NanoEthics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 129–136 | Cite as

Can Nanotechnology Be Just? On Nanotechnology and the Emerging Movement for Global Justice

Original Paper

Abstract

Because of the overly market-oriented way in which technological development is carried out, there is a great amount of hubris in regard to how scientific and technological achievements are used in society. There is a tendency to exaggerate the potential commercial benefits and willfully neglect the social, cultural, and environmental consequences of most, if not all innovations, especially in new fields such as nanotechnology. At the same time, there are very few opportunities, or sites, for ensuring that nanotechnology is used justly and fairly, or for that matter, contribute to alleviating any of the wide variety of injustices that exist in the world. Most of the public authorities responsible for the development and application of science and technology are uninterested and unwilling to “assess” the implications of nanotechnology, and there are few, if any spaces in the broader culture for assessment to take place. Within the various “social movements” that are, in one way or another, concerned with issues of global justice, there is as yet little interest in nanotechnology. By examining the relations between nanotechnology and the emerging movement for global justice this article attempts to understand the enormous gap between the potential for science and technology to do good and the actual ways in science and technology get developed, and what, if anything, might be done to help close the gap in relation to nanotechnology, so that it might better be able to contribute to global justice.

Keywords

Global justice Social movements Innovation Nanotechnology 

References

  1. 1.
    Elzinga A (1985) Research, bureaucracy and the drift of epistemic criteria. In: Wittrock B, Elzinga A (eds) The University Research System. The public policies of the home of scientists. Almqvist & Wiksell InternationalGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elzinga A, Jamison A (1995) Changing policy agendas in science and technology. In: Jasanoff S et al (eds) Handbook of science and technology studies, SageGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Encyclopedia Britannica (2006) http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9041378/hubris, accessed 26/09/06
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Eyerman R, Jamison A (1991) Social movements. A cognitive approach. PolityGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gibbons M et al (1994) The new production of knowledge. SageGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardt M, Negri A (2004) Multitude. PenguinGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hård M, Jamison A (2005) Hubris and hybrids. A cultural history of technology and science. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jamison A (2006) Social movements and science: cultural appropriations of cognitive Praxis, in Science as Culture, nr 1Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jamison A, Baark E (1990) Modes of biotechnology assessment in the USA, Japan and Denmark, in Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, nr 2Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jamison A, Eyerman R (1994) Seeds of the sixties. University of California PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Klein N (2001) No Logo. FlamingoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Latour B (1998) From the world of science to that of research, in Science, 10 AprilGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mumford L (1979) Interpretations and forecasts, 1922–1972. Harcourt Brace JovanovichGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shiva V (2000) Stolen harvest. South End PressGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Wright GH (1978) Humanismen som livshållning och andra essäer. MånPocketGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark

Personalised recommendations