Abstract
The last section of the book offers lessons for action. Rinie van Est, a staff member at the Dutch parliamentary technology assessment organization, the Rathenau Institute, proposes that the notion of moving towards equity and equality through nanotechnology is as big a vision as the visions of technological transformation put forth by many nano-advocates. In order to move in the direction of the vision, van Est argues for three important steps. First, we must reflect on emerging equity and quality issues early in the development of new technologies rather than after they are produced. Van Est challenges researchers to develop constructive suggestions to strengthen equity and equality. Second, we need to mobilize the public rather than wait for people to get interested in nanotechnology. Van Est envisions people of all walks of life weighing in on what they want our nano-enabled future to be. To make this possible we need to stimulate public participation on many levels, including the active engagement of civil society organizations and experts like social scientists, policy makers, and politicians. Third, and perhaps most important for this volume, van Est encourages ELSI-researchers to play a more active role in the public and political debate so their insights may have a larger impact in society. Publishing in academic journals. . . or even Yearbooks. . . may not reach a sufficient audience to make change possible. To further the cause of equity in a meaningful way, academe needs to connect with the larger world.—eds.
This chapter was peer reviewed. It was originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bijker, Wiebe, E. 1995. Of Bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: Toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Bijker, Wiebe, E. 2003. The need for public intellectuals: A space for STS. Pre-presidential address, Annual Meeting 2001, Cambridge, MA. Science, Technology & Human Values 28: 443–450.
Collingridge, David. 1980. The social control of technology. London: Pinter.
Danielle Bütschi, Rainer Carius, Michael Decker, Søren Gram, Armin Grunwald, Petr Machleidt, Stef Steyaert, Rinie van Est. 2004. The practice of TA; Science, interaction and communication. In Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology assessment – Methods and impacts. eds. Michael Decker and Miltos Ladikas. Berlin: Springer.
Decker, Michael and Miltos Ladikas, eds. 2004. Bridges between science, society and policy: Technology Assessment – Methods and impacts. Berlin: Springer.
De Man, Hugo. 2005. Ambient intelligence: Gigascale dreams and nanoscale realities. IEEE International Solid State Circuits Conference, February 6–10, San Francisco, USA.
Dijstelbloem, Huub. 2008. Politiek vernieuwen: Op zoek naar publiek in de technologische samenleving. Amsterdam: Van Gennep.
ETC Group. 2003. The big down: From genomes to atoms. Atomtech: Technologies converging at the nano-scale. Winnipeg, Canada: ETC Group.
ETC Group. 2007. Extreme genetic engineering. An introduction to synthetic biology. Winnipeg, Canada: ETC Group.
ETC Group. 2008. Commodifying nature’s last straw? Extreme genetic engineering and the post-petroleum sugar economy. Winnipeg, Canada: ETC Group.
European Commission. 2006. Science and society action plan. European Research Area. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1997. NGOs and the environment: From knowledge to action. Third World Quarterly, 18 (3): 579–594.
Joss, Simon, and Sergio Bellucci, eds. 2002. Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.
Joy, Bill. 2000. “Why the future doesn’t need us.” Wired 8 (4) April: 238–262.
Macnaghten, Phil, Matthew Kearnes, and Brian Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27 (2) December: 1–24.
National Human Genome Research Institute. 2008. About ELSI: About the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) program. http://www.genome.gov/10001754. (accessed September 23, 2008).
Rinie van Est, Christien Enzing, Mark van Lieshout, Anouschka Versleijen. 2006. Welcome to the 21st century: Heaven, hell or down to earth? A historical, public debate and technological perspective on the convergence of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and the cognitive sciences. In Robby Berloznik, Raf Casert, Robby Deboelpaep, Rinie van Est, Christien Enzing, and Anouschka Versleijen, eds. Technology Assessment on converging technologies. European Parliament Report.
Roco, Mihail C., and William S. Bainbridge, eds. 2002. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (NSF)/Department of Commerce (DOC). June.
Rose, Nicolas. 2006. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
Sandler, Ronald. 2009. Nanotechnology: The social and ethical issues. Washington: NJ: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
Schot, Johan, and Arie Rip. 1996. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54: 251–268.
Silver, Lee. 1998. Remaking Eden: Cloning and beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon.
Slocum, Nikki. 2003. Participatory methods toolkit: A practitioner’s manual. Brussels: King Baudouin Foundation and Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment.
The PAGANINI project. 2007. Participatory governance and institutional innovation: The new governance of life. A summary report of the PAGANINI project. Austria: Department of Political Science, University of Vienna.
van Eijndhoven, Josee. 1997. Technology assessment: Product or process? Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 54: 269–286.
van Est, Rinie, Ineke Malsch, and Arie Rip. 2004. Om het Kleine te Waarderen. Een schets van nanotechnologie: publiek debat, toepassingsgebieden en maatschappelijke aandachtspunten. The Hague: Rathenau Institute.
van Est, Rinie. 2010. The broad challenge of public engagement in science. In Science and technology policy in the making: Observation and engagement, ed. Erik Fisher, Special Issue of Science and Engineering Ethics.
Vig, N. and H. Paschen. eds. 2000. Parliaments and technology: The development of technology assessment in Europe. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Wilsdon, J. and R. Willis. 2004. See-through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.
Zwart, H. and A. Nelis. 2009. What is ELSA genomics? EMBO reports: Science & Society series on convergence research 10: 540–544.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the editors for their constructive comments on this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Est, R. (2010). Keeping the Dream Alive: What ELSI-Research Might Learn from Parliamentary Technology Assessment. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_24
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_24
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9614-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9615-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)