Download PowerPoint summary

Nanotoxicartography:
Rhetorically Mapping Public
Engagement With
Nanotechnology's Promises &Perils
Roy Schwartzman, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
Affiliate, School for Nanoscience & Nanoengineering
VP, Association for the Rhetoric of Science & Technology
Communication Studies Dept.
109 Ferguson Bldg.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
www.roypoet.com
[email protected]
Approach
•
•
•
•
Rhetorical/cultural criticism
Critical-interpretive (hermeneutical)
Textual data
From Nazis to nano
– Paradigmatic example of rhetorically crafted risk
– Calls into question complex relationships
between science, public policy, & audiences
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
2
Rhetorical Topography
• Berube (2007) calls for “a roadmap to help in
composing a risk dialogue with laypersons on
nanotechnology.”
• Rather than discuss specific formulations of
this dialogue…under what conditions could
meaningful discursive engagements could
occur?
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
3
Nanonarratives
• Exemplars of intuitive toxicology in action
• Narrative logic (story grammar)
• Internal narrative texture: relationships among
narrative components—framing as relationships
and alignments among characters and narrators
• Synchronic intertextual relationships, e.g.:
– Competing narratives (x vs. y)
– Subsumptive narratives (x contains y)
• Diachronic dimensions, e.g., evolution of
personae (aggregate characterizations of nano
disaggregating according to applications)
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
4
Trust
Ethos
• Credibility operates on two levels
– Source credibility (who tells the story)
– Credibility of narrative personae (judgments about
narratively constructed characters)
• Dimensions of ethos (receiver-based
construct)
– Competence
– Trustworthiness
• Individual (“expert”)
• Institutional/collective (“epistemic”)
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
5
Richer Topography of Ethos
• Additional dimensions
– Caring (Aristotle: goodwill)
– Immediacy (builds affinity) [cf. scholarship of teaching
& learning]
– Moral concerns (e.g., accountability) that mediate
independent variables
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
6
Ventria Case Study
Partnership
Plan
Policy
• Ventria Biosciences partnership with Northwest Missouri State University
(Maryville, MO), 2005-2006
• “Biopharming” center to grow genetically modified crops for
pharmaceutical products in Missouri (rejected) and North Carolina
(implemented)
• MOU signed, sows seeds of dread
• $20M+ funding request in legislature
• Key turning point: Anheuser-Busch takes stand against research center
Stasis
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
7
Cross-Contamination Crucible
• “Discursive framing tools”—e.g., stories,
metaphors, jargon, and invocations of
tradition (Deetz, Tracy, & Simpson, 2000)
• Scenario: birds carry genetically engineered
seeds, drop on non-modified fields
• Response: call in the Bird Man to rebut risk
probability
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
8
Ventria Case Study (contd.)
• Conflicting institutional personae
Ventria & NWMSU
Anheuser-Busch
Economic driver (hypothetical)
Economic driver (empirical)
Knowledge generator (poorly
understood, invisible particles)
Pleasure generator (tangible,
familiar product)
Entrepreneurial innovator
Guardian of tradition
Promise of pro-social benefits
(pharmaceuticals)
Protector of purity
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
9
Ventria Case Implications
• Presence trumps probability
• What builds presence? (cf.
Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca)
– Vividness (not coextensive
with quantifiable severity)
– Salience (cf. Witte on fear
appeals)
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
10
Challenges for Ethos
• Confluences of institutions: how to isolate institutional
identity in judging expertise? (parallels ambiguities
about who constitutes stakeholders)
• Who assigns institutional identity? New nanocenter
example:
– Universities : knowledge generators, product innovators,
economic drivers
– Community neighbors : economically impacted (property
values, jobs, infrastructure), potential end users, hazard
exposure guinea pigs
– Politicos as trustees for public, glory hounds
– Investors: greed for profits, community benefactors (jobs,
infrastructure development)
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
11
Challenges in Constructing
Nanonarratives
• Preserving doomsday scenarios by refutation
• Paradox of novelty/familiarity (Kuhn’s “essential
tension,” Dupuy’s “double language” of science)
• Paradox of substance: nanoparticle properties
& behaviors discontinuous with their macro
counterparts (also creates regulatory
conundrums)
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
12
Ramifications
1. Need to enrich vocabularies and methods of
deliberative engagement
– Providing accurate information may not be
enough without expanding resources for
deliberation
• Example: “Agonistic heuristic” reframes non- or preconsensual scientific findings as winner-take-all fight
within a fragmented scientific community (e.g., media
coverage of US presidential election)
– How to communicate warrants for claims that
enable evaluations of argument quality?
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
13
Ramifications (contd.)
2. Address ways to correct for power
asymmetries and discursive misalignments
– Beware banking models of deliberation & public
engagement (Friere)
– Examine vestiges of scientism, embrace mutual
discursive obligations (esp. listening)
– What does the construction of a message say about
the nature of the relationship between source and
receiver?
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
14
Ramifications (contd.)
3. Embrace risk construction
Risk Construction
Risk Perception
Active
Passive
Dynamic
Static
Participant in risk formulation
Observer or victim
Intuitive toxicology becomes manifested in
value-laden narratives, often serving as
explanatory myths.
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
15
Ramifications (contd.)
4. Activate communication theories to
illuminate risk-related heuristics
A. Anxiety & uncertainty management (AUM):
coping with the radical “Other” (e.g., Gudykunst)
B. Critical management theory: moving from public
input to public partnerships (e.g., Deetz, George Cheney)
C. Does structure of deliberative forums search for
Holy Grail of universal pragmatics? (Habermas)
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
16
A Few Symptoms to Address:
Chronicle of a Conversation with a Nano Center Director
• When we communicate with the public, we
must “dumb down” our research. Cut directly
to the benefits: “We will get your cell phone
to hold its charge longer.” (or “Read my lips:
no new risks”?)
• The encounter between nanocenter advocates
and the community is “at a stalemate.”
• “I’m an engineering geek. I don’t do public
policy.”
Schwartzman, Nanotoxicartography
17