Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and the Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 7))

Abstract

Emerging technologies are developing at an ever accelerating pace, whereas legal mechanisms for potential oversight are, if anything, slowing down. Legislation is often gridlocked, regulation is frequently ossified, and judicial proceedings are sometimes described as proceeding at a glacial pace. There are two consequences of this mismatch between the speeds of technology and law. First, some problems are overseen by regulatory frameworks that are increasingly obsolete and outdated. Second, other problems lack any meaningful oversight altogether. To address this growing gap between law and regulation, new legal tools, approaches and mechanisms will be needed. Business as usual will not suffice.

It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be. . . .

– Isaac Asimov

Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.

– Woody Allen

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A (hopefully) trivial yet illustrative example of the slow pace of courts is a legal action in the European Court of Human Rights to stop the start up of the Large Hadron Collider in Europe because of an alleged risk it could start a runaway reaction that could destroy the earth. After the court denied an interim order to delay the experiment, a news report quoted a court spokesperson as saying it could “take several years” to decide the merits of the case, leading the reporter to caustically remark “[s]o, if a black hole is swallowing up the Earth by 2012, we might have the consolation of knowing it was illegal, at the conclusion of an apocalyptic version of Jarndyce v Jarndyce.” (Warner 2008).

References

  • Allenby, Braden R. 2005. Reconstructing earth: Technology and environment in the age of humans. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allenby, Braden R. 1999. Industrial ecology: Policy framework and implementation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, Debra 1999. Catching up to science. American Bar Association Journal 88 (Dec.): 88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett Foote, Susan, and Robert J. Berlin. 2005. Can regulation be as innovative as science and technology? The FDA’s regulation of combination products. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 6: 619, 620–623.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, Warren E. 1967. Reflections on law and experimental medicine. UCLA Law Review 15: 436–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berndt, Ernst R., E.R. Dulberger, and N.J. Rappaport. 2000. Price and quality of desktop and mobile personal computers: A quarter century of history, 17 July 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, Lynn E., and Wendy E. Wagner. 2008. Emerging science, adaptive regulation, and the problem of rulemaking ruts. Texas Law Review 86: 1701–1739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, Stewart. 1999. The Clock of the long now. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burk, Dan, and Mark Lemley. 2003. Policy levers in patent law. Virginia Law Review 89: 1575, 1575–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldart, Charles C., and Nicholas A. Ashford. 1999. Negotiations as a means of developing and implementing environmental and occupational health and safety policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review 23: 141–202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Bradley M. 2008. Landmarks and land mines. The Environmental Forum (Nov./Dec.): 30–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, Benjamin N. (1960). The nature of the legal process (Yale Paperbound ed 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, Robert. 2003. The pace and proliferation of biological technologies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 1: 203, 203–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, Geoffrey 2010. Biology 2.0. The Economist (June 19, Supp: 1–3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission of the European Communities. (2009). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Third Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union, COM(2009) 15 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eibert, Mark D. 2002. Human cloning: Myths, medical benefits and constitutional rights, Hastings Law Journal 53: 1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2010. Better Regulation. available at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/better_regulation/key_docs_en.htm#_br.

  • Falkner, Gerda, Oliver Treib, Miriam Hartlapp, and Simone Leiber. (2005). Complying with Europe: EU harmonisation and soft law in the member states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kong Fong, I. 2001. Law and new technology: The virtues of muddling through. Yale Law & Policy Review 19: 443, 443–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel, Simson. Oct 2002. An RFID bill of rights. Technology Review 35 available at http://www.simson.net/clips/2002/2002.TR.10.RFID_Bill_Of_Rights.pdf.

  • Garreau, Joel. 2001. Science’s mything links: As the boundaries of reality expand, our thinking seems to be going over the edge. Washington Post Cl (July 23).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garreau, Joel. 2005. Radical evolution. New York, NY: Random House).

    Google Scholar 

  • Genbank 2010. GenBank Overview: What is Genbank? available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/. Accessed 14 July 2010.

  • ICANN (undated). ICANN Factsheet. available at http://www.icann.org/en/factsheets/fact-sheet.html.

  • International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2007. Nanotechnology risk governance. IRGC: Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Internet Systems Consortium, ISC Domain Survey: Number of Internet Hosts. 2008. http://www.isc.org/index.pl?/ops/ds/host-count-history.php.

  • Jaffe, Adam B., and Josh Lerner.2004. Innovation and Its discontents: How our broken patent system is endangering innovation and progress, and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Science at the bar: Law, science, and technology in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Stephen M. 2008. Ossification’s demise? An empirical analysis of EPA rulemaking from 2001–2005. Environmental Law 38: 767–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, W.S., III. 2000. Ossification revisited: Does arbitrary and capricious review significantly interfere with agency ability to achieve regulatory goals through informal rulemaking? Northwestern University Law Review 94: 393–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurvetson, Steve. 2004. Transcending Moore’s law with molecular electronics and nanotechnology. Nanotechnology Law & Business 1: 70–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, Matthew E. 2007. Environmental disasters as risk regulation catalysts? The role of Bhopal, Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Love Canal, and Three Mile Island in Shaping US environmental law. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 35: 17–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, James J. 2008. President of the Food and Drug Law Institute, quoted in David J. Hanson, FDA Confronts Nanotechnology, Chemical & Engineering News, 17 March 2008, at 32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Addison Wesley Educational Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koven, Steven G. 1992. Base closings and the politics-administration dichotomy revisited. Public Administration Review 52: 526–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, Ray. 2003. Exponential growth an illusion?: Response to Ilkka Tuomi, essay (September 23) http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?m=1.

  • Kurzweil, Ray. 2005. The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaForte, Amy J. 2004. Bone Morphogenetic Protein Combination Products and Orthopedic Repair, in Nat’l Research Council. Proceedings From The Workshop On Science-Based Assessment: Accelerating Product Development Of Combination Medical Devices 15 (Bonnie A. Scarborough ed).

    Google Scholar 

  • Laws, Elliott P. 2008. Regulators facing a brave new world, The environmental forum. July/August 2008, at 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, Ronald M. 1995. Direct final rulemaking, George Washington Law Review 64: 1, 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundstrom, Mark. 2003. Moore’s Law forever? Science 299: 210, 210–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyman, Peter, and Hal R. Varian. 2003. How much information. available at http://www2.sims.berkeley.edu/research/projects/how-much-info-2003/ on 2 Nov. 2005.

  • Maryland Business and Technology Court Task Force, Final Report. 2000. available at http://www.courts.state.md.us/finalb&treport.pdf.

  • Mashaw, Jerry L., and David L. Harfst. 1991. The struggle for auto safety. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarity, Thomas O. 1992. Some thoughts on deossifying the rulemaking process. Duke Law Journal 41: 1385, 1385–1462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGarity, Thomas, Rena Steinzor, Sidney Shapiro, and Mathew Shudtz. 2010. Workers at risk: regulatory dysfunction at OSHA, Center for Progressive Reform White Paper #1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, Richard A. 1988. FDA’s implementation of the delaney clause: Repudiation of congressional choice or reasoned adaptation to scientific progress? Yale Journal on Regulation 5: 1, 1–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. 2003. Beyond biotechnology: FDA regulation of nanomedicine. The Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 4: 1, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mireles, Michael S. 2005. The United States patent reform quagmire: A balanced proposal. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 6: 709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, Chris 2004. A short history of sunsets. Legal Affairs 67, 67–71. (Jan.–Feb. 2004), available at http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2004/story_mooney_janfeb04.msp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Gordon E. 1965. Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38 (8): 114–117.

    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 & Policy 2007: 239–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, P. 2003. Trilateral seminar on science, society and the internet, opening statement by Judge Pauline Newman. A Dec. 14–16, conference sponsored by, inter alia, the NSF, available at http://www.law.gmu.edu/nctl/stpp/us_japan_pubs/internet-IIAIIB.pdf

  • New York Times. 2010. Dial-Up law in a broadband world (editorial). NY Times, April 9, at A18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Technology Assessment. 1986. Intellectual property rights in an age of electronics and information. Washington, DC: GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, William F. 2001. Contracting with the regulated for better regulations. The Administrative Law Review. 53: 1067, 1067–1138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, Richard J. Jr., 1995. Seven ways to deossify agency rulemaking. Administrative Law Review 47: 59, 60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponte, Lucille M. 2002. The Michigan Cyber Court: A bold experiment in the development of the first public virtual courthouse. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 4: 51, 51–91 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, Steven W. 2003. Technological change and the challenges for 21st century governance. In AAAS science and technology policy yearbook 2003, eds. A.H. Teich et al., 83–103. Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council on Bioethics. 2002. Human cloning and human dignity: An ethical inquiry. Washington, DC: GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • President’s Council on Bioethics. 2004. Reproduction and responsibility: The regulation of new biotechnologies. Washington, DC: GPO.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Solla Price, D.J. 1986. Little science, big science …and beyond. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rejeski, David. 2004. The next small thing. The environmental forum, March/April 2004, at 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge. 2003. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Dordrecht: Klewer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail., and Ortwin Renn. 2007. International Risk Governance Council, Policy Brief: Nanotechnology Risk Governance – Recommendations for a Global, Coordinated Approach to the Governance of Potential Risks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl, J.B. 1997. Thinking of environmental law as a complex adaptive system: How to clean up the environment by making a mess of environmental law. Houston Law Review 34: 933–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, Gabrielle N., Michael J. Selgelid, and Ian Kerridge. 2009. Managing the unimaginable. EMBO Reports 10: 7–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, Lonnie D., and Tiffany L. Houchin. 2004. Modular design of non-viral vectors with bioactive components. Trends In Biotechnology 22: 429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solove, Daniel J. 2004. Reconstructing electronic surveillance law. George Washington Law Review 72: 1264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry, Sharon T. 2001. Prepared testimony before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, Issues Raised by Human Cloning Research, 28 Mar. 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurow, Lester C. 1997. Needed: A new system of intellectual property rights. Harvard Business Review 75 (5): 94–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, Manuel. 1990. Economic analysis of product innovation: the case of CT scanners, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuomi, Ilkka. 2003. Kurzweil, Moore, and Accelerating Change, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Working paper 27 (August 2003), http://www.meaningprocessing.com/personalPages/tuomi/articles/Kurzweil.pdf.

  • United States v. Microsoft Corp. 2001. 253 F.3d 34. (D.C. Cir.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Alstine, Michael P. 2002. The costs of legal change. UCLA Law Review. 49: 789–870.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldmeir, Patti. 2001. Lawmakers Struggle to Keep Up, Financial Times, 2 Oct. 2001 at 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, Gerald. 2008. If You’re Reading This, Perhaps All is Well. Daily Telegraph (Sept. 10) at 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization (WHO). 2008. Quality & Safety in Genetic Testing: An Emerging Concern. available at: http://www.who.int/genomics/policy/quality_safety/en/index.html.

  • WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). 2007. Patent Report: Statistics on Worldwide Patent Activity (2007 Edition). http://www.wipo.int/ipstats/en/statistics/patents/patent_report_2007.html#P173_14118.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

    Gary E. Marchant

Authors
  1. Gary E. Marchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary E. Marchant .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Gary E. Marchant

  2. , Department of Civil and Environmental En, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, 85287, USA

    Braden R. Allenby

  3. , School of Letters and Sciences, Arizona State University, Santa Catalina Hall 250 D, Mesa, 85212, USA

    Joseph R. Herkert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Marchant, G.E. (2011). The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and the Law. In: Marchant, G., Allenby, B., Herkert, J. (eds) The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation