Nanotechnology and Public Interest Dialogue: Some International Observations

Abstract

This article examines nanotechnology within the context of the public interest. It notes that though nanotechnology research and development investment totalled US$9.6 billion in 2005, the public presently understands neither the implications nor how it might be best governed. The article maps a range of nanotechnology dialogue activities under way within the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and Australia. It explores the various approaches to articulating public interest matters and notes a shift in the way in which these governments, on the whole, appear to be attempting to manage nanotechnology “risks.” It argues that open and transparent policy deliberations and extensive public discourse will be pivotal to protecting the public interest, gaining public trust and acceptance of nanotechnologies. The article concludes that though governing emerging technologies in the public interest is not a new concept, nanotechnology does present additional challenges that must be addressed by the guardians of the public interest.

After “the Regulatory Moment” in Comparative Regulatory Studies: Modeling the Early Stages of Regulatory Life Cycles

“…Being aware of general patterns and drivers of regulatory trajectories is especially important for those faced with the social and policy challenges posed by scientific and technologically innovative activity -for example, at the time of writing, new developments such as nanotechnology or synthetic biology (Bowman and Hodge 2007;Torgersen 2009). The genealogical model of regulation proposed here can help researchers and policy-makers anticipate the early stage developments that are necessary to produce a lasting and stable regulatory regime.…”

Engaging whom and for what ends? Australian stakeholders’ constructions of public engagement in relation to nanotechnologies

“…In many respects, Australia's experience would seem to reflect that of other countries such as the UK, which have strongly promoted public engagement on new technologies, including biobanks and nanotechnologies, in recent years (see, e.g. Bowman & Hodge 2007, Petersen 2007, Anderson et al 2009). 'Engagement' has been mostly oriented to engineering community consent for technologies, which are portrayed as 'pre-social', and thus unaffected by power and social interests, thus denying the social production of technologies and historical evidence that there are always 'winners' and 'losers' from all technologies (see Hård & Jameson 2005).…”

Travelling risks: How did nanotechnology become a risk in India and South Africa?

“…Importantly, amongst others informed by recent experiences with a public backlash against genetically modified organisms in Northern America and Europe, also pro-active attempts were made to engage the public in the governance of nanotechnology risks (e.g. see Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden 2007;Bowman and Hodge 2007).…”