Building Equity and Equality into Nanotechnology

  • Susan E. Cozzens
Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 2)


This book has addressed a number of incredibly complex issues which can appear too daunting to tackle. But while equity and equality are significant challenges, this does not mean that important progress cannot be made. This final chapter outlines a practical program for building equity and equality into nanotechnology using actions based on the results of previous studies. It is directed at nanotechnology policymakers at a national level, but offers lessons for anyone who makes decisions about technologies, especially the “pro-poor,” “fairness,” and “equalizing” approaches it advocates.


Foreign Direct Investment Innovation Policy Equality Assessment Affluent Country National Nanotechnology Initiative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This essay reflects lessons learned in research under several grants from the National Science Foundation, in particular 0354362 and 0726919. The latter was collaborative with Work Package Four of a larger project supported by the European Commission, ResIST ( Cozzens gratefully acknowledges the contributions of a large set of collaborators to these projects. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any agency that funded the work.


  1. Barben, Daniel et al. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed., eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Benn, Troy, and Paul Westerhoff. 2008. Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 4133–4139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bortagaray, Isabel. 2008. Recombinant insulin case study in Argentina. Working paper for Project Resultar.Google Scholar
  4. Bullard, Robert D. 2005. The quest for environmental justice: Human rights and the politics of pollution. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.Google Scholar
  5. Cozzens, Susan E. 2007. Distributive justice in science and technology policy. Science and Public Policy 34: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cozzens, Susan E. 2008. Equality as an issue in designing science, technology, and innovation policies and programs. In Confluence. interdisciplinary communications 2007/2008, ed. Willy Østreng. Oslo: Centre for Advanced Study at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. (accessed August 4, 2010).Google Scholar
  7. Cozzens, Susan E., Kamau Bobb, Kendall Deas, Sonia Gatchair, Albert George, and Gonzalo Ordóñez. 2005. Distributional effects of science and technology-based economic development strategies at state level in the United States. Science and Public Policy 32: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cozzens, Susan E., Isabel Bortagaray, Sonia Gatchair, and Dhanaraj Thakur. 2008. Emerging technologies and social cohesion: Policy options from a comparative study. Paper presented at the PRIME Latin America Conference, September 24–26, 2008. Scholar
  9. Cozzens, Susan E. and Jameson M. Wetmore. 2010. Equity. In Encyclopedia of nanotechnology in society. ed. David Guston. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2005. Deliberating foresight: Knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. Brussels: Author. EUR21957.Google Scholar
  11. Faunce, Thomas A. 2007. Nanotherapeutics: New challenges for safety and cost-effectiveness regulation in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 186: 189–191.Google Scholar
  12. Foladori, Guillermo, and Edgar Zayago Lau. 2010. The role of organized workers in the regulation of nanotechnologies. In Yearbook of nanotechnololgy in society vol.2: The challenges of equity, equality, and development. ed. Susan E. Cozzens and Jameson Wetmore. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Gatchair, Sonia. 2010. Potential implications for equity in the nanotechnology workforce in the U.S. In Yearbook of nanotechnololgy in society vol.2: The challenges of equity, equality, and development. ed. Susan E. Cozzens and Jameson Wetmore. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Gatchair, Sonia, Isabel Bortagaray, and Lisa Pace. 2009. Genetically modified corn. Working paper for Project Resultar.Google Scholar
  15. Guston, David, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kinyondo, G., and M. Mabugu. 2009. The general equilibrium effects of a productivity increase on the economy and gender in South Africa. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 12: 307–326.Google Scholar
  17. Lee H.Y., K.S. Lin, and H.C. Tsui. 2009. Home country effects of foreign direct investment: From a small economy to a large economy. Economic Modeling 26: 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Littrell, Earl, and Thompson, Fred. 1997. The cost of regulation. Interfaces 27: 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meridian Institute. 2006. Workshop on nanotechnology, water, and development: Workshop summary. Denver, CO: Meridian Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Rawls, John. 1999. A theory of justice, revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Santos-Paulino, Amelia U., and Guanghua H. Wan. 2009. Special section: FDI, employment, and growth in China and India. Review Of Development Economics 13: 737–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations