The Role of NGOs in Governing Nanotechnologies: Challenging the ‘Benefits versus Risks’ Framing of Nanotech Innovation

Miller, Georgia; Scrinis, Gyorgy

doi:10.4337/9781849808125.00029

Cited by 17 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The statement of an interviewed DG Employment testifies to this point. 4 Interview with Dania Cristofaro, policy officer of ECOS, 21 October 2014 Scholars also observe that CSOs are not accorded the same value that is attributed to other stakeholders in nanotech decision-making [29]. This ideological belief shared by some regulators frustrates a good number of CSOs.…”

Section: Emerging Actors Different Approachesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Revisiting “Upstream Public Engagement”: from a Habermasian Perspective

2015

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of conducting Bupstream public engagement,^using nanotechnology as a test case, has been subject to criticism for its lack of any link to the political system. Drawing on the theoretical tools provided by Habermas, this article seeks to explore such a Blink^, focusing specifically on the capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to distil, raise and transmit societal concerns in an amplified form to the public spheres at the European Union (EU) level. Based on content analysis and semi-structured interviews with relevant actors, this article examines the evolution of CSO approaches towards nanotechnology over the past decade and investigates whether and how upstream public engagement could contribute to more vibrant public spheres and facilitate the formation of communicative power. The answer to these questions is twofold: on the one hand, moving public engagement Bupstream^enables CSOs to be better informed and to become part of the debates more quickly. A Bgreen alliance^is taking shape, which calls for more stringent regulation on nanomaterials. On the other hand, upstream public engagement has turned out to be unsuccessful in generating substantial and sustained interest. A number of CSOs have quit this field in frustration at the tokenistic engagement and out of fatigue after the intense lobbying battle for Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH).

show abstract

Section: Emerging Actors Different Approachesmentioning

confidence: 95%

Revisiting “Upstream Public Engagement”: from a Habermasian Perspective

2015

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These include a lack of clarity in the use of basic concepts and the definitions of outcomes, an absence of opportunities for dialogue between the sponsors of technologies and publics, and a lack of commitment to the concept of engagement and/or receptivity to the concerns raised during engagement processes (see, e.g. Rowe & Frewer 2005, Katz et al 2009, Miller & Scrinis 2010. Efforts labelled 'public engagement' have, in many cases, been about advancing 'scientific literacy', the assumption being that a 'literate' population is more likely to support promising innovations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three observers of 'public engagement' on nanotechnologies in Australia (prior to the launch of NETS) have drawn attention to the narrow, instrumental focus of nano-engagement exercises, which allow little opportunity for the input of non-experts (Lyons & Whelan 2010, Miller & Scrinis 2010. The authors examined the community engagement activities related to nanotechnologies initiated by the Australian Office of Nanotechnology (which ceased operations in June 2009) and the Queensland Government.…”

Section: The Discourses and Practices Of Public Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Petersen¹,

Bowman²

2012

Ethics. Sci. Environ. Polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Además de incumplir con cierto descaro lo que se prometió y aun así seguir prometiéndolo para un futuro cada vez más elusivo, a nuestro juicio el principal problema de la biología sintética, la nanotecnología o cualquier otra tecnología convergente, desde un prisma social, son los términos estrechos mediante los que se quiere establecer su evaluación (Miller y Scrinis, 2010). La mayoría de quienes promueven estas tecnologías, ya sean investigadores, empresarios o responsables públicos, lo hacen mediante un encuadre o enmarcado (lo que se conoce en inglés como "framing") muy restrictivo, que esencialmente se reduce a comparar los posibles riesgos con los beneficios previstos.…”

Section: El Enfoque Estrecho De La Evaluación De Tecnologíasunclassified

La biología sintética y sus promesas por cumplir

Escalante

2016

Isegoría

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN. La biología sintética es una ciencia y tecnología emergente, o mejor, una tecnociencia, que converge con otras como la nanotecnología, las tecnologías de la información y de la comunicación, la robótica, la inteligencia artificial o la neurociencia. Todas ellas poseen rasgos comunes que apuntan a unas repercusiones sociales y ambientales de lo más preocupantes. Con sus ambiciosos fines de control de la complejidad, rediseño y creación de nuevas entidades vivientes, la biología sintética ejemplifica a la perfección una nueva realidad bioeconómica, que exige ampliar el foco de la discusión más allá de los limitados análisis comparativos de riesgos y beneficios, para encarar las incertidumbres, reasignar responsabilidades y plantear a fondo una evaluación social de todo lo que está en juego.Palabras clave: biología sintética; tecnociencia; control; repercusiones sociales; evaluación; riesgo; incertidumbre; responsabilidad.ABSTRACT. Synthetic biology is a new science and emerging technology, or rather a technoscience, which converges with others such as nanotechnology, information technology, robotics, artificial intelligence and neuroscience. All have common features that could have highly concerning social and environmental impacts. With its ambitious goals of controlling complexity, redesigning and creating new living entities, synthetic biology perfectly exemplifies the new bioeconomic reality. This requires expanding the focus of the discussion beyond the limited comparative analysis of risks and benefits, to address uncertainties, reassign responsibilities and initiate a thorough social assessment of what is at stake.Key words: synthetic biology; technoscience; control; social impact; assessment; risk; uncertainty; responsibility. , julio-diciembre, 2016, julio-diciembre, , 485-501, ISSN: 1130, julio-diciembre, -2097, julio-diciembre, doi: 10.3989/isegoria.2016 La biología sintética y sus promesas por cumplir 485ISEGORÍA. Revista de Filosofía Moral y Política N.º 55

show abstract

The Role of NGOs in Governing Nanotechnologies: Challenging the ‘Benefits versus Risks’ Framing of Nanotech Innovation

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Revisiting “Upstream Public Engagement”: from a Habermasian Perspective

Revisiting “Upstream Public Engagement”: from a Habermasian Perspective

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

La biología sintética y sus promesas por cumplir

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About