The pandemic spread of COVID-19 grew inexorably to be the main topic of global news after it was first identified in 2019 in China. This article analyzes how heads of state and heads of government in Germany, Italy, Spain, and Sweden framed the problems and solutions to the spread of the virus during the pandemic's initial phase. A Foucauldian-inspired method of problematization guides the narrative analysis, complemented by governmentality, risk communication, and taskscape theories. The results of the analysis show how the individual is conceptualized as a central actor and whose practices are framed as crucial to overcoming the crisis. Through invoking a sense of responsibility, sacrifice, and current life during the pandemic as a difficult time, the speeches allude to how people through changed behavior can/sould, contribute to the greater good. The individual is positioned as a key cause of, and solution to the problem; however, construing the individual as an indispensable actor to overcoming the crisis also means that the individual is laid open for reprehension. To facilitate the spread of the containment message and to support individual understanding of overt risk, the four countries' leadership also augment their conceptualization of the crisis with ideas of national identity to inspire the individual to contribute to the “battle” and “defeat” of the virus. The leadership does also embrace the important role of the national government in controlling the outbreak and the role of science, and trust in science, are also emphasized. The speeches analyzed in this paper can be understood as governance technologies; the spatial disciplining and self-governance demanded by the regimes create subject positions for individuals or groups. A debate on the rights and responsibilities of the citizen is another aspect that comes to the fore, considering how the containment strategies in all four countries proclaim the individual as a core agent in circumscribing the virus, and hence the individual's activities as potentially damaging to the fight against the pandemic. This throws into question the connection between individual autonomy as a democratic right and disciplinary mechanisms, sometimes phrased encouragingly and at other times in an enforcing way.

This study is positioned in a multidisciplinary research field addressing questions of innovation, foresight, risk perception, regulation, and the role of stakeholder experts as regards nanomaterials and nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an innovative scientific field with many potential societal benefits but also high uncertainty about risks to human health and the environment. This study is based on a survey distributed to a sample of 237 expert stakeholders in Sweden working in the field of nanotechnology innovation and regulation. The sample comprises experts in both industry and government organizations. The paper explores the expert’s assessment of benefits, risks, and their views of nanotechnology regulation. The experts generally agreed on the need for further regulation of nanotechnology, although they differed in their support for different regulatory measures. Support for government regulation was increased by greater perceived risk and by ethical concerns, while perceived benefit decreased support for government regulation. If nanotechnology was important for the respondent’s organization of affiliation, support for government regulation decreased. Experts in government organizations were more in favor of stronger government regulation, perceived higher risks, and were more concerned about the ethical implications of nanotechnology than were the industry experts. While previous research has discussed views of experts, as well as comparing the attitudes of the general public with experts, this study contributes to the field by analyzing and identifying differences between industry experts and experts working in government.

Ethical and societal issues concerning justice, safety, risks, and benefits are well-established topics in the discourses of nanotechnology innovation and development. That nanotechnology innovation should be socially and ethically responsible is generally accepted by scientists, policymakers, regulators, and industry, and the idea of public involvement and communication is part and parcel of the conceptualization of responsible technology development. This paper systematically reviews the social science research literature accumulated between 2002 and 2018 on the communication of nanotechnology. A critical and constructivist perspective on policy problems guides the analysis. Two questions are asked of this literature: what problems are identified regarding the communication of nanotechnology to the public? How can these problems be managed and/or resolved? Three different problem themes are identified: the public, societal institutions, and nanotechnology itself. While for some identified problems, there are corresponding solutions; in other instances, there is little alignment between problems and solutions. In conclusion, the paper recommends that in communicating nanotechnology to the public: (i) the objectives of communication should be defined; (ii) previous research should be used responsibly; (iii) communication strategies should be adapted to the context; and (iv) effort should not be spent trying to develop a generic framework for communication.

The concept of magic is frequently used to discuss technology, a practice considered useful by some with others arguing that viewing technology as magic precludes a proper understanding of technology. The concept of magic is especially prominent in discussions of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). Based on an anthropological perspective, this paper juxtaposes ML technology with magic, using descriptions drawn from a project on an ML-powered system for propulsion control of cargo ships. The paper concludes that prior scholarly work on technology has failed to both define magic adequately and use research into magic. It also argues that although the distinction between ML technology and magic is important, recognition of the similarities is useful for understanding ML technology.

Conflicts over managing large carnivores have been prominent in Sweden in recent decades. The most significant controversies are related to wolves, but the bear, lynx, and wolverine are also included. While the state and environmental organizations make efforts to guarantee a viable population of the large protected carnivores, farmers generally have a negative attitude towards large carnivores and a low level of trust in wildlife governance. Based on 22 in-depth interviews, 37 telephone questionnaires with Swedish farmers, and an analysis of 111 applications for protective hunting, this paper aims to demonstrate how these farmers’ perspectives on large carnivores can be explained by moral (sense of right and wrong) and moral economy (a system of obligations related to values and relations intervening with political views and financial decisions). The paper argues that farming, in addition to being an economic activity, is integrated with values, heritage, and relations to other human beings and animals. Farmers understand these values to be threatened by large carnivores, especially by wolves. The paper contextualizes negative sentiments, conflicts, protests, and also illegal hunting of large carnivores in relation to a sense of morals, sense of fairness, meanings, traditions, and mechanisms of daily life. We argue that this perspective provides a lens through which to interpret the conflict between farmers on the one side and the state and animal rights activists on the other. Such interpretation has consequences for understanding the legitimacy of government, shifting the focus from the processes of political governance (predominant in liberal political philosophy) to legitimacy tied to collective notions of social goods.