The Cochlear Implant Controversy: Lessons Learned for Using Anticipatory Governance to Address Societal Concerns of Nano-scale Neural Interface Technologies

Part of the Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society book series (YNTS, volume 3)


A shortcoming of public policy, according to Jeffery Greene (2005), is that it tends to be reactive and not proactive. That is to say, public policies tend towards addressing looming and existent public problems rather than preventing or foreseeing and circumventing future public problems. While the “reactive” nature of public policy might be contested in some scholarly or professional circles it is safe to say that the prevailing public policy making structures in modern democracies are often more inclined to respond to public problems rather than attempt to anticipate, circumvent, or prevent them.


Cochlear Implant Deaf Child Deaf People Deaf Community Interface Technology 
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.


  1. Adunka, O., J. Kiefer, M.H. Unkelbach, T. Lehnert, and W. Gstoettner. 2004. Development and evaluation of an improved cochlear implant electrode design for electric acoustic stimulation. The Laryngoscope 114(7): 1237–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Advanced Bionics. 2010. Your journey to hearing. Accessed Oct 2010.
  3. Brackman, D.E. 1976. The cochlear implant: Basic principles. The Laryngoscope 86(3): 373–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BrainGate. 2010a. Corporate website of the BrainGate Company. Accessed Oct 2010.
  5. BrainGate. 2010b. Corporate website of the BrainGate Company. Accessed Oct 2010.
  6. Chorost, M. 2005. Rebuilt: How becoming part computer made me more human. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  7. Cozzens, Susan E., and Jameson M. Wetmore. 2010. Equity. In Encyclopedia of nanotechnology in society, ed. D. Guston. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration. 2003. Public health notifications. Accessed Oct 2010.
  9. FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration. 2009a. Information on cochlear implants. Accessed Nov 2009.
  10. FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration. 2009b. Information on cochlear implants. Accessed Oct 2010.
  11. FDA—United States Food and Drug Administration. 2010. Information on cochlear implants. Accessed Oct 2010.
  12. Garber, S., M.S. Ridgely, M. Bradley, and K.W. Chin. 2002. Payment under public and private insurance and access to cochlear implants. Archives of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery 128(10): 1145–1152.Google Scholar
  13. Garud, R., and M.A. Rappa. 1994. A socio-cognitive model of technology evolution: The case of cochlear implants. Organization Science 5(3): 344–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greene, Jeffery D. 2005. Public administration in the new century: A concise introduction. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  15. Guston, David H. 2007. Toward anticipatory governance.
  16. Guston, David H. 2008. Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454: 940–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guston, David H., John Parsi, and Justin Tosi. 2007. Anticipating the ethical and political challenges of human nanotechnologies. In Nanoethics: The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Hansson, S.O. 2005. Implant ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 519–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klop, W.M.C., J.J. Briaire, A.M. Stiggelbout, and J.H.M. Frijns. 2007. Cochlear implant outcomes and quality of life in adults with prelingual deafness. The Laryngoscope 117(11): 1982–1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding deaf culture: In Search of deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  21. Lane, H., and M. Grodin. 1997. Ethical issues in cochlear implant surgery: An exploration in disease, disability, and the best interests of the child. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7(3): 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Association of the Deaf. 2000. NAD position statement on cochlear implants. Accessed Oct 2010.
  23. National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2007. Strategic plan 2007. Washington, DC: Committee on Technology/National Science and Technology Council.Google Scholar
  24. NIDCD—National Institute of Deafness and other Communication Disorders. 2009. Primer on cochlear implants. Accessed Sept 2009.
  25. Ou, H., C.C. Dunn, R.A. Bentler, and X. Zhang. 2008. Measuring cochlear implant satisfaction in postlingually deafened adults with the SADL inventory. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 19(9): 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. PBS—Public Broadcasting System. 2010. The sound and fury: About the film. Accessed Oct 2010.
  27. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2001. Societal implication of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Boston: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  28. Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2005. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schauer, F. 2010. Neuroscience, lie-detection, and the law: Contrary to the prevailing view, the suitability of brain-based lie-detection for courtroom or forensic use should be determined according to legal and not scientific standards. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14(3): 101–103.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van de Ven, A.H., and R. Garud. 1993. Innovation and industry development: The case of cochlear implants. Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy 5: 1–46.Google Scholar
  31. Weinberg, A. 2005. Pediatric cochlear implants: The great debate. Penn Bioethics Journal 1(1): 1–4.Google Scholar
  32. Zeng, F.G. 2004. Trends in cochlear implants. Trends in Amplification 8(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration and Policy School of Public and International AffairsThe University of GeorgiaAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations