Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nanotechnology and the Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanoethics and Nanotoxicology

  • 1146 Accesses

Abstract

Law and nanotechnology form a vast subject. The aim here will be to examine them from the societal standpoint of nanoethics, if necessary without due reference to the work that has been undertaken. For while law differs from ethics, as we shall attempt to explain throughout this reflection, it must also be studied in its relationship with social realities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To quote C. Atias and D. Linotte in [1]: “The myth which has law adapt to fit the facts has the effect of concealing, even conjuring away an essential step in the legislative process. Having gathered and assessed the facts, but before the technical construction of the regulation, one must chose a legal policy. This period of choice, selecting the facts and the goals, is a necessary one.”

  2. 2.

    To quote A. Supiot [2]: “In order to accommodate every nook and cranny of social life, one must say everything, prescribe everything. A tireless desire to encompass the full complexity of social existence in a set of rules leads to a normative logorrhea which gradually makes these rules incomprehensible, rendering arbitrary the power to enforce them.”

  3. 3.

    The term ‘ubiquitous computing’ was coined by Mark Weiser of Xerox Park in Palo Alto, California. It refers to an omnipresent system of invisible computers, distributed throughout our environment. The reader may consult [16] for more details.

  4. 4.

    This movement advocates the use of science and technology to develop the physical and mental capacities of human beings, ultimately so that they may escape the limitations imposed by nature, and even escape from ageing and death. See, for example, the World Transhumanist Association, The Transhumanist Declaration, 2002.

  5. 5.

    See in particular the AFSSET recommendation of July 2006 [26] to develop tools for defining industrial responsibility, to organise an independent reflection on the possibility of a procedure for ensuring the traceability of engineered nanomaterials, and to study the consequences of industrial secrecy for the assessment of health and environmental risks of engineered nanomaterials. This kind of concern is not unique to France or the European Union. See, for example, the opinion of the Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie on ethics and nanotechnology [39, p. XXI, p. 40]: “The Commission recommends that the government of Quebec, guided by the precautionary principle in a perspective of sustainable development, should take into consideration all stages in the life cycle of a product resulting from nanotechnology or containing nanometric elements, and that to this end it should integrate the notion of ‘life cycle’ into all its policies regarding such an approach, in such a way as to avoid any harmful consequence of a technological innovation on human health or on the environment.”

  6. 6.

    The problem of designing a product while taking into consideration other requirements than those relating to the good operation of the product goes well beyond the health and environmental issues. As an example, electronic or computer systems can be built taking into account the requirements for respect of individual rights (on this point, see [51]).

  7. 7.

    The working group on manufactured nanomaterials was set up in 2006 and the one on nanotechnology in 2007. For more information, the reader may consult the OECD Internet site [55].

  8. 8.

    There is thus an international understanding to encourage the development of business plans and start-up companies in this area [56].

  9. 9.

    In this sense, consider the following remark from 2004 [58]: “Public policy must meet a major challenge over the next thirty years: the challenge raised by nanotechnology. An ambitious reorganisation of scientific and technical programmes is on the agenda in France and the European Union to stimulate employment and competitiveness. In this context, nanotechnology is likely to play a significant role.”

  10. 10.

    No law without society, no society without law.

  11. 11.

    This principle states that the patent law of each country is applicable to all who would file or exploit their patent on its territory, whence no other regulations could be imposed on a given member state, in particular with regard to the duration of protection.

  12. 12.

    Among other reasons, this will delay the entry of certain countries, notably China, in the WTO.

  13. 13.

    Some groups, critical of the development of nanotechnologies, have already pounced upon this trend to stigmatise the patenting of ‘atomically modified organisms’ (AMO). For example, see the work by the ETC Group [67].

  14. 14.

    This is certainly true of NBIC convergence, the spearhead of public policy encouraging the development of nanotechnology in the first reports of the National Nanotechnology Initiative in the United States, which are far removed from the values upheld by the European Union or France with regard to this issue.

References

  1. C. Atias, D. Linotte: Le mythe de l’adaptation du droit au fait. Recueil Dalloz Sirey, I, p. 251 ff. (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Supiot: Critique du droit du travail. PUF, Paris (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Article 3, Point 1 of Regulation (EC) no. 1907/2006 of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, assessment, and authorisation of chemical substances, together with the restrictions applying to these substances (REACH): For the purposes of the present regulations, the term ‘substance’ refers to a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by man-made synthesis, including all additives required to maintain stability and all impurities resulting from the production process, but excluding any solvent that can be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or modifying its composition.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bill for the planning law implementing the conclusions of the Grenelle de l’environnement (bill known as Grenelle 1), Article 37

    Google Scholar 

  5. Report by Christian Jacob on behalf of the Commission des affaires économiques, de l’environnement et du territoire of the National Assembly, presented on 1 October 2009

    Google Scholar 

  6. Report by Bruno Sido on behalf of the Commission des affaires économiques of the Senate, presented on 14 January 2009

    Google Scholar 

  7. Citizens’ conference on nanotechnology, Ile-de-France region: Explorons les enjeux de l’infiniment petit. espaceprojets.iledefrance.fr/jahia/Jahia/NanoCitoyens

  8. D. Bourg, D. Boy: Conférence de citoyens, mode d’emploi. Editions Charles Léopold Mayer (2005). On citizens’ conferences and conditions for implementing them

    Google Scholar 

  9. D. Boy, D. Donnet-Kamel, P. Roqueplo: Un exemple de démocratie participative: ‘la Conférence de citoyens’ sur les organismes génétiquement modifiés. Revue Française de Science Politique 50 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Opinion of previously cited citizens’ conference, pp. 5–6. This observation is valid for other consultations of civil society members: Démocratie locale et maîtrise sociale des nanotechnologies: les publics grenoblois peuvent-ils participer aux choix scientifiques et techniques? Report for the Mission de la Métro, Grenoble, 22 September 2005

    Google Scholar 

  11. Citizens’ consultation EPE-APPA on environmental and sanitary issues relating to the development of nanotechnology, October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  12. Positions established within the FNE (federation of environmental protection groups), by the board of its health and environment network, February 2007, in the contributor’s report entitled Nanotechnologies: le point sur les débats, des orientations pour demain, Cité des sciences et de l’industrie, 19 and 20 March 2007. www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/v2/html/2006_2007/cycles/cycle_252_ressources.htm

  13. World Forum on Science and Democracy: Principes de surveillance des nanotechnologies et nanomatériaux (April 2008). fm-sciences.org/spip.php?article184

  14. European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC): ETUC resolution on nanotechnology and nanomaterials, ETUC Executive Committee, Brussels, 24 and 25 June 2008. www.etuc.org/a/5162

  15. Grenelle Environment Forum: Document summarizing the round tables held at the Hôtel de Roquelaure on 24, 25, and 26 October 2007 (Round table 3), Paris, November 2007

    Google Scholar 

  16. A. Greenfield: Everyware: The Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing, NewRiders Publishing (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Declaration on the environment and development, adopted in Rio, 1992, Principle 15

    Google Scholar 

  18. Article 130R of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, then Article 174 in the consolidated version of the treaty founding the European Community

    Google Scholar 

  19. Article L. 110-1, II-1, of the Code de l’environnement resulting from the Barnier Law of 1995

    Google Scholar 

  20. Article L. 110-1 of the Code de l’environnement; Article 5 of the Charte de l’environnement (resulting from the French constitutional law of 1 March 2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. See note from the Court of First Instance of the European Community (CFI), 26 November 2002, Artedogan affair: T-74/00, point 184; CFI 11 September 2002, Alapharma affair: T-70/99, point 171

    Google Scholar 

  22. C. Noiville: Science, décision, action: trois remarques à propos du principe de précaution. Petites Affiches 218–219, 10 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Le Principe de précaution, special issue of the journal Recueil Dalloz, ed. by C. Noiville, p. 1515 ff. (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  24. EC communication on application of the precautionary principle, Brussels, 2.2.2000, COM (2000) 1 final; EC jurisprudence cited in [21]. Article 5 of the Charte de l’environnement cited in [20] for French law

    Google Scholar 

  25. Comité de la prévention et de la précaution (CPP): Nanotechnologies, Nanoparticules. Quels dangers, quels risques? Paris, May 2006

    Google Scholar 

  26. AFSSET: Les nanomatériaux. Effets sur la santé de l’homme et sur l’environnement. Paris, July 2006

    Google Scholar 

  27. AFSSET: Nanomatériaux et sécurité au travail. May 2008

    Google Scholar 

  28. COMETS: Enjeux éthiques des nanosciences et nanotechnologies. 12 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  29. CCNE: Avis no. 96, Questions éthiques posées par les nanosciences, les nanotechnologies et la santé. January 2007

    Google Scholar 

  30. M.A. Hermitte: Relire l’ordre juridique à la lumière du principe de précaution. Recueil Dalloz 22, 1518 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  31. N. Herve-Fournereau: La sécurité sanitaire et écologique vis-à-vis des nanomatériaux. Cahiers Droit, Sciences et Technologies, CNRS Editions 1, 57 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  32. C. Lepage: Mission sur la gouvernance écologique. Final report of the first phase (proposition no. 38), p. 36, Paris (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  33. EC communication: Nanoscience and Nanotechnology: Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009. First implementation report 2005–2007, COM (2007) 505 final; Recommendation 2008/345/CE of the European Commission concerning a code of conduct for responsible research in nanoscience and nanotechnology, 7 February 2008

    Google Scholar 

  34. Agences françaises de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail (AFSSET), des aliments (AFSSA), des produits de santé (AFSSAPS), and the Haut Conseil de la Santé publique for the French government; Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP) for the European Commission

    Google Scholar 

  35. Agence française de sécurité sanitaire de l’environnement et du travail (AFSSET), Nanomatériaux et sécurité au travail, May 2008

    Google Scholar 

  36. French bill: Portant engagement national pour l’environnement, Article 73

    Google Scholar 

  37. Regulation (EC) no. 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the registration, assessment, and authorization of chemical substances, together with the restrictions applying to these substances (REACH), setting up a European Chemicals Agency, modifying the directive 1999/45/CE, and abrogating the regulation (EEC) no. 793/93 of the council and the regulation (EC) no. 1488/94 of the Commission, together with the directive 76/769/CEE of the Council and the directives 91/155/CEE, 93/67/CEE, 93/105/CE, and 2000/21/CE of the Commission

    Google Scholar 

  38. EC communication: Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, COM (2008) 366

    Google Scholar 

  39. Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie: Opinion on Ethique et nanotechnologies: se donner les moyens d’agir, Québec, 14 June 2006, p. XXIV

    Google Scholar 

  40. European Group on Ethics: Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine, Opinion no. 21, 17 January 2007. ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion_21_nano_en.pdf

  41. European Group on Ethics: Ethical aspects of ICT implants in the human body, Opinion no. 20, 16 March 2005. ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/docs/avis20_en.pdf

  42. CCNE: Opinion no. 96, Questions éthiques posées par les nanosciences, les nanotechnologies et la santé, 7 March 2007. www.ccne-ethique.fr/docs/fr/avis096.pdf

  43. B. Edelman: La dignité de la personne humaine, un concept nouveau. Recueil Dalloz, Chronique, p. 185 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  44. B. Mathieu: La dignité de la personne humaine: quel droit? quel titulaire? Recueil Dalloz, Chronique, p. 282 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  45. O. Cayla: Le coup d’Etat de droit? Le Débat, May–August, p. 123 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  46. N. Deffains: Les autorités locales responsables du respect de la dignité de la personne humaine. Sur une jurisprudence contestable du Conseil d’Etat. Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de l’Homme, p. 673 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Y. Thomas: Le sujet de droit, la personne et la nature. Sur la critique contemporaine du sujet de droit. Le Débat 100, 85 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  48. B. Maurer: La dignité humaine est-elle liberticide? A propos de la querelle sur ‘l’affaire du lancer de nain’. Cahiers des Ecoles Doctorales, Faculty of Law, Montpellier, no. 1, Les controverses doctrinales, p. 187 (2000). For a synopsis of the doctrinal controversies arising around the concept of human dignity

    Google Scholar 

  49. Conseil constitutionnel, 27 July 1994, Recueil Dalloz, 1995, jurisprudence p. 237, note by B. Mathieu

    Google Scholar 

  50. See, e.g., Citizens’ consultation EPE-APPA on environmental and sanitary issues relating to the development of nanotechnology, October 2006, Citizens’ recommandation 1.4

    Google Scholar 

  51. S. Lacour: ‘Ubiquitous computing’ et droit: l’exemple de la radio-identification. In: S. Lacour (ed.), La Sécurité de l’individu numérisé, L’Harmattan (2008), p. 29, esp. p. 43 ff

    Google Scholar 

  52. European Commission: Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009. COM (2005) 243 final, of 7 June 2005

    Google Scholar 

  53. M.A. Hermitte: Qu’est-ce qu’un droit des sciences et des techniques? A propos de la traçabilité des OGM. Tracés, Techno no. 16 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Council of Canadian Academies: Small is different: A science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale. Report by the Expert Panel on Nanotechnology, July 2008, p. 15

    Google Scholar 

  55. www.oecd.org/document/36/0,3343,en_2649_34269_38829732_1_1_1_1,00

  56. www.nanochallenge.com/files/index.cfm?id_rst=396

  57. Lisbon Treaty of 13 December 2007, Official Journal of the European Union C 306, 17.12.2007

    Google Scholar 

  58. F. Roure, J.P. Dupuy: Les nanotechnologies, éthique et prospective industrielle. Report by the Conseil général des Mines et du Conseil général des technologies de l’information (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  59. R. Encinas de Munagorri, G. Lhuilier: Introduction au droit. Series Champs Université, Flammarion, Paris, p. 11 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  60. R.K. Merton (1942): The normative structure of science. In: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, R.K. Merton (ed.), University of Chicago Press, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  61. Paris Union Convention: www.wipo.int/portal/index.html.fr. The Paris Union currently has 173 member states

  62. www.wto.org/indexfr.htm

  63. www.wto.org/english/docs_f/legal_f/27-trips.pdf

  64. T.L. Wasescha: L’accord sur les ADPIC, un nouveau regard sur la propriété intellectuelle. In: Droit et économie de la propriété intellectuelle, M.A. Frison-Roche and A. Abello (eds.), LGDJ (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  65. World Trade Organization: Agreement on aspects of intellectual property law affecting trade, Article 27: Patentable subject matter: Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application

    Google Scholar 

  66. M. Vivant: Le système des brevets en question. In: Brevets, innovation et intérêt général. Le brevet: pourquoi et pour faire quoi? B. Remiche (ed.). Editions Larcier, p. 19 ff. (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  67. www.etcgroup.org

  68. S. Desmoulin-Canselier: Les difficultés terminologiques de l’encadrement juridique des nanosciences et nanotechnologies et des nano-objets. In: Actes de l’atelier résidentiel ‘Quelle régulation pour les nanosciences et les nanotechnologies?’ S. Lacour (ed.), Le Tremblay, 27–30 January 2009

    Google Scholar 

  69. S. Lacour: Problèmes de définition juridique dans le champ des nanotechnologies. Quels mots pour le faire et pour le dire? In: Actes du colloque ‘Comment appréhender les risques des nanoparticules d’aujourd’hui et de demain?’ D. Vinck (ed.), Grenoble, 9 October 2008, Editions Lavoisier, Cachan (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Recommendation 2008/345/CE of the European Commission concerning a code of conduct for responsible research in nanoscience and nanotechnology of 7 February 2008

    Google Scholar 

  71. G. Cornu (ed.): Vocabulaire juridique, Association Henri-Capitant, PUF, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  72. R. Encinas de Munagorri: La communauté scientifique est-elle un ordre juridique? Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Civil, 247 (1998); M.A. Hermitte: La liberté de la recherche et ses limites. Approches juridiques. Editions Romillat (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  73. European Commission: COM (2004) 338 final du 12.5.2004

    Google Scholar 

  74. EC recommendation 2008/345/CE [46], Article 2b of the code of good conduct for responsible research in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Stakeholders in N&N research: Member states, employers, research funders, researchers, and more generally all individuals and civil society organisations involved in or interested in nanoscience and nanotechnology research

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre de recherche Droit, Sciences et techniques (CRDST) Bureau 407 UMR 8103 CNRS/Université Paris 1, 9, rue Malher, 75004, Paris, France

    Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier

  2. Centre d’etudes sur la coopération juridique internationale (CECOJI) UMR 6224 CNRS, Normativités et nouvelles technologies, Paris, France

    Stéphanie Lacour

  3. Faculté de Droit, Université de Poitiers, Hôtel Aubaret 15, rue Sainte-Opportune, 86022, Poitiers Cedex, France

    Stéphanie Lacour

Authors
  1. Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stéphanie Lacour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Département Sciences des Matériaux, Université d'Evry, Rue du père Jarlan, Evry Cedex, 91025, France

    Philippe Houdy

  2. Club NanoMicroTechnologie, Vice Président du, rue de l’Avenir 8, Villebon sur Yvette, 91140, France

    Marcel Lahmani

  3. , Laboratoire des RMCX, Université Paris Diderot-Paris 7, rue Marie-Andrée Lagroua Weill-Hall 4, Paris cédex, 75205, France

    Francelyne Marano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Desmoulin-Canselier, S., Lacour, S. (2011). Nanotechnology and the Law. In: Houdy, P., Lahmani, M., Marano, F. (eds) Nanoethics and Nanotoxicology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20177-6_29

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20177-6_29

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20176-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20177-6

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation