Innovative and Responsible Governance of Nanotechnology for Societal Development

  • Mihail C. Roco
  • Barbara Harthorn
  • David Guston
  • Philip Shapira
Chapter
Part of the Science Policy Reports book series (SCIPOLICY, volume 1)

Abstract

Nanotechnology has been defined as “a multidisciplinary field in support of a broad-based technology to reach mass use by 2020, offering a new approach for education, innovation, learning, and governance” [1]. The governance of nanotechnology development for societal benefit is a challenge with many facets ranging from fostering research and innovation to addressing ethical concerns and long-term human development aspects. The U.S. nanotechnology governance approach has aimed to be “transformational, responsible, and inclusive, and [to] allow visionary development” [2].

Keywords

Nanotechnology innovation and commercialization Responsible development Global governance Emerging technologies Societal implications Ethical and legal aspects Nanotechnology market Public participation International perspective 

References

  1. .
    In addition to the scholarly references listed below [1–78], please refer also to the WTEC “Nano-2” workshop proceedings in Chicago, Hamburg, Tokyo (Tsukuba), and Singapore: Websites for these proceedings are provided in Appendix A. Additional references related to presentations made at those workshops are [79–105].Google Scholar
  2. 1.
    M.C. Roco, R.S. Williams, P. Alivisatos, (eds.), Nanotechnology Research Directions: Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade (NSTC, also Springer, 2000, Washington, DC, 1999). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html
  3. 2.
    M.C. Roco, Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J. Nanopart. Res. 10, 11–29 (2008). doi: 10.1007/s11051-007-9269-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    M.C. Roco, International strategy for nanotechnology research. J. Nanopart. Res. 3(5–6), 353–360 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    National Science Foundation (NSF), Report: International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology, (Meridian Institute, Washington, DC, 2004). Available online: http://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/nano/activities/dialog.jsp
  6. 5.
    D. Guston, (30 Mar). Public engagement with nanotechnology. 2020 Science (2010), http://2020science.org/2010/03/30/public-engagement-with-nanotechnology
  7. 6.
    M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge (eds.), Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2001). Available online: http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/NSET.Societal.Implications/nanosi.pdf
  8. 7.
    M.C. Roco, W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.), Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (Springer, Dordrecht, 2003). Available online: http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/NBIC_report.pdf
  9. 8.
    United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), The Ethics and Politics of Nanotechnology (UNESCO, Paris, 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 9.
    Center for Nanotechnology in Society at University of California at Santa Barbara (CNS–UCSB), Emerging Economies/Emerging Technologies: [Nano]Technologies for Equitable Development. Proceedings of the International Workshop. (Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Washington, DC, 2009). 4–6 Nov 2009Google Scholar
  11. 10.
    International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Appropriate Risk Governance Strategies for Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics, (IRGC, Geneva, 2009). Available online: http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_PBnanofood_WEB.pdf
  12. 11.
    Foundation for the Future (FFF) and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Humanity and the biosphere. The Next Thousand Years. Seminar proceedings, 20–22 Sept 2006, (FFF, Paris/Bellevue, 2007). Available online: http://www.futurefoundation.org/documents/hum_pro_sem7.pdf
  13. 12.
    D. Guston (ed.), Encyclopedia of Nano-Science and Society (Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2010)Google Scholar
  14. 13.
    A. Mnyusiwalla, A.S. Daar, P.A. Singer, Mind the gap: Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3), R9 (2003). doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/14/3/201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 14.
    I. Bennett, D. Sarewitz, Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Sci. Cult. Lond 15(4), 309–325 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 15.
    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, (Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 2005). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/otherpubs.html
  17. 16.
    F. Gomez-Baquero, Measuring the Generality of Nanotechnologies and its Potential Economic Implications. Paper presented at Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, 2009. (IEEE Xplore, 2–3 Oct 2009:1–9, 2009). doi:  10.1109/ACSIP.2009.5367858
  18. 17.
    T. Nikulainen, M. Kulvik, How general are general purpose technologies? Evidence from Nano-, Bio- and ICT-Technologies in Finland. Discussion Paper 1208. (The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Helsinki, 2009)Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    J. Youtie, M. Iacopetta, S. Graham, Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? J. Technol. Transf. 33(3), 315–329 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 19.
    P. Shapira, J. Youtie, L. Kay, National Innovation System Dynamics in the Globalization of Nano-Technology Innovation (Working Paper) (Georgia Tech Program in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, Atlanta, 2010)Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    H. Chen, M. Roco, Mapping Nanotechnology Innovations and Knowledge. Global and Longitudinal Patent and Literature Analysis Series (Springer, Berlin, 2009)Google Scholar
  22. 21.
    A. Fernandez-Ribas, Global Patent Strategies of SMEs in Nanotechnology. Working paper. Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2009)Google Scholar
  23. 22.
    Z. Huang, H. Chen, L. Yan, M.C. Roco, Longitudinal nanotechnology development (1990–2002): The national science foundation funding and its impact on patents. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(4–5), 343–376 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 23.
    J. Wang, P. Shapira, Partnering with universities: A good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms? Small Business Economics (Preprint 30 Oct 2009). doi:  10.1007/s11187-009-9248-9
  25. 24.
    D. Hwang, Ranking the Nations on Nanotech: Hidden Havens and False Threats (Lux Research, New York, 2010)Google Scholar
  26. 25.
    T. Satterfield, M. Kandlikar, C. Beaudrie, J. Conti, B.H. Harthorn, Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 752–758 (2009). doi: 10.1038/nnano.2009.265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 26.
    N. Pidgeon, B. Harthorn, K. Bryant, T. Rogers-Hayden, Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat. Nanotechnol. 4, 95–98 (2009). doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 27.
    N. Pidgeon, B. Harthorn, T. Satterfield, Nanotech: Good or bad? Chem. Eng. Today 822–823, 37–39 (2009)Google Scholar
  29. 28.
    P. Hamlett, M.D. Cobb, D.H. Guston, National Citizens’ Technology Forum: Nanotechnologies and Human Enhancement. CNS Report #R08-0003. (Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Tempe, 2008). Available online: http://www.cspo.org/library/type/?action=getfile&file=88&section=lib
  30. 29.
    C. Bosso (ed.), Governing Uncertainty: Environmental Regulation in the Age of Nanotechnology (EarthScan, London, 2010)Google Scholar
  31. 30.
    J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran, J. Kim, A. Kokotovich, S. Wolf, An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Anal. 28(5), 1197–1219 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 31.
    S.M. Wolf, G. Ramachandran, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, (eds.), Symposium: Developing oversight approaches to nanobiotechnology—The lessons of history. J. Law Med. Ethics. 37(4), 732 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 32.
    N. Powell, New risk or old risk, high risk or no risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc. 9(2), 173–190 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 33.
    J.A. Conti, K. Killpack, G. Gerritzen, L. Huang, M. Mircheva, M. Delmas, B.H. Harthorn, R.P. Appelbaum, P.A. Holden, Health and safety practices in the nanotechnology workplace: Results from an international survey. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(9), 3155–3162 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 34.
    J.C. Davies, Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology. Presentation. (Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Apr 2009, Washington, DC, 2009)Google Scholar
  36. 35.
    C. Beaudrie, Emerging Nanotechnologies and Life Cycle Regulation: An Investigation of Federal Regulatory Oversight from Nanomaterial Production to End-of-Life. (Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia, 2010). Available online: http://www.chemheritage.org/Downloads/Publications/White-Papers/Studies-in-Sustainability_Beaudrie.pdf
  37. 36.
    T. Barker, M.L. Lesnick, T. Mealey, R. Raimond, S. Walker, D. Rejeski, L. Timberlake, Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks—Closing the Gaps Within and Between Sectors of Society, (Meridian Institute, Washington, DC, 2005). Available online: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1047276/NANOTECHNOLOGY-and-the-POOR
  38. 37.
    S. Cozzens, J. Wetmore (eds.), Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. II: Nanotechnology and the Challenge of Equity and Equality (Springer, New York, 2010)Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    M.C. Roco, Nanoscale science and engineering: Unifying and transforming tools. AIChE J. 50(5), 890–897 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 39.
    V. Subramanian, J. Youtie, A.L. Porter, P. Shapira, Is there a shift to active nanostructures? J. Nanopart. Res. 12(1), 1–10 (2010). doi: 10.1007/s11051-009-9729-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 40.
    O. Renn, M.C. Roco, White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. (International Risk Governance Council (IRGC), Geneva, 2006). Available online: http://www.irgc.org/Publications
  42. 41.
    M.C. Roco, O. Renn, Nanotechnology risk governance, in Global Risk Governance: Applying and Testing the IRGC Framework, ed. by O. Renn, K. Walker (Springer, Berlin, 2008), pp. 301–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 42.
    S. Murdock, (Nanobusiness Alliance), Personal communication with author Mar 2010Google Scholar
  44. 43.
    President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Report to the President and Congress on the Third Assessment of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC, 2010). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/otherpubs.html
  45. 44.
    Lux Research, The Nanotech Report: Investment Overview and Market Research for Nanotechnology (Lux Research, New York, 2004)Google Scholar
  46. 45.
    Lux Research, The Recession’s Ripple Effect on Nanotech. State of the Market Report (Lux Research, New York, 2009)Google Scholar
  47. 46.
    E.A. Corley, D.A. Scheufele, Outreach going wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. Scientist 24(1), 22 (2010)Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    D.A. Scheufele, E.A. Corley, The science and ethics of good communication. Next Gen. Pharm. 4(1), 66 (2008)Google Scholar
  49. 48.
    D.E. Stokes, The Pasteur Quadrant (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC, 1997)Google Scholar
  50. 49.
    I. Linkov, F.K. Satterstrom, J. Steevens, E. Ferguson, R.C. Pleus, Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 9(4), 543–554 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 50.
    T. Tervonnen, I. Linkov, J.R. Figueira, J. Steevens, M. Chappell, M. Merad, Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J. Nanopart. Res. 11, 757–766 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 51.
    D. Barben, E. Fisher, C. Selin, D.H. Guston, Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration, in The New Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, ed. by E.J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M.E. Lynch, J. Wajcman (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2008), pp. 979–1000Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    R. Sclove, Reinventing Technology Assessment: A 21st Century Model, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC, 2010. Available online: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/ReinventingTechnologyAssessment1.pdf
  54. 53.
    D.J. Fiorino, Voluntary Initiatives, Regulation, and Nanotechnology Oversight: Charting a Path. (Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars (PEN 19), 2010). Presented 4 Nov 2010. Available online: http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/8346/fiorino_presentation.pdf
  55. 54.
    G.A. Hodge, D.M. Bowman, A.D. Maynard, (eds.), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2010). E-book: 978 1 84844 673 1Google Scholar
  56. 55.
    D. Guston, Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454, 940–941 (2008). doi: 10.1038/454940a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 56.
    J. Wetmore, E. Fisher, C. Selin (eds.), Presenting Futures: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society (Springer, New York, 2008)Google Scholar
  58. 57.
    M.N. Nadagouda, A.B. Castle, R.C. Murdock, S.M. Hussain, R.S. Varma, In vitro biocompatibility of nanoscale zerovalent iron particles (NZVI) synthesized using teapolyphenols. Green Chem. 12(1), 114–122 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 58.
    B. Harthorn, (4 May). Public participation in nanotechnology—Should we care? 2020 Science (2010). http://2020science.org/2010/05/04/public-participation-in-nanotechnology-should-we-care
  60. 59.
    D. Berube, C. Cummings, Public perception of risk to nanotechnology in context with other risks. J. Nanopart. Res. (2010). ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
  61. 60.
    Pew Research Center for the Public and the Press, Ideological News Sources: Who Watches and Why, (Pew, Washington, DC, 2010). Available online: http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/652.pdf
  62. 61.
    C. Selin, The sociology of the future: Tracing stories of technology and time. Sociol. Compass 2(6), 1878–1895 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 62.
    S.J.H. Graham, M. Iacopetta, Nanotechnology and the emergence of a general purpose technology. Ann. ’Economie Statistique (Ann. Econ. Stat.) 49/50, 53–55 (2010)Google Scholar
  64. 63.
    X. Li, Y. Lin, H. Chen, M. Roco, Worldwide nanotechnology development: A comparative study of USPTO, EPO, and JPO patents (1976–2004). J. Nanopart. Res. 9(6), 977–1002 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 64.
    R.G. Cooper, Winning at New Products (Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, 2001)Google Scholar
  66. 65.
    M. Carrier, Two puzzles resolved: Of the Schumpeter-Arrow stalemate and pharmaceutical innovation markets. Iowa Law Rev. 93(2), 393 (2008)Google Scholar
  67. 66.
    D. Carlton, J. Perloff, Modern Industrial Organization (Pearson, London, 2000)Google Scholar
  68. 67.
    U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Chemical Regulation: Options Exist to Improve EPA’s Ability to Assess Health Risks and Manage its Chemical Review Program, (GAO, Washington, DC, 2005). Report GAO-05-458. Available online: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05458.pdf
  69. 68.
    S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policymakers (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar
  70. 69.
    A. Delemarle, B. Kahane, L. Villard, P. Laredo, Geography of knowledge production in nanotechnologies: A flat world with many hills and mountains. Nanotechnol. Law Bus. 6, 103–122 (2009)Google Scholar
  71. 70.
    Business Insights, Nanotechnology in Healthcare. Market Outlook for Applications, Tools and Materials, and 40 Company Profiles. (Business Insights Ltd., London, 2010), Available online: http://www.globalbusinessinsights.com/content/rbdd0035p.htm
  72. 71.
    R. Service, Nanoparticle Trojan horses gallop from the lab into the clinic. Nature 330, 314–315 (2010)Google Scholar
  73. 72.
    BCC Research, Nanotechnology in Medical Applications: The Global Market. (BCC, Wellesley, 2010), Report code: HLC069AGoogle Scholar
  74. 73.
    E. Richman, J. Hutchison, The nanomaterial characterization bottleneck. ACS Nano 3(9), 2441–2446 (2009). doi: 10.1021/nn901112p CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 74.
    L. Breggin, R. Falkner, N. Jaspers, J. Pendergrass, R. Porter, Securing the Promise of Nanotechnologies: Towards Transatlantic Regulatory Cooperation. (Chatham House, London, 2009). Available online: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/nanotechnology
  76. 75.
    R. Sparrow, Negotiating the nanodivides, in New global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology, ed. by G.A. Hodge, D. Bowman, K. Ludlow (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007), pp. 97–109Google Scholar
  77. 76.
    G.A. Hodge, D.M. Bowman, K. Ludlow, Introduction: Big questions for small technologies, in New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology, ed. by G.A. Hodge, D. Bowman, K. Ludlow (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2007), pp. 3–26Google Scholar
  78. 77.
    F. Salamanca-Buentello, D.L. Persad, E.B. Court, D.K. Martin, A.S. Daar, P.A. Singer, Nanotechnology and the developing world. Policy Forum 2(5), 383–386 (2005)Google Scholar
  79. 78.
    P.A. Singer, F. Salamanca-Buentello, A.S. Daar, Harnessing nanotechnology to improve global equity. Issues Sci. Technol. 21(4), 57–64 (2005). Available online: http://www.issues.org/21.4/singer.html Google Scholar
  80. 79.
    R.P. Appelbaum, R.A. Parker, China’s bid to become a global nanotech leader: Advancing nanotechnology through state-led programs and international collaborations. Sci. Public Policy 35(5), 319–334 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 80.
    U. Beck, Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, London, 1992)Google Scholar
  82. 81.
    L. Bell, Engaging the public in technology policy: a new role for science museums. Sci. Commun. 29(3), 386–398 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 82.
    L. Bell, Engaging the public in public policy: How far should museums go? Mus. Soc. Issues 4(1), 21–36 (2009)Google Scholar
  84. 83.
    R. Berne, Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning and Belief in Nanotechnology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 84.
    J. Calvert, P. Martin, The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Rep. 10(3), 201–204 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 85.
    J. Conti, T. Satterfield, B. Herr Harthorn, Vulnerability and Social Justice as Factors in Emergent U.S. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions. In review (2010)Google Scholar
  87. 86.
    K. David, P.B. Thompson (eds.), What Can Nanotechnology Learn from Biotechnology? (Academic Press (Elsevier), New York, 2008)Google Scholar
  88. 87.
    S. Davies, P. Macnaghten, M. Kearnes, (eds.), Deepening debate on nanotechnology. In: Reconfiguring Responsibility: Lessons for Public Policy, (Durham University, Durham, 2009)Google Scholar
  89. 88.
    J.A. Delborne, A.A. Anderson, D.L. Kleinman, M. Colin, M. Powell, Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences. Public Understanding of Science. (Preprint 9 Oct 2009), (2009). doi:  10.1177/0963662509347138
  90. 89.
    E. Fisher, Ethnographic interventions: Probing the capacity of laboratory decisions. NanoEthics 1(2), 155–165 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 90.
    E. Fisher, L.R.L. Mahajan, C. Mitcham, Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 26(6), 486–496 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 91.
    E. Fisher, C. Selin, J. Wetmore (eds.), Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. I: Presenting Futures (Springer, New York, 2008)Google Scholar
  93. 92.
    B. Flagg, V. Knight-Williams, Summative Evaluation of NISE Network’s Public Forum: Nanotechnology in Health Care (Multimedia Research, Bellport, 2008)Google Scholar
  94. 93.
    B.H. Harthorn, K. Bryant, J. Rogers, Gendered risk beliefs about emerging nanotechnologies in the US. In: Monograph of the 2009 Nanoethics Graduate Education Symposium. (University of Washington, Seattle, 2009). Available online: http://depts.washington.edu/ntethics/symposium/Nanoethics Special Edition Monograph.pdf
  95. 94.
    B.H. Harthorn, J. Rogers, C. Shearer, Gender, Application Domain, and Ethical Dilemmas in Nano-Deliberation. White paper for Nanotech Risk Perception Specialist Meeting, Santa Barbara, 29–30 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  96. 95.
    D.L. Kleinman, J. Delborne, A.A. Anderson, Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science (Preprint 9 Oct 2009). doi:  10.1177/0963662509347137
  97. 96.
    J. Kuzma, J. Romanchek, A. Kokotovich, Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case study approach. Risk Anal. 28(4), 1081–1098 (2008)Google Scholar
  98. 97.
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), Committee on Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Oklahoma City, 1–3 Apr 2009. (NSET, Washington, DC, 2010). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html
  99. 98.
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), Committee on Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Regional, State, and Local Initiatives in Nanotechnology: Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop, Washington, DC, 30 Sept–1 Oct. (NSET, Washington, DC, 2005). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html
  100. 99.
    Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), Committee on Technology, Office of Science and Technology Policy. The National Nanotechnology Initiative Strategic Plan, (NSET, Washington, DC, 2007). Available online: http://www.nano.gov/html/res/pubs.html
  101. 100.
    National Research Council, Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies, Persistent Forecasting of Disruptive Technologies (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009)Google Scholar
  102. 101.
    T. Satterfield, Designing for Upstream Risk Perception Research: Malleability and Asymmetry in Judgments About Nanotechnologies, White paper for nanotech risk perception specialist meeting, Santa Barbara, 29–30 Jan 2010Google Scholar
  103. 102.
    C. Selin, Expectations and the emergence of nanotechnology. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 32(2), 196–220 (2007). doi: 10.1177/0162243906296918 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 103.
    P. Shapira, J. Wang, From lab to market: Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Asian Bus. Manage. 8(4), 461–489 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 104.
    P. Shapira, J. Youtie, A.L. Porter, The emergence of social science research in nanotechnology. Scientometrics (2010). doi: Published online first at 10.1007/s11192-010-0204-x. March 25, 2010 Google Scholar
  106. 105.
    C.E. Van Horn, J. Cleary, L. Hubbar, A. Fichtner, A Profile of Nanotechnology Degree Programs in the United States, (Center for nanotechnology in society, Tempe, 2009). Available online: http://www.cspo.org/library/reports/?action=getfile&file=186&section=lib

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mihail C. Roco
    • 1
  • Barbara Harthorn
    • 2
  • David Guston
    • 3
  • Philip Shapira
    • 4
  1. 1.National Science FoundationArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Nanotechnology in SocietyUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA
  3. 3.College of Liberal Arts and SciencesArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  4. 4.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations