Personal tools
Home Archive volume 11, 2012 Issue 04, december 2012 Nanotechnologies and emerging cultural spaces for the public communication of science and technologies NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana: disruptive prototypes and experimental governance of nanotechnologies in the hackerspaces
Document Actions

NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana: disruptive prototypes and experimental governance of nanotechnologies in the hackerspaces

21/12/2012

Abstract

New forms of co-working spaces and community labs, such as Hackerspaces and Fablabs, but also open science and citizen science initiatives, by involving new actors often described as makers, tinkerers, and hackers enable innovation and research outside the walls of academia and industry. These alternative and global innovation networks are test beds for studying new forms of public engagement and participation in emergent scientific fields, such as  nanotechnology. The article shows how these grassroots and Do-It-Yourself (DIY) or Do-It-With- Others (DIWO) research subcultures connect politics with design, community building with prototype testing, and how they establish an experimental approach for policy deliberation. We will consider a case study of a temporary, ad hoc and mobile NanoŠmano Lab in Ljubljana, Slovenia, which specializes in nanoscale materials and designs, to demonstrate the potential of prototypes and collective tinkering to become models for public involvement in emergent science and technology fields. This Hackerspace model of governance offers an alternative to the usual route of disruptive innovation, which starts in the R&D laboratory where it waits to be scrutinized by some government or regulatory body and be utilized by a start-up or mega corporation, and only then be safely taken up by the public. Hackerspaces operate through “disruptive prototypes” that create decentralized and nonlinear value chains and interactions between research, design and policy. Adoption of technology goes hand in hand with collective tinkering, and deliberation and assessment are happening simultaneously while prototyping. In this sense, disruptive prototypes can be said to support experimental governance. This policy closely follows some recent calls for “greater reflexiveness in the R&D process” via anticipatory policy and real-time assessment approaches, rather than more common, timeworn precautionary principles.

authors

Denisa Kera

download

2014 Conference
2014 Conference

New Program
Master Classes
Framing engagement: expert-youth interaction in a PES event Sampsa Saikkonen, Esa Valiverronen 08/04/2014
Narrative as a learning tool in science centers: potentials, possibilities and merits Mai Murmann, Lucy Avraamidou 02/04/2014
Examining perceptions of astronomy images across mobile platforms Lisa F. Smith, Kimberly K. Arcand, Jeffrey K. Smith, Randall K. Smith, Jay Bookbinder, Megan Watzke 25/03/2014
Communicating evolution with a Dynamic Evolutionary Map Sonia H. Stephens 13/03/2014
All articles…
Science blogs and public engagement with science: practices, challenges, and opportunities Inna Kouper 26/02/2010
Museums for Science Education: can we make the difference? The case of the EST project Maria Xanthoudaki, Brunella Tirelli, Patrizia Cerutti, Sara Calcagnini 21/06/2007
Changing the meaning of peer-to-peer? Exploring online comment spaces as sites of negotiated expertise Marie-Claire Shanahan 22/02/2010