Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovative and Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020

Part of the book series: Science Policy Reports ((SCIPOLICY,volume 1))

Abstract

Nanotechnology has been defined as “a multidisciplinary field in support of a broad-based technology to reach mass use by 2020, offering a new approach for education, innovation, learning, and governance” [1]. The governance of nanotechnology development for societal benefit is a challenge with many facets ranging from fostering research and innovation to addressing ethical concerns and long-term human development aspects. The U.S. nanotechnology governance approach has aimed to be “transformational, responsible, and inclusive, and [to] allow visionary development” [2].

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Also see reports of the Japan and Brussels dialogues in 2006 and 2008: http://unit.aist.go.jp/nri/ci/nanotech_society/Si_portal_j/doc/doc_report/report.pdf and http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/intldialogue.htm.

  2. 2.

    Term coined by Susan Neiman, as quoted in “Why is the modern view of progress so impoverished?” (Onwards and Upwards section), The Economist, 19 Dec 2009.

  3. 3.

    There are more than 84,000 chemical substances on the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory; for only a small fraction of those has EPA received sufficient data to make risk determinations in accord with EPA’s own risk assessment guidelines. On average, about 700 new substances are added every year. Information on the TSCA inventory may be found at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm. Also see [67].

  4. 4.

    For discussion on regulatory science and its use in environmental decision making, see [68].

  5. 5.

    EPA’s 1989 attempt to ban asbestos from products was overturned in 1991 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals because, in essence, the court determined that EPA had not provided a sufficient regulatory science justification for the ban. See http://www.epa.gov/asbestos/pubs/ban.html. For a concise summary of the issue, see Environmental Working Group, “The Failed EPA Asbestos Ban,” http://www.ewg.org/sites/asbestos/facts/fact5.php.

  6. 6.

    It is the case, of course, that nanomaterials are already covered by, for example, the REACH regulatory framework—at the cost of either not considering sufficiently or de facto exempting the specificities arising from their nanoparticulate or nanostructured character.

  7. 7.

    In this regard, the NanoCap project suggested the introduction of safety notes as a standard element of research publications, alongside the methods section. The note would merely describe what safety measures were actually taken in the laboratory and would thus contribute to best practices and the evolution of shared standards.

  8. 8.

    Integrated approaches are visible in exemplary studies like Lawton, J. (ed.). 2008. Novel materials in the environment: The case of nanotechnology. London: Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, also in studies of the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC).

  9. 9.

    Here, internationalization of the debate is moved forward by academics through venues like the S.NET society or the Springer journal NanoEthics.

  10. 10.

    This does not necessarily involve a consideration of long-term nanotechnological developments. Nanoparticles are already proving disruptive because they are so hard to classify and therefore do not fit classical assessment schemes. The use of biological properties in the construction of nanomaterials (virus-like structures as nanotechnological building blocks) may well prove even more disruptive.

References

  1. In addition to the scholarly references listed below [1–78], please refer also to the WTEC “Nano-2” workshop proceedings in Chicago, Hamburg, Tokyo (Tsukuba), and Singapore: Websites for these proceedings are provided in Appendix A. Additional references related to presentations made at those workshops are [79–105].

    Google Scholar 

  2. M.C. Roco, R.S. Williams, P. Alivisatos, (eds.), Nanotechnology Research Directions: Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade (NSTC, also Springer, 2000, Washington, DC, 1999). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html

  3. M.C. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 11–29 (2008). doi:10.1007/s11051-007-9269-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M.C. Roco, International strategy for nanotechnology research. J. Nanopart. Res. 3(5–6), 353–360 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. National Science Foundation (NSF), Report: International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, (Meridian Institute, Washington, DC, 2004). Available online: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/activities/dialog.jsp

  6. D. Guston, (30 Mar). Public engagement with nanotechnology. 2020 Science (2010), http://2020science.org/2010/03/30/public-engagement-with-nanotechnology

  7. M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge (eds.), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001). Available online: http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf

  8. M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.), Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (Springer, Dordrecht, 2003). Available online: http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf

  9. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), The Ethics and Politics of Nanotechnology (UNESCO, Paris, 2006)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of California at Santa Barbara (CNS–UCSB), Emerging Economies/Emerging Technologies: [Nano]Technologies for Equitable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop. (Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Washington, DC, 2009). 4–6 Nov 2009

    Google Scholar 

  11. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Appropriate Risk Governance Strategies for Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics, (IRGC, Geneva, 2009). Available online: http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_PBnanofood_WEB.pdf

  12. Foundation for the Future (FFF) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Humanity and the biosphere. The Next Thousand Years. Seminar proceedings, 20–22 Sept 2006, (FFF, Paris/Bellevue, 2007). Available online: http://www.futurefoundation.org/documents/hum_pro_sem7.pdf

  13. D. Guston (ed.), Encyclopedia of Nano-Science and Society (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. A. Mnyusiwalla, A.S. Daar, P.A. Singer, Mind the gap: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3), R9 (2003). doi:10.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. I. Bennett, D. Sarewitz, Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Sci. Cult. Lond 15(4), 309–325 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, (Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 2005). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/otherpubs.html

  17. F. Gomez-Baquero, Measuring the Generality of Nanotechnologies and its Potential Economic Implications. Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, 2009. (IEEE Xplore, 2–3 Oct 2009:1–9, 2009). doi: 10.1109/ACSIP.2009.5367858

  18. T. Nikulainen, M. Kulvik, How general are general purpose technologies? Evidence from Nano-, Bio- and ICT-Technologies in Finland. Discussion Paper 1208. (The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. Youtie, M. Iacopetta, S. Graham, Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? J. Technol. Transf. 33(3), 315–329 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. P. Shapira, J. Youtie, L. Kay, National Innovation System Dynamics in the Globalization of Nano-Technology Innovation (Working Paper) (Georgia Tech Program in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  21. H. Chen, M. Roco, Mapping Nanotechnology Innovations and Knowledge. Global and Longitudinal Patent and Literature Analysis Series (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. Fernandez-Ribas, Global Patent Strategies of SMEs in Nanotechnology. Working paper. Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Z. Huang, H. Chen, L. Yan, M.C. Roco, Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1990–2002): The national science foundation funding and its impact on patents. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(4–5), 343–376 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. J. Wang, P. Shapira, Partnering with universities: A good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Business Economics (Preprint 30 Oct 2009). doi: 10.1007/s11187-009-9248-9

  25. D. Hwang, Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False Threats (Lux Research, New York, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  26. T. Satterfield, M. Kandlikar, C. Beaudrie, J. Conti, B.H. Harthorn, Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 752–758 (2009). doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. N. Pidgeon, B. Harthorn, K. Bryant, T. Rogers-Hayden, Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 95–98 (2009). doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.362

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. N. Pidgeon, B. Harthorn, T. Satterfield, Nanotech: Good or bad? Chem. Eng. Today 822–823, 37–39 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  29. P. Hamlett, M.D. Cobb, D.H. Guston, National Citizens’ Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement. CNS Report #R08-0003. (Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe, 2008). Available online: http://www.cspo.org/library/type/?action=getfile&file=88&section=lib

  30. C. Bosso (ed.), Governing Uncertainty: Environmental Regulation in the Age of Nanotechnology (EarthScan, London, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  31. J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran, J. Kim, A. Kokotovich, S. Wolf, An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Anal. 28(5), 1197–1219 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. S.M. Wolf, G. Ramachandran, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, (eds.), Symposium: Developing oversight approaches to nanobiotechnology—The lessons of history. J. Law Med. Ethics. 37(4), 732 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  33. N. Powell, New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc. 9(2), 173–190 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. J.A. Conti, K. Killpack, G. Gerritzen, L. Huang, M. Mircheva, M. Delmas, B.H. Harthorn, R.P. Appelbaum, P.A. Holden, Health and safety practices in the nanotechnology workplace: Results from an international survey. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(9), 3155–3162 (2008)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. J.C. Davies, Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology. Presentation. (Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Apr 2009, Washington, DC, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  36. C. Beaudrie, Emerging Nanotechnologies and Life Cycle Regulation: An Investigation of Federal Regulatory Oversight from Nanomaterial Production to End-of-Life. (Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia, 2010). Available online: http://www.chemheritage.org/Downloads/Publications/White-Papers/Studies-in-Sustainability_Beaudrie.pdf

  37. T. Barker, M.L. Lesnick, T. Mealey, R. Raimond, S. Walker, D. Rejeski, L. Timberlake, Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks—Closing the Gaps Within and Between Sectors of Society, (Meridian Institute, Washington, DC, 2005). Available online: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1047276/NANOTECHNOLOGY-and-the-POOR

  38. S. Cozzens, J. Wetmore (eds.), Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. II: Nanotechnology and the Challenge of Equity and Equality (Springer, New York, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  39. M.C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering: Unifying and transforming tools. AIChE J. 50(5), 890–897 (2004)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. V. Subramanian, J. Youtie, A.L. Porter, P. Shapira, Is there a shift to active nanostructures? J. Nanopart. Res. 12(1), 1–10 (2010). doi:10.1007/s11051-009-9729-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. O. Renn, M.C. Roco, White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. (International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Geneva, 2006). Available online: http://www.irgc.org/Publications

  42. M.C. Roco, O. Renn, Nanotechnology risk governance, in Global Risk Governance: Applying and Testing the IRGC Framework, ed. by O. Renn, K. Walker (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 301–325

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  43. S. Murdock, (Nanobusiness Alliance), Personal communication with author Mar 2010

    Google Scholar 

  44. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 2010). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/otherpubs.html

  45. Lux Research, The Nanotech Report: Investment Overview and Market Research for Nanotechnology (Lux Research, New York, 2004)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lux Research, The Recession’s Ripple Effect on Nanotech. State of the Market Report (Lux Research, New York, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  47. E.A. Corley, D.A. Scheufele, Outreach going wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. Scientist 24(1), 22 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  48. D.A. Scheufele, E.A. Corley, The science and ethics of good communication. Next Gen. Pharm. 4(1), 66 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  49. D.E. Stokes, The Pasteur Quadrant (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  50. I. Linkov, F.K. Satterstrom, J. Steevens, E. Ferguson, R.C. Pleus, Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 9(4), 543–554 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. T. Tervonnen, I. Linkov, J.R. Figueira, J. Steevens, M. Chappell, M. Merad, Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 757–766 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. D. Barben, E. Fisher, C. Selin, D.H. Guston, Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration, in The New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. by E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M.E. Lynch, J. Wajcman (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008), pp. 979–1000

    Google Scholar 

  53. R. Sclove, Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, 2010. Available online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/ReinventingTechnologyAssessment1.pdf

  54. D.J. Fiorino, Voluntary Initiatives, Regulation, and Nanotechnology Oversight: Charting a Path. (Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars (PEN 19), 2010). Presented 4 Nov 2010. Available online: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/8346/fiorino_presentation.pdf

  55. G.A. Hodge, D.M. Bowman, A.D. Maynard, (eds.), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2010). E-book: 978 1 84844 673 1

    Google Scholar 

  56. D. Guston, Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454, 940–941 (2008). doi:10.1038/454940a

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. J. Wetmore, E. Fisher, C. Selin (eds.), Presenting Futures: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society (Springer, New York, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  58. M.N. Nadagouda, A.B. Castle, R.C. Murdock, S.M. Hussain, R.S. Varma, In vitro biocompatibility of nanoscale zerovalent iron particles (NZVI) synthesized using teapolyphenols. Green Chem. 12(1), 114–122 (2010)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. B. Harthorn, (4 May). Public participation in nanotechnology—Should we care? 2020 Science (2010). http://2020science.org/2010/05/04/public-participation-in-nanotechnology-should-we-care

  60. D. Berube, C. Cummings, Public perception of risk to nanotechnology in context with other risks. J. Nanopart. Res. (2010). Forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  61. Pew Research Center for the Public and the Press, Ideological News Sources: Who Watches and Why, (Pew, Washington, DC, 2010). Available online: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/652.pdf

  62. C. Selin, The sociology of the future: Tracing stories of technology and time. Sociol. Compass 2(6), 1878–1895 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. S.J.H. Graham, M. Iacopetta, Nanotechnology and the emergence of a general purpose technology. Ann. ’Economie Statistique (Ann. Econ. Stat.) 49/50, 53–55 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  64. X. Li, Y. Lin, H. Chen, M. Roco, Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). J. Nanopart. Res. 9(6), 977–1002 (2007)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. R.G. Cooper, Winning at New Products (Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  66. M. Carrier, Two puzzles resolved: Of the Schumpeter-Arrow stalemate and pharmaceutical innovation markets. Iowa Law Rev. 93(2), 393 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  67. D. Carlton, J. Perloff, Modern Industrial Organization (Pearson, London, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  68. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program, (GAO, Washington, DC, 2005). Report GAO-05-458. Available online: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05458.pdf

  69. S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990)

    Google Scholar 

  70. A. Delemarle, B. Kahane, L. Villard, P. Laredo, Geography of knowledge production in nanotechnologies: A flat world with many hills and mountains. Nanotechnol. Law Bus. 6, 103–122 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Business Insights, Nanotechnology in Healthcare. Market Outlook for Applications, Tools and Materials, and 40 Company Profiles. (Business Insights Ltd., London, 2010), Available online: http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rbdd0035p.htm

  72. R. Service, Nanoparticle Trojan horses gallop from the lab into the clinic. Nature 330, 314–315 (2010)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. BCC Research, Nanotechnology in Medical Applications: The Global Market. (BCC, Wellesley, 2010), Report code: HLC069A

    Google Scholar 

  74. E. Richman, J. Hutchison, The nanomaterial characterization bottleneck. ACS Nano 3(9), 2441–2446 (2009). doi:10.1021/nn901112p

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. L. Breggin, R. Falkner, N. Jaspers, J. Pendergrass, R. Porter, Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies: Towards Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation. (Chatham House, London, 2009). Available online: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/nanotechnology

  76. R. Sparrow, Negotiating the nanodivides, in New global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology, ed. by G.A. Hodge, D. Bowman, K. Ludlow (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007), pp. 97–109

    Google Scholar 

  77. G.A. Hodge, D.M. Bowman, K. Ludlow, Introduction: Big questions for small technologies, in New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology, ed. by G.A. Hodge, D. Bowman, K. Ludlow (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007), pp. 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  78. F. Salamanca-Buentello, D.L. Persad, E.B. Court, D.K. Martin, A.S. Daar, P.A. Singer, Nanotechnology and the developing world. Policy Forum 2(5), 383–386 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  79. P.A. Singer, F. Salamanca-Buentello, A.S. Daar, Harnessing nanotechnology to improve global equity. Issues Sci. Technol. 21(4), 57–64 (2005). Available online: http://www.issues.org/21.4/singer.html

    Google Scholar 

  80. R.P. Appelbaum, R.A. Parker, China’s bid to become a global nanotech leader: Advancing nanotechnology through state-led programs and international collaborations. Sci. Public Policy 35(5), 319–334 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London, 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  82. L. Bell, Engaging the public in technology policy: a new role for science museums. Sci. Commun. 29(3), 386–398 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. L. Bell, Engaging the public in public policy: How far should museums go? Mus. Soc. Issues 4(1), 21–36 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  84. R. Berne, Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning and Belief in Nanotechnology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2005)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  85. J. Calvert, P. Martin, The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Rep. 10(3), 201–204 (2009)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. J. Conti, T. Satterfield, B. Herr Harthorn, Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions. In review (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  87. K. David, P.B. Thompson (eds.), What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? (Academic Press (Elsevier), New York, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  88. S. Davies, P. Macnaghten, M. Kearnes, (eds.), Deepening debate on nanotechnology. In: Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy, (Durham University, Durham, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  89. J.A. Delborne, A.A. Anderson, D.L. Kleinman, M. Colin, M. Powell, Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences. Public Understanding of Science. (Preprint 9 Oct 2009), (2009). doi: 10.1177/0963662509347138

  90. E. Fisher, Ethnographic interventions: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2), 155–165 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. E. Fisher, L.R.L. Mahajan, C. Mitcham, Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 26(6), 486–496 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. E. Fisher, C. Selin, J. Wetmore (eds.), Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. I: Presenting Futures (Springer, New York, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  93. B. Flagg, V. Knight-Williams, Summative Evaluation of NISE Network’s Public Forum: Nanotechnology in Health Care (Multimedia Research, Bellport, 2008)

    Google Scholar 

  94. B.H. Harthorn, K. Bryant, J. Rogers, Gendered risk beliefs about emerging nanotechnologies in the US. In: Monograph of the 2009 Nanoethics Graduate Education Symposium. (University of Washington, Seattle, 2009). Available online: http://depts.washington.edu/ntethics/symposium/Nanoethics Special Edition Monograph.pdf

  95. B.H. Harthorn, J. Rogers, C. Shearer, Gender, Application Domain, and Ethical Dilemmas in Nano-Deliberation. White paper for Nanotech Risk Perception Specialist Meeting, Santa Barbara, 29–30 Jan 2010

    Google Scholar 

  96. D.L. Kleinman, J. Delborne, A.A. Anderson, Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science (Preprint 9 Oct 2009). doi: 10.1177/0963662509347137

  97. J. Kuzma, J. Romanchek, A. Kokotovich, Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case study approach. Risk Anal. 28(4), 1081–1098 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  98. Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), Committee on Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Oklahoma City, 1–3 Apr 2009. (NSET, Washington, DC, 2010). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html

  99. Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), Committee on Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Washington, DC, 30 Sept–1 Oct. (NSET, Washington, DC, 2005). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html

  100. Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), Committee on Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, (NSET, Washington, DC, 2007). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html

  101. National Research Council, Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies, Persistent Forecasting of Disruptive Technologies (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009)

    Google Scholar 

  102. T. Satterfield, Designing for Upstream Risk Perception Research: Malleability and Asymmetry in Judgments About Nanotechnologies, White paper for nanotech risk perception specialist meeting, Santa Barbara, 29–30 Jan 2010

    Google Scholar 

  103. C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 32(2), 196–220 (2007). doi:10.1177/0162243906296918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. P. Shapira, J. Wang, From lab to market: Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Asian Bus. Manage. 8(4), 461–489 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. P. Shapira, J. Youtie, A.L. Porter, The emergence of social science research in nanotechnology. Scientometrics (2010). doi:Published online first at 10.1007/s11192-010-0204-x. March 25, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  106. C.E. Van Horn, J. Cleary, L. Hubbar, A. Fichtner, A Profile of Nanotechnology Degree Programs in the United States, (Center for nanotechnology in society, Tempe, 2009). Available online: http://www.cspo.org/library/reports/?action=getfile&file=186&section=lib

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, 22230, USA

    Mihail C. Roco

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106-2150, USA

    Barbara Harthorn

  3. College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Arizona State University, 875603, Tempe, AZ, 85287-4401, USA

    David Guston

  4. Georgia Institute of Technology, D. M. Smith Building, Room 107, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0345, USA

    Philip Shapira

Authors
  1. Mihail C. Roco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Harthorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Guston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Philip Shapira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mihail C. Roco .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Roco, M.C., Harthorn, B., Guston, D., Shapira, P. (2011). Innovative and Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development. In: Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020. Science Policy Reports, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1168-6_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation