How social science should complement scientific discovery: lessons from nanoscience
Source abstract
Abstract
This article examines the state of social science of science, particularly nanoscience. It reviews what has been done and offers a series of constructive criticisms. It examines some of the problems associated with experts and expertise and itemizes challenges we confront dealing with them. It presages some of the social science research work that we may consider to embrace in the future.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: scientometrics and bibliometrics research · Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration · Health and Medical Research Impacts
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (76)
Show source-provided references
1. Adler J (2014) The reformation: can social scientists save themselves. Pacific Standard. May/June. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/can-social-scientists-save-themselves-humanbehavior-78858/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2014
2. Ayyub B (2001) Elicitations of expert opinions for uncertainty and risks. CRC Press, NY10.1201/9781420040906 ↗
3. Ball P (2005) Computer conference welcomes gobbledygook paper. Nature 424:94610.1038/nature03653 ↗
4. Berube D (2004) The rhetoric of nanotechnology. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 173–192
5. Berube D (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst
6. Berube D (2008) Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles. J Nanopart Res 10:23–37 & Reply from David Berube. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2008. 10:265-26610.1007/s11051-008-9362-7 ↗
7. Berube D (2013a) Socialis commodis and life cycle analysis: a critical examination of uncertainty. In: Savage N, Gorman M, Street A (eds) Emerging Technologies: Socio-Behavioral Life Cycle Approaches. Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore, pp 139–16310.1201/b14865-9 ↗
8. Berube D (2013b) The grant landscape for communication scholars. Spectra 49(4):22–25
9. Berube D, Cummings C (2016) Convergence in ethical implications and communication of emerging technologies. In: Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) Handbook of science and technology convergence. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 755–76610.1007/978-3-319-07052-0_64 ↗
10. Berube D, Cummings C, Frith J, Binder A, Oldendick R (2011) Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. J Nanopart Res 13(8):3089–309910.1007/s11051-011-0325-z ↗
11. Börner K, Contractor N, Falk-Krzesinski H, Fiore S, Hall K, Keyton J, Spring H, Stokols D, Trochim W, Uzzi B (2010) A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Sci Transl Med 2:49 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/2/49/49cm24.short . Accessed December 31, 201710.1126/scitranslmed.3001399 ↗
12. Bosso C (2016) Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 18:163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3451-910.1007/s11051-016-3451-9 ↗
13. Brown J, Kuzma J (2013) Hungry for information: public attitudes toward food nanotechnology and labeling. Rev Pol Res 30(5):512–54810.1111/ropr.12035 ↗
14. Cerejo C (2013) What are the most common reasons for retraction? Editage Insights. 16 October
15. Chamorro-Premuzic T (2014) How the web distorts reality and impairs our judgement skills. The Guardian. Retrieved 15 June 2016
16. Churchman CW (1967) Wicked problems. Manag Sci 14(4):B141–B142
17. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6(4):395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
18. Corley EA, Kim Y, Scheufele DA (2016) Scientists’ ethical obligations and social responsibility for nanotechnology research. Sci Eng Ethics 22(1):111–13210.1007/s11948-015-9637-1 ↗
19. Cummings C, Berube D, Lavelle M (2013) Influences of individual-level characteristics on risk perceptions to various categories of environmental health and safety risks. J Risk Res 16(10):1277–129510.1080/13669877.2013.788544 ↗
20. Dickerson D (2017) Are we keeping pace as leaders? April 21. https://dougdickerson.wordpress.com/2017/04/21/are-we-keeping-pace-as-leaders/ . Accessed 13 Nov 2017
21. Donk A, Metag J, Kohring M, Marcinkowski F (2011) Framing emerging technologies: risk perceptions of nanotechnology in the German Press. Sci Commun 24(1):5–2910.1177/1075547011417892 ↗
22. Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation: the coming era of nanotechnology. Doubleday, NY
23. Dunning D (2011) The Dunning-Kruger effect: on being ignorant of one’s own ignorance. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 44:247–29610.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00005-6 ↗
24. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A (2012) Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted papers. PNAS 109(42):17028–1703310.1073/pnas.1212247109 ↗
25. Felt U, Fouché R, Miller C, Smith-Doer L (2016) The handbook of science and technology studies, Fourth edn. MIT Press, NY
26. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2015) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press, Oxfordshire
27. Friedman S, Egolf B (2011) A longitudinal study of newspaper and wire service coverage of nanotechnology risks. Risk Anal 31(11):1701–171710.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01690.x ↗
28. Friends of the Earth (2007) Nanotechnology & sunscreens: a consumer guide for avoiding nanosunscreens. Available http://www.foe.org/nano_sunscreens_guide/Nano_Sunscreens.pdf . Cited 29 Sept 2007
29. Guston D (2010) Societal Dimensions Research in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. CSPO Report # 10–02. http://cspo.org/legacy/library/100701F7WL_lib_CSPOReportGuston.pdf . Accessed 13 Dec 2017
30. Guston D, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Sci 24(1–2):93109
31. Halloran J (2010) 1.2 What is scientific about social science? https://www.le.ac.uk/oerresources/media/ms7500/mod1unit2/page_03.htm . Accessed 18 Dec 2017
32. Hamlett P, Cobb M, Guston D (2012) National citizens’ technology forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement. Springer, Dordrecht
33. Harvard Kennedy School (2013) What is STS? http://sts.hks.harvard.edu/about/whatissts.html . Accessed 18 Dec 2017
34. Heath C, Heath D (2007) Made to stick: why some ideas survive and others die. Random House, New York
35. Internet Society (2017) Internet society global interim report 2017: paths to our digital future. Internet Society, Reston
36. Jasanoff S, Markle G, Peterson J, Pinch T (eds) (1995) Handbook of science and technology studies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
37. Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired
38. Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–9010.1038/nnano.2008.341 ↗
39. Koenig B (2015) Symposium: should we offer genomic research results to a participant's family, including after the participant's death? The journal of law. Med Ethics 43:3
40. Kolata G (2013) Scientific articles accepted (Personal checks, too). The New York Times. April 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-world-of-pseudoacademia.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 . Accessed 7 Oct 2014
41. Lacour S (2012) Emerging questions for emerging technologies: is there a law for the nano? In: Brayner R, Fiévet F, Coradin T (eds) Nanomaterials: a danger or a promise? A chemical and biological perspective. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 357–378
42. Li X, Hu D, Dang Y, Chen H, Roco M, Larson C, Chan J (2008) Nano mapper: an Internet knowledge mapping system for nanotechnology development. J Nanopart Res 11(3):529–55210.1007/s11051-008-9491-z ↗
43. Lin A (2006) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 31. UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 90. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=934635
44. Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Monica J, Foss S, Davis T (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotechnol Law Bus:203–220
45. McEwen JE, Boyer JT, Sun KY, Rothenberg KH, Lockhart NC, Guyer MS (2014) The Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute: reflections on an ongoing experiment. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 15:481–50510.1146/annurev-genom-090413-025327 ↗
46. Meyers MS (2001) Patent citation analysis in a novel field of technology: an exploration of nanoscience and nano-technology. Scientometrics 51(1):163–18310.1023/A:1010572914033 ↗
47. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar A, Singer P (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3):R9–R1310.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201 ↗
48. Naik G (2011) Mistakes in scientific studies surge. The Wall Street Journal. August 10. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303627104576411850666582080 . Accessed 19 June 2014
49. Newman L (2014) A journal is retracting 60 papers because of peer review fraud. Future Tense: The Citizen’s Guide to the Future
50. Nohynek G, Lademann J, Ribaud C, Roberts M (2007) Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. Crit Rev Toxicol 37(3):251–27710.1080/10408440601177780 ↗
51. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–27410.1038/nnano.2009.26 ↗
52. Oransky I (2012) Retraction count grows to 35 for scientist who faked emails to do his own peer review. Retraction Watch. September 17. http://retractionwatch.com/category/by-author/hyung-inmoon/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2014
53. Oransky I (2014) SAGE Publications busts “peer review and citation ring,” 60 papers retracted. Retraction Watch. July 8. http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/08/sage-publications-busts-peer-reviewand-citation-ring-60-papers-retracted/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2014
54. Oransky (2016) Tribecca Film Festival pulls Wakefield vaccine film from schedule. Retraction Watch. March 26. http://retractionwatch.com/2016/03/26/tribeca-film-festival-pulls-wakefield-vaccine-filmfrom-schedule/ . Accessed 28 Mar 2016
55. Rabinow P, Stavrianakis A (2013) Demands of the day: on the logic of anthropological inquiry. University of Chicago Press, Chicago10.7208/chicago/9780226037073.001.0001 ↗
56. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169
57. Roco M, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Washington, DC: NSF. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf . Accessed 31 Dec 201710.1007/978-94-017-3012-9 ↗
58. Rogers P, Puryear R, Root J (2013) Infobesity: the enemy of good decisions. http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/infobesity-the-enemy-of-good-decisions.aspx . Accessed 13 Nov 2017
59. Romig A, Baker A, Johannes J, Zipperian T, Eijkel K, Kirchhoff B, Mann H, Rao C, Walsh S (2007) An introduction to nanotechnology policy: opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74(9):1634–164210.1016/j.techfore.2007.04.003 ↗
60. Rothlauf J (2015) A global view on intercultural management: challenges in a globalized world. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, Berlin10.1515/9783110376289 ↗
61. Sample I (2014) How computer-generated fake papers are flooding academia. The Guardian. February 24. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/feb/26/how-computer-generated-fakepapers-flooding-academia . Accessed 7 Oct 2014
62. Schooler J (2011) Unpublished results hide the decline effect. Nature 470(4):43710.1038/470437a ↗
63. Schummer J, Baird D (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific, Singapore10.1142/6067 ↗
64. Selin C (2007) Expectations and emergency of nanotechnology. Sci Technol Hum Values 32(2):196–22010.1177/0162243906296918 ↗
65. Shapira P, Youtie J (2011) Introduction to the symposium issue: nanotechnology innovation and policy—current strategies and future trajectories. J Technol Transf 36(6):581–58610.1007/s10961-011-9224-9 ↗
66. Sismondo S (2003) An introduction to science and technology studies. Blackwell, Oxford
67. Steen RG (2011) Retraction in the scientific literature: is the incidence of research fraud increasing? J Med Ethics 249–25310.1136/jme.2010.040923 ↗
68. Stevens L (2005) News narratives about nano S&T in major U.S. and non-U.S. newspapers. Sci Commun 27(2):175–19910.1177/1075547005281520 ↗
69. Tetlock P, Gardner D (2015) Superforecasting: the art and science of prediction. Broadway Books, NY
70. Toffler A (1970) Future shock. Random House, NY
71. van Noorden R (2014) Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763 . February 24. Accessed 7 Oct 201410.1038/nature.2014.14763 ↗
72. Vergano D (2013) Fake cancer study spotlights bogus science journals. National Geographic Daily News. October 3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131003-bohannon-sciencespoof-open-access-peer-review-cancer/ . Accessed 7 Oct 2014
73. Webster M Jr, Sell J (2005) Laboratory Experiments in Social Science. In: Laboratory experiments in the social sciences. Academic Press, London10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00004-9 ↗
74. Weinberger D (2011) Too big to know: rethinking knowledge now that the facts aren’t the facts, experts are everywhere, and the smartest person in the room is the room. Basic Books, NY
75. Yawson R, Kuzma J (2010) Systems mapping of consumer acceptance of agrifood nanotechnology. J Consum Policy 33(4):299–32210.1007/s10603-010-9134-5 ↗
76. Youtie J, Shapira P, Porter A (2008) Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. J Nanopart Res 10(6):981–98610.1007/s11051-008-9360-9 ↗