Abstract
Over the past 30 years, we have passed through multiple technological frontiers at rapid rates – biotechnology (1970s), genetics (1980s), cognitive neuroscience (1990s), nanotechnologies (2000s), now synthetic biology (2010s), and the growing convergence between these areas. Though rules and responsibilities are different on the technological frontier (and ignoring these differences can create or amplify risks), it has become more obvious that governments have no coherent “frontier strategy” beyond ad-hoc and lagging responses to emerging problems. This chapter explores governance challenges on the technological frontier, including how behavioral dynamics and biases, both at individual and organizational levels, can actually create new risks and how framing strategies can create blind spots in governance and oversight approaches. In addition, the chapter explores ways of addressing the increasing gap between the rate of technological change and the pace of governance innovation, including the use of frugal decision heuristics, open-source innovation models, prediction markets, new organizational forms (which include workforce preparation), and methods for prototyping new governance paradigms. The goal is to move towards a persistent co-evolution model that links innovations in governance with discovery and innovation in science and technology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For decades, we have had inadequate human health risk data on most of the chemicals in commerce, less information on ecological risks, and virtually no data on synergetic effects and risks. In 1984, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council published a four-year study and found that 78 percent of the chemicals in highest-volume commercial use had not had even “minimal” toxicity testing. Today, there has been little improvement (National Research Council 1984). That is the problem we have inherited which will combine with new risks from emerging technologies.
- 2.
A 1972 analysis of technology assessment revealed that most assessments cost between $800,000 and $2 million and took 16–18 months to complete – not much has changed since then with assessments today by organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences taking up to two years and often costing at least $1.5 million (Coates 1972).
- 3.
In nature, the high-tempo Red Queen may not drive evolution on a continuing basis, but be balanced by stable strategies in which various actors are better off not changing their strategies.
- 4.
One useful model for understanding decision loops was developed by former Air Force fighter pilot, John Boyd, and is know at OODA (which stands for observe, orient, decide, and act). Some of John Boyd’s key writing can be found at: http://www.d-n-i.net/dni/john-r-boyd.
- 5.
“Sir – Attractive though they are, the technical properties of ultra-thin man-made fibres pointed out by Paul Calvert (Nature 357 365; 1992) should not hide the potential – at least for those fibres resistant to biological degradation in vivo – for related occupational risks to workers.”
- 6.
See: “EPA to Enforce Premanufacturing Reviews for Carbon Nanotubes Beginning March 1. Reported at: http://www.merid.org/NDN/more.php?id=1728. And: Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Status of Carbon Nanotubes, 73 Fed. Red. 64946 (31 Oct 2008).
- 7.
A calculation done at Rice University indicated that by simply modifying a number of variables of the 20 major types of single walled nanotubes – variables involving manufacturing process, tube lengths, methods of purification, and possible surface coatings – over 50,000 possible variants of this one nanomaterial were possible (Kulinowski 2008). Which ones pose risks? Given the large and growing uncertainty around emerging risks, significant effort and funding needs to be focused on techniques like tiered screening and high throughput testing.
- 8.
- 9.
Recently, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued a comprehensive memo covering the “Safe Handling of Unbounded Engineered Nanoparticles” in DOE facilities. What preceded this directive was a scathing report by DOE’s Inspector General that indicated that 11 out of 12 DOE labs did not perform medical surveillance of individuals working with nanoscale materials and 9 or the 12 labs had not initiated monitoring for exposure rates in the workplace. The report concluded that DOE should “adopt a proactive approach to ensuring that its laboratories follow best practices in conducting nanoscale-related work” (Department of Energy 2008).
- 10.
Two global surveys by McKinsey, one in 2006 and one in 2007, indicated that finding talented people is likely to be the single most important preoccupation for managers for the next decade and that far greater competition for talent can be expected (Guthridge et al. 2008).
References
Alford, C.F. 2001. Whistleblowers: Broken lives and organizational power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Becker, W.M., and V.M. Freeman. 2006. Going from global trends to corporate strategy. McKinsey Quarterly 3: 17–27.
Beinhocker, E.D. 1999. Robust adaptive strategies. Sloan Management Review (Spring 1999): 95–106.
Bernstein, P. 1996. Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bonini, S. et al. 2006. When social issues become strategic. McKinsey Quarterly 2: 20–32.
Breggin, L. et al. 2009. Securing the promise of nanotechnologies: Towards transatlantic regulatory cooperation. London, England: Chatham House.
Carroll, L. 1872. Through the looking glass and what Alice found there. London: Macmillan.
Chakravorti, B. (2003). The slow pace of fast change: Brining innovations to the market in a connected world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Chen, H. et al. 2008. Trends in nanotechnology patents. Nature 3 (March): 123–125.
Choi, J. et al. 2009. The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environmental Science and Technology 43 (9): 3030–3034.
Coates, V. 1972. Technology and public policy: The process of technology assessment in the federal government. Washington, DC: George Washington University Program of Policy Studies in Science and Technology.
Courtney, H.G. et al. 1997. Strategy under uncertainty. Harvard Business Review 75 (6): 67–79, Nov.—Dec.
Dean, Cordelia 2008. Handle with care. The New York Times. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ethics.html?ref=technology&pagewanted=print. 12 Aug.
Department of Energy. 2008. Audit report: Nanoscale materials safety at the department’s laboratories. DOE Office of Inspector General, DOE/IG-0788.
Edgerton, D. 2007. The shock of the old: Technology and global history since 1900. Oxford University Press.
Environmental Defense Fund. 1997. Toxic ignorance: The continuing absence of basic health testing for top-selling chemicals in the United States. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund.
Farson, R., and R. Keyes. 2002. Whoever makes the most mistakes wins: The paradox of innovation. New York, NY: Free Press.
Fine, C. 1998. Clockspeed: Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Garvin, D. 2000. Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Gomory, R. 1995. An essay on the known, the unknown and the unknowable. Scientific American 272: p. 120, June.
Griffin, A. 1997. PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation and Management 14 (6): 429–458.
Guston, D., and D. Sarawitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 23 (4): 93–109.
Guthridge, M. et al. 2008. Making talent a strategic priority. McKinsey Quarterly 1: 48–59.
Hoffman, A. 1991. Testing the Red Queen hypothesis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 4: 1–7.
Hong, L., and S. Page. 2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can Outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (46): 16385–16389.
Kauffman, S. 1995. Escaping the Red Queen effect. The McKinsey Quarterly 1: 119–128.
Keim, B. 2007. Will synthetic biology catch government by surprise? Wired Science 15 (7): See: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/tag/synthetic-biology/page/4/, 5 July.
Kulinowski, K. 2008. Towards predicting nano-biointeractions: an international assessment of research needs for nanotechnology environment, health and safety. Available at: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/ondemand/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.play&mediaid=A1838026-0268-AD3E-AD56DCC4E2B1C977.
Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Levitt, B., and J.G. Marsh. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology 14:319–340.
McGregor, J. 2005. Gospels of failure. Fast company, Feb.
Moore, A., and D. Gibbons. 1987. Watchmen. New York, NY: DC Comics.
Morgan, G. 1997. Images of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
NanoWerk News. 2009. EPA’s Voluntary Approach Captures Only A Thin Slice of Nanomaterials in the US. At: http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8862.php. 13 Jan.
National Research Council. 1984. Toxicity testing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nordhaus, W. 2009. The entrepreneurial society. The Economist 390 (8622): p. 20, 14–20 Mar.
Perrow, C. 1984. Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Poland, C.A. et al. 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology 3:423–428.
Popper, S.W. 2003. Technological change and the challenges for 21st century governance. In: AAAS science and technology policy yearbook, eds. (A). Teich, and S. Nelson. Washington, DC: AAAS.
Powell, M.C. 2007. New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health, Risk & Society 9 (2) (June):173–190.
Proctor, R., and L. Schiebinger eds. 2008. Agnotology: The making and unmaking of ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 2009. Analysis available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/analysis_draft/.
Rotmans, J., and D. Loorbach. 2009. Complexity and transition management. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13 (2):184–196.
Rycroft, R. 2006. Time and technological innovation: Implications for public policy. Technology in Society 28: 281–301.
Sanderson, K. 2009. Migrating nanotubes add to asbestos concern. Nature Online. See: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090331/full/news.2009.217.html, 31 Mar.
Schuurbiers, D., and E. Fisher. 2009. Lab-scale intervention. European Molecular Biology Organization Report 10 (5): 424–427.
Seely Brown, J., and P. Duguid 2000. The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Service, R. (1998). Nanotubes: The next asbestos? Science 281 (5379) (Aug. 14): 941.
Shapin, S. 2009. The scientific life: A moral history of a late modern vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sonnenfeld, J. 2005. Why it’s so hard to blow the whistle. Yale Alumni Magazine. See: http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2005_03/forum.html, March/April.
Stephan, K.D. 1999. A survey of ethics-related instruction in US engineering programs Journal of Engineering Education 88 (Oct.): 459–464.
Talib, N. 2007. The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York, NY: Random House.
Tassey, G. 1999. R&D trends in the US economy: Strategies and policy implications. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Planning Report 99–62.
Thomke, S.H. 2003. Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Toumey, C. 2009. Science from the inside Nature Nanotechnology 4: 537–538.
Turner, F.J. 1893 The significance of the frontier in American history. Report of the American Historical Association for 1893 199–227.
Van Valen, L. 1973. A new evolutionary law. Evolutionary Theory 1: 1–30.
Weick, K.E., and Sutcliffe, K.M. 2001. Managing the unexpected. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rejeski, D. (2011). Public Policy on the Technological Frontier. In: Marchant, G., Allenby, B., Herkert, J. (eds) The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1355-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1356-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)