Novelty

The term novelty, along with the cognate terms new, invention, and innovation, features frequently in descriptions of science and technology. Nanoscience, in particular, has been and continues to be seen as novel, even compared to other technological developments, and the novelty of nanoscience is a large contributing factor to its fame.

The question whether or not nanoscience really is “new,” however, is not one that can be (or, indeed, is) answered absolutely. It is, rather, the subject of much debate. The extent to which nanoscience is presented as “novel” has and continues to be an influence on its development.

Often, when discussing science and technology, the term novel is used to mean not simply that something is new, but that it is particularly or qualitatively distinct from what has come before. With respect to the relationship between science and society, it is the potential benefits and harms that are often focused upon, and nanoscience is seen as distinct from many other sciences in these respects.

Nanoscience is seen to be novel partly with respect to the unique applications it promises, such as those in medicine and industry. While many scientific and technological developments make similar promises, nanoscience has been more successful at appearing to have the potential to deliver truly groundbreaking uses.

This appearance, however, brings with it concern over truly novel dangers. For example, the “Grey Goo” scenario, originating in science fiction, is lent credibility by exactly the same claims that go into making the beneficial potential of nanoscience credible: namely, the claims that it is novel, and that it is radically distinct from what has come before.

The fact that expectations about benefits and harms of novel technologies cannot be separated is evidenced in the flexibility of novelty as a label. Steve Rayner has argued that scientists working in nanoscience are competent at highlighting or backgrounding the novelty of nanoscience depending on their needs in a particular context. For example, when looking for funding, or evangelizing to industry or the press, nanoscientists present their work as novel, which lends weight to their claims about potential benefits. In those settings, nanoscience is presented as being a clear leap from what has come before: a truly novel science.

In other contexts, however, nanoscience is presented as being merely an incremental step beyond, or a continuation of, earlier sciences. For example, in regulatory contexts, where potential dangers of nanoscience are discussed, the novelty of nanoscience is sometimes downplayed so as to defend against concerns that, being radically distinct from what has come before, nanoscience presents new (and potentially extreme) dangers. Playing down the novelty of nanoscience in these contexts is an attempt to avoid what might be seen as burdensome regulation; if nanoscience is successfully presented as being just a continuation of earlier work, then earlier regulation could be seen as sufficient.

[Page 608]The flexibility of novelty in these contexts shows that novelty is not something that simply does or does not apply to a given science or technology. It is something that is debated over in different contexts to varying ends. Different parties have their reasons to present the science or technology in question as being novel or not. The novelty of a science or technology has a lot to do with what is said about it, and this can be repeatedly updated, with the novelty of the science or technology rewritten post hoc: for example, it has been claimed that much of nanoscience is merely material science, and not a radical step beyond.

...