The Power of Analogies for Imagining and Governing Emerging Technologies

Our plain-English summary of The Power of Analogies for Imagining and Governing Emerging Technologies, by C. Schwarz-Plaschg (Nanoethics, 2018).

The study

• Author: C. Schwarz-Plaschg
• Journal: Nanoethics
• Published: 2018;12(2):139-153
• Cited by: 1 article, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

The emergence of new technologies regularly involves comparisons with previous innovations. For instance, analogies with asbestos and genetically modified organisms have played a crucial role in the early societal debate about nanotechnology. This article explores the power of analogies in such debates and how they could be effectively and responsibly employed for imagining and governing emerging technologies in general and nanotechnology in particular. First, the concept of analogical imagination is developed to capture the explorative and anticipatory potential of analogies. Yet analogies do not simply stimulate imagination, they also restrict it by framing emerging technologies in specific ways. Thus, second, the article argues that tracing the rhetorical and persuasive power of analogical arguments is essential for understanding how analogies are constructed to legitimise assessments, funding policies, and governance approaches. Third, the article addresses factors that account for the persuasiveness of analogies in debates about emerging technologies. The article concludes with reflections on how analogical imagination and an enhanced analogical sensibility for framing and persuasive effects can foster responsible research and innovation (RRI).

In plain English

This is a mainly conceptual paper on the ethics and politics of technology, not a medical study of asbestos exposure. The author examined how comparisons with earlier technologies, such as asbestos and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are used to imagine and debate nanotechnology. The examples came from an Austrian public discussion group on nanofood, from US and Austrian policy documents, and from a 2012 podium discussion in Vienna. In the nanofood group, participants said that long-term consequences had been unknown with asbestos and could be similar with nanotechnology, and they called for regulation. The author described the asbestos-nano analogy as resting on material similarities between carbon nanotubes and asbestos fibres. The author noted that the analogy did not build on existing scientific evidence, and argued that it supported research into health and environmental effects while also narrowing debate to risk. The author concluded that encouraging analogical imagination, and awareness of how analogies frame issues and persuade people, can contribute to responsible research and innovation. The article reports no health data on asbestos or nanomaterials.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Mainly conceptual (theoretical) article, illustrated with example cases from nanotechnology debates; not an epidemiological, clinical or laboratory study
• Who was studied: No study population. The illustrative material came from an Austrian public engagement discussion group on nanofood, US and Austrian nanotechnology policy documents, and a 1-day podium discussion held in Vienna in 2012 with students around 17 years old and stakeholder representatives
• Exposure: No exposure was studied. Asbestos appears only as an analogy, based on claimed material similarities between carbon nanotubes and asbestos fibres
• Main results:
  • In the Austrian nanofood discussion group, asbestos was used as an analogy about risk anticipation and regulation: participants said long-term consequences had been unknown with asbestos and could be similar with nanotechnology, and they demanded regulation
  • The author stated that the asbestos-nano analogy did not build on existing scientific evidence, but that the argument for possibility was enough to support examination of the health and environmental effects of nanoparticles
  • The author argued that the prominence of asbestos and other risk-focused analogies narrowed the nanotechnology debate to risk (safety, health and environmental impacts) rather than broader innovation governance
  • In the 2012 Vienna podium discussion, a consumer representative proposed a comparison between nanotechnology and asbestos on the grounds that the fibres are similar
  • The author reported that lay participants' use of the GMO-nano analogy in public engagement settings runs counter to its use in policy contexts
• The authors' conclusion: The author concluded that fostering analogical imagination in debates, and developing analogical sensibility through analysis and reflection, can contribute to efforts toward responsible research and innovation (RRI)

Related studies

• A catalogue of treatment and technologies for malignant pleural mesothelioma — L.M. Schunselaar, J.M. Quispel-Janssen, et al. (2016)
• Podoplanin: An emerging cancer biomarker and therapeutic target — H. Krishnan, J. Rayes, et al. (2018)
• Arsenic, asbestos and radon: emerging players in lung tumorigenesis — R. Hubaux, D.D. Becker-Santos, et al. (2012)
• Aquaporins in lung health and disease: Emerging roles, regulation, and clinical implications — E. Yadav, N. Yadav, et al. (2020)
• Emerging indoor pollutants — T. Salthammer (2020)
• Current evidence base of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the clinical management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: emerging significance of image segmentation and global disease assessment — S. Basu, B. Saboury, et al. (2011)

Browse return to medical research.