2006
DOI: 10.1177/0270467605284348
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The GMO-Nanotech (Dis)Analogy?

Abstract: The genetically-modified-organism (GMO) experience has been prominent in motivating science, industry, and regulatory communities to address the social and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. However, there are some significant problems with the GMO-nanotech analogy. First, it overstates the likelihood of a GMO-like backlash against nanotechnology. Second, it invites misconceptions about the reasons for public engagement and social and ethical issues research as well as their appropriate roles in nanotech re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Yet the question of whether nanotech will unfold like biotech should be subject to social science investigation, rather than simply assumed as a guide to policymaking. 6 Moreover, the paralleldevelopment folk theory is accompanied by several questionable corollary beliefs about what the lessons from biotech are.…”
Section: Folk Theoriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yet the question of whether nanotech will unfold like biotech should be subject to social science investigation, rather than simply assumed as a guide to policymaking. 6 Moreover, the paralleldevelopment folk theory is accompanied by several questionable corollary beliefs about what the lessons from biotech are.…”
Section: Folk Theoriesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Public resistance to nanotechnologies could be a significant barrier to its development [4,39]. Nanotechnological regulation can learn from experiences with genetically modified (GM) food [41] and the broad approaches to risk governance, which regard risk communication as an important stage of regulation [25]. Hence, public regulators must be prepared to cope with potential public resistance to nanoproducts.…”
Section: Tensions Between Public Interestsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although there is little evidence about risks, several early studies have shown that there is a number of potential human health risks associated with engineered nanoparticles. It has been shown, for instance, that large doses of nano-particles can cause cells and organs to demonstrate a toxic response ( [19,25]: 15,41), and that the higher surface reactivity and surfacearea-to-volume ratio of nanopowders may increase the risk of dusk explosion. It is expected that the impact of nanostructures on the environment will be significant because of the potential for bioaccumulation and persistence.…”
Section: Governability Of Nanotechnology-risk Problemsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although the assumption that nanotech will be ‘the next GM’ has been contested [42], the potential for a social backlash against nanotechnology encouraged policy makers to demand attention for the broader dimensions of nanotechnology, giving rise to a new field of social and ethical enquiry. From the outset, the aim of this burgeoning field of nanoethics has been to ‘close the gap’ between the accelerated speed of developments in nanotechnology and its ethical assessment [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%