Addressing the Pacing Problem
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.
KeywordsPrecautionary principle Emerging technologies Adaptive governance Soft law Institutional reform
- Cross, F.B. 1996. Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 851–925.Google Scholar
- Davies, J. Clarence. 2008. Nanotechnology oversight: An agenda for the new administration. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Technologies.Google Scholar
- Fiorino, Daniel J. 2010. Nanoscale regulation (letter). Issues in Science and Technology (Winter): 10–12.Google Scholar
- FramingNano Project. 2010. The FramingNano governance platform: A new integrated approach to the responsible development of nanotechnologies, Final Report.Google Scholar
- Furger, Franco, & Francis, Fukuyama. 2007. Beyond bioethics: A proposal for modernizing the regulation of human biotechnologies. Innovations (Fall): 117–127.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gersen, Jacob E., and Eric A. Posner. 2008. Soft law: Lessons from congressional practice. Stanford Law Review 61: 573–627.Google Scholar
- Gwinn, M.R., and V. Vallyathan. 2006. Nanoparticles: health effects – pros and cons. Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 1818–1825.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Holling, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2007. Nanotechnology risk governance. Geneva: IRGC.Google Scholar
- Marchant, G.E., and K.L. Mossman. 2004. Arbitrary and capricious: The precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. Washington: AEI Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner, eds. 1999. Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Ruhl, J.B. 2005. Regulation by adaptive management – Is it possible? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 7: 21–57.Google Scholar
- Shapiro, Sidney A., and Robert L. Glicksman. 2003. Risk regulation at risk: Restoring a pragmatic approach. Stanford: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
- 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.