10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17169
Starting from the theoretical debate about technoscientific expectations, and based on the data collected doing ethnographic research in a laboratory of nanomedicine (in Northern Italy) operating in the field of experimental and clinical pharmacology, the paper explores in detail the relationship between anticipatory knowledge, scientific forward-looking statements and the situated practices of biomedical research in nanomedicine. In particular, I will focus on the processual dimension of scientific narrations on nanomedicine, in order to understand how future-oriented abstractions may represent a fundamental element for the local practices of nanomedical research. In doing so, and referring in particular to a socio-technical artefact called “triangle Dna origami”, I develop the notion of promissory bio-object, as a conceptual device to improve the understanding of the engagement of anticipatory knowledge in biomedical research.
application/pdf
2038-3460
17169
1
en
Stefano Crabu
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
ethnography
Nanomedicine in the Making. Expectations, Scientific Narrations and Materiality
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
5
Essays
2014-07-14
2023-06-12
2014-07-14
2023-07-24
43-66
TS
Stefano Crabu
2014/07/14
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17169
43
University of Padua
2038-3460
1
ethnography
en
66
Nanomedicine in the Making. Expectations, Scientific Narrations and Materiality
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17169/16070
5
                                                                                         Essay
Nanomedicine in the Making
Expectations, Scientific Narrations and Materiality

Stefano Crabu
University of Padua
	
  
              Abstract: Starting from the theoretical debate about technoscientific expec-
              tations, and based on the data collected doing ethnographic research in a la-
              boratory of nanomedicine (in Northern Italy) operating in the field of
              experimental and clinical pharmacology, the paper explores in detail the rela-
              tionship between anticipatory knowledge, scientific forward-looking state-
              ments and the situated practices of biomedical research in nanomedicine. In
              particular, I will focus on the processual dimension of scientific narrations on
              nanomedicine, in order to understand how future-oriented abstractions may
              represent a fundamental element for the local practices of nanomedical re-
              search. In doing so, and referring in particular to a socio-technical artefact
              called “triangle Dna origami”,I develop the notion of promissory bio-object, as a
              conceptual device to improve the understanding of the engagement of antici-
              patory knowledge in biomedical research.

              Keywords: nanomedicine; translational research; anticipatory knowledge;
              promissory bio-object; ethnography.

              Corresponding author: Stefano Crabu, PaSTIS, Dipartmento FiSPPA, Uni-
              versità di Padova, Via Cesarotti, 10-12, 35200, Padova, Italy – Email: stefa-
              no.crabu@gmail.com
       	
  


1. Introduction

                         Nanomedicine as a translational science has the goal to provide cost ef-
                    fective novel therapies and diagnostics using the expanding world of Nano-
                  technology. To reach this goal the process of translating research results from
                                                    labs to the clinic has to be greatly improved.
                                                         Joint European Commission (2009, 6)




TECNOSCIENZA
	
  
Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
5(1) pp. 43-66 - ISSN 2038-3460                      2014
www.tecnoscienza.net
44                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

                                                  What if doctors could search out and destroy the very first cancer cells
                                               that would otherwise have caused a tumour to develop in the body? [...]
                                            What if pumps the size of molecules could be implanted to deliver life-saving
                                                                  medicines precisely when and where they are needed?
                                                    These scenarios may sound unbelievable, but they are the long-term
                                            goals of the Nih Roadmap's Nanomedicine initiative that we anticipate will
                                                                    yield medical benefits as early as 10 years from now.
                                                                                   Nih Roadmap for Medical Research
    These brief, but sharp, quotations, drawn up by two major regulatory
and investment authorities in the field of nanomedicine1, clearly describe
the potential implications of the ‘infinitely small’ for translational research
in life sciences. Nanotechnologies appear to be capable of improving
knowledge translation between scientific laboratories and clinical settings,
and a number of new treatments and refined diagnostic tools are ex-
pected in the very near future.
    In recent years, the scientific movement of nanomedicine, which
emerged under the aegis of translational research, exemplifying the con-
nection between scientific research and patient care, has become fairly
significant in the field of post-genomic sciences (Baird et al. 2004; Tsai-
hsuan Ku 2012). The proponents of translational research in nanomedi-
cine believe that, within a relatively short time, a new set of ‘smart’ thera-
peutic tools incorporating a variety of functions, such as the controlled
release and ‘real-time’ quantification of drugs, will soon be available to
doctors and patients, enabling adaptation of therapies to the genetic pe-
culiarities of individuals (Venugopal et al. 2008; Tibbals 2011).
    Nanomedicine is now being promoted as a potential driver of biomed-
ical innovation, capable of opening a therapeutic scenario in which treat-
ments will become personalised, and individuals will take an increasingly
active role in the control and maintenance of their daily well-being. In
this sense, the standard view of nanomedicine, supported by the biomed-
ical community and circulating in major scientific journals, appears to be
characterised by a ‘future-oriented debate’ that is to be understood as the
complex ‘outcome’ of scientific narrations, expectations, anticipations
and future visions arising from the potential application of nanotechnolo-
gy in the context of patient care (Grunwald 2004; Lösch 2006; Ach and
Lüttenberg 2008).
    The ongoing dialogue between nanotechnology and biotechnology is a
topic of undoubted importance for Science and Technology Studies

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1
 The first excerpt was written by a team of experts from the European Technology
Platforms on Nanomedicine (Etpn). Etpn is an initiative promoted by the Europe-
an Commission, together with a strategic alliance of private enterprises, with the
aim of pursuing the application of nanotechnology within medical and clinical
contexts. The second quotation, appearing in Tibbals (2011), was taken from
Nih's Roadmap Nanomedicine Initiative, which is a platform founded and fi-
nanced by the National Institutes of Health of the United States.
Crabu                                                                   45
(STS). In the last decade, numerous contributions within STS have shed
light on the ways in which anticipatory expectations and “forward-
looking statements” (Fortun 2002) concerning scientific and technologi-
cal progress may be regarded as rhetorical devices capable of attracting
the attention of relevant stakeholders, such as policymakers, investors and
directors of research laboratories, together with a number of financial,
regulatory and symbolic resources (Brown et al. 2000; Holtzman and
Marteau 2000; Levidow and Marris 2001; Sturken et al. 2004). In this
florid debate, one of the most recent developments has been the growing
interest in how real-time practices are performed in relation to future-
oriented scientific narrations (Borup et al. 2006; Horst 2007).
    Starting from these theoretical suggestions, and based on the data col-
lected during an ethnographic research conducted in a laboratory of na-
nomedicine based in Northern Italy and operating in the field of
experimental and clinical pharmacology, I explore in detail the relation-
ship between anticipatory knowledge, scientific forward-looking state-
ments and the situated practices of biomedical research in nanomedicine.
In particular, I focus on the processual dimension of scientific narrations
on nanomedicine, in order to understand how future-oriented abstrac-
tions may represent a fundamental element for the local practices of na-
nomedical research. In doing so, and referring in particular to a socio-
technical artifact called “triangle Dna origami”, I develop the notion
of promissory bio-object as a conceptual device to enable improved under-
standing of the engagement of anticipatory knowledge in biomedical re-
search.


2. Theoretical Tributaries

    Anticipatory narrations and expectations regarding science and tech-
nology always involve a set of linguistic statements on particular events
located within a future-oriented imaginary world, which is still incom-
plete, but likely to come into effect in certain circumstances (Adam and
Groves 2007). Nanomedicine and translational research in general are
permeated by rumours and debates outlining future life technologies, fu-
ture benefits, future patients and future clinical applications (Ioannidis
2004; Thacker 2004; Martin et al. 2006; Wainwright et al. 2006; Selin
2007).
    In accordance with the lively debate on the relationship between an-
ticipatory narrations and technoscientific innovation, the last decade saw
the establishment of the so-called “sociology of technoscientific expecta-
tions” (Brown and Michael 2003). This approach has been used to inves-
tigate the way in which expectations, promises and visions, by means of
cultural metaphors, narrative scripts or forecasting policies (Michael
2000; Wyatt 2000; Király et al. 2013), are projected and manipulated in
46                                                          Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

the public sphere as a resource for driving research and development ac-
tivities and change in the present (Rosenberg 1976; Van Lente 1993; Van
Lente and Rip 1998; Brown et al. 2000).
     In this theoretical framework, the emergence of post-genomic
nano/biotechnologies has been interpreted as part of the construction of
a new bio-technoscientific regimen, where it may find a number of cul-
tural expectations, biomedical scenarios and promises relating to the po-
tential revolutionary benefits of new treatments or diagnostic and clinical
practices (Selin 2006; Hedgecoe and Martin 2007; den Boer et al. 2009;
Rose and Rose, 2012; Groves 2013). Research has focused on the im-
portance of expectations for the emergence of innovative biomedical
fields, such as genomics and biotechnology (Fleising 2001; Fortun 2001,
2002), pharmacogenomics (Hedgecoe and Martin, 2003; Hedgecoe
2006), telemedicine (Rappert and Brown 2000) and information technol-
ogy (Geels and Smit 2000; Wyatt 2000; Casper 2005). From an analytical
perspective, the above contributions have led to a ‘top-down’ mapping of
anticipatory narrations. In particular, the authors have addressed only the
temporal cycles of emergence and partial disappearance of anticipatory
rhetoric in public spaces, mainstream media or scientific journals.
     In this sense, the close relationship between forward-looking state-
ments and the local articulations of scientific research has been neglected.
As a consequence, the importance of investigating the way in which scien-
tific expectations of the “future of nanomedicine” may take on a material
dimension, becoming variously incorporated into diagnostic procedures,
treatment options, and new biomedical technologies, strikingly emerges.
     In order to address this issue, it is useful to look at those debates
which, focusing on the sociomaterial dimension of technoscientific prac-
tices (Law 1987, 1994, 1999; Mol and Law 2002; Orlikowski 2007), sug-
gest that we should pay particular attention to the alignment between
human actors, technical objects and discursive representations (Collins
and Yearly 1992; Fujimura 1995; Suchman 2000).
     Some authors, inspired by these contributions, have recently proposed
the notion of bio-objects, in order to conceptualise how new forms of life
are designed and materialised into clinically actionable devices (Webster
2011). Such a concept is useful for studying the sociomaterial process by
which new biological entities (such as stem cells or synthetic biologically-
based devices) are created and, at the same time, how they can shape new
clinical, regulatory and commercial issues (Waldby 2006). From an ana-
lytical standpoint, bio-objects are embodiments of knowledge in the mak-
ing that capture the reconstruction of the boundaries between biomedical
research and clinical needs. As a consequence, they are characterised by
mobility across different techno-scientific domains, such as laboratories
and clinical settings (Douglas et al. 2012). Furthermore, in a seminal pa-
per, Metzler and Webster (2011) have shown that bio-objects are mani-
festations not only of material practices, but also of hopes and
expectations with regard to the possibility of strengthening the
Crabu                                                                     47
knowledge that enhances biomedical intervention in health and illness.
On the whole, this notion suggests an innovative connection between the
sociology of technoscientific expectations and the sociomaterial ap-
proach, enabling investigation of the performative dimension of anticipa-
tory knowledge.
    In the following sections I will focus on the relationship between sci-
entific narrations and materiality, in order to understand how the expec-
tations of translational nanomedicine can be embedded into biomedical
practices and materialised into nanotechnological therapeutic objects.
Specifically, in order to show how the dialogue between research and care
practices occurs through the mediation of scientific anticipatory narra-
tions and expectations, I will focus on a detailed analysis of the activities
involved in the design of a nanodevice, a new biological entity which can
be defined as a promissory bio-object.


3. Case Study: The Birth of Onco_N@no

    Contemporary biomedical science is concerned with the problem of
improving the relationship between the laboratories and the bedside. Sci-
entific discourse regarding translational research has recently gained
growing importance in shaping imagined futures concerning the applica-
tion of laboratory research in the clinic (Ioannidis 2004). In particular, as
an emerging bio-technoscientific field of translational research (Tsai-
hsuan Ku 2012), nanomedicine clearly reveals how scientists, doctors and
researchers can occupy a temporality that is strongly biased towards the
near future, through the disclosure and declaration of statements and nar-
rations that outline possible developments in biomedicine (Birch 2006).
    The articulation between bench and bedside proposed by a transla-
tional paradigm may be strongly mediated by expectations and future-
oriented scientific statements. Therefore, it becomes necessary to adopt
an empirical gaze aimed at understanding how anticipatory scenarios in
nanomedicine will break through the walls of research laboratories and
contribute to the innovation of biomedical practices. In this sense, the
expectations and scientific narrations generated by the supporters of the
new technological paradigm in nanomedicine should be understood as
productive resources, rather than mere representative statements, which
allow to shape and define the conditions for the development of clinical
technologies.
    Overall, this paper is based on broader ethnographic research that
was conducted over a period of 5 months. The empirical material was col-
lected through documentary analysis, in-depth interviews and the ethno-
graphic observation of R&D activities within a laboratory of
48                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                        2
nanomedicine called Onco_N@no .
    Onco_N@no is a newly established laboratory, which, starting in Jan-
uary 2012, has gradually been incorporated within a larger care and re-
search institute in Northern Italy that is engaged in molecular oncology.
Doctor Gianni, an internationally recognised oncologist, has been the di-
rector since its foundation:

                                               Nanomedicine provides one of the most exciting and promis-
                                           ing paths of research and will help us transfer laboratory discover-
                                           ies into hospitals – explains Gianni, who deals with translational
                                           medicine, the aim of which is to ensure a direct contact between
                                           laboratory and patient. [...] Our goal: it's real-time monitoring of
                                           the potential side effects of a treatment, be it traditional (chemo-
                                           therapy) or “smart” (with monoclonal antibodies and other bio-
                                           logics drugs). When I heard that I had been awarded the funding
                                           from ***, I have to admit that, after the initial excitement, I was
                                           actually quite scared. It was a positive concern though, which had
                                           to do with the responsibility of coordinating a project in which I
                                           strongly believe and that I have been relentlessly pursuing together
                                           with my colleagues. (Gianni)3

   Gianni's considerations reveal the complexity of what must be ac-
complished locally to articulate a manifold and composite area of re-
search.

                                               Nanomedicine, this new current, is my last challenge. What is
                                           nanomedicine then? For me, it means designing drugs. It means
                                           designing drugs in a different way, in order to make them selective
                                           for neoplastic cells, or developing devices that can be useful for
                                           treatment. (Gianni)

    The utterances of Onco_N@no's director move from an anticipatory
narrative level, which includes the expectations and promises involved in
the development of new therapeutic nanotechnologies, to the level of eve-
ryday research practices, which must be coordinated in such a way as to
confer credibility on these expectations. These two levels are, as a whole,
the lenses through which Gianni observes the reconfiguration of biomed-
icine in the near future. He presents a scientific vision of nanomedicine as
a tool for the understanding and manipulation of matter, on the nanome-
ter scale, for the benefit of patients and therapeutic planning.
    During my ethnographic investigation I followed in detail the early
stages of the commissioning of Onco_N@no, which primarily involved
two researchers: Beppe and Martino. Beppe, with an academic back-

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
2
 Persons and locations names are pseudonyms.
3
 Interview given by Gianni in January 2012 for a magazine edited by the institute
that co-financed Onco_N@no.
Crabu                                                                                                                                                                                                                              49
ground in physics, had just returned from the United States to support
Gianni's project, suspending his position as research assistant professor in
the department of biology of an important science and technology insti-
tute. Beppe was then joined by Martino, a young PhD student in nano-
technology, who greatly contributed to the local translation of the
anticipatory scenario proposed by the director of Onco_N@no.
In what follows, my focus will be in exploring how nanomedical expecta-
tions and anticipatory knowledge, such as statements of ideas and scien-
tific facts, can be inscribed and embedded into biomedical practices and
diagnostic and therapeutic options (Borup et al. 2006). It is a point of
particular relevance, which helps to clarify how nanomedicine can con-
tribute to the overall definition of biomedical research in contemporary
society, and deepen the notion of promissory bio-objects as a conceptual
device for the analysis of the processes that confer materiality, credibility
and strength on forward-looking statements.


4. Exploring Nanomedicine through Expectations, Techno-
logy and Materiality

    Since its inception, Martino and Beppe have been engaged in the
modelling, development and visualisation of nanodevices, which are some-
times defined as “Dna origami” (Rothemund 2006) or, more suggestively,
as a “Trojan horse to attack cancer” (New Scientist 2012). Technically,
Dna origami can be defined as a three-dimensional structure on the na-
noscale, the shape of which is arbitrarily decided by the human operator
by whom it is created. The peculiarity of biochemical interactions be-
tween the molecules that make up Dna4 makes it extremely useful matter
for the construction of new forms of life that do not exist in “nature”.
Dna origami, developed for the first time by Paul Rothemund at the la-
boratories of the California Institute of Technology, have rapidly become
a “promissory material” for the generation of new biomedical nanotech-
nologies that are capable of improving drug treatment or “drug deliv-
ery”5:

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
4
  The macromolecule of Dna consists of molecules that are called bases. The bases
are linked together in an orderly way. This phenomenon is known as complemen-
tary base-pairing. The combination of two bases is called a “base pair” and is the
unit of measurement used to determine the length of a Dna molecule. The princi-
ple of complementary base-pairing was first described by James D. Watson and
Francis H. Crick in 1953.
5
  The concept of drug delivery refers to a number of approaches and technologies
applied on the nanoscale, which are intended for the transport of pharmaceutical
compounds to the body in order to improve the efficacy and safety of treatments
(Wang and von Recum 2011).
50                                                                Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

           For drug delivery you need to build an intelligent structure.
       This will give you better control as compared, for example, to tra-
       ditional nanotubes. You will also need to characterise this struc-
       ture. Now, Dna seems to me the most suitable material. Dna is
       subject to early deterioration. And it is toxic, but for how long?
       Probably for half an hour. Whereas nanotubes, I mean... they may
       cause apoptosis of all cells. Nanotubes are toxic, and not only for
       half an hour. (Beppe)

    As Beppe suggested, Onco_N@no research activities were primarily
oriented towards the production of a Dna nanostructure that could act as
an “intelligent vector” of a specific therapeutic molecule. The clinical ra-
tionale derives from the need to identify a number of treatment regimens
that are less invasive for the human body and have a relatively low toxici-
ty. Since the early stages of design, Beppe has framed Dna origami within
a purely clinical actionability (Nelson et al. 2013), expressing a number of
therapeutic expectations (for example, the reduction of toxicity level in
drug treatments for cancer) as forerunners of his research activities:

           On the basis of this research work, I can say: “Yes, I can use
       this device and I know how it behaves.” And then, I can imple-
       ment my origami with respect to the clinical needs. That is, for ex-
       ample, the drug delivery. Why could Dna origami be a winning
       strategy for drug delivery? Because they are biocompatible. They
       are made with the same biomolecules that you find in our bodies.
       In doing this new thing, we established a few points to follow.
       First point, we are in a research and care institute, so we have to
       do something related to cancer treatment. Second point, our direc-
       tor has always been involved in experimental and clinical pharma-
       cology. Thirdly, we have the patients. Therefore, cancer, patients
       and medications: these are the ingredients. (Martino)

    Through this discursive operation, Beppe and Martino attempted to
establish a material-semantic link between the clinical expectations and
research activities of Onco_N@no, turning the nanomedicine laboratory
into an instrument at the service of the patient. In this respect, research-
ers' words are pervaded by a sense of moral responsibility, demanding the
adoption of explicit and demonstrable procedures, peculiar to a system of
‘scientific truth’ (Hacking 2009), in order to account for and justify the
fact that Onco_N@no's activities move towards clinical application. It is a
practice of accountability (Garfinkel 1967) which, in conjunction with the
modeling, development and visualisation of Dna nanodevices, confers
credibility on the future-oriented scientific statements that constitute the
global field of nanomedicine.
    Moreover, it is important to underline that both quotations elucidate
how material expectations regarding translational nanomedicine out-
comes enacted by Dna origami are partially shaped by the institutional
setting’s vision around the potential benefit of the nanodevice. At the
Crabu                                                                              51
same time, the institutional vision is co-generated by the possibility of
successfully constructing the nanodevice as a therapeutic object. In this
sense, the articulation between bench and bedside, strongly supported by
the translational research paradigm, is mediated by the circulation of ex-
pectations between multiple levels and domains.


4.1. Nanomedical Modeling: Centers of Calculation and Molecu-
lar Bio-design

     According to the researchers’ expectations, one of the nanodevices
designed and developed at Onco_N@no could significantly enhance the
efficacy and safety of a specific drug or therapeutic compound with which
it is combined:

            The Dna triangle that I'm preparing, as you can see, is a simple
        structure. And it is precisely for this reason that I believe that you
        can have better control when you test it on blood and in patients.
        We need a structure that can be monitored and aggregated with a
        drug, that's all. If you create an origami that is too complex, you're
        back to square one. How do you manage to check it within the
        body? (Martino)

    Designing the nanodevice initially involved the graphic modelling of
the intended structure. Martino and Beppe were oriented in the creation
of a structure having a triangular shape, hence the name triangle Dna ori-
gami (Tdo). By reason of its alleged simplicity and graphic ‘abstemious-
ness’, as Martino explained, Tdo would allow improved control by the
operators when used in complex biological systems, such as the human
body. However, the question of simplicity and visual abstemiousness is
not to be understood as a mere technical problem. Describing his Dna
molecules in familiar terms, Martino has the ability to make the subject
accessible and intelligible, not only for researchers and the confined
community of nanotechnologists, but also for clinicians and non-
specialists that are simply interested in laboratory scientific activities, such
as patients.
    While I was conducting my investigation in the laboratory, it often
happened to see researchers from other scientific institutes in Northern
Italy (who used to visit Onco_N@no to negotiate partnerships and col-
laborations) showing great interest, and even surprise, with respect to the
research activities of Martino and Beppe:

        Martino: So, first of all, I tried to select the best software to design
           my origami. I tried a few. All of them are CAD [computer-
           aided design] software and are free [...]. In the end, I found
           out that the only software I could use was this one. It is called
           NanoEngineer. In my opinion, it is the best software for this
52                                                                 Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

          application, since it also allows 3D design, whereas other soft-
          ware would only support 2D design. Basically, this software al-
          lows you to create your own origami.
       Engineer (guest): Can you give us an idea of how you create this
          origami?
       Martino: You need to design its structure with NanoEngineer.
          This way, you will have your assembled structure, also includ-
          ing complementary sequences of DNA. Once you have drawn
          the structure and you are sure about your project, you need to
          acquire Dna fragments, mix into solution, and then you can do
          the rest, that is make your reaction.
       Engineer (guest): So you are telling us that the structure is auto-
          matically generated? Do you mean that the origami is automat-
          ically generated out of this indistinct mixture?
       Martino: Basically, yes.
       Engineer (guest): It is truly fascinating. It is really incredible how
          you can create the structure out of this slop. Well, considering
          that we live thanks to DNA, you can easily figure out why it
          may react like this. It is a real “wager” when you mix all these
          things together trying to achieve ordered nanostructures. It is
          something beautiful and the wager is very powerful for the
          clinic.

    “The wager is very powerful for the clinic”: the epilogue of this con-
versation shows how the research activities in which Martino is engaged
require the ability to manage scientific knowledge and technologies, as
well as expectations, in the form of the scientific wager, revolving around
nanomedicine. From the conversation between Martino and the chemical
engineer, we learned that the design and production of the nanodevice
implied a composite work of digital and organic, and between clinical ex-
pectations and laboratory practices, in order to develop new treatment
strategies.
    The modelling of Dna origami is articulated through a process of
graphic design using an open source; computer-aided design software
called NanoEngineer-1 (Fig. 1).
    The software used by Martino conceals a sophisticated corpus of sci-
entific knowledge in the field of molecular biology behind an extremely
simple and intuitive user interface. NanoEngineer-1 makes it possible to
simulate the biological process of Dna reproduction and synthesis, since
the software developers incorporated in the application a codified and
formalised knowledge base regarding the complementary pairing of Dna
sub-units. This means that the operator can generate 3D images of Dna
on a nanoscale, which is potentially achievable in the laboratory.
Crabu                                                                     53




        Fig. 1 – Modelling of a nanomedical device with Nano_Engineer-1

However, when modelling the TDO, Martino's activity was not limited to
the use of the software. Although it may sound like a highly technical ac-
tivity, opened by software potential in itself, the modelling required the
juxtaposition of other handmade graphic elements, such as drawings,
prototypes and proofs (Fig. 2a and 2b).
    These were later collated in the laboratory journal and, to some ex-
tent, they express Martino's scientific creativity, which confers shape and
materiality on the expectations of nanomedical devices.
    Such representations, sketches and drawings, may be regarded as cen-
tral elements of mediation in building Tdo digital images, and constitute
the space in which scientific ideas regarding the future are visually re-
fined.
54                                                            Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)




Fig. 2a – Graphic drafts of the nano     Fig. 2b – Graphic drafts of the nano
          device                                  device

    In other words, a specific medical nanotechnology that initially es-
capes the sensitive perception, becomes present, credible and, above all,
achievable, through laboratory practices. In this respect, the goal of the
graphic exploration of Dna molecules is not merely theoretical, nor simp-
ly attributable to the reconfiguration of new knowledge on Dna proper-
ties on the nanoscale. Despite the fact that, to a certain extent,
nanomedicine wishes to ascertain the implications of biological processes
on an atomic scale, the main goal of Onco_N@no research activities is to
make an attempt to actively manipulate organic matter for the design of
new therapeutic strategies.
    Within this experimental frame, the computer application used by
Martino appears to be particularly relevant. While incorporating codified
and formalised expert knowledge, the software serves as a “centre of cal-
culation” (Latour 1986, 1987) that is standardized and shared by the in-
ternational scientific community. The standardization of modelling
procedures conveyed by the software and the digital images produced by
Martino can meet the approval of the reference scientific community:
Tdo digital images do not pertain to the level of imagination, but are self-
evident scientific representations of the generative potential of Dna.
    Thanks to the knowledge base incorporated in the software and rec-
ognized by the international scientific community, the blurred and anti-
thetical boundaries between “imaginary” and “scientific” are reassembled
within an epistemologically consolidated regime of disciplinary truth
(Knorr-Cetina 1981). In this way, researchers have constructed a “digital
object” (Monteiro 2010) as intermediate scientific evidence that helps to
recompose the discursive level of future nanomedicine with that which is
Crabu                                                                    55
experimental. This means that the image can also be shared, displayed,
and potentially translated into clinical practice, conferring credibility on
the nanomedicine scenario.


4.2. Development and Visualization of Nanodevices: Seeing Is
Believing

     As described in the previous section, the concept of Dna, which is the
constituent material of the nanodevice, pertained to a computational rep-
resentation during the modelling phase. It was a computer-based, or in
silico, simulation of the process of synthesis and aggregation of the sub-
units forming the Tdo. The graphic design stage was followed by the in
vitro development of the nanodevice, in the form of a biological sample.
The Tdo development path was articulated in a number of experimental
activities, which required the manipulation of short sequences of Dna, the
so-called oligonucleotides, in order to confer a biological and material
status on digital images.
     The Dna sequences have the property to aggregate into the ordered
and predefined structures that are called Dna origami through a bio-
chemical reaction induced by heat (annealing reaction). After designing
the image on NanoEngineer-1, Martino had to “catalogue” the different
Dna sequences required for the preparation of the reaction that would
lead to the formation of the desired nanodevice. The software incorpo-
rates a dedicated tool that automatically generates a list of nucleotides
constituting the Tdo. This list is nothing more than a long list of letters
indicating nucleotide aggregations in the form of “GATGG” etc. (Fig. 3).
This means that the nanodevice, following in silico simulation, is translat-
ed from a visual and graphic language (the image of the triangle) into a
conventional and standardized alphabetic language, taking on a new in-
formational dimension. When preparing the annealing reaction, based on
a “trial and error” approach, the researcher defines an experimental pro-
tocol providing the instructions, methods, materials and sequences of ac-
tions necessary for the in vitro development of Tdo.




         Fig. 3 – Example of nanodevice informational representation
56                                                              Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)


The overall coordination of the reaction for assembling Dna sequences is
particularly laborious, and recursively interweaves the subsequent activi-
ties of visualization and characterization of TDO. After completion of the
annealing reaction, Martino obtained a set of biological samples, in which
he may have reasonably expected aggregation of Dna sequences for gen-
eration of the nanodevice. At this point, it is necessary to adopt a number
of experimental procedures to verify the formation of the desired
nanostructures. This verification phase also has a characterization func-
tion, since it allows the estimation of some of the biochemical properties
of the product obtained from the reaction. The visualization of the
nanostructure is achieved through an experimental procedure that is fair-
ly consolidated in molecular biology laboratories: electrophoresis. This
technique for the analysis and separation of Dna molecules enables the
production of very particular images (Fig. 4), as well as a further graphic
and visual representation of the nanodevice.




             Fig. 4 – View of the nanodevice after electrophoresis
     	
  
    The visual representations of the nanodevice, obtained through elec-
trophoresis and subsequent exposure of Dna inside a photographic de-
vice, are configured as ‘light/dark bands’ and form visual objects of
mediation between the computational and purely biological status of
Tdo, achieved through experimental laboratory practice. As shown in
figure 5, Martino is comparing the image of his nanodevice with one that
is standard, or a molecular weight marker, in order to assess whether the
resulting “light/dark bands” are compatible with the formation of Tdo. If
Crabu                                                                      57
the evaluation of the ‘bands’ does not meet the expected outcome, the
protocol should be reviewed, and further development and characterisa-
tion activities should be defined.
    Beyond the technical aspects, what is interesting is the use of a highly
standardised set of technologies within an experimental process that in-
corporates a potentially high degree of innovation. Although Martino is
engaged in an innovative, and therefore unstable and lacking in estab-
lished standard procedures, field of nanomedicine, it becomes clear how
the production of scientific knowledge is connected not only with On-
co_N@no-situated purposes and the information obtained from the ma-
terials used, but also with a set of knowledge and practices that have been
“inherited” from biomolecular scientific culture. In this sense, while




         Fig. 5 – Standards for the evaluation of the nanodevice

identifying an ambiguous and opaque biological entity, Tdo calls for the
alignment of a set of experimental data and scientifically established
technologies in order to manage its controversial and “esoteric” dimen-
sion. In other words, in order to assess the outcome of the experimental
process for the construction of the nanodevice, and determine whether it
also has a material status, in addition to being purely discursive and in-
formational, it is necessary to identify a set of reliable procedures to allow
its visualisation. To some extent, Martino implements an established sci-
entific repertoire within an emerging scientific field, in order to give the
58                                                             Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

procedures a robust epistemological status, and to naturalise a number of
emerging scientific practices that still remain opaque and uncertain (Col-
lins 1981; Collins and Pinch 1993).
    Overall, the activities of modelling, development and visualisation of
Tdo can be understood as explicit scientific procedures that allow the an-
choring of the debate on nanomedical future to the local biomedical set-
ting. The outcome of these activities was the production of a new
biological entity, a bio-object, which conveys and materialises the set of
expectations revolving around the foundation of the laboratory.
    This reflection, in accordance with other contributions, documents
the central role of visual representation in nanomedicine research (Mes-
trutti 2011; de Ridder-Vignone and Lynch 2012). We can see how expec-
tations and scientific imaginings are turned into images as a means of
construction and communication of objectivity (Daston and Galison
1992, 2007). In particular, the graphic representations of the Tdo enable
an important dimension of the scientific images that Burri called visual
persuasiveness (Burri 2012, 53). This visual dimension emphasises the rel-
evance of images as scientific evidence that make visible the natural world
(Frow 2012); or rather, in being considered objective and true, as an em-
anation of the purity of scientific method (Perrotta 2012). In other words,
the scientific images of the bio-object allow us to juxtapose and connect
scientific views and practices of biomedical research: this means that an-
ticipatory scientific narrations on translational nanomedicine, which is to
be understood as a science lying on the borderline between the clinical
world and scientific laboratories, are visualised and translated from a
merely discursive level to a level of feasibility and scientific manageability.


5. The Emergence of Promissory Bio-objects

    Scientific research in Onco_N@no identifies a broad process in which
Martino and Beppe sought to consolidate an experimental procedure for
the construction of a new biomedical nanotechnology that is capable of
expressing a set of expectations and visions supporting the possibility of
translating nanotechnology into patient care devices.
    As mentioned above, this process was implemented within a context
that extends well beyond the four walls of the laboratory. The technosci-
entific world of Beppe and Martino is populated not only by human ac-
tors “at hand”, but also by objects and technologies of various technical
complexity that are inherent in scientific practice: Dna (which connects
the laboratory with the community of molecular biologists), NanoEngi-
neer-1 software (which connects Onco_N@no with the community of
nanotechnologists), the laboratory journal (which collects all activities
and data that will be published and made available to the international
community) and expectations regarding the use of nanodevices (which
Crabu                                                                          59
connect the laboratory with the clinical world). However, when translated
from the public sphere to the confines of local laboratories, expectations
and scientific visions of nanomedicine become, principally, technical is-
sues that are addressed through the development of experimental stand-
ardised procedures.
    Through the R&D of Tdo, and the subsequent practices of visualisa-
tion and materialisation, that which is exposed to the scientific communi-
ty is not simply a new life technology, but a broader sequence of events,
something far more abstract that concerns the configuration of a new bi-
omedical approach to the body and disease:

            Research in nanomedicine means speculating on treatments
        that will save you from going to the hospital every day. This is the
        most powerful aspect. I believe that, otherwise, there would not be
        enough added value. I mean, what's the point of replacing a
        treatment with another one, if there is no guarantee of improve-
        ment? Therefore, I believe that having something that is not par-
        ticularly or overly invasive for the patient is paramount. Our goal
        is not only to increase life expectancy of patients with cancer.
        What we want to achieve here is defeating cancer. (Beppe)

    With clarity and conciseness, Beppe emphasises the scientific chal-
lenge undertaken by the director of Onco_N@no: the development and
testing of nanodevices operating within the body that are capable of rede-
fining the trajectories of patient bio-medicalization. In this sense, the in-
novative content of translational nanomedicine lies not so much in the
direct manipulation of matter at an atomic level, but in the development
of techniques and methods for the creation of devices for molecular in-
tervention, or rather the shaping of “programmable”, clinically relevant
and promising biological entities.
    From a theoretical perspective, Tdo, similar to other nanodevices cre-
ated in biomedical laboratories, is the product of diverse practices for
understanding and improving human life, namely with the creation of
tangible objects that can be used in the clinic to govern the development
of pathological processes (Webster, 2012). These bio-objects also tend to
blur the conventional boundaries between “human” and “non-human”,
which are traditionally assumed by life sciences in general (Holmberg et
al. 2011). The use of Dna as ‘natural’, programmable and bio-compatible
material allows the location of the bio-object within a hybrid domain that
exceeds the dichotomy between the natural and artificial character of
therapeutic intervention.
    One last aspect of particular relevance is associated with the
knowledge they incorporate. As previously discussed, the practices of
construction of the bio-object were triggered by the promissory debate on
a nanomedical future that is populated with a number scientific views and
expectations regarding the possibility of intervening in therapeutic path-
ways with new nanodevices. More precisely, expectations and future-
60                                                             Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

oriented scientific narrations appealed to biomedical experimental activi-
ties, so that the continuous reproduction of their meaning by way of prac-
tical use bestows their material stability and credibility. In this respect,
the emerging biomedical domain is not generated by biomedical expecta-
tions and anticipatory narrations. The generative dimension lies, instead,
in the relationship between anticipatory narrations and local experimental
practices, where the promissory bio-object is a relational and emerging ef-
fect of a contingent technoscientific system that is only partially stable.
    Therefore, the process of Tdo materialisation should not be under-
stood in finalistic terms, as a scientific fact of linear innovation and devel-
opment, but as the local and contingent product of an ecology of actions,
where expectations and future-oriented biomedical narrations provide a
resource to support situated practices. At the same time, the images of the
bio-object represent some type of mediators of sense, allowing the com-
munication and actualisation of anticipatory biomedical narrations.
    Overall, the theoretical juxtaposition of the material and anticipa-
tory/discursive dimensions allows the definition of an analytical space
that is outlined by the concept of promissory bio-objects. This reveals
how anticipatory narrations and scientific views shall not remain mere
discursive representations, but can return a set of images capable of feed-
ing back on the present, directing the actions and intentions of social ac-
tors engaged in the practices of biomedical research.
    The analytical potential of the concept of the promissory bio-object
lies in the ability to investigate multiple forms of materialisation of expec-
tations and scientific views, which find, in R&D activities and in the ma-
teriality of life technology, the ideal conditions for actualisation. This
means that expectations are activated as long as they provide an instru-
ment for supporting the local set of contextual elements for the articula-
tion of research practices. Situated practices, in turn, give back credibility
and materiality to the discursive dimension that forms the basis of antici-
patory statements.
    Finally, this concept reveals how contemporary biomedicine and the
contextual processes of bio-medicalization are built through a process of
alignment of different elements (data, laboratory tests, technologies, sci-
entists, doctors and narrations), whereby the practices of translational re-
search in nanomedicine intertwine with anticipatory knowledge, visions
of the future and visual representations, providing an opportunity to in-
vestigate the relationships that develop between scientific narrations, sit-
uated practices and technologies.


6. Final Remarks

   In this paper, nanomedicine has been framed as an emerging field in
the cooperation between human actors and technological devices, scien-
Crabu                                                                          61
tific images, linguistic resources and discursive practices, in order to un-
derstand how expectations and scientific narrations can be addressed and
coordinated within experimental contexts, where biomedical knowledge
and new therapeutic indications are produced and shared. Indeed, the
analysis of nanomedicine showed well, as the aspirations and expectations
take shape in processes in which researchers are pursuing specific objec-
tives, experiencing what is translational nanomedicine, and representing
it as a concrete possibility.
     With reference to the daily activities for building a nanodevice, I tried
to show how the future can be considered as a discursive arena densely
populated with claims, interests, views on medicine and representations
of bodies and treatments, which are recursively translated into present
courses of action through the situated practices of biomedical research.
If, on the one hand, these practices draw on anticipatory visions, on the
other hand they confer robustness by attempting to generate new tech-
nologies that incorporate planning qualities strongly biased towards the
future.
     The theoretical perspective outlined in this contribution led to the
formulation of the notion of promissory bio-objects as a conceptual de-
vice that proves useful for investigating the relationships between the an-
ticipatory narrative level and the materiality of scientific activity. This
helps to clarify how an emerging biomedical domain, with blurred and
changing boundaries, is legitimised and made scientifically credible, that
is, it is capable of generating innovative technologies. Ultimately, promis-
sory bio-objects show a hybrid character that allows joint analysis of hu-
man actors, technologies and anticipatory knowledge, as the fundamental
and constitutive element of the experimental processes peculiar to con-
temporary biomedical research. Expectations and scientific views are not
mere cognitive issues, but elements materially embedded in the ongoing
action and routines.


References

Ach, S.J. and Lüttenberg, B. (ed.) (2008) Nanobiotechnology, Nanomedicine and
       Human Enhancement, Berlin, Lit Verlag Münster.
Adam, B. and Groves, C. (2007) Future Matters: Action, Knowledge, Ethics, Lei-
      den, Brill.
Baird, D., Nordmann, A. and Schummer, J. (ed.) (2004), Discovering the Na-
       noscale, Amsterdam, Ios Press.
Bijker, W. and Law, J. (eds.) (1992) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies
        in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA, the Mit Press.
Birch, K. (2006) Introduction: Biofutures/Biopresents, in “Science as Culture”, 15
       (3), pp. 173-181.
62                                                                Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K. and Van Lente, H. (2006) The Sociology of Ex-
       pectations in Science and Technology, in “Technology Analysis and & Stra-
       tegic Management”, 18 (3-4), pp. 285-298.
Brown, N., Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (eds.) (2000) Contested Futures: A Soci-
      ology of Prospective Technoscience, Aldershot, Ashgate.
Brown, N. and Michael, M. (2003) A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Pro-
      spects and Prospecting Retrospects, in “Technology Analysis and Strategic
      Management”, 15 (1), pp. 3-18.
Brown, N. and Kraft, A. (2006) Blood Ties: Banking the Stem Cell Promise, in
      “Technology Analysis and Strategic Management”, 18 (3-4), pp. 313-327.
Burri, R.V. (2012) Visual Rationalities: Towards a Sociology of Images, in “Current
        Sociology”, 60 (1), pp. 45-60.
Casper, B.J. (2005) An Experiment in Performative History: Electronic Patient
       Records as a Future-Generating Device, in “Social Studies of Science”, 35
       (2), pp. 241-267.
Collins, H.M. (1981) Son of Seven Sexes. The Social Destruction of a Physical Phe-
        nomenon, in “Social Studies of Science”, 11 (1), pp. 33-62.
Collins, H. and Yearly, S. (1992) Epistemological Chicken, in A. Pickering (eds.)
        Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, pp.
        301-326.
Collins, H.M. and Pinch, T. (1993) The Golem: What Everyone Should Know
        about Science, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
de Ridder-Vignone, K.D. and Lynch, M. (2012) Images and Imaginations: An Ex-
       ploration of Nanotechnology Image Galleries, in “Leonardo”, 45 (5), pp.
       447-454.
den Boer, D., Rip, A. and Speller, S. (2009) Scripting Possible Futures of Nano-
      technologies: A Methodology that Enhances Reflexivity, in “Technology in
      Society”, 31 (3), pp. 295-304.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. (1992) The Image of Objectivity, in “Representations”,
       40, pp. 81-128.
Daston, L. and Galison, P. (2007) Representation to Presentation, in L. Daston
       and P. Galison, Objectivity, New York, Zone Books, pp. 363-415.
Dondero, M.G. and Fontanille, J. (2012) Des images à problèmes: Le sens du visuel
      à l'épreuve de l'image scientifique, Limoges, Pulim.
Douglas, C.M.W., van El, C.G., Faulkner A. and Cornel M.C. (2012) Governing
      Biological Material at the Intersection of Care and Research: The Use of
      Dried Blood Spots for Biobanking, in “Croatian Medical Journal”, 53 (4),
      pp. 390-397.
Fleising, U. (2001) In Search Of Genohype: A Content Analysis Of Biotechnology
        Company Documents, in “New Genetics and Society”, 20 (3), pp. 239-254.
Fortun, M. (2001) Mediated Speculations in the Genomics Futures Markets, in
Crabu                                                                          63
        “New Genetics and Society”, 20 (2), pp. 139-156.
Fortun, M. (2002) The Human Genome Project: Past, Present, and Future Anteri-
       or, in E. A. Garland and R. M. MacLeod (eds.), Science, History, and So-
       cial Activism: A Tribute to Everett Mendelsohn, Dordecht, Kluwer, pp.
       339-362.
Frow, E.K. (2012) Drawing a Line: Setting Guidelines for Digital Image Processing
       in Scientific Journal Articles, in “Social Studies of Science”, 42 (3), pp.
       369-392.
Fujimura, J. (1995) Ecologies of Action: Recombining Genes, Molecularizing Can-
       cer, and Transforming Biology, in S.L. Star (ed.), Ecologies of Knowledge:
       Work and Politics in Science and Technology , Albany, State University of
       New York Press, pp. 302-46.
Geels, F. and Smit, W. (2000) Failed Technology Futures: Pitfalls and Lessons from
        a Historical Survey, in “Futures” 32 (9), pp. 867-885.
Groves, C. (2013) Four Scenarios for Nanotechnologies in the UK, 2011–2020, in
       “Technology Analysis & Strategic Management”, 25 (5), pp. 507-526.
Grunwald, A. (2004) The Case of Nanobiotechnology. Towards a Prospective Risk
     Assessment, in “Embo Repots”, 5 (10), pp. 32-36.
Guice, J. (1999) Designing the Future: The Culture of New Trends in Science and
       Technology, in “Research Policy”, 28 (1), pp. 81-98.
Hacking, I. (2009) Scientific Reason, Taipei, NTU Press.
Hedgecoe, A. (2006) Pharmacogenetics as Alien Science: Alzheimer's Disease, Core
      Sets and Expectations, in “Social Studies of Science”, 36 (5), pp. 723-752.
Hedgecoe, A. and Martin, P. (2003) The Drugs Don't Work: Expectations and the
      Shaping of Pharmacogenetics, in “Social Studies of Science”, 33 (3), pp.
      327-364.
Hedgecoe, A. and Martin, P.A. (2007), Genomics, Sts, and the Making of Soci-
      otechnical Futures, in E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch and J.
      Wajcman (eds.), The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Cam-
      bridge, the MIT Press, pp. 817-839.
Holmberg, T., Schwennesen, N. and Webster, A. (2011) Bio-objects and the Bio-
     objectification Process, in “Croatian Medical Journal”, 52 (6), pp. 740-742.
Holtzman, N.A. and Marteau, T.M. (2000) Will Genetics Revolutionize Medi-
      cine?, in “New England Journal of Medicine”, 343 (2), pp. 141-144.
Horst, M. (2007) Public Expectations of Gene Therapy Scientific Futures and Their
       Performative Effects on Scientific Citizenship, in “Science, Technology, &
       Human Values”, 32 (2), pp.150-171.
Joint European Commission, (2009) ETP Nanomedicine Expert Report 2009.
       Roadmaps in Nanomedicine Towards 2020, Etp Nanomedicine Secretariat,
       in http://www.etp-nanomedicine.eu/public/press-documents/ publica-
       tions/etpnpublications/091022_ETPN_Report_2009.pdf.
64                                                                Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

Király, G., Pataki G., Köves A. and Balázs B. (2013) Models of (Future) Society:
        Bringing Social Theories Back in Backcasting, in “Futures”, 51, pp. 19-30.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1981) The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Con-
      structivist and Contextual Nature of Science, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2004) Materializing Research Promises: Opportunities, Priorities
       and Conflicts in Translational Medicine, in “Journal of Translational Medi-
       cine”, 2 (1).
Latour, B. (1986) Visualisation and Cognition: Drawing Things Together, in H.
       Kuklick (ed.), Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture
       Past and Present. Vol. 6, Amsterdam, JAI Press, pp. 1-40.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientist and Engineers
       through Society, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Law, J. (1987) Technologies and Heterogeneous Engeneering: The Case of the Por-
        tuguese Expansion, in W.E. Bijker, T.P. Hughes and T.J. Pinch (eds.), The
        Social Construction of Technical Systems: New Directions in the Sociology
        and History of Technology, Cambridge, MA, Mit Press, pp. 111-134.
Law, J. (1994) Organizing Modernity, Oxford, Blackwell.
Law, J. (1999) Machinic Pleasures and Interpellations, Department of Sociology,
       Lancaster University, http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc067jl.
       html.
Levidow, L. and Marris, C. (2001) Science and Governance in Europe: Lessons
      from the Case of Agricultural Biotechnology, in “Science and Public Poli-
      cy” 28 (5), pp. 345-360.
Lösch, A. (2006) Anticipating the Futures of Nanotechnology: Visionary Images as
       Means of Communication, in “Technology Analysis and Strategic Man-
       agement”, 18 (3-4), pp. 393-409.
Maestrutti, M. (2011) Imaginaires des nanotechnologies: mythes et fictions de l'in-
       finiment petit, Paris, Vuibert.
Metzler, I. and Webster, A. (2011), Bio-objects and their Boundaries: Governing
       Matters at the Intersection of Society, Politics, and Science, in “Croatian
       Medical Journal”, 52 (5), pp. 648-650.
Michael M. (2000) Futures of the Present: From Performativity to Prehension, in
      N. Brown, B. Rappert and A. Webster (eds.), Contested Futures: A Sociol-
      ogy of Prospective Technoscience, Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 21-39.
Martin, P., Brown, N. and Kraft, A. (2008) From Bedside to Bench? Communities
       of Promise, Translational Research and the Making of Blood Stem Cells,
       “Science as Culture”, vol. 17 (1), pp. 29-41.
Mol, A. (2002) The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice, Durham, NC,
      Duke University Press.
Mol, A. and Law, J. (2002) Complexities: An Introduction, in J. Law, and A. Mol
       (eds.), Complexities. Social Studies of Knowledge Practices, Durham, Duke
Crabu                                                                         65
        University Press, pp. 1-22.
Monteiro, M. (2010) Reconfiguring Evidence: Interacting with Digital Objects in
      Scientific Practice, in “Computer Supported Cooperative Work”, 9 (3-4),
      pp. 335-354.
Nelson, N.C., Keating, P. and Cambrosio, A. (2013) On Being "Actionable": Clini-
       cal Sequencing and the Emerging Contours of a Regime of Genomic Medi-
       cine in Oncology, in “New Genetics and Society”, 32 (4), pp. 405-428.
NewScientist (2012) Folded Dna Becomes Trojan Horse to Attack Cancer, in “New
      Scientist”, 2878, p. 17.
Orlikowski, W.J. (2007) Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work, in
       “Organization Studies”, vol. 28 (9), pp. 1435-1448.
Perrotta, M. (2012) The Study of Technoscientific Imaging in STS, in “Tecnoscien-
       za: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies”, 3 (2), pp. 163-175.
Rappert, B. and Brown, N. (2000) Putting the Future in its Place: Comparing In-
      novation Moments in Genetic Diagnostics and Telemedicine, in “New Ge-
      netics and Society”, 19 (1), pp. 49-75.
Rose, H. and Rose, S. (2012) Genes, Cells and Brains. The Promethean Promises of
       the New Biology, London, VersoBooks.
Rosenberg, N. (1976) On Technological Expectations, in “Economic Journal”, 86
      (343), pp. 523-535.
Rothemund, P.W.K. (2006) Folding Dna to Create Nanoscale Shapes and Patterns,
      in “Nature”, 440 (7082) pp. 297-302.
Selin, C. (2006) Time Matters: Temporal Harmony and Dissonance in Nanotech-
        nology Networks, in “Time & Society”, 15 (1), pp. 121-139.
Selin, C. (2007) Expectations and the Emergence of Nanotechnology, in “Science,
        Technology, & Human Values”, 32 (2), pp. 196-220.
Sturken, M., Douglas, T. and Ball-Rokeach S. (ed.) (2004) Technological Visions.
       The Hopes and Fears that Shape New Technologies, Philadelphia, Temple
       University Press.
Suchman, L. (2000) Organizing Alignment: A Case of Bridge–Building, in “Organ-
      ization”, 7 (2), pp. 311-329.
Thacker, E. (2004) Biomedia, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
Tibbals, F.H. (2011) Medical Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine, United States,
       CRC Press.
Tsai-hsuan Ku, S. (2012) Forming Interdisciplinary Expertise: One Organization's
       Journey on the Road to Translational Nanomedicine, in “WIREs Nano-
       medicine and Nanobiotechnology”, 4 (4), pp. 366-377.
Van Lente, H. (1993) Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in
      Technological Developments, Delft, Eburon Academic Publisher.
Van Lente, H. and Rip, A. (1998) The Rise of Membrane Technology: From Rheto-
66                                                                  Tecnoscienza - 5 (1)

       rics to Social Reality, in “Social Studies of Science”, 28 (2), pp. 221-254.
Venugopal, J., Prabhakaran, M.P., Low, S., Choon, A.T., Zhang, Y.Z., Deepika,
      G. and Ramakrishna S. (2008) Nanotechnology for Nanomedicine and De-
      livery of Drugs, in “Current Pharmaceutical Design”, 14 (22), pp. 2184-
      2200.
Waldby, C. (2006) Umbilical Cord Blood: From Social Gift to Venture Capital, in
      “BioSocieties”, 1 (1), pp. 55-70.
Wang, N.X. and von Recum, H.A. (2011) Affinity-Based Drug Delivery, in “Mac-
      romolecular Bioscience”, 11 (3), pp. 321-332.
Wainwright, S.P., Williams, C., Michael, M., Farsides, B. and Cribb A. (2006)
      From Bench to Bedside? Biomedical Scientists' Expectations of Stem Cell
      Science as a Future Therapy for Diabetes, in “Social Science & Medicine”,
      63 (8), pp. 2052-2064.
Webster, A. (2012) Introduction. Bio-Objects: Exploring the Boundaries of Life, in
      N. Vermeulen, S. Tamminen and A. Webster (eds.), Bio-Objects. Life in
      the 21st Century, Farnham, Ashgate, pp. 1-10.
Wyatt, S. (2000) Talking about the Future: Metaphors of the Internet, in N. Brown,
       B. Rappert and A. Webster (eds.), Contested Futures: A Sociology of Pro-
       spective Technoscience, Aldershot, UK, Ashgate, pp. 109-126.
