10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17430
There are two primary camps in which nanotechnology today can be categorized: normal nanotechnology and speculative nanotechnology. The birth of nanotechnology proper was conceived through discourses of speculative nanotechnology. However, current nanotechnology research has detracted from its speculative promises in favour of more attainable material products. Nonetheless, normal nanotechnology has leveraged the popular support and consequential funding it needs to conduct research and development (R&amp;D) as a result of popular conceptions of speculative nanotechnology and its promises. Similarly, the scholarly literature has shifted its focus away from speculative nanofutures towards normal nanotechnology R&amp;D. This paper shows the incongruences between the representation of nanotechnology in the media, scholarly journals and industry.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17430
1
en
Steven Umbrello
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
nanoethics
Explorative Nanophilosophy as Tecnoscienza. An Italian Perspective on the Role of Speculation in Nanoindustry
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
10
Essays
2019-07-16
2023-06-26
2019-07-16
2023-10-05
71-88
TS
Steven Umbrello
2019/07/16
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17430
71
University of Torino
2038-3460
1
nanoethics
en
88
Explorative Nanophilosophy as Tecnoscienza. An Italian Perspective on the Role of Speculation in Nanoindustry
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17430/16280
10
                                                                             Essay
                                                                                  71




 Explorative Nanophilosophy as
 Tecnoscienza
 An Italian Perspective on the Role of Speculation in
 Nanoindustry

 Steven Umbrello
 University of Torino



     Abstract: There are two primary camps in which nanotechnology today
     can be categorized: normal nanotechnology and speculative nanotechnolo-
     gy. The birth of nanotechnology proper was conceived through discourses
     of speculative nanotechnology. However, current nanotechnology research
     has detracted from its speculative promises in favour of more attainable
     material products. Nonetheless, normal nanotechnology has leveraged the
     popular support and consequential funding it needs to conduct research
     and development (R&D) as a result of popular conceptions of speculative
     nanotechnology and its promises. Similarly, the scholarly literature has
     shifted its focus away from speculative nanofutures towards normal nano-
     technology R&D. This paper shows the incongruences between the repre-
     sentation of nanotechnology in the media, scholarly journals and industry.

     Keywords: nanotechnology; atomically precise manufacturing; speculation;
     anticipation; nanoethics.

     Submitted: January 25, 2018 – Accepted: March 24, 2019

     Corresponding author: Steven Umbrello, University of Torino -
     Consorzio FINO, Via San Massimo 4, Torino, TO, 10123, Italia. Email:
     steven.umbrello@unito.it




 1. Introduction

     Manufacturing today is capable of some impressive high-precision
 techniques such as x-ray lithography for building electronics components.
 However, existing methods struggle to achieve atomically precise manu-
 facturing (APM), which is the assembly of materials with atomic preci-
 sion. In APM, materials are built atom-by-atom. This is one form of nano-

TECNOSCIENZA
Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies
10 (1) pp. 71–88 – ISSN 2038–3460
www.tecnoscienza.net                                2019
72                                                         Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

technology. The idea of APM dates to Richard Feynman's 1959 talk
"There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom" and active APM research began
with K. Eric Drexler's 1986 book Engines of Creation. Despite this rich
history, APM today is crude, limited to a handful of select materials, and
many in the field doubt that more advanced APM can ever be realized
(Drexler et al. 2007). The debate about the feasibility of APM centers
around its mechanical conception of atoms and molecules (Auffan et al.
2009; Snir 2008; Baumberg et al. 2007). In APM, individual atoms are put
in place in a fashion analogous to the mechanical assembly of components
in traditional macro-scale manufacturing. However, critics like Richard E.
Smalley believe that this concept is fundamentally flawed (Baum 2003).
They argue that it is impossible to create the physical bonds between at-
oms or molecules directly by mechanical means (Baum 2003). Instead, an
additional physical or chemical agent is needed to create the bonds, as
found throughout traditional chemistry. If the critics are right, then APM
is no more than an interesting intellectual exercise with negligible scien-
tific merit or practical application. However, if the critics are wrong – if
advanced APM is indeed feasible – then the implications are enormous.
Simply put, APM could enable unparalleled sophistication in manufac-
turing. Some APM proponents postulate that APM would usher in a rev-
olution in manufacturing on par with the industrial revolution or the
computer revolution. Drexler refers to this as “radical abundance”
(Drexler 2013b). The sweeping vision includes no less than unparalleled
solar cells to combat climate change, the abundance of medicines and
foodstuffs to eradicate disease and poverty and the strict control of manu-
facturing by-products that will make harmful waste a remnant of the past.
However, APM also has the potential to create an abundance of highly
precise and effective weapons system and surveillance technologies (see
also Altmann 2005; Drexler 2007; Joy 2000). APM thus falls into the
same category as other high-stakes speculative future technologies like
nuclear fusion power and artificial superintelligence. These technologies
might not be possible or might never be achieved by human engineering.
However, if they are achieved, they could fundamentally transform global
human civilization. A counterargument – arguing against R&D – can be
made on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. Developing these technologies
can be very expensive. Funding bodies often hesitate to allocate scarce re-
sources to projects with such uncertain payoff. Indeed, APM has histori-
cally struggled to attract investment, with nanotechnology funding going
primarily to more low-risk, low-reward technologies. Fusion power and
superintelligence have faced similar situations in the energy and AI sec-
tors, respectively.
     Regardless, although APM proper as an object of research has failed
to secure direct research investment, other ‘normal’1 nanotechnologies
such as nanomaterials have become a multi-billion-dollar industry (Har-
per 2011). The causes of these substantial investments can be accounted
primarily by the merits of the technologies per se. However, the conten-
Umbrello                                                                73
tion of this paper is to discuss the effects of technological speculation on
early-stage nanotechnologies. In a word, this article seeks to determine
the effects that speculative nanotechnology has and is having on normal
nanotechnology research. To accomplish this task, this paper situates it-
self by limiting its scope to the Italian nanotechnology industry. Because
nanotechnology R&D is relatively young in the Italian sovereign in com-
parison to the United States and the United Kingdom, Italy provides this
paper with a nesting ground in which policy and governance recommen-
dations have the best opportunity to inform the responsible innovation of
nanotechnology.


2. Methodology

    This paper takes a wholly unorthodox approach to the investigation of
the effects of speculation on current research trends. Existing nanotech-
nology literature has traditionally focused on nanotechnology funding
(Roco 2005; Harper 2011), the feasibility of advanced nanotechnologies
(Drexler 2006, 1986; Phoenix and Drexler 2004; Freitas 2016; Freitas and
Merkle 2004; Jones 2005), its potential future applications (Freitas 2015,
2010, 1999; Boenink 2010; Moscatelli 2013; Vandermolen 2006), as well
as its risks and governance (Boenink 2009; Wejnert 2003; Cowper 2006;
Vandermolen 2006; Phoenix and Drexler 2004; Moscatelli 2013; Pelley
and Saner 2009; Roco 2008). As such, this paper provides a novel analysis
by looking specifically at the exponentially growing Italian nanoindustry
and showing that a strong correlation exists between the media/scholarly
speculation and anticipation of nanofutures and the current ‘normal’
nanotechnology ventures2. This paper does not intend to replicate exist-
ing research literature on funding or policy in coming to its conclusions if
any, but instead, provide both a media and literature analysis of how nan-
otechnology is represented in the media and elite scholarly journals. As
such, although Italy and its nanoindustry will comprise the centre of this
investigation, broader global implications for research and speculation
will necessarily come into play. The preliminary conclusions of this paper
show that the funding and current nanotechnology research has, at the
very least, been spurred by the springboard of speculative nanofutures.
However, there is a ‘severing' both in the media and the scholarly litera-
ture. This paper will show that the media often represents and mediates
humbler ‘normal' nanotechnology creations as speculative nanofutures.
Whereas the discussions of nanotechnology in scholarly journals have
shunned discussions of speculative nanofutures in favour of discourses
surrounding these humbler pursuits. Thus, current nanotechnology ven-
tures have profited dramatically from funding bodies and public ac-
ceptance as a result. This incongruence – this severing – provides an un-
realistic account of what is occurring in nanoindustry, how speculation
and ongoing research co-construct one another through a series of indi-
74                                                         Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

rect assemblages that are mediated, translated and eventually represented
by the media and scholarly research. Because the thesis of this paper
dramatically hinges on media stories that cite nanotechnology, the identi-
fication of such stories in the Italian sphere is of primary importance. To
do this, this article is heavily based of the conclusions drawn Arnaldi
(2014) in retrieving Italian news stories, reports, and interviews that fea-
ture nanotechnology and notable Italian nanoscientists ranging from 01
January 2001 to 31 March 2012. His report used a complex Boolean
search string to retrieve news stories. This work, based on that of Dudo et
al. (2011), has the benefit of reducing false positives and only presenting
tangential search results thus decreasing the screening work needed (Ar-
naldi 2014; Dudo, Dunwoody, and Scheufele 2011). Going one step fur-
ther, this paper uses the work of Arnaldi (2014) as an implicatory index
for that date range. As such, because the contention of this article is to
unearth the division between media and academic discussions of nano-
technology, and given that the debate on speculative nanoethics, which
partially took place in the journal Nanoethics3, took place roughly be-
tween 2007 and 2010, the work by Arnaldi (2014) is only partially suffi-
cient for this paper. What is needed is both the work drawn from his arti-
cle as well as media and academic coverage of nanotechnology that pro-
ceeded it. Thus, this paper builds on this previous work by revaluating
the narratives from that period as well as news stories from 2012-2017
(inclusive). Like the mentioned study, three major Italian daily newspa-
pers have been selected to provide the sample of nanotechnology media
coverage (Corriere della Sera, Il Sole 24 Ore, La Stampa).4 To accomplish
this, the three daily newspapers have been searched using the online
search engine Factiva for pertinent articles containing the keywords ‘nan-
otechnology', ‘molecular manufacturing,' ‘atomically precise manufactur-
ing' and ‘nanoscience.5 The search was run for news stories from 1 April
2012 to 31 December 2017.6 The starting date was chosen as it directly
follows from Arnaldi (2014)'s last search date selected, thus providing a
smooth continuity of news coverage that could be relevant to the present
study. News stories were then screened for at least one present complete
phrase pertinent to nanotechnology, anything less provided insufficient
information, including classifieds, obituaries or other directly irrelevant
results. A total of N = 55 items were retrieved from the database, notably
less than the 218 items retrieved by Arnaldi during the 2001 – 2012
range. Additionally, replicating the Arnaldi Boolean search string, this
time with the addition of the search terms for ‘molecular manufacturing’
and ‘atomically precise manufacturing’, the original 2001- 2012 search
span resulted in a new total of N = 224 items (6 more which specifically
mention the future nanotechnology pertinent to this paper’s thesis. Simi-
larly, of the N = 55 items from the 2012 – 2017 search range, a total of N
= 0 items mention any of the future nanotechnology search terms even
once.7 The following section will introduce the theoretical groundwork
and literature that has focused on the implications of speculations on the
Umbrello                                                               75
development of emerging technologies and how such discourses can be
used with this particular case study.


3. The Role of Speculation in Contemporary Development

Speculation also termed anticipation (particularly within the diverse
technoscientific discourses) has played a critical role in the development
of nanotechnology since its inception. These speculative narratives have
had severe material consequences, the most significant of which has led to
the suppression of speculative nanotechnology narratives in most nano-
technology discourses (see Michelfelder 2011; Grunwald 2010; Nord-
mann 2007; Nordmann and Rip 2009), however, there has also been some
pushback by scholars, proposing that speculation, aside from having real
effects over contemporary technological developments, in itself has utility
in the scientific and governance discourses (Roache 2008; see also Selin
2007). The severing is multifaceted, and this paper aims to unearth some
of these incongruences. Similar to the scholarly discourses that have their
own debates on the value of speculative nanophilosophy, the risk assess-
ments of both current nanotechnology ventures and potential nanotech-
nology applications and future developments have a severing of their
own. The scope and context of risk assessments with nanotechnology dif-
fer between expert and public evaluation (Tyshenko 2014; Hinds 1999).
Expert evaluation of risk tends to focus more heavily on a limited scope
of potential risk-outcomes such as expected loss, death or grave injury
whereas public assessments tend to be less formalized and broader
(Hinds 1999). The public perception of risk as such has become the sub-
ject of further study given its material impacts on the development of
emerging technologies (Lee et al. 2005; Lemyre et al. 2006). Not only this,
but efforts to deconstruct the causes for public rejection of specific
emerging technologies genetically modified organisms and nuclear energy
production (Gupta, Fischer, and Frewer 2012). Several of these research
reports that focus on public perceptions of nanotechnology have been
published (Cobb and Macoubrie 2004; Priest 2006; Siegrist et al. 2007).
Although these surveys are over a decade old, they continue to provide
novel insights on the discrepancy between public and expert opinion of
current and potential future applications of nano-technological systems
and materials. The primary conclusion of these studies is an observation
that despite decades of public funding and development of nanotechnol-
ogy and its now widespread influence and interdependency with a large
number of other industry and research domains, public attitudes, and
understanding of nanotechnology remains limited and not well-informed.
Initial conceptions of nanotechnologies were entirely dichotomous, either
framed as utopian or dystopian in character. Discussions about the ‘radi-
cal abundance’ of energy, material wealth, and basic life necessities were
envisioned with arguments that it would be this transformative technolo-
76                                                          Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

gy that would be the centre of the fourth industrial revolution (Curtis et
al. 2006; Tyshenko 2010; Salamanca-Buentello et al. 2005; Drexler 2013b,
2013a). Catastrophic consequences to the development of the same tech-
nology were also projected, including environmental devastation, the ero-
sion of any notions of privacy and the infamous ‘grey goo’ scenario (Joy
2000; Drexler 2006, 2013a). These radical future speculations were, over
time, overwritten with more ‘down to earth’ framings that provided less
extreme interpretations of nanotechnology benefits and risks and relegat-
ed the catastrophic and abundance characteristics unlikely probabilities
(Dowling 2004). This characterized the first decade of 21st-century nano-
technology and nanoethics research; heaver focuses on more immediate
nanotechnology innovations and a shift away from speculative nanofu-
tures. As things currently stand, as of 2012, academic research that focus-
es specifically on speculative nanofutures had all but died out. Mentions
of speculative nanotechnology in academic scholarship has been relegated
to an ancillary role in demonstrating potential convergence characteristics
of nano-bio-info-cogno (NBIC) technologies and risk research (i.e.,
Bostrom 2014; Torres 2017) or published privately outside traditional ac-
ademic peer-reviewed platforms (i.e., Freitas 2015; Vassar and Freitas
2013; Freitas 2016; Lewis 2016).
    However, persuasive arguments have been levied that it was the foun-
dational character of earlier media and other popular works that spurred
public investment and interest in what is now normal nanotechnology by
showing particularly utopian speculative futures (Arnaldi 2014; Arnaldi
and Tyshenko 2014; Drexler 1986, 2006). As such, the current global
nanoindustry, particularly that of the United States and its federal Na-
tional Nanotechnology Institute, have significantly profited from the pub-
lic support for nanotechnology, even though the current nanotechnology
research is far removed from the promises of molecular engineering and
radical abundance that nano-optimists8 have speculated (Drexler 2013b)9.


4. Italy and Nanoindustry

    As such, how do we situate all of these states in the context of the Ital-
ian nanotechnology industry? Despite Italian innovations and investments
lagging significantly behind those of the US, Russia, China and other EU
states, there is nonetheless a growing interest in nanotechnology research
and increase in public funding (Istat 2013). There are several dimensions
contributing to Italy’s past and current position in nanotech innovation
such as a small number of large firms that operate in sectors that are
knowledgeable in nanotechnology, the restricted role that business play in
research and development, the narrow use of public research on the actu-
al industrial practice (even though Italian scientists have been lauded for
their scientific achievements). These factors are not exhaustive, but all
Umbrello                                                                  77
play a role in the hindrance of the Italian contribution to nanotechnology
innovation (Wired and Cotec 2009). Regarding the investments made on
the peninsula, they are relatively low in comparison to other states.10 In-
vestitures are estimated at roughly 100 million euros annually; comprised
both of Italian federal funding as well as EU funding. However, despite
poor relative investments, the professional interest in nanotech has gar-
ners increased attention over the years, particularly between the years of
2004-2010 where the total number of private companies directly involved
in nanotechnology increased from 20 to 85 percent. Additionally, the
Third Italian Nanotechnology Census reported that as of 2010 there were
190 existent Italian research centres dedicated to nanotechnology and
explicitly observed a growing interest in nanotechnology in Italian centres
(Airi Nanotec 2011).
    Nonetheless, problems are still persistent, primarily on account of the
lack of private investments that other countries such as the United States
possess as well as a unique severing between industry and relevant public
research. Not only this, but a 2010 survey conducted by WIRED and
COTEC reported that just 3.1% of the sample surveyed felt that they
were ‘well informed’ of current nanotechnology with 72.8% reporting
that they thought they were either poorly or not at all informed on the
topic (Wired and Cotec 2010). Similarly, although research and develop-
ment in the fields of nanotechnology in Italy continue, and more industry
firms emerge, there is yet to exist a strategic government plan regarding
nanotechnology in Italy, and as such, difficulties arise for citizens and re-
searchers to learn about funding opportunities within the nation as well
as statistics that clearly explicate the nation's actual state of development
(Nanowerk 2013; Berger 2013). The third ‘Census of Italian Nanotech-
nology’ that was conducted by the firms AIRI/Nanotec IT and published
in 2011 was the last of these official reports that gave an insight into the
status of nanotechnology innovation in Italy. Coupling the information
retrieved from the Factiva search regarding public dissemination of nano-
technology innovations as well as the current state of nanotechnology
funding in Italy, we can begin to sketch some interesting correlative re-
sults.


5. Sketching the Severing

   Firstly, there is a marked relationship between the quantity and char-
acter of the newspaper articles that talk about nanotechnology prior and
post-2012. Prior to 2012, there are at least six articles that explicitly dis-
cuss future nanotechnology, with over 224 items that address nanotech-
nology more broadly. There is a marked drop after 2012 that correlates
precisely with the definite shift in the research aims regarding nanotech-
nology. The scholarly debates that took place, more primarily in the jour-
78                                                          Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

nal Nanoethics, surrounded the value of speculative nanotechnology and
dedicating resources to its dissemination (for specific articles on this de-
bate see Roache 2008; Grunwald 2010; Nordmann 2007; Boenink 2009;
Nordmann and Rip 2009). As such, there was no overtly expressed deci-
sion that concluded the debate, instead what resulted was a quite fizzling
that ended with a near-universal moratorium on publishing purely specu-
lative works on nanotechnology.11 For this reason, there have been no
marked works on purely speculative future nanotechnology in academic
journals. However, it warrants mentioning that there do exist more recent
scholarly book publications that explicitly discuss future nanotechnology,
but never so in an exclusive or exhaustive capacity, but instead it is levied
as an illustration of the effect of technological convergence and existen-
tial/catastrophic risk (Bostrom 2014; Torres 2017; see also Freitas 2016
who continues to self-publish articles on this topic at his Institute for Mo-
lecular Manufacturing).
    As such, we can see how media outlets, in this case, Italy’s three larg-
est newspapers, has had a similar lack of publications on speculative
nanofutures, that, at one point, help to construct the popular support that
has enabled the base-level infrastructures to the now burgeoning Italian
nanoindustry (as shown by those articles listed in Appendix B).
    Another interesting correlation to note is not only is there a total lack
of articles on speculative nanofutures in the search results post-2012, but
there is a marked decrease in media coverage in general about broader
nanotechnology. This severing can be attributed to multiple potential
causes, none of which this paper aims to argue for. Such reasons can be:
(1) a lack of academic research with future – nano-optimistic (i.e., revolu-
tionary) – characteristics that the pre-2012 research possessed, (2) post-
2012 literature no longer associates its research with its revolutionary ori-
gins, and (3) the very broad definition of what encompasses nanotechnol-
ogy makes specific future applications nebulous (the latter is proposed by
Drexler, 2013b). Regardless of which, if any, of the proposed reasons, are
the cause of this severing is correct, one this is remarkably clear; the cor-
relations between the academic moratorium on speculative research on
nanotechnology is directly correlated with the lack of speculative media
coverage on nanotechnology. The size of the Italian nanoindustry, be-
cause of its relatively small, yet growing, size makes this severing remark-
ably transparent, whereas the more extensive American nanoindustry and
media outlets would make this Severing harder to discern.


6. Concluding Remarks and Further Research

   By observing the coverage of both normal and speculative nanotech-
nologies in the Italian media, I have roughly discussed the relationship
Umbrello                                                                79
between the academic discourses on nanotechnology and how that has
co-constructed the media coverage of nanotechnology.
     Firstly, the origins of nanotechnology, before material results in the
field were produced, was purely speculative with either nano-optimistic
or nano-pessimist anticipations. During this period of speculative nanofu-
tures, the media played a critical role in the dissemination of these poten-
tial futures with similarly serious scholarly debate on the feasibility and
ethics surrounding such technologies. This zeitgeist of speculative
nanofutures began to pave the way for basic nanotechnology research
that is argued to provide the fundamental building blocks for what was
later to be called future nanotechnology such as the Drexlerian APM
(O’Mathuna 2009; Drexler et al. 2007). New journals such as Nanoethics,
with the aim to disseminate this new field of research and both public
and private industry, centres Della for the R&D of nanotechnologies.
Such institutions, like the NNI, profited much by the public support that
was fostered by the news media in their speculative dissemination of
humbler material developments (Tyshenko 2014).
     However, a severing took place between 2007-2012, when academic
research on nanotechnology became disinterested, and in some case,
ideologically opposed to the dissemination of works of nano-speculation
or anticipation, relegating them to a waste of research resources (Van
Lente et al. 2012; Nordmann 2007, 2014). This is in specific opposition to
works that argue that speculation on technologies provides an ideal initial
exploration for the design and determination of values in directing poten-
tial futures (e.g., Alvial-Palavicino 2016; Foley, Bernstein, and Wiek 2016;
Racine et al. 2014; Roache 2008). Thus, there are two severing at play,
one that has emerged from within the academic discipline of nanotech-
nology research, one that is ideologically opposed to speculative works
(the very types of works that founded and induced funding for the grow-
ing field) and another severing that is transdisciplinary; a severing be-
tween the merits of speculation/anticipation per se. The works produced
through academic scholarship has genuine material consequences one
what type of information gets disseminated, both academically and pub-
licly. Similarly, can be said for the network of assemblages that the media
influences as it relates to funding and support of academic research and
ventures. Severings of this sort put a strain on what can and cannot be
discussed in a sober and accountable fashion. As a result, questions of
applied ethics come to the fore, particularly in being proactive for poten-
tially transformative and disruptive technologies (e.g., NBIC technolo-
gies). Speculation, both in the media and in scholarship provide a means
by which potential futures can be anticipated, and as a consequence, ma-
terial steps can be envisioned to assess and direct desirable prospects.
There is an extensive quantity of existing scholarship that disseminates
the merits of proactive developments of transformative technologies in-
stead of ex-post facto reactionary measures that often prove to be impo-
tent (i.e., Davis and Nathan 2014, 2015; Roco 2011; Tait and Levidow
      80                                                                   Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

      1992; van Wynsberghe 2013). To sum, this paper has taken up the specif-
      ic case of speculative nanotechnology as a means to illustrate the relation-
      ship between the media coverage of nanotechnology and the academic
      scholarship on the topic. The Italian nanoindustry, because of its relative-
      ly small size and more recent birth, provides a novel, and unambiguous il-
      lustration for how the media coverage of nanotechnology changes before
      and after 2012, both in quantity and subject. Speculation on future tech-
      nology, contrary to academic nanotechnologies, is not a fruitless endeav-
      our. Similar research is currently being conducted in equally speculative
      fields of advanced artificial intelligence and biotechnology, and for a
      good reason (i.e., Armstrong, Bostrom, and Shulman 2016; Barrett and
      Baum 2017; S. D. Baum 2016; Etzioni and Etzioni 2016; Wiltshire 2015).
      Further research should seek to determine active ways to reinvigorate
      nanoethics, either in an ad hoc fashion or by informing a potential path
      from examples in the fields of speculative artificial intelligence research.

      Appendix A: Boolean search term used to gather articles from the Factiva
      database

      (atleast3 nanotechnologia OR atleast3 molecular manufacturing OR at-
      least3 atomically precise manufacturing OR atleast3 nanotecnologie OR
      atleast3 nanoscienza OR atleast3 produzione molecolare OR atleast3
      produzione atomicamente precisa OR atleast3 nanorobot OR atleast3
      nanobot OR atleast3 nanosci* OR atleast3 nanotec* OR assem-
      bla*/N2/molecolar* OR fabbrica*/N2/molecolar* OR atom* adj2 fab-
      bric*) NOT (bomb/N10/atomic* OR arm*/N10/atomic* OR cen-
      tral*/N10/atomic* OR bomb*/N10/nuclear OR arm*/N10/nuclear OR
      nanosecond* OR apple OR ipod or mp3 OR digest OR no-
      tizi*/N2/brev*)

      Appendix B: Complete list of articles from 2001 to 2012 that specifically
      mention future nanotechnology systems
                                                                               Date of
           Publication                  Article Headline
                                                                              Publication

1.   Corriere della Sera   La riparazione dell'elica                       4 November 2007
2.   Il Sole 24 Ore        I menù e il futuro saranno a base di pillole    3 November 2006
                           nutrienti
3.   Il Sole 24 Ore        Prospettive dell'invisibile                     13 April 2006
4.   Il Sole 24 Ore        Per il Centro ricerche Fiat più atturato an-    24 January 2002
                           che fuori dall'auto.
5.   La Stampa             Addio chiavetta Usb C'è il filo intelligente.   27 February 2008
                           Anche l'Europa si lancia nel business delle
                           microparticelle di pochi miliardesimi di me-
                           tro
6.   La Stampa             Nano macchine                                   9 May 2001
Umbrello                                                                       81

Acknowledgements
Any errors are the author’s alone. The views in the paper are the author’s alone
and not the views of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies.

References
Airi    Nanotec,      (2011)    Third     Italian Nanotechnology     Census,
    http://www.nanotec.it/public/wp-con-
    tent/uploads/2014/04/ItalianNanotechnologyCensus_III_Synthesis_of_result
    s_AIRI.pdf. (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Altmann, J. (2005) Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preven-
   tive Arms Control, Oxon, Routledge.
Alvial-Palavicino, C. (2016) The Future as Practice. A Framework to Understand
    Anticipation in Science and Technology, “TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal
    of Science & Technology Studies”, 6 (2), pp. 135-172.
Armstrong, S. Bostrom, N. and Shulman, C. (2016) Racing to the Precipice: A
   Model of Artificial Intelligence Development, in “AI and Society”, 31 (2), pp.
   201-206.
Arnaldi, S. (2014) Exploring Imaginative Geographies of Nanotechnologies in
   News Media Images of Italian Nanoscientists, in “Technology in Society”, 37
   (1), pp. 49-58.
Arnaldi, S. and Tyshenko, M.G. (2014) Nanotech Traveling Abroad: The Interna-
   tional Dimension of Nanotechnology as a Changing Concept - A Guest Edito-
   rial, in “Technology in Society”, 37 (1), pp. 1-3.
Arnall, A. and Douglass Parr. (2005) Moving the Nanoscience and Technology
   (NST) Debate Forwards: Short-Term Impacts, Long-Term Uncertainty and
   the Social Constitution, in “Technology in Society”, 27 (1), pp. 23-38.
Auffan, M., Rose J., Bottero J. Y., Lowry G. V., Jolivet J. and Wiesner M. R.
   (2009) Towards a Definition of Inorganic Nanoparticles from an Environmen-
   tal, Health and Safety Perspective, in "Nat Nano", 4 (10), pp. 634-641.
Barrett, A.M. and Baum, S.D. (2017) Risk Analysis and Risk Management for the
   Artificial Superintelligence Research and Development Process, in V. Calla-
   ghan, J. Miller, R. Yampolskiy and S. Armstrong (eds.) The Technological
   Singularity: Managing the Journey, Berlin Heidelberg, Springer, pp. 127-140.
Baum, R. (2003) Drexler and Smalley Make the Case for and Against ‘Molecular
   Assemblers’, in “Chemical & Engineering News”, 81 (48), pp. 37-42.
Baum, S. D. (2016) On the Promotion of Safe and Socially Beneficial Artificial In-
   telligence, in “AI and Society”, 7, pp. 1-9.
Baumberg, J., Cronin, L., Gee, M., Kearnes P., MacNaghten, H., Makatsoris, J.,
82                                                            Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

     Ramsden, R., and Qareilly, A.N. (2007) Where Is Nano Taking Us?, in
     “Nano-technology Perceptions”, 3 (1), pp. 3-14.
Berger, M. (2010) Molecular Medicine and Concepts of Disease: The Ethical Val-
   ue of a Conceptual Analysis of Emerging Biomedical Technologies, in “Medi-
   cine, Health Care and Philosophy”, 13 (1), pp. 11-23.
Berger, M. (2013) An Overview of the European Union’s Nanotechnology Pro-
   jects in Nanowerk. http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=31109.php.
   (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Boenink, M. (2009) Tensions and Opportunities in Convergence: Shifting Con-
   cepts of Disease in Emerging Molecular Medicine in “NanoEthics”, 3 (3), pp.
   243-255.
Bostrom, N. (2014) Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies, Oxford, Oxford
   University Press.
Brey, P. A. E. (2012) Anticipatory Ethics for Emerging Technologies, in “Nano-
   Ethics”, 6 (1), pp. 1-13.
Cobb, M. and Macoubrie, J. (2004) Public Perceptions about Nanotechnology:
   Risks, Benefits and Trust, in “An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Sci-
   ence and Technology”, 6 (4), pp. 395-405.
Cowper, T. J. (2006) Molecular Manufacturing and 21st Century Policing, in
   “Nanotechnology Perceptions”, 2 (1A), pp. 27-30.
Curtis, J., Greenberg M., Kester J., Scott P., and Gary K. (2006) Nanotechnology
   and Nanotoxicology, in “Toxicological Reviews”, 25 (4), pp. 245-260.
Davis, J. and Nathan L.P. (2014), Value Sensitive Design: Applications, Adapta-
   tions, and Critiques, in J. van den Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, and I. van de Poel
   (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design: Sources, Theo-
   ry, Values and Application Domains, Springer, Dordrecht Netherlands, pp. 1-
   26.
Davis, J. and Nathan, L.P. (2015), Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technologi-
   cal Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains, in J. van den
   Hoven, P. E. Vermaas, and I. van de Poel (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values,
   and Technological Design: Sources, Theory, Values and Application Do-
   mains, Springer, Dordrecht Netherlands, pp. 12-40.
Dowling, A. (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Un-
  certainties,                       London,                       England.
  https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/
  2004/9693.pdf, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Drexler, K.E. (1986) Engines of Creation, Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Drexler, K.E. (2006) Engines of Creation 2.0. The Coming Era of Nanotechnolo-
   gy, Anchor Books, Doubleday.
Umbrello                                                                     83
Drexler, K.E., Zyvex, J.R., Corchnoy, S., Kawczak, A., and Steve, M. L. (2007)
   Productive Nanosystems. A Technology Roadmap, Battelle Memorial Insti-
   tute and Foresight Nanotech Institute.
Drexler, K.E. (2007) The Stealth Threat: An Interview with K. Eric Drexler, in
   “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists”, 63 (1), pp. 55-58.
Drexler, K.E. (2013a) Big Nanotech: An Unexpected Future in “The Guardian”,
   https://www.theguardian.com/science/small-world/2013/oct/28/big-
   nanotech-unexpected-future-apm?CMP=twt_gu, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Drexler, K.E. (2013b) Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology
   Will       Change      Civilization,   PublicAffairs,     New      York,
   http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/book/radical-
   abundance/9781610391139, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Dudo, A., Dunwoody, S. and Dietram, A., Scheufele A. (2011) The Emergence of
  Nano News: Tracking Thematic Trends and Changes in U.S. Newspaper
  Coverage of Nanotechnology, in “Journalism & Mass Communication Quar-
  terly”, 88 (1), pp. 55-75.
Etzioni, A. and Oren, E. (2016) AI Assisted Ethics, in “Ethics and Information
    Technology”, 18 (2), pp. 149-156.
Ferrari, A., Coenen, C. and Grunwald, A. (2012) Visions and Ethics in Current
   Dis-course on Human Enhancement, in “NanoEthics”, 6 (3), pp. 215-229.
Foley, Rider W., Bernstein, M.J. and Wiek, A. (2016) Towards an Alignment of
   Activities, Aspirations and Stakeholders for Responsible Innovation, in “Jour-
   nal of Responsible Innovation”, 3 (3), pp. 209-32.
Freitas, R.A. (1999) Nanomedicine, Volume I, Basic Capabilities, Austin, Landes
    Bioscience.
Freitas, R.A., and Merkle, R.C. (2004) Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines,
    Georgetown,                      Landes                      Bioscience,
    http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.html, (retrieved Mat 15, 2019).
Freitas, R.A. (2010) Comprehensive Nanorobotic Control of Human Morbidity
    and Aging in The Future of Aging: Pathways to Human Life Extension,
    Gregory M. Fahy, Michael D. West, L. Stephen Coles, and Steven B. Harris
    (eds.), Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, pp. 685-805.
Freitas, R.A. (2015) The Nanofactory Solution to Global Climate Change: At-
    mospheric Carbon Capture. http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep045.pdf, (re-
    trieved May 15, 2019).
Freitas, R.A. (2016) The Whiskey Machine: Nanofactory-Based Replication of Fi-
    ne        Spirits     and     Other        Alcohol-Based       Beverages,
    http://www.imm.org/Reports/rep047.pdf, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Grunwald, A. (2010) From Speculative Nanoethics to Explorative Philosophy of
84                                                            Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

     Nanotechnology, in “NanoEthics”, 4 (2), pp. 91-101.
Gupta, N., Arnout, R.H., Fischer and Frewer, L.J. (2012) Socio-Psychological
  Determinants of Public Acceptance of Technologies: A Review, in “Public
  Under-standing of Science”, 21 (7), pp. 782-95.
Harper, T. (2011) Global Funding of Nanotechnologies & Its Impact July 2011,
   in      “Cientifica”,      no.      7,     8,    http://cientifica.com/wp-
   content/uploads/downloads/2011/07/Global-Nanotechnology-Funding-
   Report-2011.pdf, (retrieved 15 Mat, 2019).
Hinds, P.J. (1999) The Curse of Expertise: The Effects of Expertise and Debi-
   asing Methods on Predictions of Novice Performance, in “Journal of Experi-
   mental Psychology Applied”, 5 (2), pp. 205-21.
Istat, (2013) Ricerca E Innovazione: Il Benessere Equo E Sostenibile in Italia,
    Rome.
Jasanoff, S. and Kim S.H. (2009) Containing the Atom: Sociotechnical Imagi-
    naries and Nuclear Power in the United States and South Korea, in “Miner-
    va”, 47 (2), pp. 119-146.
Jasanoff, S. (2013) Sociotechnical Imaginaries and National Energy Policies, in
    “Science as Culture”, 22 (2), pp. 189-96.
Jasanoff, S. (2015) Future Imperfect: Science, Technology, and the Imaginations
    of Modernity. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the
    Fabrication of Power, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-47.
Jasanoff, S. (2015) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the
    Fabrication of Power, in University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Jones, R. (2005) Six Challenges for Molecular Nanotechnology – Soft Machines in
   “Soft Machines” http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/?p=175, (retrieved
   15 Mat, 2019).
Joy, B. (2000) Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, in                         Wired,
    https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ (retrieved 15 Mat, 2019).
Lee C., Lemyre, L., Mercier, P., Bouchard, L. and Krewski D., (2005) Beyond the
   Hazard: The Role of Beliefs in Health Risk Perception, in “Human and Eco-
   logical Risk Assessment”, 11 (6), pp. 1111-1126.
Lemyre, L., Lee, J.E.C., Mercier P., Bouchard L. and Krewski, D. (2006) The
   Structure of Canadians’ Health Risk Perceptions: Environmental, Therapeutic
   and Social Health Risks in Health, in “Risk & Society”, 8 (2), pp. 185-195.
Lente, H.V, Coenen, C., Fleischer, T., Konrad, K., Krabbenborg, L., Milburn, C.,
   Thoreau F. and Zülsdorf, T.B. (2012) Expansions of Nanotechnology in Har-
   ro Van Lente, Christopher Coenen, Torsten Fleischer, Kornelia Konrad,
   Lotte Krabbenborg, Colin Milburn, François Thoreau, and Torben B. Zü-
   lsdorf (eds.) Little by Little: Expansions of Nanoscience and Emerging Tech-
Umbrello                                                                      85
    nologies, Heidelberg, IOS Press, pp. 1-7
Lewis, J. (2016) DOE Office Focusing on Atomically Precise Manufacturing -
   Foresight Institute, Foresight Institute, https://foresight.org/doe-office-
   focusing-on-atomically-precise-manufacturing/, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Michelfelder, D.P. (2011), Dirty Hands, Speculative Minds, and Smart Machines,
   in “Philosophy and Technology”, 24 (1), pp. 55-68.
Moscatelli, A. (2013) The Struggle for Control, in “Nature Nanotechnology”, 8
  (12), pp. 888-890.
Nanotec, Airi. (2011) Airi: Micro E Nanotecnologie Al Centro Della Giornata Ai-
   ri per L’innovazione Industriale, Comunicato stampa, Rome.
Nanowerk, (2013) Nanotechnology in Italy. Companies, Research, and Degree
   Programs,                      Nanowerk                          News,
   https://www.nanowerk.com/news2/newsid=28999.php, (retrieved May 15,
   2019).
Nordmann, A. (2007) If and Then: A Critique of Speculative Nanoethics, in
   “NanoEthics”, 1, pp. 31-46.
Nordmann, A. and Arie Rip. (2009) Mind the Gap Revisited, in “Nature Nano-
   technology”, 4 (5), pp. 273-274.
Nordmann, A. (2014) Responsible Innovation, the Art and Craft of Anticipation,
   in “Journal of Responsible Innovation”, 1 (1), pp. 87-98.
NSTC, COT, and NSET. (2018) The National Nanotechnology Initiative—
  Supplement         to      the         President’s   2018       Budget,
  https://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/NNI-FY18-Budget-Supplement.pdf,
  (retrieved May 15, 2019).
O’Mathuna, D.P. (2009) Nanoethics: Big Ethical Issues with Small Technology,
   Continuum, https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/nanoethics-9781847063953/,
   (retrieved 15 Mat, 2019).
Pelley, J. and Saner, M. (2009) International Approaches to the Regulatory Gov-
    ernance of Nanotechnology, Carleton University Press, Canada.
Phoenix, C. and Drexler, K.E. (2004) Safe Exponential Manufacturing, in “Nano-
   technology”, 15 (8), pp. 869-872.
Priest, S. (2006) The North American Opinion Climate for Nanotechnology and
    Its Products: Opportunities and Challenges, in “Journal of Nanoparticle Re-
    search”, 8 (5), pp. 563-568.
Racine, E., Rubio, T.M., Chandler, J., Forlini, C., and Lucke, J. (2014) The Value
   and Pitfalls of Speculation about Science and Technology in Bioethics: The
   Case of Cognitive Enhancement, in “Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy”,
   17 (3), pp. 325-337.
86                                                             Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)

Rip, A. (2007) Nano-Ethics as NEST-Ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation
    about New and Emerging Science and Technology, in “NanoEthics”, 1 (1),
    pp. 3-20.
Roache, R. (2008) Ethics, Speculation, and Values, in “NanoEthics”, 2 (3), pp.
   317-327.
Roco, M. (2005) International Perspective on Government Nanotechnology
   Funding, in “Journal of Nanoparticle Research”, 7 (6), pp. 707-712.
Roco, M. (2008) Possibilities for Global Governance of Converging Technologies,
   in “Journal of Nanoparticle Research”, 10 (1), pp. 11-29.
Roco, M. (2011) The Long View of Nanotechnology Development: The National
   Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 Years in Nanotechnology Research Directions
   for Societal Needs in 2020, in “Retrospective and Outlook”, Dordrecht,
   Springer Netherlands, pp. 1-28.
Salamanca-Buentello, F., Deepa, L., Persad, Erin B. Court, Douglas K. Martin,
    Abdallah S. Daar, and Peter A. Singer (2005) Nanotechnology and the Devel-
    oping World, in “PLOS Medicine”, Public Library of Science, 2 (5), e97.
Selin, C. (2007) Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology, in “Science,
    Technology & Human Values”, 32 (2), pp. 196-220.
Siegrist, M., Keller C., Kastenholz H., Frey, S., and Wiek, A. (2007) Laypeople’s
    and Experts’ Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards, in “Risk Analysis”, 27
    (1), pp. 59-69.
Snir, R. (2008) Regulating Risks of Nanotechnologies for Water Treatment, in
    “Environmental Law Reporter”, 38, ELR, 102.
Swierstra, T., Boenink, M., Walhout, B., and van Est, R. (2009) Converging
   Technologies, Shifting Boundaries, in “NanoEthics”, 3 (3), pp. 213-216.
Tait, J. and Levidow, L. (1992) Proactive and Reactive Approaches to Risk Regu-
    lation. The Case of Biotechnology, in “Futures”, 24 (3), pp. 219-231.
Torres, P. (2017) Morality, Foresight and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to
   Existential Risks, Durham, Pitchstone Publishing.
Tyshenko, M.G. (2010) Nanotechnology Innovation as a Deus Ex Machine and
   Potential Effects on Sustainability in a Global Context, in “International
   Journal of Nanotechnology”, 7 (2-3), pp. 209-223.
Tyshenko, M.G. (2014) Nanotechnology Framing in the Canadian National News
   Media, in “Technology in Society”, 37 (1), pp. 38-48.
Vandermolen, T.D. (2006) Molecular Nanotechnology and National Security, in
   “Air & Space Power Journal”, 127, pp. 96-106.
Vassar, M. and Freitas, R.A. (2013) NanoShield Version 0.90.2.13, Lifeboat
   Foundation, https://lifeboat.com/ex/nanoshield, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Umbrello                                                                      87
Wejnert, J. (2003) Regulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology, in “Ju-
   rimetrics volume”, 44 (3), pp. 323-350.
Wiltshire, T.J. (2015) A Prospective Framework for the Design of Ideal Artificial
   Moral Agents: Insights from the Science of Heroism in Humans, in “Minds
   and Machines”, 25 (1), pp. 57-71.
Wired, and Cotec. (2009) La Cultura Dell’innovazione in Italia, Edizioni Condé
   Nast, Milano.
Wired, and Cotec. (2010) La Cultura Dell’innovazione in Italia, Milano,
   https://studiobaroni.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/rapporto-2010-sulla-
   cultura-dellinnovazione-in-italia-wired-cotec.pdf, (retrieved May 15, 2019).
Wynsberghe, A. van. (2013) Designing Robots for Care: Care Centered Value-
  Sensitive Design, in “Science and Engineering Ethics”, 19 (2), pp. 407-433.




    1
      Donal O’Mathuna (2009) coined the term “normal nanotechnology” in con-
trast to speculative or “future” nanotechnology. The term normal should not be
confused with a Kuhnian ‘normal’ paradigmatic concept, but to refer to current
or real developments in nanotechnology that are currently being developed or al-
ready ubiquitous. This is usually nanomaterials and nanosystems such as atomic
force microscopy.
    2
      Socio-technical assessments and evaluations such as this one can stem from
various theoretical foundations. This paper provides a rudimentary empirical style
approach as delimited in this section (S.2). Another mode of inquiry towards the
sociology of expectations of socio-technical systems such as nanotechnology can
take the form of sociotechnical imaginaries pioneers by Jasanoff and Kim (Jasa-
noff and Kim 2009, 2013; Jasanoff 2015; Jasanoff and Kim 2015). This is a princi-
pled methodology for determining the mapping of expectations and their real-
world developments.
    3
      The majority of the debate that took place in NanoEthics surrounded the
value of conducting and publishing speculative works of ethics. Arguments
against the speculative project mostly deferred to arguments about the opportuni-
ty cost of speculation that could have served more immediate interest (Grunwald
2010; Ferrari, Coenen, and Grunwald 2012; Nordmann 2007). On the other
hand, arguments were made in support the value of speculative ethics in anticipa-
tory rather than reactive governance strategies (Roache 2008; Swierstra et al.
2009; Rip 2007; Brey 2012)
    4
      The Factiva search for all three news outlets encompassed both online and
print databases.
    5
      The terms chosen for the Factiva database search were used both in English
and Italian to cover both of the possible language and nomenclature usages that
are employed by the news sources. For a full list of terms and search, exceptions
see Appendix A.
88                                                                  Tecnoscienza – 10 (1)


     6
        Arnaldi (2014) explicitly excluded all search results by filtering out those
that mention molecular manufacturing or nanorobotics. Given that these are fun-
damental concepts to speculative/future nanotechnologies, the original search
date of 2001-2012 has been researched anew with the inclusion of these search
terms in the Boolean string.
     7
        See Appendix B for a list of articles from 2001-2012 that were collated that
specifically mention future nanotechnology systems at least three times as per the
Boolean search string conditions.
     8
       The term ‘nano-optimist’ (as well as its opposite, nano-pessimist) was coined
by (Arnall and Parr 2005).
     9
        See Drexler, 2013b for a thorough discussion of how the NNI and similar
institutions have arisen globally and have redefined what constitutes ‘nanotech-
nology.' As such, the original promises of nanotechnology are very different from
the current research that is globally being conducted.
     10
         Whereas Italy spends roughly 100 million euros (as of 2010), The United
States spends approximately 2-3 billion dollars publicly and an additional 4-5 bil-
lion dollars of private investment). Similarly, Japan spends nearly 1 billion dollars
per annum, and Germany stands as the EU forefront in nanotechnology invest-
ment with a per annum approximant of 800 million dollars (Nanotec 2011;
NSTC, COT, and NSET 2018).
     11
        This is not only clearly visible in the lack of future nanotechnology literature
post-2010, but it has also been clearly expressed to me by the editor of a top jour-
nal in the field and the cohort of reviewers who rejected a paper I had written
purely because of its speculative nature. One reviewer regarded the article as be-
ing clearly something that is currently taboo, and more suitable to the pre-2012
discourses saying that “The submission reminds me of the early debate on nano-
technology more than 15 years ago. It is a reflection on the big issues of APM of
which the idea goes back to science writer Eric Drexler (1986) and challenged by
Bill Joy in 2000. My first impression was: the paper is about 15 years late. In the
meantime, the nano-debate changed to a much more down to Earth mode, focus-
ing, e.g., on ESH issues of nanoparticles while the more futuristic issues migrated
to other fields such as human enhancement. Accordingly, my first feeling was: re-
ject because the paper is out of time”.
