Nanosciences shaping disciplinary identities
The nanosciences and -technologies are interdisciplinary research fields, which developed over the past two decades at the interface of physics, chemistry, biology, molecular biology and material sciences. The field researches the structure of material characteristics and functions on the nanometer scale. On the nano-scale quantum effects affect the behavior of matter in a consequential way. This phenomenon allows for the analysis of new material properties and a variety of applications. Nanosciences and -technologies are currently considered as leading innovation fields [1
]. Hardly any other cutting-edge science has been able to generate such comprehensive expectations regarding its developmental potential. Globally, annual investment in research and development within this field exceed the billion-dollar mark [2
]. Furthermore, almost no industrial nation can afford not to establish national programs and no academic institution, not to initiate research initiatives in this area. This opens the possibility for a number of scientific disciplines to participate in this area and adapt their research to related issues and objectives.
Apart from the scientific and economic euphoria, various social actors have started to debate the potential implications of these new scientific and technical developments. A variety of researchers and institutions have begun to investigate the potential ethical, social and environmental effects of nanosciences and -technologies. On the one hand, nano-scientists themselves have been addressing such issues, e.g., the joint founder of Sun, Bill Joy, who published a manifesto in the magazine Wired . On the other hand, technology-critical civil society organizations focus their activities on nanosciences and -technologies, e.g. the 'Center for Responsible Nanotechnology' , the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC), Canada , as well as Greenpeace . Furthermore, social and political institutions, like the Royal Society in UK , the European Commission  and several national technology assessment institutions  have addressed potential risks of nanosciences and technologies.
In addition, spectacular visions and Utopias as well as dystopic scenarios have been formulated and discussed in media and on the literary level. A well-known example is the 'grey goo' scenario, which, for example, was pointed out in the Drexler-Smalley debate and was addressed by Michael Crichton in his novel 'Prey'. The negotiation of fictions in the debate between Eric Drexler and the nobel laureate Richard Smalley focused on the question of the feasibility of molecular assemblers . Drexler is seen as the founder of the idea of machines, which develop objects atom by atom and replicate themselves . Smalley, as a representative of classical chemistry, tried to disprove the futuristic approach of Drexler. He argued that such Utopian ideas could encourage public fear of a loss of control over such machines and of their unlimited spread ('grey goo') and this in turn could damage the reputation of nanotechnologies as a whole. The taking up of grey goo' scenarios by the Prince of Wales, was widely discussed into the popular media and led to a Royal Society report on the chances and uncertainties of nano-sciences and technologies . Relevant fictions have also appeared in novels of Anderson, Asimov, Bear and Stephenson . Michael Crichton describes, in possibly his most famous novel, 'Prey', a 'grey goo' scenario involving the loss of control over nano-technologically manufactured micro robots, 'nanobots' .
Such discourses have crucially contributed to the demand for a moratorium on the technological development and production of nano-materials made by civil society organizations like for example the Canadian ETC-group . Furthermore, a moratorium on the development of nano-materials was proposed to national government leaders at the world summit for sustainable development in Johannesburg 2002 . In addition, the manifesto of Bill Joy is occasionally interpreted as a call for a moratorium stressing the unforeseeable risks of nanotechnologies. Joy makes comparison to the development of the atom bomb and pleads for deeper ethical reflection on the nanosciences and -technologies .
Beside these more future-oriented risk discourses, however, tangible health effects of particles at the nanometer scale have been detected by a variety of toxicological working groups . So far, concrete findings regarding potential risks of nanosciences and -technologies focus on the health implications of particles at the nanometer scale. This field addresses those scientific disciplines, having methodological and textual experience in the investigation of the bio-reactivity of particles and materials for its analysis. In this context, toxicology as a scientific discipline plays a responsible role. Toxicology has traditionally examined the potential harmful effects of chemical or physical agents on biological systems. While nanosciences and -technologies do not yet form a coherent program, toxicology sees itself as contributing to the public discourse with technically clear and concise answers, broadly recognized in the media. Early exponents in the toxicological research community are already claiming the emergence of nanotoxicology as a new discipline  and a new journal with the title 'Nanotoxicology' has been launched in 2005 by the Taylor and Francis group .
Before explaining the aim of this study, our hypothesis and what will be reported in this article, we will give a short explanation of our theoretical model: The formation of disciplinary identities can be analyzed using theories of the development and differentiation of scientific disciplines . Toxicology as a scientific discipline understands itself through its orientation toward externally defined problems like for example the supply of practical guidelines for the adjustment of toxic chemicals. Therefore, the concept of 'Finalisierung – finalization'  plays an important role in the analysis of the construction of disciplinary identities. The concept of 'finalization' focuses on the influence of internal and external factors and orientations within the development of science. Boehme et al. and van den Daele and Weingart developed this approach in the 1970s and were influenced by Luhmann's system theory and Kuhn's theses of scientific progress . Van den Daele and Weingart base their theory on three variables influencing the differentiation of scientific disciplines: cognitive, institutional and political aspects. Cognitive aspects describe factors, which define science as an intellectual enterprise .
Furthermore, cognitive aspects specify the development of a discipline and consist of such things as internal structures and epistemic practices . In contrast, institutional aspects focus on internal processes within scientific institutions, such as co-operation, communication and interpersonal relationships. Such processes determine science as a social operation system and they differentiate new research fields . Political aspects are understood in terms of science-policy attitude and demand a 'product value orientation' from science. In this way, science is controlled by political interests and orientated toward the solution of specific, socially induced and politically defined problems like cancer- or environmental research . Thus, in our study we will and use the term 'external aspects' instead of 'political aspects', considering beside of politically, also socially and economically relevant criteria. According to this account, disciplinary development takes place via different contexts: on the one hand, by cognitive and institutional aspects that are internal to science, on the other hand, by problem settings that are external to science . However, we do not understand problem orientation in the sense of the direct intervention of society into the sciences. Rather, we consider problem orientation as external requirements that disciplines perceive and accept in a system-specific way .
For toxicology the following constellation results: On the one hand, problem orientation and context sensitivity, particularly with respect to (future) nano-technologies, contribute to the fact that toxicology has a substantial role to play in cognitive, institutional and social respects. The nanosciences could profit from institutionalizing toxicology, whose research directly meets the social requirement of security, as an already finalized partial discipline within the new interdisciplinary field. With the present close interconnection between the (nano-) sciences and society, this arrangement could allow toxicology to ascend from an auxiliary science into an increasingly constitutive position within the nanosciences . In order to put into perspective the estimations and strategies of toxicology in this challenging state of transition, we revert to two further concepts: 'thought-style/Denkstil' and 'boundary work'.
In order to understand the development of scientific disciplines in light of the above mentioned aspects, theories that understand academic knowledge production as the collective achievement of a community of scientists in a particular research field will prove helpful. Such 'thought collectives/Denkkollektive' are representing assumptions and conditions, under which they are building up a certain knowledge, a prevailing doctrine and, in the terminology of Fleck, a 'thought style' . According to Fleck, knowledge is never possible on its own, but only in the context of various presuppositions about it. Therefore, disciplines represent thought collectives whose style of thinking is shaped by their surrounding social, political and cultural context .
In periods of transition between thought styles, 'Denkstilwandel', the collective is not consolidated. No commonly shared views exist. In this phase no uniform thought styles can be identified; the collective shaping of identities is in flux. Cognitively and institutionally it is still unclear where the development will lead. Such considerations are also helpful for our study: In the phase of the 'nano-scientific challenge' we expected to find a variety of different positions and estimations of the present and future role of toxicology within or outside of the nanosciences.
Therefore, a third concept; that of 'boundary work' is helpful for describing the various possibilities that result from that assumption . Thomas Gieryn has developed the concept of 'boundaries' to describe textual as well as institutional demarcations between 'science' and 'non-science ' . In accordance with the concept of finalization (cognitive, institutional, social aspects, shaping the development of disciplines) mentioned above and the anticipated heterogeneity of the thought styles of scientists working inside a transforming field, the point of boundary work lies in the fact that the fixing of boundaries depends on contextual factors such as which the topics, questions and methods belong to 'our' field and which do not. Using the 'boundary work'-concept, we hope to show, in the case of toxicology, how scientific fields form their disciplinary identity by setting boundaries between new and old research fields.
Against this background, we will analyze toxicology as a scientific discipline, which is establishing itself within the field of nanosciences and -technologies. Herein, we are interested in what way toxicologists are producing their knowledge and how involved researchers assess their professional identity. Furthermore, we will analyze the cognitive, institutional and political aspects, shaping the disciplinary development. Herein, we will put a particular focus on the shifting thought styles of the particle toxicological community and their setting of boundaries with regard to the emerging fields of nanosciences and -technologies.
Hence, our hypothesis is that the disciplinary identity formation of toxicology, set against the background of its entrance into the nanosciences and -technologies, represents a still open-ended and rather incremental scientific development.