Upload
olisa
View
39
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center Performance on Societal Objectives. Jan Youtie Georgia Institute of Technology American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, November 2011. Objectives. Understand the context of evaluating NSECs on the societal goal - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center Performance on Societal Objectives
Jan YoutieGeorgia Institute of Technology
American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, November 2011
Objectives
• Understand the context of evaluating NSECs on the societal goal
• Apply an “additionality” framework• Share evaluation findings and conclusions
NSEC Evaluation v. Societal Goal
• Ethical, legal, societal implications (ELSI) assessments since Human Genome Project (late 1980s)– High levels of impact not acknowledged (Marshall 1996,
Fisher 2005)• The scope of societal assessment broadened beyond
ELSI – economic impact, equity, privacy, security, environmental
effects, public deliberation, public perception, media and culture (Mnyusiwalla et al. 2003; Sheetz et al. 2005; Bennett and Sarewitz 2006)
• Framework for integrated and interdisciplinary approach to nano R&D
• Encourages applications of nano for productivity, industrial competitiveness
• Provides for nano education and training
• Requires ethical, legal, environmental, and other societal concerns to be addressed
Sec 2(b)(10): Establishes societal implications
research program Requires nano research centers
(NSECs) to address societal implications
Integrates societal, ethical, environmental concerns with nano R&D
Ensure advances in nanotech lead to quality of life improvements for all
Provides for public input
ContextThe U.S. 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D
Act of 2003 (PL 108-153)
Nanotechnology’s societal objective has undergone change
• Pre 2005: Societal + Environmental, Health, Safety (EHS)
• 2005-2010: Societal separated from EHS; education is sometimes included
• 2010-2011: Societal becomes responsible governance; EHS is sometimes included
Nanotechnology Budget: Societal and EHS Components v. Overall Budget
($millions)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
EHSSocietalAll Nano
Source: National Nanotechnology Initiative, budget, various years.
NSF Nano and Society Initiatives[Past and present major projects]
Center for Nanotechnology
and SocietyUC Santa Barbara
Center for Nanotechnology
and SocietyCNS-ASU
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research TeamUniversity of South Carolina
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research TeamHarvard/UCLA/NBER (incl. Georgia Tech)
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research TeamMichigan State University
National Nanotechnology InfrastructureNetwork – Cornell University
National Science Foundation(ENG/SBE)
Arizona State University
Georgia TechU Wisconsin-Madison
U Colorado-BoulderNorth Carolina State U
Rutgers University
NanoBank (Nano Connection to Society)
Nanoscale Engineeringand Science Centers (NSEC)
Nano developmentGlobal innovationResponse to nano
Education, outreachReal-time technologyassessment
Education, outreach
Nano societal publications on the rise19
8219
8319
8719
9119
9219
9319
9419
9519
9619
9719
9819
9920
0020
0120
0220
0320
0420
0520
0620
0720
0820
09
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Nano in Social Science is Multidisciplinary
Information Science & Library Science Computer Science, Interdisciplinary Applications
Multidisciplinary Sciences Planning & Development
Ethics Business
Social Issues History & Philosophy Of Science
Management Medical Ethics
Social Sciences, Biomedical Law
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary Chemistry, Multidisciplinary
Engineering, Multidisciplinary Medicine, Legal
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
# Publications
Source: Shapira, P., J. Youtie, and A.L. Porter. 2010. The Emergence of Social Science Research in Nanotechnology. Scientometrics. 85(2): 595-611.
And draws on a further set of
multi-dimensional
sources
Source: Shapira, P., J. Youtie, and A.L. Porter. 2010. The Emergence of Social Science Research in Nanotechnology. Scientometrics. 85(2): 595-611.
Source: Shapira, P., J. Youtie, and A.L. Porter. 2010. The Emergence of Social Science Research in Nanotechnology. Scientometrics. 85(2): 595-611.
and multi-disciplinary sources
NSEC Societal Evaluation
• Societal goal: “Support responsible development of nanotechnology”
• Mainly carried out by 2 specialized societal NSECs
• Early centers did not have a societal goal requirement, but all have societal activities
Behavioural Additionality Framework
Type of Additionality Description
None No inputs are allocated, goals are not addressed
Input Change to inputs, implementation is outsourced, goals are addressed
Behavioural Change to inputs and behaviour, implementation is outsourced and in-house, goals are fully addressed
Source: Abdullah Gok, (2010). An Evolutionary Approach to Innovation Policy Evaluation: Behavioural Additionality and Organisational Routines, University of Manchester, UK.
Analysis of Societal Goal v. Center Activity
Type of Additionality Description
None •Original centers did not have a societal component
Input •Center allocates funding to address societal goal •Social scientists receive funds and implement•Societal projects not always related to center mission
Behavioural •Change to inputs and behaviour•Some implementation is outsourced to social scientists, some fulfilled by center leaders•Societal goals change the way the center operates
Diversity of Outsourced Societal Activities
• History of a prize winning scientist• Survey of nanotechnology industry leaders• Case study of technology transfer institutions at the university• Study of online resolution of intellectual property disputes involving
nanotechnology• Public perceptions of nanotechnology from media and public culture
portrayal• Visual representations/pictoral images of nanotechnology• Citizen engagement through consensus conference• Dissemination of nanotechnology in Internet media• New measurement approaches to studying environmental, health and
safety effects of nanoparticles in complex samples• Toxicity models and studies of nanomaterials in fluidic conditions
Case Study: Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (Rice U.)
• Participation in standards committees– Important for creation of terminology for nanotechnology for regulatory purposes– Development of good practice documentation and databases– Creates path for future EPA and FDA policies
• New organizational approaches: International Council on Nanotechnology– Database of nano EHS articles– Working groups of company participants– Occupational health and safety good practice guidebook
• Global implications– Work on nano-enabled water purifications in developing country contexts open
source “recipe” for removal of arsenic in water enhanced understanding of of nanotechnology adoption in developing countries
• Nano Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) thinking about policy and ethical issues– Nano EHS policy design and creation of Nano EHS as a scientific subfield
Limitations
• The societal goal concerning nanotechnology has evolved from a definitional perspective
• This goal operates in a research context that is growing and multidisciplinary
• The main effort of the NSEC program toward the goal is carried out by two specialized centers not part of this evaluation
Observations• NSECs v. societal goal most commonly use an “outsourcing
approach” consistent with Gok’s “input additionality” construct– The connection to the center is more indirect, less well integrated.
• One center significantly exhibited “behavioural additionality” in changing the way it worked as a result of engagement with the societal goal– Centers working on health/environmental aspects of
nanotechnology address problems of a societal nature that are configured within their field of research
• The societal goal seems in the same position as the education goal for centers in the 1990s, suggesting it may become more well integrated, easier to understand