Advertisement

Addressing the Pacing Problem

  • Gary E. Marchant
Part of the The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology book series (ELTE, volume 7)

Abstract

The central conclusion from the cumulative insights of the contributions to this volume is that existing regulatory systems and ethical frameworks are inadequate to provide effective, meaningful and timely oversight of the current and future generations of emerging technologies. Technologies such as genetics, robotics, information technologies, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and neuroscience are racing forward at a pace of technology development that has never before been experienced in human history. In contrast, our traditional government oversight systems are mired in stagnation, ossification and bureaucratic inertia, and are seriously and increasingly lagging behind the new technologies accelerating into the future.

Keywords

Precautionary principle Emerging technologies Adaptive governance Soft law Institutional reform 

References

  1. Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organizaion 54: 421–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cross, F.B. 1996. Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 851–925.Google Scholar
  3. Davies, J. Clarence. 2008. Nanotechnology oversight: An agenda for the new administration. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Technologies.Google Scholar
  4. Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302: 1907–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiorino, Daniel J. 2010. Nanoscale regulation (letter). Issues in Science and Technology (Winter): 10–12.Google Scholar
  6. FramingNano Project. 2010. The FramingNano governance platform: A new integrated approach to the responsible development of nanotechnologies, Final Report.Google Scholar
  7. Furger, Franco, & Francis, Fukuyama. 2007. Beyond bioethics: A proposal for modernizing the regulation of human biotechnologies. Innovations (Fall): 117–127.Google Scholar
  8. Garmestani, Ahjond S., Craig R. Allen, and Heriberto Cabezas. 2009. Panarchy, adaptive management and governance: Policy options for building resilience. Nebraska Law Review 87: 1036–1054.Google Scholar
  9. Gersen, Jacob E., and Eric A. Posner. 2008. Soft law: Lessons from congressional practice. Stanford Law Review 61: 573–627.Google Scholar
  10. Gwinn, M.R., and V. Vallyathan. 2006. Nanoparticles: health effects – pros and cons. Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 1818–1825.Google Scholar
  11. Harremoës, P., D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, A. Stirling, J. Keys, B. Wynne, and S.G. Vaz. 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environmental Agency Environmental Issue Report No. 22, available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf.
  12. Holling, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Holm, S., and J. Harris. 1999. Precautionary principle stifles discovery (letter). Nature 400: 398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2007. Nanotechnology risk governance. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
  15. Lee, Robert Lee, and P.D. Jose. 2008. Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20: 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marchant, G.E. 2003. From general policy to legal rule: The aspirations and limitations of the precautionary principle. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 1799–1803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marchant, G.E., and K.L. Mossman. 2004. Arbitrary and capricious: The precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. Washington: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  18. Marchant, G., A. Meyer, and M. Scanlon. 2010. Integrating social and ethical concerns into regulatory decision-making for emerging technologies. Minnesota Journal Law Science and Technology 11: 345–363.Google Scholar
  19. Marchant, Gary E., Douglas J. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott. 2009. What does the history of technology regulation teach us about nano oversight. Journal Law, Medicine and Ethics 37: 724–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchant, Gary E., Douglas J. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott. 2008. Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2: 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moses, Lyria Bennett. 2007. Recurring dilemmas: The law’s race to keep up with technological change. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 2007: 239–285.Google Scholar
  22. Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner, eds. 1999. Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ruhl, J.B. 2005. Regulation by adaptive management – Is it possible? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 7: 21–57.Google Scholar
  24. Sandin, P. 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shapiro, Sidney A., and Robert L. Glicksman. 2003. Risk regulation at risk: Restoring a pragmatic approach. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Sunstein, C.R. 2003. Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151: 1003–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Science policy council, nanotechnology white paper, EPA 100/B-07/001, available at http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations