Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Soft regulatory measures are often promoted as an alternative for existing regulatory regimes for nanotechnologies. The call for new regulatory approaches stems from several challenges that traditional approaches have difficulties dealing with. These challenges relate to general problems of governability, tensions between public interests, but also (and maybe particularly) to almost complete lack of certainty about the implications of nanotechnologies. At the same time, the field of nanotechnology can be characterized by a high level of diversity. In this paper, we discuss and compare two models for framing public policy in relation to technology regulation: the first is a deliberative model based on foresight knowledge and the second the wide reflective equilibrium model, developed by political philosopher John Rawls. In both models, the aim is to find consensus on (a framework for) policy measures and regulation. On the basis of a critical discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both models, some tentative conclusions are drawn for effective policy making and implementation based on soft law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Although this claim may in general be true, it should be noted that many technologies are being developed in a host of other contexts, such as the military sector, which are not always uncontroversial. The notion of dual-use technology has been introduced to refer to research and technology with the potential both to yield valuable scientific knowledge and to be used for purposes with potentially serious detrimental consequences. Although dual-use is as old as engineering and design, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and recent developments in the life sciences have renewed the attention for the topic [85]. The moral assessment of dual-use technologies and the prevention of its harmful use is currently one of the most debated topics engineering ethics (cf. the recent special issue on “The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use” in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics; [71]).

  2. It should be noted that both hard and soft regulation may have compliance problems. Compliance in the case of hard regulation may be critical because the regulated parties are not involved in rule making. Compliance in the case of soft and self-regulation may be critical if it is fully dependent on the on-going commitment, motivation, and goodwill of the individual organizations alone [5].

  3. Critics of consensus policy often warn that the promotion of consensus is coercive, notwithstanding its democratic aims. The promotion of consensus runs the risk of prioritizing the interests of the most powerful, these critics argue; under the sway of deliberation, the goal of consensus can all too easily be equated with the interests of the powerful (see, for example, the work of Iris Marion Young [98, 99] or Chantal Mouffe [48, 49]). For reasons of space, we cannot go into detail in this discussion, but we agree that not any consensus is a democratic outcome and we therefore explicitly added the criteria of fairness and legitimacy, distinguishing a democratic consensus from a mere compromise or modus vivendi. In case of the latter, people come to an agreement on the basis of some process of negotiation in which power relations and mutual dependencies play a crucial role.

  4. Formally, the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (available at http://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html; last accessed July 12, 2012).

  5. Hence, this is a different question from the normative one central to philosophy of law, which concerns the question under which condition people ought to feel that they have to obey the law (cf., [60]).

  6. These projects include the DEEPEN project (http://www.geography.dur.ac.uk/projects/deepen/Home), the FRAMINGNANO project (http://www.framingnano.eu), the NANOPLAT project (http://nanoplat.org), and the NANOCAP project (http://www.nanocap.eu).

  7. These four projects are “Tijdelijke Nanoreferentie-waarden” [translated: Temporary Nano-reference values], “Kennisdelen Nanodeeltjes in de verfketen” [translated: Sharing knowledge in the painting chain], “Informatie voorziening MKB bedrijven (MKB-vraagbaak)” [translated: Information provision SME (SME helpdesk)], and “Handreiking werken met nanodeeltjes” [translated: Support working with nano particles].

  8. Letter from the Dutch Minister of State Infrastructuur & Milieu, ‘Invulling Strategie “Omgaan met risico’s van nanodeeltjes” [In English: Interpretation Strategy “Dealing with risks of nanoparticles”]’, Kamerstukken II 2010/11, 29 338, nr. 100, p. 6. It is interesting to note that the Minister presents the “industry” as a relatively one-dimensional entity of competitive companies. It should be noted that somewhat more successful stories are known from the UK, where the association of relevant companies participated in setting up the Defra voluntary self-reporting schemes. However, although the schemes were adopted, there were compliance problems due to the bureaucratic efforts companies had to make to provide the information and to their interest to keep this information secret.

  9. Some actors and institutions even argue explicitly against the idea of updating regulations to account for nanomaterials (e.g., Commission, Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Nanomaterials in REACH and CLP, CA/90/2009/Rev 2).

  10. http://www.cobouw.nl/nieuws/algemeen/2011/01/04/Fabrikanten-helpen-ministerie-gevolgen-van-nanoverf-onderzoeken.xml; last accessed June 19, 2012.

References

  1. Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:185–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amtenbrink F, De Haan J (2003) Economic governance in the EU: fiscal policy discipline versus flexibility. Common Mark Law Rev 40:1075–1106

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:4133–4139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blaser SA et al (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nanofunctionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 390:396–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bullis K (2005) Can EPA regulate nano? Monitoring complex new nanotech materials may be too much for the agency to handle, in Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405083/can-epa-regulate-nano/. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  7. Burd A (2011) Nano silver: environmental health effects. In: JO Nriagu (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier, pp 22–23

  8. Christensen FM et al (2010) Nano-silver: feasibility and challenges for human health risk assessment based on open literature. Nanotoxicology 4:284–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cohen J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit PH (eds) The good polity: normative analysis of the state. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  10. Corley E, Scheufele D, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1573–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. CRO Forum (2010) Nanotechnology. CRO briefing: emerging risks initiative—position paper, November 2010. http://www.thecroforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Nanotechnology.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  12. Daniels N (1996) Justice and justification: reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. DePaul M (2011) Methodological issues: reflective equilibrium. In: Miller C (ed) The continuum companion to ethics. Continuum, London, pp lxxv–cv

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doorn N (2010) Applying Rawlsian approaches to resolve ethical issues: inventory and setting of a research agenda. J Bus Eth 91:127–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Doorn N (2010) A Rawlsian approach to distribute responsibilities in networks. Sci Eng Ethics 16:221–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Doorn N (2012) Exploring responsibility rationales in Research and Development (R&D). Sci Technol Hum Values 37:180–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dorbeck-Jung BR (2007) What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom government’s nanotechnological regulatory activities? NanoEthics 1:257–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S (2006) Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. Am J Polit Sci 50:634–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Elster J (1998) Deliberation and constitution making. In: Elster J (ed) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–122

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. EU (2004) Nanotechnologies. A preliminary risk analysis. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  21. EU (2006) Opinion of the European economic and social committee on nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009 (INT/277). 2006

  22. EU (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Commitee, in SEC(2008) 2036. 2008

  23. Fan AM, Alexeeff G (2010) Nanotechnology and nanomaterials: toxicology, risk assessment, and regulations. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 10:8646–8657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, European commission. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4:27–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glenna LL (2010) Value-laden technocratic management and environmental conflicts: the case of the New York City watershed controversy. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:81–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Godman M (2008) But is it unique to nanotechnology? Reframing nanoethics. Sci Eng Ethics 14:391–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N (2009) Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:185–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Grin J et al (2004) Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:126–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gutmann A, Thompson D (1996) Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (2010) Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 3–24

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hogle LF (2009) Science, ethics, and the “problems” of governing nanotechnologies. J Law Med Ethics 37:749–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Huckfeldt R, Johnson PE, Sprague J (2004) Political disagreement: the survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. Jacobsson K (2004) Between deliberation and discipline: soft governance in EU employment policy. In: Mörth U (ed) Soft law and governance in regulation: an interdisciplinary analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  36. Keulartz J et al (2004) Ethics in a technological culture. A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Sci Technol Hum Values 29:3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Klabbers J (1998) The undesirability of soft law. Nord J Int Law 67:381–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kulinowski KM (2004) Nanotechnology: from “wow” to “yuck”? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Litton P (2007) Nanoethics: What’s new? Hast Cent Rep 37:22–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mastenbroek E (2009) Procedural legitimacy and EU compliance. In: Politicologenetmaal, May 18–19. 2009. Berg en Dal, The Netherlands. http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/523705/paperpoletmaalmastenbroek.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  42. McCarthy T (1994) Kantian constructivism and reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in dialogue. Ethics 105:44–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McCray PW (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. J Hist Technol 21:177–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McGinn RE (2010) What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology?: Foundational questions and answers. NanoEthics 4:115–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 446–461

    Google Scholar 

  46. Milieu Ltd/RPA (2009) Information from industry on applied nanomaterials and their safety: background paper on options for an EU-wide reporting scheme for nanomaterials on the market (http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/documents/Nanos-Options.pdf). Milieu Ltd/RPA, Brussels/London. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  47. Milieu Ltd/RPA (2010) Information from industry on applied nanomaterials and their safety: proposal for an EU reporting system for nanomaterials (http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/documents/Nanos-Reporting-Mechanisms.pdf), chapter 4. Milieu Ltd/RPA, Brussels/London. Accessed 21 Feb 2013

  48. Mouffe C (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc Res 66:745–758

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–4453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Nowack B, Krug HF, Height M (2010) 120 years of nanosilver history: implications for policy makers. Environ Sci Technol 45:1177–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Patenaude J et al (2011) Moral arguments in the debate over nanotechnologies: Are we talking past each other? NanoEthics 5(3):285–293

  55. Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5:143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rawls J (1995) Political liberalism: reply to Habermas. J Philos 92:132–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Rawls J (1999 [1971]) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  59. Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  60. Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  61. Renn O (2005) White paper on risk governance: towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  62. Renn O, Klinke A, Van Asselt MBA (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio 40:231–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Reuzel RPB et al (2001) Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 26:245–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Risse T (2009) Social constructivism and European integration. In: Wiener A, Diez T (eds) European integration theory, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–161

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rogers JD, Bozeman B (2001) “Knowledge Value Alliances”: an alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:23–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Saari E, Miettinen R (2001) Dynamics of change in research work: constructing a new research area in a research group. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:300–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Pol 7:385–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Rep 10:424–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Seaton A et al (2010) Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation. J R Soc Interface 7:S119–S129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Snyder F (1995) The effectiveness of EU law. In: Daintith T (ed) Implementing EC law in the UK. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  71. Spier RE (2010) “Dual Use” and “Intentionality”: Seeking to Prevent the Manifestation of Deliberately Harmful Objectives A Summary and Some Reflections on ‘The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail’. Sci Eng Ethics 16:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Stokes E (2011) You are what you eat: market citizens and the right to know about nano foods. J Hum Rights Environ 2:178–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Swierstra TE, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Toumey C (2010) Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 46–59

    Google Scholar 

  76. Trubek DM, Cottrell P, Nance M (2005) ‘Soft Law’, ‘Hard Law’ and European integration. In: G de Burca, J Scott (eds) New governance and constitutionalism in Europe and the US. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–94

  77. Tyler TR (2001) Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behav Sci Law 19:215–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Van Asselt MBA, Renn O (2011) Risk Governance. J Risk Res 14:431–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Van Asselt MBA, Vos E (2008) Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res 11:281–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Van Calster G, Bowman DM (2009) Regulatory design for new technologies: spaghetti junction or Bauhaus principles for regulating innovative products. Notizie Politeia XXV:75–93

    Google Scholar 

  82. Van de Poel IR (2008) How should we do nanoethics? A network approach for discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:25–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Van de Poel IR (2009) The introduction of nanotechnology as a societal experiment. In: Arnaldi S, Lorenzet A, Russo F (eds) Technoscience in progress: managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 129–142

    Google Scholar 

  84. Van de Poel IR, Zwart SD (2010) Reflective Equilibrium in R&D networks. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:174–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Van der Bruggen K (2012) Possibilities, intentions and threats: dual use in the life sciences reconsidered. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):741–756

    Google Scholar 

  86. Van der Burg S (2009) Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Sci Eng Ethics 15:97–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Van Est R, Walhout B (2007) Verslaglegging workshop nanoveiligheid. Rathenau, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  88. Van Oudheusden M, De Zutter H (2012) Contesting co-inquiry: “Noncommunicative” discourse in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Commun 34:84–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Van Thiel, GJMW (2009) Moral Wisdom in the Balance: Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Empirical Model for Bioethics [PhD thesis]. Utrecht University, Utrecht

  90. Vogelezang-Stoute L, Popma J, Aalders M (2011) Is onze regelgeving ‘nanoproof’? Ned Juristenblad 1258

  91. Von Schomberg R (1993) Controversies and political decision making. In: Von Schomberg R (ed) Science, politics and morality: scientific uncertainty and decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  92. Von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  93. Von Schomberg R (2011) On identifying plausibility and deliberative public policy. Commentary on: “Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology”. Sci Eng Ethics 17:739–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) (2010) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policy. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  95. Von Schomberg R, Guimarães Pereira Â, Funtowicz S (2005) Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  96. Webb K (2004) Understanding the voluntary code phenomenon. In: Webb K (ed) Voluntary codes: private governance, the public interest, and innovation. Carleton University, Ottawa, pp 3–32

    Google Scholar 

  97. WRR (2009) Uncertain safety: allocating responsibility for safety (report nr. 82; Scientific Council for Government Policy). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  98. Young IM (1996) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  99. Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxfort University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is carried out within the framework of the NanoNextNL project, theme 1C. The author would like to thank the editors of the special issue, Diana M. Bowman and Elen Stokes, and Bärbel Dorbeck-Jung for reading earlier drafts of the paper. The article has profited a lot from their comments and the helpful suggestions they provided.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 3TU.Centre for Ethics and Technology / Department of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, PO Box 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Neelke Doorn

Authors
  1. Neelke Doorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neelke Doorn.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doorn, N. Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance. Nanoethics 7, 29–43 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0169-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0169-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation