1. Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center Performance on Societal Objectives Jan Youtie Georgia Institute of Technology American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting, November 2011

2. Objectives Understand the context of evaluating NSECs on the societal goal Apply an “additionality” framework Share evaluation findings and conclusions

3. 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)

4. 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 Context The U.S. 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act of 2003 (PL 108-153)

5. 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

6. Nanotechnology Budget: Societal and EHS Components v. Overall Budget ($millions) Source: National Nanotechnology Initiative, budget, various years.

7. NSF Nano and Society Initiatives [Past and present major projects] Center for Nanotechnology and Society UC Santa Barbara Center for Nanotechnology and Society CNS-ASU Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team University of South Carolina Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team Harvard/UCLA/NBER (incl. Georgia Tech) Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team Michigan State University National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network – Cornell University National Science Foundation (ENG/SBE) Arizona State University Georgia Tech U Wisconsin-Madison U Colorado-Boulder North Carolina State U Rutgers University NanoBank (Nano Connection to Society) Nanoscale Engineering and Science Centers (NSEC) Nano development Global innovation Response to nano Education, outreach Real-time technology assessment Education, outreach

8. Nano societal publications on the rise

9. Nano in Social Science is Multidisciplinary Source: Shapira, P., J. Youtie, and A.L. Porter. 2010. The Emergence of Social Science Research in Nanotechnology. Scientometrics. 85(2): 595-611.

10. 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.

11. and multi-disciplinary sources

12. 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

13. Behavioural Additionality Framework Type of AdditionalityDescription NoneNo inputs are allocated, goals are not addressed InputChange to inputs, implementation is outsourced, goals are addressed BehaviouralChange 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.

14. Analysis of Societal Goal v. Center Activity Type of AdditionalityDescription 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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