Abstract
All stakeholders agree publicly that innovation and governance of emerging technologies should be done responsibly. However, the international debate on who should do what to contribute to this lofty goal is nowhere near a solution. The starting point of this paper is the issue of how and for which reason to engage stakeholders in addition to governments in the international governance of nanotechnology. This article examines the mainly North-American communitarian criticism of political liberalism and the related (mainly European) concept of subsidiarity in order to shed new light on this discussion. The central research question is: Can a communitarian-subsidiarity perspective on the roles of governments, companies and civil society actors that hold a stake in emerging technologies clarify the grounds on which each actor should be expected to contribute to responsible research and innovation at the international level? After selecting some relevant aspects of a communitarian-subsidiarity model for a dialogue society, an analytical framework is proposed. This framework is then applied to the recent international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnology. The outcomes of the analysis are compared to the OECD planning guide on public engagement and outreach in nanotechnology, and indicators for monitoring progress in responsible global innovation are suggested. The main contribution of the selected communitarian-subsidiarity perspective is that it offers philosophical grounds for a return of citizens to the driving seat in cooperative international responsible innovation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See, e.g, http://www.synenergene.eu.
The “Nanotechnologies and Sustainability Task Group [is] to review the opportunities for nanotechnologies to address issues in the sustainability arena and to consider if and how standards might contribute to the successful implementation of these solutions for the benefit of mankind.”
The “Consumer and Societal Dimensions Task Group [is] to identify important issues in these fields and makes recommendations to TC 229 on topics including: (a) Priorities for standards development in the area of consumer and societal dimensions of nanotechnologies; (b) Promotion of TC 229 standards and informational outputs to end users and other relevant organizations in collaboration with appropriate partners, e.g., ISO COPOLCO, IEC, OECD, UNESCO; (c) Development of mechanisms for TC 229 to encourage and receive input from relevant consumer and other societal organizations; (d) Identification of topics in the area of consumer and societal dimensions of nanotechnologies for which it would be important for TC 229 to establish liaisons with other relevant standardization committees.” [29]
References
Althusius J (1614, 1964) The politics of Johannes Althusius. An abridged translation of the third edition of Politica Methodice Digesta, atque exemplis sacris et profanis illustrata. And including the prefaces to the First and Third Editions. Translated, with an introduction by Frederick S. Carney. Preface by Carl J. Friedrich. Beacon Press Boston, http://www.constitution.org/alth/alth.htm
Arnaldi S, Ferrari A (2014) Responsibility in nanotechnology development. In: Maggaudda P, Marin F (eds) The international library of ethics, law and technology, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht
Basset DR (2012) Notions of identity, society, and rhetoric in a speech code of science among scientists and engineers working in nanotechnology. Sci Commun 34(1):115–159
Bell D (2006) Beyond liberal democracy: political thinking for an East Asian context. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Bell D (2013) Communitarianism. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/communitarianism/
COMEST (2013) Ethical issues in science governance and the science-society relationship, draft report, revision no. 3, May 2013, World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, UNESCO, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/global-environmental-change/comest/
Dutch government (2011) “Nanobrief” (Letter to the 2nd Chamber of Parliament of minister Verhagen on the 2nd progress report on nanotechnology), Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, The Hague, http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/nanotechnologie
EC (2008) Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a Code of Conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research, European Commission, Brussels C (2008) 424 final http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec_pe0894c_en.pdf
ETC group (2003) Green Goo: nanobiotechnology comes alive. ETC group Communiqué, Winnipeg
ETC group (2003) The big down; Atomtech: technologies converging at the nanoscale. ETC group, Winnipeg
ETC group (2003) The little BANG theory; the strategy for converging technologies. ETC group, Winnipeg
ETC group (2003) Size matters! The case for a global moratorium. ETC group, Winnipeg
ETC group (2003) Nanotech and the precautionary Prince. ETC group, Winnipeg
ETC group (2003) Much ado about nothing?…Or the Sand-Witch? ETC group, Winnipeg
ETC group (2004) Down on the farm: the impact of nanoscale technologies on food and agriculture. ETC group, Winnipeg
Etzioni A (2005) Affective bonds and moral norms: a communitarian approach to the emerging global society. Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft (IPG) 3/2005, pp 127–143
Etzioni A (2013) Communitarianism in Encyclopaedia Brittanica, last update 24-09-2013, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1366457/communitarianism
EU (2006) Consolidated versions of the treaty on European Union and of the treaty establishing the European Community. Off J Eur Union C 321 E/1, 29.12.2006 Brussels http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/ce321/ce32120061229en00010331.pdf
French government (2012) Engagements du Gouvernement sur les suites à apporter au débat public relatif au développement et à la régulation des nanotechnologies (Communiqué interministériel, 27 Oct 2011), http://www.debatpublic.fr/file/1105/download?token=5y2xpcWD
Forsberg E-M (2012) Standardisation in the field of nanotechnology: some issues of legitimacy. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):719–739
Gadamer HG (1960) Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Mohr, Tübingen
Grin J, van de Graaf H, Hoppe R (1997) Interactieve technology assessment: Een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag
Groves C, Frater L, Lee R, Stokes E (2011) Is there room at the bottom for CSR? Corporate social responsibility and nanotechnology in the UK. J Bus Ethics 101(4):525–552, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-010-0731-7
Guston DH, Daniel S (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–109, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X01000471
Habermas J (2011) Recht en politiek in een tijd van globalisering, Klement, Zoetermeer / Pelckmans Kapellen. Law and politics in times of globalisation
IRGC (2005) White paper on risk governance, towards and integrative approach, International Risk Governance Council, www.irgc.org/
IRGC (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance, International Risk Governance Council, http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf
ISO (2010) 26000: international standard for social responsibility of business and organisations
ISO (2012) Business Plan ISO TC 229 nanotechnologies, Geneva, April 2012, http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink?func=ll&objId=8927752&objAction=browse&sort=name
Jasanoff S (2010) A Field of Its Own: The Emergence of Science and Technology Studies. In: Frodeman R, Klein JT, Mitcham C (eds) Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, Oxford University Press, pp 191–205
Jonas H (1979) Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Insel Verlag, Frankfurt/M
Jonas H (1980) The heuristics of fear. In: Kranzberg M (ed) Ethics in an age of pervasive technology. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 213–221
Kahlor LA, Stout PA (eds) (2010). Communicating science, new agendas in communication. Routledge and College of Communication at the University of Texas at Austin
Kica E, Bowman DM (2013) Transnational governance arrangements: legitimate alternatives to regulating nanotechnologies? NanoEthics 7(1):69–82
Krabbenborg L (2013) DuPont and environmental defense fund: co-constructing a risk framework for nanoscale materials: an occasion to reflect on interaction processes in a joint enquiry. NanoEthics 7(1):45–54, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11569-013-0167-5
Latour B (2005) Reassembling the social—an introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press
MacIntyre A (1981) After virtue; A study in moral theory. Bloomsbury Academic and University of Notre Dame Press
Malsch I (2011) Ethics and nanotechnology; responsible development of nanotechnology at global level in the 21st century, PhD thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, www.nanoarchive.org/11110
Malsch I et al (2012) Communicating nanoethics. Observatory Nano, http://ethicschool.nl/_files/Communicatingnanoethicsreportfinal.pdf
Malsch I (2012) Governing nanotechnology in a multistakeholder world. NanoEthics 7(2):161–172
Malsch I (2013) Responsible innovation in practice: concepts and tools. Philos Reformata 78(I):47–63, www.philosophia-reformata.org/
Mast L (2008) Communitarianism, in Philosophy Basics, www.philosophybasics.com/
Monteiro M, Keating E (2009) Managing misunderstandings; The role of language in interdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Sci Commun 31(1):6–28, http://scx.sagepub.com/content/31/1/6
Nanocode (2012) Final Report Summary - NANOCODE (A multistakeholder dialogue providing inputs to implement the European code of conduct for nanosciences and nanotechnologies (N&N) research), European Commission, http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/55409_en.html
Nussbaum Martha C (2006) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press
OECD (2012) Planning guide for public engagement and outreach in nanotechnology. OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org/sti/nano
Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) (2013) Responsible innovation. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Pope Benedict XVI (2009) Encyclical “Caritas in Veritate”, Vatican. www.vatican.va/
Pope John XXIII (1963) Encyclical “Pacem in Terris”, Vatican, www.vatican.va/
Randles S, Youtie J, Guston D, Harthorn B, Newfield C, Shapira P, Wickson F, Rip A, von Schomberg R, Pidgeon N (2012) A transatlantic conversation on responsible innovation and responsible governance. In: van Lente H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Konrad K, Krabbenborg L, Milburn C, Thoreau F, Zülsdorf TB (eds) Little by little; expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies. Ios Press, Heidelberg, pp 169–180
Rauscher H, Roebben G (eds) (2014) Towards a review of the EC Recommendation for a definition of the term “nanomaterial”. Part 1: compilation of information concerning the experience with the definition. JRC Sci Policy Rep, Ispra
Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Revised edition: 1999
Roco M, Tomellini R (eds) (2002) 3rd EC/NSF workshop on nanotechnology. Nanotechnology—revolutionary opportunities and societal implications. Research Directorate General, European Commission, Lecce
Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) (1995) Managing technology in society. Pinter Publishers, London
Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. National Science Foundation, Arlington
Roco M, Tomellini R (eds) (2002) 3rd EC/NSF workshop on Nanotechnology. Nanotechnology—revolutionary opportunities and societal implications. Research Directorate General, European Commission, Lecce
Rosa H (1998) Identität und kulturelle Praxis. Politische Philosophie nach Charles Taylor. Campus, Frankfurt/M
Rosa H (2006) Kommunitarismus. In: Düwell M, Hübenthal C, Werner MH (eds) Handbuch Ethik. Verlag J.B. Metzler, Stuttgart, pp 218–230
Sandel M (1982) Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge University Press
Sandel M (1984) The procedural republic and the unencumbered self. Polit Theory 12:81–96
Sandel M (1994) Review of political liberalism. Harv Law Rev 107:1765–1794
Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 7(6):659–667
Van Est R, Walhout B, Rerimassie V, Stemerding D, Hanssen L (2012) Governance of nanotechnology in the Netherlands—informing and engaging in different social spheres. Int J Emerg Technol Soc 10:6–26
Van den Hoven J, Jacob K, Nielsen L, Roure F, Rudze L, Stilgoe J, Blind K, Guske A, Martinez Riera C (2013) Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation; report of the expert group on the state of the art in Europe on Responsible Research and Innovation. European Commission, Brussels, EUR25766 EN
Van den Hoven J, Doorn N, Swierstra T, Koops B-J, Romijn H (eds) (2014) Responsible innovation 1—innovative solutions for global issues. Springer, Dordrecht, http://www.springer.com/philosophy/epistemology+and+philosophy+of+science/book/978-94-017-8955-4
van Oudheusden M (2014) Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J Responsible Innov 1(1):67–86
Taylor C (1985) The nature and scope of distributive justice. In: Taylor C (ed) Philosophy and the human sciences, Philosophical Papers. Cambridge University Press, p 289–317
US Congress (2003) 21st century nanotechnology research and development act, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ153/html/PLAW-108publ153.htm
Van Luyn A (2012) Das Subsidiaritätsprinzip; Bedeutung und Folgerungen für politische Beziehungen. Ms. (Institut für Wirtschaftspolitik an der Universität zu Köln), available at https://www.iwp.uni-koeln.de
Von Schomberg R (2012) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Dusseldorp M, Beecroft R (eds) Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 39–61
Von Schomberg R (2012) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Dusseldorp M, Beecroft R (eds) Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 39–61
Walzer M (1983) Spheres of justice. Basic Books, New York
Wils J-P (2010) Die hermeneutische Signatur der kommunitaristischen Liberalismuskritik. In: Kühnlein M (ed) Kommunitarismus und Religion. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, pp 15–37
Acknowledgments
The analysis of literature and case study in this article has been done without external funding. The original case study on responsible development in nanotechnology has been reported elsewhere [38, 39] and benefited from partial funding by several grants including the EU ObservatoryNano project, grant agreement 218528. Comments by Bert Gordijn, David Guston, four anonymous reviewers and scientific committee members, speakers and participants in the EthicSchool summerschool on Ethics of Emerging Technologies, 9–13 September 2013 on central ideas in the present article are gratefully acknowledged. The contents of this article are the responsibility of the author, and any opinions expressed can under no circumstances be attributed to the European Commission.
Conflict of interest
I am not aware of any conflict of interest related to the present article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Malsch, I. Communitarian and Subsidiarity Perspectives on Responsible Innovation at a Global Level. Nanoethics 9, 137–150 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0234-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0234-1