Abstract
‘Ethics on the laboratory floor’ is, at the same time, the triumph and reductio ad absurdum of constructivist accounts of scientific practice with their implied decisionism, if not voluntarism. It is the triumph of constructivism, as its insights are no longer thought to undermine science and its quest for reality or truth. Having exposed the myth that science follows for the most part, a collectively binding logic of research as envisaged by Karl Popper, as well as Thomas Kuhn, we now fully appreciate that scientists make choices. And these choices may carry the signature of prejudice or ideology, private interest or aesthetic preference, ethics or politics. The ‘science wars’ that revolved around the apparent abandonment of an image of science that speaks truth to power (Sokal 1996) have given way to a ‘love fest’ that celebrates the openness of science, for example to ethical consideration (cf. Nordmann 2007; Nowotny et al. 2003). But here, the proximity of triumph and reductio ad absurdum comes in. On the one hand, we celebrate the possibility of ‘midstream modulation’ of scientific practice where social scientists and philosophers induce reflectiveness about the relative environmental merits of using this material or that in a laboratory experiment (Fisher and Mahajan 2006). On the other hand, we thereby perform a vanishing trick which is very welcome to science policymakers: by fostering the illusion that our scientific and technological future is an aggregate of decisions on the laboratory floor, one arrives at a policy landscape where responsible innovation means as much as making sure that researchers are prudent and that citizens are well prepared for what it is to come in the future.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Böschen, S. and Wehling, P. (2004) Wissenschaft zwischen Folgenverantwortung und Nichtwissen: Aktuelle Perspektiven der Wissenschaftsforschung (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften).
Davies, S., Macnaghten, P., and Kearnes, M. (2009) Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy, Part 1 of the Report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology (Durham: Durham University).
European Commission (2008) Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research (Brussels: European Commission).
Felt, U., Wynne, B., Callon, M., et al. (2007) ‘Taking European Knowledge Society Seriously’, Report of the Expert Group on Science and Governance to the Science, Economy and Society Directorate, Directorate-General for Research, European Commission (Brussels: European Communities).
Fisher, E. and Mahajan, R. (2006) ‘Midstream Modulation of Nanotechnology in an Academic Research Laboratory’, in Proceedings of IMECE2006: American Society of Mechanical Engineers International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, 5–10 November, Chicago, IL, USA.
Gamm, G. (2000) ‘Technik als Medium. Grundlinien einer Philosophie der Technik’, in Gamm, G. (ed.) Nicht nichts. Studien zu einer Semantik des Unbestimmten (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp).
Heidegger, M. (1993) ‘The Question Concerning Technology’, in Krell, D. (ed.) Basic Writings (New York, HarperCollins).
Ihde, D. (2008) ‘The Designer Fallacy and Technological Imagination’, in: Vermaas, P.E., Kroes, P., Light, A., and Moore, S.E. (eds) Philosophy and Design. From Engineering to Architecture (pp. 51–9) (Dordrecht, Springer).
Kiran, A. (2012) ‘Responsible Design. A Conceptual Look at Interdependent Design—Use Dynamics’, Philosophy and Technology, 25: 179–98.
Latour, B. (1990) ‘The Force and Reason of Experiment’, in Le Grand, H. (ed.) Experimental Inquiries, Historical, Philosophical and Social Studies of Experimentation in Science (pp. 48–79) (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Latour, B. (1991) ‘The Berlin Key or How to Do Things With Words’, in Graves-Brown, P. M. (ed.) Matter, Materiality and Modern Culture (pp. 10–21) (London, Routledge).
Nordmann, A. (2007) ‘Knots and Strands: An Argument for Productive Disillusionment’, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(3): 217–36.
Nordmann, A. (2010) ‘A Forensics of Wishing: Technology Assessment in the Age of Technoscience’, in Poiesis & Praxis, vol. 7 (pp. 5–15) (Dordrecht: Springer).
Nordmann, A. and Schwarz, A. (2010) ‘Lure of the “Yes”: The Seductive Power of Technoscience’, in Kaiser, M., Kurath, M., Maasen, S., and Rehmann-Sutter, C. (eds) Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime (pp. 255–77) (Dordrecht: Springer).
Nordmann, A., Radder, H., and Schiemann, G. (eds) (2011). Science Transformed? Debating Claims of an Epochal Break (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press).
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M. (2003) ‘“Mode 2” revisited’, Minerva, 41: 179–94.
Schwarz, A. and Nordmann, A. (2010) ‘The Political Economy of Technoscience’, in Carrier, M. and Nordmann, A. (eds) Science in the Context of Application (pp. 317–36) (Dordrecht: Springer).
Sokal, A. (1996) ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’, Social Text, 46/47: 217–52.
Verbeek, P.P. (2011) Moralizing Technology; Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things (Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press).
Vogt, T. (2010) ‘Buying Time — Using Nanotechnologies and Other Emerging Technologies for a Sustainable Future’, in Fiedeler, U., Coenen, C., Davies, S., and Ferrari, A. (eds) Understanding Nanotechnology: Philosophy, Policy and Publics (pp. 43–60) (Heidelberg, Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA).
von Schomberg, R. (2010) ‘Organising Collective Responsibility: Ion Precaution, Codes of Conduct and understanding Public Debate’, in Fiedeler, U., Coenen, C., Davies, S., and Ferrari A. (eds) Understanding Nanotechnology: Philosophy, Policy and Publics (pp. 61–70) (Heidelberg: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft AKA).
Winner, L. (1993) ‘Upon Opening the Black Box and Finding It Empty: Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Technology’, Science, Technology and Human Values, 18(3): 362–78.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Alfred Nordmann
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nordmann, A. (2013). Underdetermination and Overconfidence: Constructivism, Design Thinking and the Ethics Politics of Research. In: van der Burg, S., Swierstra, T. (eds) Ethics on the Laboratory Floor. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137002938_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137002938_12
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43407-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-00293-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)