Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Traversing Technology Trajectories

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scholars in science and technology studies, as well as economics and innovation studies, utilize the trajectory metaphor in describing a technology’s maturation. Impetus and purpose may differ, but the trajectory serves as a shared tool for assessing social change either in society at large or within a market sector, a firm, or a discipline. In reverse, the lens of a technology trajectory can be a basis for assessing technology, estimating economic growth, and selecting among plausible product development pathways. Emerging technologies pose a challenge in that the promissory claims that attracted investment may also challenge social safeguards, leading to necessary, but unforeseen hurdles to later technology acceptance. The experiences with biotechnology and nanotechnology demonstrate that knowledge gained in the intervening years was to have tempered exaggerations and addressed the criteria and the responsibilities of those who would later be deciding on product acceptability. In particular, the promissory claim for nanotechnology, unique phenomena, challenged regulatory practice, while claims for biotechnology products were often the fruition of themes found in the educational experience common to both the biotechnology researcher and the regulator. The social science and humanities literature mirrored these points as did the responses of civil society organizations. A prospective trajectory for artificial intelligence is developed using the example of driverless cars and then qualitatively compared to the retrospective trajectories for nanotechnology and biotechnology. Experience with automation, algorithm transparency, and computational modeling of biological mechanisms are identified as pertinent to responsible AI development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These are organizations with the purpose of developing consensus-based documentary standards regarding terminology, test methods, and administrative processes that may be used on a voluntary basis. Each standard developing organization has membership rules, voting procedures, and formalities designed to achieve consensus. ASTM Int. committee members are individuals voting as firms, non-governmental agencies, governmental agencies, and trade associations who are categorized as producers, users, consumers, or general interest; all negative votes must be addressed, and steps are taken that voting is not dominated by producers or users. ISO committee members are individuals representing a similar range of institutions, but voting as a national body (one country, one vote) with the required majority depending on the type of standard (Technical Report, Technical Standard, and International Standard).

  2. It should be noted that I was a UC-CEIN consultant on stakeholder involvement.

  3. It should be noted that I represented my employer on the American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel that industry raised EHS concerns with the NNI and the EPA. As a member of ISO TC 229’s terminology working group, I attended an ISO meeting with senior EPA and NNI representatives present at which the EPA colleagues specifically asked: why is there an “approximately” in the ISO definition of nanomaterial? And why is there no mention of ‘unique’ phenomena?

References

  1. Geels FW (2007) Feelings of discontent and the promise of middle range theory for STS: Examples from technology dynamics. Sci Tech Human Values 32:627–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Shrum W (1984) Scientific specialties and technical systems. Social Stud Sci 14:63–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Teece DJ (1987) Capturing value from technological innovation: Integration, strategic partnering, and licensing decisions. In: Guile BR, Brooks H (eds) Technology and global industry: Companies and nations in the world economy. National Academies Press, Washington, pp 65–95

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academies Press, Washington, pp 275–306

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy 11:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Landau R, Rosenberg N (1986) Editors’ overview. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academies Press, Washington, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  7. Freeman C (1994) The economics of technical change. Cambridge J Econ 18:463–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Utterback JM (1987) Innovation and industrial evolution in manufacturing industries. In: Guile BR, Brooks H (eds) Technology and global industry: Companies and nations in the world economy. National Academies Press, Washington, pp 65–95

    Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  10. Godin B (2017) Models of innovation: The history of an idea. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Merton RK (1968) On sociological theories of the middle range. Social Theory Social Struct 2:39–72

    Google Scholar 

  12. van Lente H, Rip A (1998) The rise of membrane technology: From rhetorics to social reality. Social Stud Sci 28:221–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klaessig FC (2016) The nexus of innovation management, safer-by-design and responsible research and innovation. In Bowman, DM Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant, Konrad K, van Lente H, Woll (ed) Responsibility and emerging technologies: Experiences, education and beyond. IOS Press, Amsterdam pp 11–23

  14. Miller G, Wickson W (2015) Risk analysis of nanomaterials: Exposing nanotechnology’s naked emperor. Rev Policy Res 32(4):485–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown N, Beynon-Jones SM (2012) Reflex regulation: An anatomy of promissory science governance. Health Risk Soc 14:223–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nickles T (1996) Deflationary methodology and rationality of science. Philosophica 58:9–50

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ankeny RA (2000) Descriptive models in biology: Of worms and wiring diagrams. Philos Sci 67(Proc.): S260-S272

  18. Hacking I (2012) Language, truth and reason 30 years later. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 43:599–609

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gläser J, Laudel G (2016) Governing science: How science policy shapes research content. Eur J Sociology 57:117–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy 42:1568–1580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sovacool BK, Ramana MV (2015) Back to the future: Small modular reactors, nuclear fantasies, and symbolic convergence. Sci Tech Human Values 40:96–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Eisler MN (2013) The ennobling unity of science and technology: Materials sciences and engineering, the department of energy, and the nanotechnology enigma. Minerva 51:225–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Klaessig FC (2013) Setting useful nanotechnology definitions examined from the standpoint of central and peripheral claim language used in intellectual property law. In: Konrad K, Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Shaping emerging technologies: Governance, innovation, discourse. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 127–136

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bhupatiraju S, Nomaler Ö, Triulzi G, Verspagen B (2012) Knowledge flows–analyzing the core literature of innovation, entrepreneurship and science and technology studies. Res Policy 41:1205–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. von Schomberg R (2013) ‘A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J (eds) Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, New York, pp 51–74

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  26. van Wezel AP, van Lente H, van de Sandt JJM, Bouwmeester J, Vandeberg RLJ, Sips AJAM (2018) Risk analysis and technology assessment in support of technology development: Putting responsible innovation in practice in a case study for nanotechnology. Integr Environ Assess Manage 14:9–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gottardo et al. (2017) NANoREG framework for the safety assessment of nanomaterials, EUR 28550 EN. https://doi.org/10.2760/245972

  28. Collingridge D (1982) The social control of technology. St. Martin’s Press, London

  29. US Congress (2003) 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003. Public Law No 108–153, 117 STAT. 1923

  30. Klaessig FC (2017) Nanotechnology definitions at ISO and ASTM International: Origin, usage, and relationship to nomenclature and regulatory and metrology activities In: Mansfield E, Kaiser D, Fujita D, van de Voorde M (ed) Metrology and Standardization of nanomaterials. Protocols and industrial innovations. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, pp. 49–73

  31. Roco MC (2007) National nanotechnology initiative— past, present, future. In: Brenner D, Lyshevski SE, Iafrate GJ (ed) Handbook on nanoscience, engineering and Technology. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 19–44

  32. D’Mello SR, Cruz CN, Chen M-L, Kapoor M, Lee SL, Tyner KM (2017) The evolving landscape of drug products containing nanomaterials in the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 12:523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Food and Drug Administration (2017) Drug products, including biological products, that contain nanomaterials, Guidance for Industry, Draft Guidance, December 2017. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/drug-products-including-biological-products-contain-nanomaterials-guidance-industry (accessed 5 November 2020)

  34. Beaudrie CEH, Kandlikar M, Satterfield T (2013) From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: Gaps in US regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle. Env Sci Tech 47:5524–5534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ramachandran G, Wolf SM, Paradise J, Kuzma J, Hall R, Kokkoli E, Fatehi F (2011) Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: Dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology. J Nanopart Res 13:1345–1371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Gallo J (2009) The discursive and operational foundations of the national nanotechnology initiative in the history of the national science foundation. Perspect Sci 17:174–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Roco M (2019) Comments to the synthesis of workshops discussions (48:37 minutes), the future of the NNI: A stakeholder workshop. (http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/nanotech/190801/) accessed 5 November 2020

  38. National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (2000) National nanotechnology initiative, the initiative and its implementation plan, July 2000. https://www.nano.gov/node/243. Accessed 5 November 2020

  39. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology and cognitive science, an NSF/DOC sponsored event, Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge (eds.) 2002 http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/1/NBIC_report.pdf. (accessed 5 November 2020)

  40. Holden PA, Klaessig FC, Turco RF, Priester JH, Rico CM, Avila-Arias H, Mortimer M, Pacpaco K, Gardea-Torresdey JL (2014) Evaluation of exposure concentrations used in assessing manufactured nanomaterial environmental hazards: Are they relevant? Env Sci Tech 48:10541–10551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tennent HG (1987) Carbon fibrils, method for producing same and compositions containing same, US 4,663,230, assigned to Hyperion Catalysis International, Inc

  42. Green MLH, Tsang, SC (1994) Uncapped and thinned nanotubes and process, US 5,346,683, assigned to the Gas Research Institute

  43. Fisher E (2019) Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration. Res Policy 48:1138–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Arora SK, Foley RW, Youtie J, Shapira P, Wiek A (2014) Drivers of technology adoption — the case of nanomaterials in building construction. Tech Forecasting Social Change 87:232–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Arthur KNA, Owen R (2019) A Micro-ethnographic study of big data-based innovation in the financial services sector: Governance, ethics and organisational practices. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04203-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Larédo P, Jolivet E, Shove E, Raman S, Rip A, Moors E (2002) Management tools and a management framework for assessing the potential of long-term S&T options to become embedded in society. TSER Programme of the European Commission, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  47. Smits R, van Merkerk R, Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2008) The role of TA in systemic innovation policy. Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, No, pp 08–11

    Google Scholar 

  48. Collins HM, Evans R (2002) The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Stud Sci 32:235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Klaessig FC (2012) Undone science and science un-done at nanotechnology’s periphery. In: Van Lente H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Konrad K, Krabbenborg L, Milburn C, Thoreau F, Zülsdorf T (ed), Little by little: Expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies, IOS Press Amsterdam, pp 43–53

  50. Brister E (2016) Disciplinary capture and epistemological obstacles to interdisciplinary research: Lessons from central African conservation disputes. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 56:82–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mäki U (2013) Scientific imperialism: Difficulties in definition, identification, and assessment. Int Stud Philos Sci 27:325–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Van De Werff T, Slatman J, Swierstra T (2016) Can we “remedy” neurohype, and should we? Using neurohype for ethical deliberation. AJOB Neurosci 7:97–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Nordmann A, Schwartz A (2010) Lure of the “yes”: The seductive power of technoscience. In: Kaiser M, Kurath M, Maasen S, Rehmann-Sutter C (ed) Governing future technologies: Nanotechnology and the rise of an assessment regime, Sociology of Sciences Yearbook 27:255–277

  54. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: A critique of speculative NanoEthics. NanoEthics 1:31–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nordmann A (2014) Responsible innovation, the art and craft of anticipation. J Responsible Innovation 1:87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Griesemer J (2002) What is “Epi” about epigenetics? Ann NY Acad Sci 981:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  57. Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Coccia M, Wang L (2015) Path-breaking directions of nanotechnology-based chemotherapy and molecular cancer therapy. Technol Forecast Soc 94:155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Asveld L, Osseweijer P, Posada JL (2019) Societal and ethical issues in industrial biotechnology. In: Hiete M (ed) Fröhling M. Sustainability and life cycle assessment in industrial biotechnology, Springer Cham, pp 121–141

    Google Scholar 

  60. Wickson F (2009) Reliability rating and reflective questioning: A case study of extended review on Australia’s risk assessment of Bt cotton. J Risk Res 12:749–770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Levidow L (2009) Democratizing agri-biotechnology? European public participation in AgBiotech assessment. Comp Sociol 8:541–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Stirling A, Glover D, Millstone E (2015) Regulating genetic engineering: The limits and politics of knowledge. Issues Sci Technol 31:23–26

    Google Scholar 

  63. Kelemen RD, Vogel D (2010) Trading places: The role of the United States and the European Union in international environmental politics. Comp Political Stud 43:427–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Cambrosio A, Keating P, Schlich T, Weisz G (2006) Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine. Social Sci Med 63:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Abraham J, Davis C (2007) Deficits, expectations and paradigms in British and American drug safety assessments. Sci Tech Hum Values 32:399–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Abraham J (2011) Evolving sociological analyses of ‘pharmaceuticalisation’: A response to Williams. Martin and Gabe Sociol Health Illness 33(5):726–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Vignola-Gagné E, Keating P, Cambrosio A (2017) Informing materials: Drugs as tools for exploring cancer mechanisms and pathways. Hist Phil Life Sci 39:10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Wickson F, Wynne B (2012) Ethics of science for policy in the environmental governance of biotechnology: MON810 maize in Europe. Ethics Policy Environ 15:321–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Liu N, Shapira P, Yue X (2021) Tracking developments in artificial intelligence research: Constructing and applying a new search strategy. Scientometrics 126:3153–3192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. AI HLEG (2019) A definition of AI: Main capabilities and disciplines–EU high-level expert group on artificial intelligence. [on-line] European Commission. Retrieved on 5 November 2020

  71. AI HLEG (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. Accessed 5 November 2020

  72. Nativi S, Gómez Losada A (ed) (2019) Artificial intelligence at the JRC, EUR 29798 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 9789276088424, https://doi.org/10.2760/705074, JRC117232

  73. Wittwehr C, Blomstedt P, Gosling JP, Peltola T, Raffael B, Richarz A-N, Sienkiewicz M, Whaley P, Worth A, Whelan M (2020) Artificial intelligence for chemical risk assessment. Comput Toxicol 13:100114

  74. Guice J (1999) Designing the future: The culture of new trends in science and technology. Res Policy 28:81–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Linkov I, Galaitsi S, Trump BD, Keisler JM (2020) Kott A (2020) Cybertrust: From explainable to actionable and interpretable artificial intelligence. Computer 53(9):91–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Lipson H, Kurman M (2016) Driverless: Intelligent cars and the road ahead. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  77. Lee D, Hess DJ (2020) Regulations for on-road testing of connected and automated vehicles: Assessing the potential for global safety harmonization. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 136:85–98

    Google Scholar 

  78. Gómez LA (2017) Data science applications to connected vehicles: Key barriers to overcome, EUR 28923 EN (JRC108572). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.2760/822136,JRC108572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Raposo AM, Ciuffo B, Makridis M, Thiel C (2019) The r-evolution of driving: From connected vehicles to coordinated automated road transport (C-ART), part I: Framework for a safe & efficient coordinated automated road transport (C-ART) system. https://doi.org/10.2760/225671

  80. Stahl BC (2021) Artificial intelligence for a better future an ecosystem perspective on the ethics of AI and emerging digital technologies. Springer, Cham

  81. Ulnicane I, Knight W, Leach T, Stahl BC, Wanjiku W-G (2020) Framing governance for a contested emerging technology: Insights from AI policy. Policy Soc. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1855800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hess, DJ (2020) Incumbent-led transitions and civil society: Autonomous vehicle policy and consumer organizations in the United States. Technol Forecast Soc: 119825

  83. Verhoest K (2018) Agencification in Europe. In: Ongaro E, van Thiel S (eds) The Palgrave handbook of public administration and management in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 327–346

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  84. Williams BA, Brooks CF, Shmargad Y (2018) How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: Challenges, solutions, and policy implications. J Inform Policy 8:78–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Winning J, Bechtel W (2018) Rethinking causality in biological and neural mechanisms: Constraints and control. Minds Mach 28:287–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Braillard P-A, Malaterre C (2015) Explanation in biology: An introduction. In: Braillard P-A, Malaterre C (ed) Explanation in biology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 1–28

  87. Craver CF (2006) When mechanistic models explain. Synthese 153:355–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Winther RG (2014) Parts and theories in compositional biology. Biol Philos 21:471–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Hunt CA, Erdemir A, Lytton W, Mac Gabhann F, Sander E, Transtrum M, Mulugeta L (2018) The spectrum of mechanism-oriented models and methods for explanations of biological phenomena. Processes 6:56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Haase A, Klaessig F (2018) EU US Roadmap Nanoinformatics 2030. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1486012; https://www.nanosafetycluster.eu/Nanoinformatics2030.html. Accessed 5 November 2020

  91. Hocquet A, Wieber F (2017) Only the initiates will have the secrets revealed: Computational chemists and the openness of scientific software. IEEE Ann Hist of Comp 39:40–58

    Google Scholar 

  92. Humphreys P (2009) The philosophical novelty of computer simulation methods. Synthese 169:615–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. OECD (2007) Series on Testing and Assessment No. 69, Guidance document on the validation of (quantitative) ‘structureactivity relationship [(Q)SAR] models. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2

  94. EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (2018) Scientific opinion on the state of the art of toxicokinetic/toxicodynamic (TKTD) effect models for regulatory risk assessment of pesticides for aquatic organisms. EFSA J 16:5377. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5377

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Drs. Fautz and Seifert for their efforts in pursuing this topic. They and the anonymous reviewers provided valuable insights that improved this work greatly. I have benefited from attending S.NET meetings and the occasional interactions with colleagues there, especially Professors Nordmann and Fisher. The manuscript includes personal observations made at meetings, including the multi-disciplinary stakeholder workshops conducted at UC-CEIN organized by Professors André Nel, Yoram Cohen, Barbara Herr-Harthorn, and Patricia A. Holden.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pennsylvania Bio Nano, LLC, Doylestown, PA, USA

    Frederick Klaessig

Authors
  1. Frederick Klaessig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick Klaessig.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

I represented my employer, Degussa Corporation (now Evonik) at the American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel, ASTM E56 and ISO TC-229. After leaving the industry in 2008, I continued as an independent consultant at ASTM E56 & ISO TC-229 and advised on stakeholder involvement at the UC-CEIN. These affiliations led to participation in meetings closed to the public.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Klaessig, F. Traversing Technology Trajectories. Nanoethics 15, 149–168 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00398-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-021-00398-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation