Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Exactly Is It All About? Puzzled Comments from a French Legal Scholar on the NBIC Convergence

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

Abstract

The techno-scientific development has no frontier, but the legal systems still take roots in local and cultural references. French Law is built on a continental model and conveys values and preferences of the French population, including an essential role given to the State and to textual requirements. Until now, French law has been modified to cope with new and emerging technologies issues with the idea that they can be taken one after the other, on the fringes of the classic legal problems. Do the announcement of a convergence between Nanotechnologies, Biotechnologies, the sciences of Information and Cognition (NBIC) change the situation? According to “converging technologies” partisans, a lot of other deep perturbations may occur. Therefore, it could be pertinent to assess the legal implications of NBIC convergence. But trying to do so, a French legal scholar may first feel (and express) perplexity. What is the “convergence NBIC”? To answer, do we have to wonder which reality hides behind the expression or is it necessary to admit that the speeches are here more important to analyze than a hypothetical realization? Does it imply new legal questions? Do we need new methods to enlighten what is at stake? Is it a new challenge, stimulating the imagination of lawyers and legal scholars, or, on the contrary, is it a new illustration of the Economy of the promises, revealing big risks of vain (or inappropriate) intellectual and normative production? This article is dedicated to enlighten the important difficulties which mark out the road towards the answers to the legal questions raised by the “NBIC convergence”.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Few examples from a US perspective : Weinberg, A. M. (1985). Science and Its Limits: The Regulator’s Dilemma’. Issues in Science and Technology, Vol. II, No. 1 (Fall 1985), 67; Collingridge, D. (1989). Incremental Decision Making in Technological Innovation: What Role for Science? Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14 No. 2, Spring 1989 141–162; Jasanoff, S. (1995). Science at the bar (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 275 p.); Jasanoff, S. (2005). “Law’s Knowledge : Science for Justice in Legal Settings”. American Journal of Public Health,95:S49–S58; Jasanoff, S. (2008). Making Order: Law and Science in Action. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies - Third Edition, 761–786 (E. Hackett, Amsterdamska, O., Lynch, M., Wacjman, J. (Ed.), Cambridge, MIT Press). Few examples from a French perspective: Edelman, B. & Hermitte, M.-A. (eds.) (1988). L’homme, la nature et le droit (Paris: Christian Bourgeois, 391 p.); Atias, C. (1991). Science des légistes, savoir des jurists (Aix-en-provence: PUAM, 148 p.); Baud, J.-P. (1993). L’affaire de la main volée. Une histoire juridique du corps (Paris: Seuil, 243 p.); Hermitte, M.-A. (1998). Le Sang et le Droit : essai sur la transfusion sanguine (Paris: Seuil, 477 p); Binet, J.-R. (2002). Droit et progrès scientifique. Science du droit, valeurs et biomedicine (Paris: Le Monde/PUF, 352 p.); Noiville, C. (2003). Du bon gouvernement des risques. Le droit et la question du«risque acceptable»(Paris: PUF, 235 p.); Delmas-Marty, M. (2004). Les forces imaginantes du droit. Le relatif et l’universel (Paris: Seuil, 439 p.); Delmas-Marty, M. (2006). Les forces imaginantes du droit (II). Le pluralisme ordonné (Paris: Seuil, 324 p.); Supiot, A. (2005). Homo juridicus. Essai sur la fonction anthropologique du Droit (Paris: Seuil, 333 p.); Labrusse-Riou C. (2007). Ecrits de bioéthique (Paris: PUF, 464 p.).

  2. In France, the US Law & Science Studies are not so much used as references. For instance, Mrs Jasanoff’s work inspires more French sociologists than French legal scholars, despite some notable exceptions (Leclerc, O. (2005). Le juge et l’expert. Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LGDJ, t. 443); Encinas de Munagorri, R. (ed.) (2009). Expertise et gouvernance du changement climatique (Paris: LGDJ).

  3. The law on data protection known as “Law on Informatics and Freedom” was adopted in 1978 (Loi n° 78–17 du 6 janvier 1978, revised several times); the first law on bioethics was adopted in 1994 (Loi n° 94–653 du 29 juillet 1994, revised 2004: loi n° 2004–800 du 6 août 2004 and 2011: Loi n° 2011–814 du 7 juillet 2011), the precautionary principle was legally affirmed in 1995 (Loi Barnier) and constitutionalized in 2005 (Charte de l’environnement); the first law evoking the necessity to collect data and to inform workers on nanomaterials risks was adopted in 2009 (Loi n° 2009–967 du 3 août 2009).

  4. I consider this exception as a «peculiar» one because patent law was not initially designed in order to stimulate scientific research but industrial innovation. As science and technology get closer, patent became a tool to fund a certain kind of scientific work. This well known information is paradoxically often forgotten.

  5. Hermitte, M.-A. (Ed) (2001). La liberté de la recherche et ses limites. Approches juridiques. (Paris: Romillat). “The generic affirmation of a freedom of research is interpreted as a “right to know”, a “right to experiment”, “a right to the means and conditions required for research”, and “a right to disseminate” the results of research work (Mathieu B. (2001). La liberté de la recherche, droit fondamental constitutionnel et international. (In Hermitte, M.A., (Ed). La liberté de la recherche et ses limites, Approches juridiques, pp. 59–65 (Paris: Romillat).

  6. Article L611-18 of the French Intellectual Property Code, created by a Bioethics Law in 2004 (Loi n°2004–800 du 6 août 2004).

  7. Articles 16-4 of the French Civil Code; articles 214-2, 511-1-2, 511-18-1, 517 and 518 of the French Penal Code.

  8. Article 16-4 of the French Civil Code.

  9. French Law n°2009-967, 3 August 2009 (Loi de programmation relative à la mise en œuvre du Grenelle de l’environnement); French Law n°2010-788, 12 July 2010 (Loi portant engagement national pour l’environnement); Regulations adopted for the application of Law n°2010-788 : Décrets n°2012-232 & n°2012-233 du 17 février 2012.

  10. The literature is richer dealing with the legal implications of nanotechnologies (in France as in the US), but the present paper tries to enlighten issues of the so called “NBIC convergence” and does not close the question of the role of nanotechnologies in this convergence. Few examples of French legal studies on nanotechnologies and nanomaterials: Desmoulin, S. (2008). French and European Community Law on the Nanometric Forms of Chemical Substances: Questions About How the Law Handles Uncertain Risks. Nanotechnology Law & Business, Issue 5.3 (341–352); Lacour, S. (ed.) (2010). La régulation des nanotechnologies, clair-obscur normatif (Paris : Larcier, 279 p.); Desmoulin-Canselier, S. & Lacour, S. (2011). Nanotechnology and the Law, 551–569 (In Houdy, P, Lahmani M & Marano F. (eds.): Nanoethics and Nanotoxicology, (Heidelberg: Springer); Desmoulin-Canselier, S., Hervé-Fournereau N. & Lacour, S. (eds.) (2012). De l’innovation à l’utilisation des nanomatériaux : le cadre normatif des nanotubes de carbone. (Paris : Larcier, 341 p.).

  11. See for example Roco, M. C. (2005). The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. Vol. 7, Numbers 2-3, 129–143; Miller, S.E. & Roco, M. (2003). A new renaissance: Tech, Science, Engineering and Medicine are becoming One. New York Law Journal, Tuesday, 7 October 2003.

  12. High Level Expert Group “Foresighting the New Technology Wave.” Nordmann A. (2004). Converging Technologies – Shaping the Future of European Societies. European Commission.

  13. For example, the French and European laws recognize GMOs and biotechnological inventions but not biotechnologies in general.

  14. For example: Claeys, A. & Vialatte J.-S. (2008). La loi bioéthique de demain. Rapport d’information de l’OPECST, n°107, tome I, (2008–2009).

  15. Unless we include genetic screening of certain mental or brain diseases.

  16. See article 226-28-1 of the French Penal Code (last revised in July 2011). On this topic: Supiot, E. (2009). Le consommateur de tests génétiques, un patient avisé ou berné ?. Revue des contrats, octobre, n° 4, 1573–1580. To compare with other countries see the website of the Council for responsible research (http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/GeneWatch/GeneWatchPage.aspx?pag).

  17. The special provisions of the Law on Informatics and Freedom (art. 53 and foll., and 62 of Law n° 78-17 of 6 January 1978, as amended) devoted to sensitive health data should in fact apply.

  18. Article 16-10 of the French Civil Code; Article 226-28 and 226-28-21 of the French Penal Code.

  19. Le Gall J.-Y. & Ardaillou R. (2009). Diffusion et validation des tests génétiques en France. Bulletin de l’Académie nationale de médicine, vol. 193, n° 9, 2093–2110. See also: Fonseca C. (2002). Recherche de paternité et tests d’ADN. Le cas du Brésil. Les cahiers du genre, 32, 181–190. Legrand C. (2007). Internet et le gène; la généalogie à l’heure des nouvelles technologies. [http://www.erudit.org/revue/efg/2007/v/n7017793ar.html%C2%AO?vue=integral] Enfances, Familles, Générations, n° 7 (Montreal).

  20. Gordijn, B. (2006), Converging NBIC Technologies for Improving Human Performance: A Critical Assessment of the Novelty and the Prospects of the Project, Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Winter, Vol. 34 Issue 4, 726–732: “Widespread use of NBIC enabled enhancement technologies will result in an increasingly close association of the body with technology, which could trigger a negative change in attitudes towards the body. Firstly, the body and its functions will more and more become a product of technology. […] Secondly, the body will progressively become a part of technological systems and networks.”

  21. http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ (last consultation on 3 April 2012)

  22. http://www.kevinwarwick.com/ICyborg.htm

  23. See for instance: articles 16 & 16-1-1 of the French Civil Code, but many other texts refer to Human Dignity.

  24. Article 16-4, § 1-3, of the Civil Code states that “No person shall invade the integrity of the human species. Any eugenic practice aimed at organizing the selection of persons is forbidden. Any intervention having the purpose of causing the birth of a baby genetically identical to another person is also forbidden.” On this topic: Bellivier, F. (2007). Espèce humaine, p. 352 (In: M. Marzano (ed.). Dictionnaire du corps (Paris: PUF).

  25. See for examples : Wolbring, G. (2008), Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? The European Journal of Social Sciences. Mar. 2008, Vol. 21 Issue 1, 25-40; Coenen, C. (2010). Deliberating Visions: The Case of Human Enhancement in the Discourse on Nanotechnology and Convergence. Governing Future Technologies. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, 2010, Vol. 27, 2, 73–87; Venkatesan, P. (2010). "Nanoselves": NBIC and the Culture of Convergence. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Apr2010, Vol. 30 Issue 2, 119–129; Robitaille, A. (2007). Le nouvel homme nouveau. Voyage dans les utopies de la posthumanité (Québec : Boréal, 220 p.); Ferrone G. & Vincent J.-D. (2011). Bienvenue en Transhumanie. Sur l’homme de demain (Paris : Grasset, 288 p.); Maestrutti, M. (2011). Humain, transhumain, posthumain. Représentations du corps entre incomplétude et amélioration. Journal International de Bioéthique (ESKA) 2011/3, vol. 22, 51–66.

  26. Vision for Enhancing Human Abilities and Societal Performance.

  27. http://humanityplus.org (last consultation on 3 April 2012). http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/languages/C46 (last consultation April 3rd, 2012). For France : http://debatpublic-nano-org/documents/liste-cahier-acteurs.html (last consultation on 3 April 2012).

  28. Hermitte M.-A. (2011). De la question de la race à celle de l’espèce. Analyse juridique du transhumanisme. (In Canselier G. & Desmoulin-Canselier S. (Eds.). Les catégories ethno-raciales à l’ère des biotechnologies. Droit, sciences et médicine face à la diversité humaine (pp. 155–170) Paris : Société de Législation comparée). The transhumanist declaration states that: “Transhumanists advocate the moral right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. We seek personal growth beyond our current biological limitations. In planning for the future, it is mandatory to take into account the prospect of dramatic progress in technological and unnecessary prohibitions.” http://transhumanism.org/resources/TenQuestions.pdf, (last consultation on 3 April 2012).

  29. Pitfalls seem to me even more important concerning NBIC convergence than nanotechnology: Williams, R. (2006). Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures. Science as Culture, vol. 15, n° 4, 327–348.

References

  1. Laurent A (2010) Liberté, égalité, NBIC. Les tribunes de la santé 4(29):75–83

    Google Scholar 

  2. Black B, Ayala FJ, Saffran-Brinks C (1994) Science and the law in the wake of daubert: a new search for scientific knowledge. Tex Law Rev 72:715

    Google Scholar 

  3. Canselier G (2010) Les données acquises de la science. Les connaissances scientifiques et la faute médicale en droit privé. Les Etudes Hospitalières, Paris, p 570

    Google Scholar 

  4. Constitutional Council (1994) Decision 94-345 DC, 29 July 1994. Actualité Juridique Droit Administratif 1994, 734

  5. Gordijn B (2006) Converging NBIC technologies for improving human performance: a critical assessment of the novelty and the prospects of the project. J Law Med Ethics. Winter 2006. 34(4):726–732

    Google Scholar 

  6. Allhoff F, Lin P (eds) (2009) Nanotechnology & society. Current and emerging ethical issues. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, p. 300

  7. de S Cameron NM (2007) Ethics, policy, and the nanotechnology initiative: the transatlantic debate on converging technologies. In: de S Cameron NM, Mitchel E (eds) Nanoscale: Issues and Perspectives for the Nano Century, chap. 3. Online Library: Wiley. 27–42

  8. Teeuw WB, Vedder AH (eds) (2008). Security applications for converging technologies - Impact on the constitutional state and the legal order. Boom Juridische Uitgevers/WODC, Netherlands, p. 226

  9. Miller SE (2004) How the legal system should change as a result of converging technologies. Annals N Y Acad Sci 1013:178–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (2009) Rapport sur l’évaluation de la loi n° 2004–800 du 6 août 2004 relative à la bioéthique (by Claeys MMA and Viallatte J-S, Members of Parliament). Senate n° 107, ordinary session of 2008–2009 (spec. 221–237)

  11. Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. National Science Foundation, USA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Laurent L, Petit J-C (2005) Les nanotechnologies doivent-elles nous faire peur? Editions Le Pommier/CEA, Paris, quotation p. 5

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sarewitz D, Karas TH (2007) Policy implications of technologies for cognitive enhancement. Sandia National Laboratories (Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185 and Livermore, California 94550)

  14. Roco M, Bainbridge W (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitivie science. National Science Foundation, USA

    Google Scholar 

  15. Miller SE, Roco MC (2003) A new renaissance: tech, science, engineering and medicine are becoming one. N Y Law J, Tuesday October 7, Column

  16. Joachim C, Plévert L (2008) Nanosciences. La révolution invisible. Seuil, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  17. Vinck D (2009) Les nanotechnologies. Le Cavalier Bleu Editions, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klein E (2011) Le small bang des nanotechnologies. Odile Jacob, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  19. National Advisory Committee on Ethics (2007) Opinion n° 96, Ethical questions posed by the nanosciences, nanotechnologies and health

  20. Roco M, Roco C, Montemagno CD (eds) (2004) The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies. Annals N Y Acad Sci 1013

  21. Gordijn B (2006) Converging NBIC technologies for improving human performance: a critical assessment of the novelty and the prospects of the project. J Law Med Ethics. Winter 2006. 34(4):726–732, quotation p. 727

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jasanoff S (1995) Science at the bar. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  23. 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. 94 p)

  24. Laurent L, Petit J-C (2005) Les nanotechnologies doivent-elles nous faire peur? Editions Le Pommier/CEA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  25. Laurent L, Bottero J-Y, Grognet M (2010) Nanotechnologies: promesses et débats, Ref. NM8005. Editions Techniques de l’Ingénieur, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  26. Benoît Browayes D (2009) Le meilleur des nanomondes. Buchet-Chastel, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ferrone G, Vincent J-D (2011) Bienvenue en Transhumanie. Sur l’homme de demain. Grasset, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  28. Swierstra T, Van Est R, Boenink M (2009) Taking care of the symbolic order. How converging technologies challenge our concepts. NanoEthics 3:269–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Béland J-P, Patenaude J, Legault G, Boissy P, Parent M (2011) The social and ethical acceptability of NBICs for purposes of human enhancement: why does the debate remain mired in impasse? NanoEthics 5:295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bal R, Cozzens S (2008) Public perceptions of NBIC technologies. Prime-Latin America Conference (Mexico City, September 24–26 2008)

  31. Dupuy J-P (2004) Quand les technologies convergeront. Revue du MAUSS (La Découverte). 2004/1, n°23, 408–417

  32. Bensaude-Vincent B, Larrère R, Nurock V (eds) (2008) Bionano-éthique. Perspectives critiques sur les bionanotechnologies. Vuibert, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  33. Besnier J-M (2009) Demain les posthumains. Le future a-t-il encore besoin de nous? Hachette Littératures, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bensaude-Vincent B (2009) Les vertiges de la techno-science. Façonner le monde atome par atome. Editions La Découverte, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  35. Michelson ES (2006) Measuring the merger: examining the onset of converging technologies. In: Bainbridge WS, Roco MC (eds) Managing Nano-bio-info-cogno innovation. Converging technologies in society. Springer, Netherlands, pp 47–69

    Google Scholar 

  36. Joly P-B (ed) (2005) Démocratie locale et maîtrise sociale des nanotechnologies. Les publics grenoblois peuvent-ils participer aux choix scientifiques et techniques (Rapport de la Mission pour la Métro, 22 septembre 2005)

  37. 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)

  38. Laurent B (2010) Les politiques des nanotechnologies – Pour un traitement démocratique d’une science émergente. Charles Léopold Mayer Editions, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  39. Quet M (2012) La critique des technologies émergentes face à la communication promettante. Contestations autour des nanotechnologies. Réseaux (La Découverte). 2012/3, n° 173–174, 271–302

  40. Narbonne G (2009) Culture et connaissance: convergence des “sciences”, tendances et enjeux. Retrieved on 3 April 2012, from Observatoire du Management Alternatif (HEC Paris), Web site: http://appli6.hec.fr/amo/Articles/Fiche/Item/culture_et_connaissance%C2%AO_convergences_des_%C2%AOsciences%C2%AO_tendances_et_enjeux-99.sls

  41. Cayla O (2001) La mère, l’enfant et la plaque chauffante. In: Hermitte M-A (ed) La liberté de la recherche et ses limites. Approches juridiques. Romillat, Paris, pp 151–165, quotation p. 160

    Google Scholar 

  42. Galloux J-Ch., Gaumont-Prat H (2010) Droits et libertés corporels. Chronique, Fev. 2008-Dec. 2009. Recueil Dalloz 604–605

  43. Rial-Sebbag E (2012) Protection juridique des usagers de tests génétiques en accès libre, une protection nécessaire ? Revue Générale de droit Médical 42:21–28

    Google Scholar 

  44. De Morant G (2009) Retrouver ses ancêtres par l’ADN. Autrement, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  45. Desmoulin-Canselier S (2011) La quête des origines: les dispositifs de rattachement à un groupe d’ascendance. In: Canselier G, Desmoulin-Canselier S (eds) Les catégories ethno-raciales à l’ère des biotechnologies. Sociéte de Législation comparée, Paris, pp 117–134

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pelluchon C (2011) Ethics and medicine: philosophical guidelines for a responsible use of nanotechnology. In: Lahmani M, Marano F, Houdy Ph (eds) Nanoethics and nanotoxicology. Springer, Heidelberg, 427–433, quotation p. 428

  47. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2005) Ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body. Opinion n° 20, 16 March 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  48. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2005). Ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body. Opinion n° 20

  49. Pavia M-L (2000) Controverse doctrinale sur la normativité de la dignité de la personne humaine. Cahiers des Ecoles Doctorales, Faculté de droit de Montpellier, n°1, mars 2000, 293–317

  50. Desmoulin S (2005) L’animal, entre science et droit. PUAM, Aix-en-Provence, pp 351–364

    Google Scholar 

  51. Chifflet S (2009) L’imaginaire technoscientifique: cas de la convergence NBIC. (Paper presented at the LARSIM seminar, 24 February 2009, Grenoble)

  52. 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. 94 p), quotation p. 30

  53. Gordijn B (2006) Converging NBIC technologies for improving human performance: a critical assessment of the novelty and the prospects of the project. J Law Med Ethics. Winter 2006. 34(4):726–732

    Google Scholar 

  54. 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, 94 p., quotation p. 22

  55. Robitaille A (2007) Le nouvel homme nouveau. Voyage dans les utopies de la posthumanité. Boréal, Québec

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CNRS researcher, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, UMR de droit comparé 9 rue Malher, 75004, Paris, France

    Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier

Authors
  1. Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Desmoulin-Canselier, S. What Exactly Is It All About? Puzzled Comments from a French Legal Scholar on the NBIC Convergence. Nanoethics 6, 243–255 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0153-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-012-0153-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation