Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers

Lee, Robert; José, Pedro

doi:10.1080/09537320701726775

Cited by 28 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Stanford Encyclopaedia of [153]). 15 Recently there have been publications on the values of natural scientists who work in the nano field (both in private and public sectors) which explore the cultural context in which these values arise and thus further develop a tradition of analysis begun in the late 1980s examining the ethical conduct of research and the accountability of science (see, amongst others, [31,95,118,125,134]). 16 Even if there is increasing debate on the importance of trust in nanotechnology, the majority of analyses concentrate on how trust informs public opinion about risks and, more generally, its effects on the process of risk assessment (cf.…”

Section: Nanoethical Reflection As a Narrow Form Of Risk Assessment: mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis

Ferrari¹

2010

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to review different discourses within the emerging field of ethical reflection on nanotechnology. I will start by analysing the early stages of this debate, showing how it has been focused on searching for legitimacy for this sphere of moral inquiry. I will then characterise an ethical approach, common to many authors, which frames ethical issues in terms of risks and benefits. This approach identifies normative issues where there are conflicts of interest or where challenges to the fundamental values of our society arise. In response to the limitations of this approach, other commentators have called for more profound analysis of the limits of our knowledge, and have appealed to values, such as sustainability or responsibility, which should, they suggest, inform nanotechnological development (I will define this approach as a "sophisticated form of prudence"). After showing the ways in which these frameworks are limited, I will examine more recent developments in debates on nanoethics which call for the contextualisation of ethical discourse in its ontological, epistemic and socio-economic and political reflections. Such contextualisation thus involves inquiry into the 'metaphysical research program' (MRP) of nanotechnology/ies and analysis of the socio-economic, political and historical reality of nano. These ideas offer genuinely new insights into the kind of approach required for nanoethical reflection: they recover a sense of the present alongside the need to engage with the past, while avoiding speculation on the future.

show abstract

Section: Nanoethical Reflection As a Narrow Form Of Risk Assessment: mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis

Ferrari¹

2010

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These dynamics are nowhere more evident than in recent discussions of the development and governance of nanotechnology. This emergent technology—a “solution in search of a problem,” to paraphrase Lindquist, Mosher‐Howe, and Liu ()—has garnered significant attention from both natural and social scientists and science policy makers in recent years; and—with its attendant promises of profound social impacts tied to profound scientific and technical uncertainties (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, )—can in many ways be seen as an exemplary case for the Collingridge dilemma to come into play (Lee & Jose, ). This has been widely recognized by both developers and promoters of nanotechnologies and regulators and policy makers.…”

Section: The Rise Of “Responsibility” In Innovation and Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Nano‐Industry Operationalizations of “Responsibility”: Charting Diversity in the Enactment of Responsibility

Shelley-Egan

Davies

2013

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Collingridge dilemma-the problem of reacting to emerging technology either "too early" or "too late"-is one that is readily recognized by developers and promoters of nanotechnologies. One response can be found in the rise of a discourse of "responsible development" in the science and innovation policy landscape. While a number of commentators have discussed the potential of such initiatives, it remains unclear how responsible development is actually being configured "on the ground," in private sector nanotechnology. This paper addresses this question by analyzing empirical engagements in Europe and the United States in order to map industry operationalizations of "responsibility" in these contexts. We show that a number of different articulations of "responsibility" are present, including as a response to public lack of trust and perceived public pressure, and as the management of risk. We close by relating these findings to the theoretical literature on responsibility, other contemporary accounts of the ways in which responsible development can be operationalized, and the possibilities that these articulations of responsibility may open up.

show abstract

“…Such approaches should be reflexive, participatory, and facilitate the opening up of the innovation process to modulation and adaptive management. ( 1,4 , 11‐17 ) These include qualitative risk analysis deployed earlier in the innovation process, ( 18 ) adaptive and anticipatory governance, ( 1,2 ) technology assessment in its various forms (e.g., real‐time and constructive technology assessment), 5 ( 8,19 ) and other forms of technological “midstream modulation” ( 9 ) that can be framed by stakeholders and public engagement. ( 20,21 )…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Owen¹,

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significant time lags between the development of novel innovations (e.g., nanotechnologies), understanding of their wider impacts, and subsequent governance (e.g., regulation) have led to repeated calls for more anticipatory and adaptive approaches that promote the responsible emergence of new technologies in democratic societies. A key challenge is implementation in a pragmatic way. Results are presented of a study with the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the largest public funder of basic innovation research in the United Kingdom who, for the first time, asked applicants to submit a risk register identifying the wider potential impacts and associated risks (environment, health, societal, and ethical) of their proposed research. This focused on nanoscience for carbon capture and utilization. Risk registers were completed conservatively, with most identified impacts concerning researchers' health associated with nanoparticle synthesis, handling, and prototype device fabrication, i.e., risks that could be identified and managed with a reasonable level of certainty. Few wider environmental impacts and no future impacts on society were identified, reflecting the often uncertain and unpredictable nature of innovation. However, some applicants addressed this by including investigators with expertise beyond engineering and nanosciences supporting integrated activities that included life cycle and real-time technology assessment, which in some cases were also framed by stakeholder and/or public engagement. Proposals underpinned by a strong commitment to responsible science and innovation promoted continuous reflexivity, embedding a suite of multidisciplinary approaches around the innovation research core to support decisions modulating the trajectory of their innovation research in real-time.

show abstract

Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers

Cited by 28 publications

References 22 publications

Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis

Developments in the Debate on Nanoethics: Traditional Approaches and the Need for New Kinds of Analysis

Nano‐Industry Operationalizations of “Responsibility”: Charting Diversity in the Enactment of Responsibility

Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About