Abstract
Drawing on his experience in the Woodrow Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, as well as his experience in strategic planning and international development, Evan Michelson urges those interested in equity to engage with decision-makers. Michelson offers a number of lessons to help those with a desire to make the development of nanotechnology more equitable have a significant effect. He recommends that advocates aim to influence nano agenda setting as early as possible, develop proof of concept examples for pro-poor applications, build public and policymaking constituencies, communicate explicitly the anticipated equity and equality impacts, and use diverse empirical research methods.
Originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Barben, Daniel, Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and David Guston. 2008. Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd ed., eds. Edward J. Hackett, Olga Amsterdamska, Michael E. Lynch, and Judy Wajcman. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Damrongchai, Nares, and Evan S. Michelson. 2009. The future of science and technology and pro-poor applications. Foresight 11 (4): 51–65.
Davies, J. Clarence. 2008. Nanotechnology oversight: An agenda for the next administration. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/6709/pen13.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Fisher, Erik, and Roop L. Mahajan. 2006. Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development. Science and Public Policy 33: 5–16.
Fisher, Erik, Roop L. Mahajan, and Carl Mitcham. 2006. Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 26: 485–496.
Hansen, Steffen Foss, Evan S. Michelson, Anja Kamper, Pernille Borling, Frank Stuer-Lauridsen, and Anders Baun. 2008. Categorization framework to aid exposure assessment of nanomaterials in consumer products. Ecotoxicology 17: 438–447.
Hill, Christopher T. 2007. The post-scientific society. Issues in Science and Technology Fall 2007. http://www.issues.org/24.1/c_hill.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
International Council on Nanotechnology. 2008. Towards predicting nano-biointeractions: An international assessment of nanotechnology environment, health and safety research needs. Houston, TX: International Council on Nanotechnology. http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/ICON/emplibrary/ICON_RNA_Report_Full2.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Luoma, Samuel N. 2008. Silver nanotechnologies and the environment: Old problems or new challenges? Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7036/nano_pen_15_final.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Medley, Terry, and Scott Walsh. 2007. Nano risk framework. Washington, DC: Environmental Defense Fund and DuPont Corporation. http://www.edf.org/documents/6496_Nano%20Risk%20Framework.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Michelson, Evan S., David Rejeski, and Ronald Sandler. 2008. Nanotechnology. In From birth to death and bench to clinic: The Hastings Center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns, ed. Mary Crowley Garrison, 111–116. NY, The Hastings Center. http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2192. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Murphy, Brian. 2006. Green gospels: Environmental movement aims for religious mainstream. USA Today. July 6. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-07-06-greengospels_x.htm. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
National Research Council. 2009. Review of federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2008. The science of science policy: A federal research roadmap. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy. http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/NSTC%20Reports/39924_PDF%20Proof.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Osama, Athar. 2008a. Washington goes to Sand Hill Road: The federal government’s forays into the venture capital industry. Washington, DC: Foresight and Governance Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/docs/ResearchBrief_Osama_final.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Osama, Athar. 2008b. Fostering South-South research collaborations. Boston, MA: The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future, Boston University. http://www.bu.edu/pardee/files/documents/BU-Pardee-Policy-Paper-002-Research.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Parens, Erik, Josephine Johnston, and Jacob Moses. 2009. Ethical issues in synthetic biology: An overview of the debates. Washington, DC: Synthetic Biology Project, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.synbioproject.org/library/publications/archive/synbio3/. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Rejeski, David. 2007. Nanotechnology: Waiting for the killer app. Nanotechnology Now September 27. http://www.nanotech-now.com/columns/?article=117. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Sandler, Ronald. 2009. Nanotechnology: The social and ethical issues. Washington: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7060/nano_pen16_final.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Sandler, Ronald, and William D. Kay. 2006. The GMO-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society 26: 57–62.
Schultz, William B., and Lisa Barclay. 2009. A hard pill to swallow: Barriers to effective FDA regulation of nanotechnology-based dietary supplements. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/7056/pen17_final.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Sierra Club. 2008. Faith in action: Communities of faith bring hope to the planet. Washington, DC: Sierra Club. http://www.sierraclub.org/ej/downloads/faithinactionreport2008.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Taylor, Michael R. 2008. Assuring the safety of nanomaterials in food packaging: The regulatory process and key issues. Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. http://www.nanotechproject.org/process/assets/files/6704/taylor_gma_pen_packaging1.pdf. Accessed 25 Aug 2009.
Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and John A. Grim. 2001. Introduction: The emerging alliance of world religions and ecology. Daedalus 130 (4): 1–22.
Wagner, Caroline. 2008. The new invisible college: Science for development. Washington, DC: The Brookings Press.
Walsh, Scott, and Terry Medley. 2008. A framework for responsible nanotechnology. In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society: Vol. 1: Presenting Futures. eds. Erik Fisher, Cynthia Selin, and Jameson M. Wetmore. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Michelson, E.S. (2010). Nanotech Ethics and the Policymaking Process: Lessons Learned for Advancing Equity and Equality in Emerging Nanotechnologies. 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_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9614-2
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9615-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)