Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public Perceptions of Fairness in NBIC Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society ((YNTS,volume 2))

  • 770 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter Ravtosh Bal explores the National Citizens Technology Forum (NCTF), a month long U.S.-wide public engagement focused on applications of nanotechnology for human enhancement (see also Wolbring). Through the process of deliberation, the NCTF participants expressed concerns about a wide array of equity issues. They worried that access to therapeutic applications might be limited by income, gender, and race and argued that systems of governance need to be set up to ensure that society as a whole benefits from these technologies, not just specific individuals or groups. Bal’s work first demonstrates that equity is not simply an issue that academics are debating; the public is quite concerned as well.

This chapter was peer reviewed. It was originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 22, 2008.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

References

  • Bennett, Ira and Daniel Sarewitz. 2006. Too little, too late? Research policies on the societal implications of nanotechnology in the United States. Science as Culture 15(4): 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucchi, Massimiano, and Federico Neresini. 2008. Science and public participation. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed., ed. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael Lynch, and Judy Wajcman, 449–472. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, Ronald L., Donald W. Light, and Norman Daniels. 1999. Benchmarks of fairness: A moral framework for assessing equity. International Journal of Health Services 29(4): 853–869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, Michael D. 2005. Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication 27(2): 221–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Joshua. 1997. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics, ed. James Bohaman, and William Rehg, 67–92. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan. 1996. Quality of life returns from basic research. In Technology, r&d and the economy, ed. Bruce L.R. Smith, and Claude E. Barfield, 184–209. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, Susan E, Kamau Bobb, and Isabel Bortagaray. 2002. Evaluating the distributive consequences of science and technology policies and programs. Research Evaluation 11(20): 101–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronberg, Tarja. 1995. Do marginal voices shape technology? In Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe, ed. Simon Joss, and John Durant, 125–133. London: Science Museum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow, Michael, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2001. Nanotechnology and societal transformation. In Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology, ed. Mihail C. Roco, and William S. Bainbridge, 55–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delborne, Jason A., Ashley A. Anderson, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Mathilde Colin, and Maria Powell. 2009. Virtual deliberation? Prospects and challenges for integrating the Internet in consensus conferences. Public Understanding of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon, Peter. 1988. Advice and consent. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, John S. 1990. Discursive democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC. 2004. The little big down: A small introduction to nano-scale technologies. Winnipeg, Canada: Action Group on Erosion, Technology, and Control. http://www.etcgroup.org. (accessed August 6, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finucane, Melissa L., Paul Slovic, Mertz C.K., James Flynn, and Theresa A. Satterfield. 2000. Gender, race and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk, and Society 2(2): 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, Frank. 1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical case. Policy Sciences 26(3): 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, Erik, and Roop Mahajan. 2006. Nanotechnology assessment: Contradictory intent? U.S. federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy 33(1): 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, David H. and Daniel Sarewitz. 2002. Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society 24(1–2): 93–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlett, Patrick W., Michael D. Cobb, and David H. Guston. 2008. National citizens’ technology forum: Nanotechnologies and human enhancement. Tempe, AZ: The Center for Nanotechnology in Society: Arizona State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41(3): 223–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karpowitz, Christopher F., Chad Raphael, and Allen S. Hammond IV. 2009. Deliberative democracy and inequality: Two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered. Politics and Society 37(4): 576–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, Daniel Lee, Jason A. Delborne, and Ashley A. Anderson. 2009. Engaging citizens: The high cost of citizen participation in high technology. Public Understanding of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leventhal, Gerald S. 1977. What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED142463.pdf. (accessed August 6, 2010).

  • Lewenstein, Bruce. 2005. What counts as social and ethical issues in nanotechnology? HYLE International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry 11(1): 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Patrick, and Fritz Alhoff. 2008. Untangling the debate: The ethics of human enhancement. Nanoethics 2(3): 251–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie, Jane. 2006. Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science 15(2): 221–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, Jane. 1983. Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendelberg, Tali, and Christopher F. Karpowitz. 2006. How people deliberate about justice: Groups, gender, and decision rules. http://www.princeton.edu/~talim/RosenbergFeb82006.pdf. (accessed November 19, 2009).

  • National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, and Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. 2000. National nanotechnology initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution, supplement to President’s FY 2001 budget. Washington, DC: NSTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philbrick, Mark, and Javiera Barandiaran. 2009. National citizens’ technology forum: Lessons for the future. Science and Public Policy 36(5): 335–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, Maria, and Daniel Lee Kleinman. 2008. Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: The democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Understanding of Science 17: 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, Mihail C., and William Sims Bainbridge eds. 2002. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. NSF/DOC-sponsored research. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, Lynn M. 1997. Against deliberation. Political Theory 25: 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, Daniel. 1997. Social change and science policy. Issues in Science and Technology 13(4): 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield, Terre A., Mertz C.K., and Paul Slovic. 2004. Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis 24(1): 115–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J, and A Rip. 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 54(2–3): 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. 1995. Inquality re-examined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. 1997. Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: Norton, W.W. & Co. Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, Edward, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2007. Science policies for reducing societal inequities. Science and Public Policy 34(2): 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring, Gregor. 2008. Why NBIC? Why human performance enhancement? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences 21(1): 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Bryan. 1996. Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology, ed. Alan Irwin, and Bryan Wynne, 19–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper reports findings from the National Citizens Technology Forum (NCTF) held in March 2008. The research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) (grant # 0531194). I would also like to thank Dr. Michael Cobb, North Carolina State University, and Dr. Clark Miller, Arizona State University, for the survey data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ravtosh Bal

  2. Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Ravtosh Bal

Authors
  1. Ravtosh Bal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ravtosh Bal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Oak Brooke Way 1147, Atlanta, 30319, USA

    Susan E. Cozzens

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Jameson Wetmore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bal, R. (2010). Public Perceptions of Fairness in NBIC Technologies. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation