Biotechnology and nanotechnology are both strategic technologies, and the former provides several lessons that could contribute to more successful embedding and integration processes for the latter. This article identifies some of the key questions emerging from the biotechnology experience and summarizes several lessons learned in the context of constructive technology assessment. This approach broadens the range of social considerations relevant to the sustainable development of nanotechnology and emphasizes the need for developing social tools for nanotechnology innovation while the technology is in its early stages of design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anonymous. (1998, February 11). CGIAR urges halt to granting of intellectual property rights for designated plant germplasm. CGIAR News. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/press/germrel.html
2.
Baber, Z. (2001). Globalization and scientific research: The emerging triple helix of state-industry-university relations in Japan and Singapore . Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(5), 401-408 .
3.
Bach, F. H., Fishman, J., Daniels, N., Proimus, J., Anderson, B., Carpenter, C., et al. (1998). Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: Individual benefits versus collective risk . Nature Medicine, 4, 141-144 .
4.
Bauer, M., Kohring, M., Allansdottir, A., & Gutteling, J. (2001). The dramatization of biotechnology in elite mass media. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum .
5.
Boyle, J. (1996). Shamans, software and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
6.
Bruns, B. (2001). Open sourcing nanotechnology research and development: Issues and opportunities . Nanotechnology, 12(3), 198-201 .
7.
Burke, D. (2003, March 12). This will be like no other debate. Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 13.
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. (1998). Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Committee on rBST. Report to Health Canada, Ottawa .
Colvin, V. (2003). Testimony of Dr. Vicki L. Colvin, Director, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) and Associate Professor of Chemistry, Rice University, Houston, Texas before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science in regard to “Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003,” April 9, 2003. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/cben/ColvinTestimony040903.shtml
12.
Drexler, K. E., & Peterson, C. (1992). Unbounding the future: The nanotechnology revolution. New York: Morrow .
13.
Einsiedel, E. F. (2001). Cloning and its discontents . Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 943-945 .
14.
Einsiedel, E. F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation . Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 1-17 .
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M., et al. (2001). In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 53-79). London: Science Museum .
18.
Gollin, M. (1999). Legal consequences of biopiracy . Nature Biotechnology, 17, 1230-1239 .
19.
Heimer, C. (2001). Solving the problem of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 55-81). New York: Russell Sage Foundation .
20.
Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research . Science, 280, 698-701 .
Langford, C. H., & Langford, M. W. (2003). Funding strategic university research in Canada. Unpublished manuscript, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada .
26.
Levitt, N., & Gross, P. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press .
27.
Mehta, M. D. (2002a). Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Assessing the nature of innovation in these fields . Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 22(4), 269-273 .
28.
Mehta, M. D. (2002b, April). Regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology in Canada: A postnormal science approach for inclusion of the fourth helix . Paper presented at the International Workshop on Science, Technology, and Society—Lessons and Challenges, Singapore.
29.
Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A., & Singer, P. (2003). “Mind the gap”: Science and ethics in nanotechnology . Nanotechnology, 14, 9-12 .
Peterson, C. (2003, April 9). Molecular manufacturing: Societal implications of advanced nanotechnology. Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Hearings. Retrieved April 30, 2003, from www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm
Reynolds, G. (2001). Environmental regulation of nanotechnology: Some preliminary observations. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute .
34.
Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology in society, the approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter .
35.
Roco, M. (2002). Government nanotechnology funding: An international outlook. National nanotechnology initiative. Retrieved May 7, 2003, from www.nano.gov/intpersp_roco.html
36.
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. (1999). Report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Expert Panel on Human Safety of rBST. Report to Health Canada, Ottawa .
Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press .
39.
Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology . Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203 .
40.
Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., von Bergmann-Winberg, M. L., Bridgman, E., Durant, J., & Einsiedel, E. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 21-94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press .
41.
Wright, S. (2001). Legitimating genetic engineering. Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.biotech-info.net/legitimating.html
42.
Wright, W. (1992). Wild knowledge: Science, language, and social life in a fragile environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press .
