Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 11–29

Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies

Perspectives

Abstract

The convergence of nanotechnology, modern biology, the digital revolution and cognitive sciences will bring about tremendous improvements in transformative tools, generate new products and services, enable opportunities to meet and enhance human potential and social achievements, and in time reshape societal relationships. This paper focuses on the progress made in governance of such converging, emerging technologies and suggests possibilities for a global approach. Specifically, this paper suggests creating a multidisciplinary forum or a consultative coordinating group with members from various countries to address globally governance of converging, emerging technologies. The proposed framework for governance of converging technologies calls for four key functions: supporting the transformative impact of the new technologies; advancing responsible development that includes health, safety and ethical concerns; encouraging national and global partnerships; and establishing commitments to long-term planning and investments centered on human development. Principles of good governance guiding these functions include participation of all those who are forging or affected by the new technologies, transparency of governance strategies, responsibility of each participating stakeholder, and effective strategic planning. Introduction and management of converging technologies must be done with respect for immediate concerns, such as privacy, access to medical advancements, and potential human health effects. At the same time, introduction and management should also be done with respect for longer-term concerns, such as preserving human integrity, dignity and welfare. The suggested governance functions apply to four levels of governance: (a) adapting existing regulations and organizations; (b) establishing new programs, regulations and organizations specifically to handle converging technologies; (c) building capacity for addressing these issues into national policies and institutions; and (d) making international agreements and partnerships. Several possibilities for improving the governance of converging technologies in the global self-regulating ecosystem are recommended: using open-source and incentive-based models, establishing corresponding science and engineering platforms, empowering the stakeholders and promoting partnerships among them, implementing long-term planning that includes international perspectives, and institute voluntary and science-based measures for risk management.

Keywords

Nanotechnology Biotechnology Information technology Cognition Societal implications EHS ELSI NBIC Education Global approach Open-source organization Risk governance 

References

  1. ABA (American Bar Association) (2006a) CERCLA nanotechnology issues. Chicago, USGoogle Scholar
  2. ABA (2006b) Nanotechnology briefing paper: clean water act. Chicago, USGoogle Scholar
  3. ABA (2006c) Innovative regulatory approaches. Chicago, USGoogle Scholar
  4. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) (2002) Nanotechnology: the technology of the 21st century (2 vols), Bangkok, Thailand (ISBN 974-229-337-6)Google Scholar
  5. APEC Nanoforum (2006) Website: http://www.cms.itri.org.tw/eng/APECNanoForum/Google Scholar
  6. Bainbridge WS, Roco MC (eds) (2006) Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovations: converging technologies in society. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. CBAN (Collaborative Board for Advancing Nanotechnology between NNI and industry) (2006) Joint NNI-ChI CBAN and SRC CWG5 nanotechnology EHS research needs recommendations. Washington, DC, January 20, 2006Google Scholar
  8. ETC Group (2005) The potential impact of nanoscale technologies on commodity markets: implications for commodity dependent developing counties. ETC Group, Ottawa, Canada, online at http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/45/01/southcentre.commodities.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. Gordijn B (2003) Nanoethics: from utopian dreams and apocalyptic nightmares towards a more balanced view. UNESCO, Paris, France, online at http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=6603&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.htmlGoogle Scholar
  10. Hammond J, Keeney R, Raiffa H (1999) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  11. Hollins O (2007) Environmentally beneficial nanotechnologies: barriers and opportunities. Report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFR01 098 Report, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. IC Insights (2006) Optoelectronics sales will barely top discrete semiconductors in 2006, press release October 26, online at http://www.icinsights.com/news/releases/press20061026.htmlGoogle Scholar
  13. Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) node, Nanotechnology in Society Network (2007) NanoEthicsBank (http://hum.iit.edu/NanoEthicsBank/intro/info.html), part of NanoConnection in Society (http://nanoconnection.net/about.php), IIT Chicago, Illinois, and University of California at Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  14. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2006a) White paper on risk governance of nanotechnology. IRGC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  15. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2006b) Surveys on risk governance of nanotechnology. IRGC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. ITRS (Information Technology Research for Semiconductors) (2004) Nanoelectonics roadmapGoogle Scholar
  17. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. DEMOS, London, 87 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Kushf G (2004) Systems theory and the ethics of human enhancement. In: Roco MC, Montemagno C (eds) The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, pp 124–149Google Scholar
  19. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Ferguson E, Pleus RC (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 9(4):543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyall C, Tait J (2005) Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. In: Lyall C, Tait J. (eds) New modes of governance, developing an integrated approach to science, technology, risk and the environment. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, England, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  21. Meridian Institute (2004) International dialogue on responsible research and development of nanotechnology. Meridian Institute, Washington, DC., online at http://meridian-nano.org/Final_Report_Responsible_Nanotech_RD_040812.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. Meridian Institute (2006) Project on nanotechnology for water filtration and purification. Meridian Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  23. National Academies (2007) Proc. “Emerging frameworks and strategies for enabling and controlling knowledge”, Workshop, January 29–30, National Academies, Washington, D.C., www.si.umich.edu/cyber-infrastructure/program.htmGoogle Scholar
  24. NNI (2006) Environmental, health, and safety research needs for engineered nanoscale materials. National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Arlington, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD (2006) Report of the OECD workshop on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials: building co-operation, co-ordination and communication. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France, online at www.oecd.org/env/nanosafetyGoogle Scholar
  26. Pielke RA (2002) Policy, politics and perspective. Nature 416:367–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Radnor M, Strauss JD (2003) Commercializing and managing the converging new technologies. Northwestern University, Evanston, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  28. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8(2):153–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roco MC (2004) Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools. AIChE J (Feature article) 50(5):890–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roco MC (2005) The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. J Nanopart Res 7(2–3):129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  32. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Springer, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  33. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2006) Nanotechnology: societal implications, 2 volumes. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. Roco MC, Montemagno CD (eds) (2004) The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies. New York Academy of Sciences, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Roco MC, Williams S, Alivisatos P (1999) Nanotechnology research directions. Springer, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  36. Spohrer JC, Engelbart DC (2004) Converging technologies: science and business perspectives. In: Roco MC, Montemagno CD (eds) The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, pp 50–82Google Scholar
  37. Szalary A, Gray J (2006) Science in an exponential world. Nature 440:413–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. THECiS (The Center for Innovation Studies) (2007) Prospective Applications of Converging Technologies, Government of Canada Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  39. UNESCO (2006a) The ethics and politics of nanotechnology. UNESCO, Paris, France, online at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001459/145951e.pdfGoogle Scholar
  40. UNESCO (2006b) Global ethics observatory. UNESCO, Paris, France, online at www.unesco.org/shs/ethics/geobsGoogle Scholar
  41. UNESCO (2006c) Humanity and the biosphere: the next thousand years. UNESCO and “The Foundation for the Future”, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  42. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2001) Human development report. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilston J, Willis R (2004) See-through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London, online at www.demos.co.ukGoogle Scholar
  44. Winner L (1977) Autonomous technology: technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  45. World Economic Forum (2006) Global risks 2006. WEF, Geneva, Switzerland, online at www.weforum.orgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Science Foundation (NSF)ArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations