Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies
Source abstract
Abstract
The international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnologies engages a wide range of actors with conflicting as well as common interests. It is also characterised by a lack of evidence-based data on uncertain risks of in particular engineered nanomaterials. The present paper aims at deepening understanding of the collective decision making context at international level using the grounded theory approach as proposed by Glaser and Strauss in "The Discovery of Grounded Theory" (1967). This starts by discussing relevant concepts from different fields including sociological and political studies of international relations as well as political philosophy and ethics. This analysis of current trends in international law making is taken as starting point for exploring the role that a software decision support tool could play in multi-stakeholder global governance of nanotechnologies. These theoretical ideas are then compared with the current design of the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) under development in the European project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu). Through constant comparison, the ideas are also compared with requirements of different stakeholders as expressed during a user workshop. This allows for highlighting discussion points for further consideration.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Sustainability and Climate Change Governance · Risk Perception and Management · University-Industry-Government Innovation Models
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (42)
Show source-provided references
1. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jaeger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–809110.1073/pnas.1231332100 ↗
2. Cross MKD (2013) Rethinking epistemic communities twenty years later. Rev Int Stud 39(1):137–160. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=882453110.1017/S0260210512000034 ↗
3. Dowling A (ed) (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, London. http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm
4. ETC Group (2003a) Green goo: nanobiotechnology comes alive. ETC Group Communiqué, Winnipeg
5. ETC Group (2003b) The big down; atomtech: technologies converging at the nanoscale. ETC Group, Winnipeg
6. ETC Group (2003c) The little BANG theory; the strategy for converging technologies. ETC Group, Winnipeg
7. ETC Group (2003d) Size matters! The case for a global moratorium. ETC Group, Winnipeg
8. ETC Group (2003e) Nanotech and the precautionary prince. ETC Group, Winnipeg
9. ETC Group (2003f) Much ado about nothing?…or the Sand-Witch?. ETC Group Communiqué, Winnipeg
10. ETC Group (2004) Down on the farm: the impact of nanoscale technologies on food and agriculture. ETC Group, Winnipeg
11. Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
12. Haas PM (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int Organ 46(1):1–35 (Knowledge, Power, and International Policy Coordination. (Winter 1992)). http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-8183%28199224%2946%3A1%3C1%3AIECAIP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%2310.1017/S0020818300001442 ↗
13. Habermas J (1996) Between facts and norms. MIT Press, Cambridge10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001 ↗
14. Habermas J (1998) Three normative models of democracy. In: Habermas J (ed) The inclusion of the other. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 239–252
15. Habermas J (2011) Recht en politiek in een tijd van globalisering. Klement/Pelckmans, Zoetermeer/Kapellen. (Law and politics in times of globalisation)
16. Hanekamp G, Wütscher F (eds) (2007) Business ethics of innovation, in ethics of science and technology assessment, vol 31. Springer, Berlin. http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-72310-310.1007/978-3-540-72310-3 ↗
17. Health Council of the Netherlands (2006) Health significance of nanotechnologies. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication No. 2006/06E. http://gr.nl/en/publications/gezonde-leefomgeving/health-significance-of-nanotechnologies
18. Invernizzi N (2012) Union perspectives on the risks and implications of nanotechnology. In: van Lente H et al (eds) Little by litle; expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies. IOS Press, Heidelberg, pp 195–215
19. IRGC (2006) White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance, International Risk Governance Council. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf
20. ISO (2010) ISO 26000—social responsibility. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/iso26000.htm
21. Kant I (1795) Zum ewigen Frieden. Friedrich Nicolovius, Königsberg
22. Klaessig FG (2014) Developing official practices for nanoEHS data compilation, curation and compliance. In: Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Fautz C, Guivant J, Konrad K, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Innovation and responsibility: engaging with new and emerging technologies, S.NET 005. IOS Press and AKA, Heidelberg, pp 121–133
23. Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures. How the sciences make knowledge, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=978067425894510.4159/9780674039681 ↗
24. MacIntyre Alasdair (1981) After virtue; a study in moral theory. Bloomsbury Academic and University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame
25. Malsch I (2011) Ethics and nanotechnology; responsible development of nanotechnology at global level in the 21st century, Ph D thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen. http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/91234
26. Malsch I (2013) Responsible innovation in practice. Concepts and tools. Philosophia Reformata 78(1):47–6310.1163/22116117-90000538 ↗
27. Malsch I, Grinbaum A, Bontems V, Fruelund Anderson A-M (2012) Communicating nanoethics. Annual report 4 on ethical and societal aspects, ObservatoryNano. http://www.ethicschool.nl/_files/Communicatingnanoethicsreportfinal.pdf
28. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2014) Collective decision making on risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials and the role of decision support tools. In Proceedings 5th STS Italia conference a matter of design: making society through science and technology milan, pp 12–14, http://www.stsitalia.org/?p=1548&lang=en
29. Malsch I, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A (2015) Supporting decision making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35(1):54–7510.1007/s10669-015-9539-4 ↗
30. Michael S (1982) Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
31. Patton MQ (1999) Enhancing the quality and credibility of qualitative analysis. Health Serv Res 34(5 Pt 2):1189
32. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge10.4159/9780674042605 ↗
33. Rawls J (1996) Political Liberalism. Columbia University Press
34. Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice, revised edn. Belknap, Cambridge10.4159/9780674042582 ↗
35. Renn O (2004) The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In: McDaniels TL, Small MJ (eds) in risk analysis and society: an interdisciplinary characterisation of the field. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 289–366
36. Risse T, Ropp SC, Sikkink K (Eds) (1999) The power of human rights: international norms and domestic change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511598777 ↗
37. Risse T (2002) Transnational actors and world politics. In: Carlsnaes W, Risse T, Simmons B (eds) Handbook of international relations. Sage, London, pp 255–274
38. Scherer A, Palazzo G, Baumann D (2007) Global public rules and citizenship rights: a new responsibility of private business firms? In: Zimmerli WC, Richter K, Holzinger M (eds) Corporate ethics and corporate governance. Springer, Berlin
39. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Marcomini A, Linkov I (2014) Sustainable nanotechnology: defining, measuring and teaching. Nano Today 9:6–910.1016/j.nantod.2014.01.001 ↗
40. Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Hristozov D, Zondervan-Van Den Beuken E, Linkov I et al. (2015) Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology. Environ Syst Decis 35(1):29–4110.1007/s10669-015-9541-x ↗
41. Taylor C (1985) The nature and scope of distributive justice, in Charles Taylor, Philosophy and the human sciences, Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 28910.1017/CBO9781139173490.012 ↗
42. Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice. Basic Books, New York