BOUNDING AN EMERGING TECHNOLOGY: DECONSTRUCTING THE DREXLER- SMALLEY DEBATE ABOUT NANOTECH SARAH KAPLAN 1 Rotman School, University of Toronto 105 St. George St. Toronto, ON, M5S E36 Canada skaplan@rotman.utoronto.ca JOANNA RADIN University of Pennsylvania INTRODUCTION Determining what ‘nanotechnology’ is, what it would mean to experience its benefits and its risks, whose research counts as ‘nanotechnology,’ and who gets to speak on behalf of those who do ‘nanotechnology’ – essentially, the process of drawing boundaries around the uses and meanings of the term – has turned out to be a highly political process of constant negotiation with significant implications for funding, legislation, citizen support and scientific practice. For example, those (such as K. Eric Drexler, one of the subjects of this paper) who were crucial to sparking initial scientific interest in the field find themselves today at the margins of activities funded by a heavily financed U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), designed on the model of post-Cold War ‘big science’ projects such as the Human Genome Initiative. Yet, these popularizers’ dramatic visions about the possibilities and perils of a nanoscale revolution have contributed as equally to defining what counts (or does not count) as nanotechnology as has the NNI. Nevertheless, the coherence of ‘nanotechnology’ as a technoscientific field or, even, a stable subject for sociological inquiry is all too often taken for granted. 2 Most people agree that nano- technology involves quantum shifts in humans’ ability to manipulate matter. However, there is no consensus as to how this will happen and what the consequences will be. As a result, ‘nano- technology’ overflows with meanings, representing possibilities that inspire wonder and fear. 3 Ambiguity surrounding nanotechnology’s meaning and the uncertainties attached to its potential pose serious consequences for science studies scholars’ ability to conceive of and critique approaches to addressing the societal implications and responsible development of nano-scale science and technology. 4 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK To address this problem, we take a sociologically-informed, historical approach in examining the construction of one of the most high-profile moments of controversy about nanotechnology’s meaning and possibilities: a debate between K. Eric Drexler and Richard Smalley. This debate, which consisted of two back-and-forth sets of letters, was published in 2003 as a ‘point-counterpoint feature’ in Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN), the journal of the American Chemical Society. The exchange is emerging as an iconic case study in scientific controversy (see, for example: Bueno