NanoEthics

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 29–43 | Cite as

Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

Original Paper

Abstract

Soft regulatory measures are often promoted as an alternative for existing regulatory regimes for nanotechnologies. The call for new regulatory approaches stems from several challenges that traditional approaches have difficulties dealing with. These challenges relate to general problems of governability, tensions between public interests, but also (and maybe particularly) to almost complete lack of certainty about the implications of nanotechnologies. At the same time, the field of nanotechnology can be characterized by a high level of diversity. In this paper, we discuss and compare two models for framing public policy in relation to technology regulation: the first is a deliberative model based on foresight knowledge and the second the wide reflective equilibrium model, developed by political philosopher John Rawls. In both models, the aim is to find consensus on (a framework for) policy measures and regulation. On the basis of a critical discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both models, some tentative conclusions are drawn for effective policy making and implementation based on soft law.

Keywords

Wide reflective equilibrium Deliberative democracy Consensus Governance Regulation Soft law Regulatory challenges 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is carried out within the framework of the NanoNextNL project, theme 1C. The author would like to thank the editors of the special issue, Diana M. Bowman and Elen Stokes, and Bärbel Dorbeck-Jung for reading earlier drafts of the paper. The article has profited a lot from their comments and the helpful suggestions they provided.

References

  1. 1.
    Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amtenbrink F, De Haan J (2003) Economic governance in the EU: fiscal policy discipline versus flexibility. Common Mark Law Rev 40:1075–1106Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:4133–4139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blaser SA et al (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nanofunctionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 390:396–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bullis K (2005) Can EPA regulate nano? Monitoring complex new nanotech materials may be too much for the agency to handle, in Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405083/can-epa-regulate-nano/. Accessed 21 Feb 2013
  7. 7.
    Burd A (2011) Nano silver: environmental health effects. In: JO Nriagu (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier, pp 22–23Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen FM et al (2010) Nano-silver: feasibility and challenges for human health risk assessment based on open literature. Nanotoxicology 4:284–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cohen J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit PH (eds) The good polity: normative analysis of the state. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Corley E, Scheufele D, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1573–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CRO Forum (2010) Nanotechnology. CRO briefing: emerging risks initiative—position paper, November 2010. http://www.thecroforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Nanotechnology.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013
  12. 12.
    Daniels N (1996) Justice and justification: reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DePaul M (2011) Methodological issues: reflective equilibrium. In: Miller C (ed) The continuum companion to ethics. Continuum, London, pp lxxv–cvGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doorn N (2010) Applying Rawlsian approaches to resolve ethical issues: inventory and setting of a research agenda. J Bus Eth 91:127–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doorn N (2010) A Rawlsian approach to distribute responsibilities in networks. Sci Eng Ethics 16:221–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Doorn N (2012) Exploring responsibility rationales in Research and Development (R&D). Sci Technol Hum Values 37:180–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorbeck-Jung BR (2007) What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom government’s nanotechnological regulatory activities? NanoEthics 1:257–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S (2006) Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. Am J Polit Sci 50:634–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elster J (1998) Deliberation and constitution making. In: Elster J (ed) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    EU (2004) Nanotechnologies. A preliminary risk analysis. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013
  21. 21.
    EU (2006) Opinion of the European economic and social committee on nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009 (INT/277). 2006Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    EU (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Commitee, in SEC(2008) 2036. 2008Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fan AM, Alexeeff G (2010) Nanotechnology and nanomaterials: toxicology, risk assessment, and regulations. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 10:8646–8657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4:27–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Glenna LL (2010) Value-laden technocratic management and environmental conflicts: the case of the New York City watershed controversy. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:81–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Godman M (2008) But is it unique to nanotechnology? Reframing nanoethics. Sci Eng Ethics 14:391–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N (2009) Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:185–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Grin J et al (2004) Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:126–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gutmann A, Thompson D (1996) Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (2010) Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hogle LF (2009) Science, ethics, and the “problems” of governing nanotechnologies. J Law Med Ethics 37:749–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Huckfeldt R, Johnson PE, Sprague J (2004) Political disagreement: the survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jacobsson K (2004) Between deliberation and discipline: soft governance in EU employment policy. In: Mörth U (ed) Soft law and governance in regulation: an interdisciplinary analysis. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Keulartz J et al (2004) Ethics in a technological culture. A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Sci Technol Hum Values 29:3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Klabbers J (1998) The undesirability of soft law. Nord J Int Law 67:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kulinowski KM (2004) Nanotechnology: from “wow” to “yuck”? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Litton P (2007) Nanoethics: What’s new? Hast Cent Rep 37:22–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mastenbroek E (2009) Procedural legitimacy and EU compliance. In: Politicologenetmaal, May 18–19. 2009. Berg en Dal, The Netherlands. http://www.ru.nl/publish/pages/523705/paperpoletmaalmastenbroek.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2013
  42. 42.
    McCarthy T (1994) Kantian constructivism and reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in dialogue. Ethics 105:44–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    McCray PW (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. J Hist Technol 21:177–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    McGinn RE (2010) What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology?: Foundational questions and answers. NanoEthics 4:115–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 446–461Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Milieu Ltd/RPA (2009) Information from industry on applied nanomaterials and their safety: background paper on options for an EU-wide reporting scheme for nanomaterials on the market (http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/documents/Nanos-Options.pdf). Milieu Ltd/RPA, Brussels/London. Accessed 21 Feb 2013
  47. 47.
    Milieu Ltd/RPA (2010) Information from industry on applied nanomaterials and their safety: proposal for an EU reporting system for nanomaterials (http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/documents/Nanos-Reporting-Mechanisms.pdf), chapter 4. Milieu Ltd/RPA, Brussels/London. Accessed 21 Feb 2013
  48. 48.
    Mouffe C (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc Res 66:745–758Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–4453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nowack B, Krug HF, Height M (2010) 120 years of nanosilver history: implications for policy makers. Environ Sci Technol 45:1177–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Patenaude J et al (2011) Moral arguments in the debate over nanotechnologies: Are we talking past each other? NanoEthics 5(3):285–293Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5:143–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rawls J (1995) Political liberalism: reply to Habermas. J Philos 92:132–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rawls J (1999 [1971]) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Renn O (2005) White paper on risk governance: towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Renn O, Klinke A, Van Asselt MBA (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio 40:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Reuzel RPB et al (2001) Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 26:245–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Risse T (2009) Social constructivism and European integration. In: Wiener A, Diez T (eds) European integration theory, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–161Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rogers JD, Bozeman B (2001) “Knowledge Value Alliances”: an alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:23–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Saari E, Miettinen R (2001) Dynamics of change in research work: constructing a new research area in a research group. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:300–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Pol 7:385–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Rep 10:424–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Seaton A et al (2010) Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation. J R Soc Interface 7:S119–S129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Snyder F (1995) The effectiveness of EU law. In: Daintith T (ed) Implementing EC law in the UK. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Spier RE (2010) “Dual Use” and “Intentionality”: Seeking to Prevent the Manifestation of Deliberately Harmful Objectives A Summary and Some Reflections on ‘The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail’. Sci Eng Ethics 16:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Stokes E (2011) You are what you eat: market citizens and the right to know about nano foods. J Hum Rights Environ 2:178–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Swierstra TE, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Toumey C (2010) Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 46–59Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Trubek DM, Cottrell P, Nance M (2005) ‘Soft Law’, ‘Hard Law’ and European integration. In: G de Burca, J Scott (eds) New governance and constitutionalism in Europe and the US. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–94Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Tyler TR (2001) Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behav Sci Law 19:215–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Van Asselt MBA, Renn O (2011) Risk Governance. J Risk Res 14:431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Van Asselt MBA, Vos E (2008) Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res 11:281–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Van Calster G, Bowman DM (2009) Regulatory design for new technologies: spaghetti junction or Bauhaus principles for regulating innovative products. Notizie Politeia XXV:75–93Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Van de Poel IR (2008) How should we do nanoethics? A network approach for discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Van de Poel IR (2009) The introduction of nanotechnology as a societal experiment. In: Arnaldi S, Lorenzet A, Russo F (eds) Technoscience in progress: managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 129–142Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Van de Poel IR, Zwart SD (2010) Reflective Equilibrium in R&D networks. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:174–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Van der Bruggen K (2012) Possibilities, intentions and threats: dual use in the life sciences reconsidered. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):741–756Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Van der Burg S (2009) Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Sci Eng Ethics 15:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Van Est R, Walhout B (2007) Verslaglegging workshop nanoveiligheid. Rathenau, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Van Oudheusden M, De Zutter H (2012) Contesting co-inquiry: “Noncommunicative” discourse in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Commun 34:84–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Van Thiel, GJMW (2009) Moral Wisdom in the Balance: Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Empirical Model for Bioethics [PhD thesis]. Utrecht University, UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Vogelezang-Stoute L, Popma J, Aalders M (2011) Is onze regelgeving ‘nanoproof’? Ned Juristenblad 1258Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Von Schomberg R (1993) Controversies and political decision making. In: Von Schomberg R (ed) Science, politics and morality: scientific uncertainty and decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Von Schomberg R (2011) On identifying plausibility and deliberative public policy. Commentary on: “Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology”. Sci Eng Ethics 17:739–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) (2010) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policy. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Von Schomberg R, Guimarães Pereira Â, Funtowicz S (2005) Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Webb K (2004) Understanding the voluntary code phenomenon. In: Webb K (ed) Voluntary codes: private governance, the public interest, and innovation. Carleton University, Ottawa, pp 3–32Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    WRR (2009) Uncertain safety: allocating responsibility for safety (report nr. 82; Scientific Council for Government Policy). Amsterdam University Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Young IM (1996) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxfort University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.3TU.Centre for Ethics and Technology / Department of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations