, then you are saying to thestudents that if you want to work in this field,which is very important—ok—then you have togo abroad and study there. So both in terms ofresearch and in terms of education this isabsolutely necessary’ [our translation].

Asked by the vision then, rather than pointing atspecific research potentials, he draws attention tothe need to reorganise how research is done. Thetask of NTNU NanoLab is the one of responding tostate of the art developments in all basic fields asthey converge at the nano scale. The point offacilitation then, is not primarily the one of achievinga critical mass for the activity, which of course iscrucial as well. The point is not primarily the one ofsharing scarce resources either. It is a matter ofnecessity due to the generic and interdisciplinarynature of the field. NTNU NanoLab is to bringresearchers from founding fields together in order torelease the potential of what is captured in the visionof nano.

The master program in nanotechnology fits wellinto this picture. The legitimacy of an educationalprogram for nano would be the one of training a newworkforce prepared for nano by having the necessaryskills needed for the envisioned future research andindustry field of nano. The program provides amultidisciplinary blend of topics as recommended bythe 2003 committee. This diversity in turn gave rise tothe questions of what scientific unity or industrialneeds that justifies the program, a worry beingexpressed in an evaluation report of the studyprogram [23]. Confronted by this critique, the leaderof the study program drew attention to the need forthe development of interdisciplinary capacities. Thestudy program should be seen as a long timecommitment to nano that includes a strategy fortraining and recruitment of future researchers able tofoster and glue cross-disciplinary research activity.The master program then, appears as a consistent partof NTNU NanoLab’s long term attempt to promotenanotechnology through various strategies of facili-tating such activities. The program has so far beenseen as a success for other reasons as it has proved tobe highly competitive: In 2006, 30 students werewelcomed as the first batch in an interdisciplinarynanotechnology master program at NTNU. As manyas 1.430 students applied for these 30 places. Thenanotechnology students are among the best studentsin the country measured in terms of how difficult it isto capture one of the 30 places [18]. The programthen is successful as NTNU NanoLab has succeededin recruiting talented young people in a position todemonstrate the potentials of the field. Due to theexpectations and prestige of the field there do not

Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98 93

seem to be anyone worrying about their job opportu-nities—good students are always attractive for theindustry, as one of our informants commented.Moreover, as indicated in the program plan ofNANOMAT, i.e. the nano funding program at theResearch Council of Norway, a success as such innanotechnology could counteract the alleged recruit-ment crises by boosting the interest for science alongthe same way as space research did in the 1960s and1970s.

Nano at the Periphery: Researching Nanoparticlesin Fish Vaccines

The vaccine project is located at the Faculty ofBiosciences, Fisheries and Economics at the Univer-sity of Tromsø—a central research institution forresearch in fish health issues which is of vitalimportance for the fish farming industry of Norway.Firmly based in fish health research this projectexplores nano strategies for improving salmon vac-cines. While its status as a nanotechnology projectturns out to be contingent, its status as a vaccineproject is set, and this is why we position it at aperiphery in a Norwegian nanotechnology setting.The central commitment of the project is to contributeto better salmon vaccines, and it would only endorsenano strategies in so far as this proves instrumentalfor this goal. While the development of the nanotech-nology field is a peripheral concern for the vaccineproject, this project is one of many projects that, aswe will suggest, may provide arenas for criticalscrutiny of the nano vision expressed at the centre.

The Salmon Vaccine Project Seen from the Centre

With a production estimated to be close to 1.000.000tonnes in 2010, salmon is the most important exportcommodity in Norway next to oil, making Norwaythe leading producer worldwide. Fish health researchhas played a crucial role in the tremendous growth ofsalmon aquaculture, which followed from a shift fromfreshwater ponds to the use of sea pens in the 1970s.Farmed in open sea pens, salmon is generallyvulnerable to diseases. Fish pathogens transmit wellin water and high stocking densities and shortdistances between farms enable high transmission

rates [31]. Together with the availability of suitableand low priced feed [19], infectious diseases, includ-ing those caused by macro parasites such as sea lice[6], remain an ubiquitous problem in regions withextensive salmon aquaculture, maintaining a threatto its present state as well as a limit to its furtherexpansion [31].

The tremendous growth of salmon farming in thefirst place would have been unlikely without effectivevaccines. As pointed out by Aarset [1] it is nocoincidence that salmon farming and fish healthresearch have become national priority areas in thesame time span; they have coevolved. In the late1980s Norwegian aquaculture was seriously burdenedby epidemic bacterial diseases, and a collapse wasonly prevented by an excessive use of antibiotics,which again was not environmentally sustainable. Theintroduction of oil-adjuvanted3 vaccines in the late1980s was pivotal for a radical reduction of the use ofantibiotics while still significantly reducing theoccurrence of bacterial diseases in salmon aquaculture([10]: 56).

The motivation for attempting to utilise nano-particles in salmon vaccines relates to the fact thatoil-adjuvanted vaccines hitherto have been ineffectiveagainst a range of intracellular pathogens (importantlyviruses) and it has proved difficult to come up withstrong alternative adjuvant systems [10]. Moreover,oil-adjuvanted vaccines have been found to elicitunwanted side effects in the salmon such as adhesionof internal organs in the abdomen and (although lessfrequently) skeletal deformations [4] and autoimmunity[16]. Vaccine producers, then, are continuously tryingto apply oil adjuvants with lesser side effects.

The aim of the vaccine project in Tromsø, as stated inits project description, was to ‘develop improvedformulations and optimised antigen delivery strategies’.This implied no less than the development a novelplatform that not only could improve the efficiency ofexisting vaccines but avoid shortcomings of oil-adjuvanted platforms. The vaccines were to be mediatedby nanoparticles. In other words, the enrolment of nanostrategies in the field of fish vaccine research could

3 Adjuvants are substances that assist in ‘the development ofvaccine efficacy by enhancing the magnitude, extending theduration and/or directing the nature of the immune response’While adjuvants do not have specific immunogenic propertiesin themselves, they can make a vaccine formulation much moreeffective than if based on antigens alone [7].

94 Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98

possibly make a crucial difference for a prioritisedresearch area in Norway. If successful, this projectwould significantly benefit an export industry of vitalimportance for Norway. Given our account of the threeconnected elements of the nano vision, this projectappears as a core nano project potentially figuring infuture lists of exemplary success stories of the enablingpowers of nano. There would be good reasons forrecognising the importance of the nano field if it really isthe case that various forms of nanotechnologies havetransformative powers of the sort. The project wasfunded by NANOMAT that state the following in theheading of their web page: ‘A special feature ofnanotechnology is its generic character, it can affectpractically all areas of society, as is described in manycontexts as “the next industrial revolution”’.4 Thevaccine project is certainly a candidate for thedemonstration of such envisioned powers of the field.

Nano-Strategies in a Salmon Vaccine Context

The potentials of nano-strategies need to be workedout and verified at the laboratory floor, and it is stillan open ended question whether this vaccine projectmight turn out to be an exemplar demonstratingvaluable nano-research of the sort nano-initiativesare to stimulate.

The fish vaccine project uses particles made of asynthetic organic polymer referred to as PLGA (Polylactic-co-glycolic acid). These particles protectantigens from premature degradation, i.e. before theycan elicit an effective immune response. The PLGAparticle will degrade in vivo, and therefore release theantigens over time. The rate of degradation of theparticles can be designed by changing co-polymercomposition and particle size, properties which thevaccine efficiency can be sensitive to.

The project has envisioned two strategies for nano-particle mediated vaccines. The first strategy involvesthe encapsulation of different ligands to the particles,which work as specific immunological ‘danger signals’.Such ligands include molecular elements that are

characteristic of virus and bacteria.5 Including selectedligands for specific receptors6 and specific antigens,PLGA nanoparticles may enable targeting of specificand desirable immunological pathways.7

The second strategy aims at delivering antigensdirectly to the internal part of cells known as the cytosolin order to, so to say, trick the cell to signal to other cellsthat it is infected. This is important because this pathwaymay elicit a particular effective immune responsetowards intracellular pathogens such as viruses. Animmune response of this type can normally only beachieved by infecting cells, e.g. by live attenuated(weakened) virus strains. The drawback of usingattenuated virus strains, however, is that they maymutate and hence revert into virulent forms, a drawbackwhich can be avoided with vaccines composed ofPLGA particles in combination with inactivated virusor subunit antigens.

These two strategies form the focus of the nanoidentity of the project when scrutinised at the laboratorylevel. The particles consist of physically assemblednano-constituents. In addition, in the second case, thenanosize of the PLGA particles may enable them topass, or be transported, into the cytosol and elicit aparticular response.

Research in the Periphery of Nano

The researchers of the vaccine project, are first of allinterested in developing better vaccines, regardless ofwhether the project would fall within the boundaries ofnano or not. Seen from the laboratory floor, the nanoidentity of the project does not appear essential. Withregards to the research done in the fish vaccine projectthese discussions of the nano identity of the project ishardly interesting internally to the group. The researcherswould have pursued this strategy regardless of itbeing enrolled as nano or not, provided it wasfunded. They simply believed in this strategy whichhappened to be a nano strategy found worthy ofreceiving grants from a prestigious strategic fundingprogram for nano. This is one of the objectives ofsuch programs; to stimulate certain priority areas.

4 See the Research Council of Norway’s web page for theNANOMAT program.(http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1226993562769&p=1226993562769&pagename=nanomat%2FHovedsidemal Downlowded December2010).

5 Such lingands include lipopolysaccharides, peptidoglycan,and DNA fragments rich in CG (CpG motifs).6 I.e. so-called Toll-like receptors.7 E.g. a so-called CTL response or a Th-1 biased response.

Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98 95

The fish vaccine project has its identity and commit-ments in fish immunology/vaccinology. The projectdescription refers to these fields, and the conferencesand journals of these fields are considered as therelevant communication channels. The project was nota result of a deliberate turn to nano, like in an ambitionto establish generic nano research at its host institution.

The way one of the vaccine researchers obtained anano-derived nick name (as in ‘Nano-Nikolai’, illus-trates how nano was received as something rather exoticin the fish health research environment. Being a rarity,as well as being enrolled into a nano ELSA project,strenghtened the project’s nano identity, and nano issueswere reflected upon within the research group andamong their peers. One important issue concerned thequestion of if and how the risk literature on nano-particles should have any effect on the development ofthe project. We have not, however, been able to tracehow any of this nano awareness provided reasons formodifications of the pursued lines of research.

The researchers had to reach outside their customaryresearch domain in order to learn how to design PLGAparticles with specific desired properties. For thispurpose, their project involved sending a PhD studentto a pharmaceutical laboratory in London in order tolearn to master the fabrication of these particles. Onemight call this an integration of a nanotechnologicalskill, but one might as well question what specificdifference the prefix nano would do, as this could beseen as extension of the skill of making micro PLGAparticles. This type of exchange of skill is quite commonpart of any scientific activity [24]. While being fundedas a nano project contributed to the scientific identityof this project, the utilisation of nanoparticles does notappear to make a distinctive difference for the projectsidentity as a fish immunology/vaccine project.

The commitment of a research group like this is towork out a doable and verifiable experimental systemin which salmon vaccines can be tested and perhapsimproved. Nano strategies are mobilised in so far theydo so. In this particular case the dynamics ofexperimentation might even imply that the researcherswork themselves out of the domain of nano altogether.The projects strategy of using nanoparticles as vaccinedelivery vehicles seemed to be optimal when proteinsand adjuvants were to be co-encapsulated. Further,particles larger than 5–10 μm, due their size, remain atthe site of injection, releasing the antigens to neigh-bouring cells. In contrast, nanoparticles appear to be

readily taken up by cells and can thus be transported tosites distant from where they were injected, possiblyleading to accumulating of particles in lymphoidorgans or that they are broken down and excreted.As antigen retention after injection is a key character-istic for a vaccine, it appeared interesting to exploreimmunological differences of administering nano- ormicroparticles and to look into potential synergisticeffects of these in respect to vaccine potency. Thus theproject now partly aims at comparing nano- and microsized particles as potential vaccine delivery systems.

In part, these developments seem to imply a driftaway from the nano domain. Rather than sticking toexplorations of designs within the nanoscale, theproject has shifted to compare efficiencies of microand sub-micro designs and their combinations. Theproject appears to drift towards strategies that havebeen pursued with microscale particles in othercontexts, which raises the question of the uniquenessof the strategy, compared to previous ones. If thiswould imply that the ‘nanoness’ of the project wouldbe questioned—that the researchers would, so tospeak, have researched their way out of nano, thiswould not worry the researchers as such. The primaryobjective here is to make better vaccines, not to stickto deploying a strategy recognisable as nanotechnol-ogy. However, as the researchers point out, this shifttowards larger particles may be reversed later if thenew concept fails—as there are numerous parameterswithin the manufacturing process of nano vaccinesthat can be manipulated.

If researchers knew what results would turn out fromtheir experiments, their activity would hardly qualify asresearch in the first place. Success here is potentially averification of a nano vision as seen from the centre.Things look different from the perspective of a project atthe periphery. While nano strategies may be exploredhere, the project’s scientific identity, objectives andcommitment are marked by the field of vaccinology thatin turn constitutes the metric of the nano strategies.

Centre, Periphery and Exemplars

This article has contrasted two arenas of nanoresearch activities, situated along a centre-peripheryaxis. We situate the salmon fish vaccine project in theperiphery of nano because it could as well bedescribed without the nano label, as a project

96 Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98

continuing research strategies of fish immunology orvaccinology. We situate the NTNU NanoLab initia-tive, on the other hand, at the centre of nano as itrepresents an initiative that explicitly aims at promot-ing the field of nano.

Seen from the perspective of the centre, we suggest, aproject like the fish vaccine project explores thepotentials of engineering ‘at the bottom’. At stake inthis case is the question of what revolutionary differencenano strategies can do for the field of fish vaccinology.The vision of the centre, as we describe it, consists ofthree connected elements. The overall potentials ofnanoscale sensitive technologies may be releasedthrough cross-disciplinary efforts and manifested insocio-economic benefits. This vision call for deliberatereorganisation and investments in social and materialstructures of the sort NTNUNanoLab seeks to establish.

The fish vaccine project has what it takes to evenbecome a model exemplar of what is to be achievedby such initiatives. Imagine that crucial problems offish health were improved for the whole aquacultureindustry due to deployment of nano strategies in fishvaccines. Given a successful implementation in fishfarming industry, the extraordinary potentials of nanowould have been demonstrated. The nano vision, onemay say, would have come true here. The vaccineproject could have filled the role of such an exemplarregardless of whether or not the project arose out ofnano strategic initiatives. As an exemplar, it couldexemplify what initiatives like NTNU NanoLab aimat promoting and facilitating.

Bringing the field into life is not only a matter ofcreating novel experimental facilities, like the cleanroom facilities developed at NTNU. Understandingnano as a paradigmatic arena of Mode-2 trends, thestandard story of nano comprises a vision for novelmodes of knowledge production. We understandNTNU NanoLab as one arena for exploring potentialsof more context driven means of knowledge produc-tion of the sort we have not yet seen fully realised.

Meanwhile, projects in the periphery, like thevaccine case, may provide important arenas fordiscussing and validating standard visions of nano,regardless of their success or failure. The criticalpotential of projects at the periphery lies in thecommitment to an experimental system that, forinstance, evolves around the challenge of improvingfish vaccines. Rather than understanding the vaccinecase as a project mimicking the research strategies

and visions of the centre, the roles of centre andperiphery may be seen as inversed as it is in projectslike this that the vision, and accompanying prescribedreorganisation of research, currently can be examined.The trends towards new modes of organising knowl-edge production are simultaneously scrutinised andevaluated in these arenas for nano activities wedescribe as being in the periphery of nano.

Acknowledgements We want to express our gratitude toresearchers at the fish vaccine project for offering a research arenafor our project as well as for their contributions to our project. Wealso want to thank researchers at NTNU NanoLab for their kindcooperation as well as our referees for their constructive criticisms.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License whichpermits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original author(s) and source arecredited.

References

1. Aarset B (1997) From consensus to specialization: institu-tional aspects of Norwegian aquaculture research. Rev FishSci 5:303–322

2. Baird D, Vogt T (2004) Societal and ethical interaction withnanotechnology (SEIN)—an introduction. NanotechnolLaw Bus 1:391

3. Bawa R, Bawa SR, Maebius SB, Flynn T, Wei C (2005)Protecting new ideas and inventions in nanomedicine withpatents. Nanomed Nanotechnol Biol Med 1:150–158

4. Berg A, Bergh Ø, Fjelldal PG, Hansen T, Juell JE, NerlandA (2006) Animal welfare and fish vaccination—effects andside-effects (in Norwegian). In Fisken og Havet. Institute ofMarine Research, Bergen

5. Berube D (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nano-technology buzz. Prometheus Books, New York

6. Costello MJ (2009) The global economic cost of sea lice tothe salmonid farming industry. J Fish Dis 32:115–118

7. Evensen Ø, Brudeseth B, Mutoloki S (2005) The VaccineFormulation and its Role in Inflammatory Processes in Fish—effects and adverse effects. In: Midtlyng P (ed) Progressin fish vaccinology. Basel, Karger

8. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S,Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge:the dynamics of science and research in contemporarysocieties. Sage, London

9. Hacking I (1992) The Self-Vindication of the LaboratorySciences. In: Pickering A (ed) Science as practice andculture. Chicago University Press, Chicago

10. Håstein T, Gudding R, Evensen Ø (2005) Bacterialvaccines for fish—an update of the current situationworldwide. In: Midtlyng P (ed) Progress in fish vaccinology.Basel, Karger, pp 55–74

Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98 97

11. Huang Z, Chen H, Yip A, Ng G, Guo F, Chen Z, Roco MC(2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale scienceand engineering: country, institution and technology field. JNanopart Res 5:333–363

12. Hwang K (2008) International collaboration in multilayeredcenter-periphery in the globalization of science andtechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:101–133

13. Jotterand F (2006) The politicization of science andtechnology: its implications for nanotechnology. J LawMed Ethics 34:658–666

14. Klaessig F (2010) Nanotechnology: paradigm or bubble.Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of theSociety for the Study of Nanoscience and EmergingTechnologies, Darmstadt.

15. Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how thesciences make knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge

16. Koppang EO, Bjerkas I, Haugarvoll E, Chan EKL, SzaboNJ, Ono N, Akikusa B, Jirillo E, Poppe TT, Sveier H, TorudB, Satoh M (2008) Vaccination-induced systemic autoim-munity in farmed salmon. J Immunol 181:4807–4814

17. Li X, Chen H, Dang Y, Lin Y, Larson CA, Roco MC(2008) A longitudinal analysis of nanotechnology litera-ture: 1976–2004. J Nanopart Res 10:3–22

18. NanoLab (2008) NTNU Nanolab—annual report 2008.NTNU, Trondheim

19. Naylor RL, Hardy RW, Bureau DP, Chiu A, Elliott M,Farrell AP, Forster I, Gatlin DM, Goldburg R, Hua K,Nichols PD (2009) Feeding aquaculture in an era of finiteresources. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:15103–15110

20. Nordmann, A (2004). Converging Technologies—Shaping theFuture of European Societies. Report to the EuropeanCommission’s Directorate General for Research. RetreievedDecember 15, 2010, from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.133.2322&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

21. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinkingscience: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty.Polity press, Cambridge

22. NTNU (2003) Nanotechnology at NTNU. The NorwegianUniversity of Science and Technology, Trondheim

23. NTNU (2008) Evaluation of the engineering education atNTNU. NTNU, Trondheim

24. Porter AL, Youtie J (2009) How interdisciplinary isnanotechnology? J Nanopart Res 2009:1023–1041

25. Rheinberger H-J (1997) Toward a history of epistemicthings: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford

26. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implica-tions of nanoscience and nanotechnology—NSET Work-shop Report. National Science Foundation

27. Schott T (1998) Ties between center and periphery in thescientific world-system: accumulation of rewards, domi-nance and self-reliance in the center. J World-Syst Res4:112–144

28. Schummer J (2007) The global institutionalization ofnanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to theassessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70:669–692

29. Shew A (2008) Nanotech’s history: an interesting, interdis-ciplinary, ideological split. Bull Sci Technol Soc 28:390

30. Shew A, Baird D (2004) Probing the history of scanningtunneling microscopy. In: Baird A, Nordmann A (eds)Discovering the nanoscale. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 145–156

31. Sommerset I, Krossøy B, Frost P (2005) Vaccines for fishin aquaculture. Vaccines 4:89–101

32. Traweek S (1992) Border crossings: narrative strategies inscience studies and among physicists in Tsukuba ScienceCity, Japan. In: Pickering A (ed) Science as practice andculture. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

33. Vogt T, Baird D, Robinson C (2007) Opportunities in the‘post-academic’ world. Nat Nanotechnol 2:329–332

34. Wullweber J (2008) Nanotechnology—an empty signifier àvenir? A delineation of a techno-socio-economical innova-tion strategy. Sci Technol Innov Stud 4:27–45

35. Ziman J (2002) Real science: what it is and what it means.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

98 Nanoethics (2011) 5:87–98