Abstract
Scholars looking to promote the idea that public values, like equity, should guide scientific research often run into a tricky problem: who decides which values are most important? It can be a bit presumptuous for individual scholars to claim that they know what is best for the world and which values should be pursued. One recent technique developed to deal with this dilemma is Public Value Mapping or PVM. The basic idea behind PVM is that while deciding which values should be pursued by scientific institutions can open a can of worms in regards to representation and ethics, at the very least institutions should be held accountable for the values they public claim they are pursuing.
Keywords
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.
Originally presented at the Workshop on Nanotechnology, Equity, and Equality at Arizona State University on November 21, 2008.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agres, T. 2004. Opportunity awaits small thinkers. Drug Discovery and Development 7 (2): 15.
Anderson, M.M. 2006. Summer conference. Embryonic innovation: Path creation in nanotechnology. Paper presented at the DRUID Conference on Knowledge, Innovation and Competitiveness; Dynamics of Firms, Networks, Regions and Institutions, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bainbridge, W.S. 2004. Sociocultural meanings of nanotechnology: Research methodologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 6: 285–299.
Best, R., and G. Khushf. 2006. The social conditions for nanomedicine: Disruption, systems, and lock-in. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (4): 733–740.
Bozeman, B. 2003. Public value mapping of science outcomes: Theory and method. In Knowledge flows and knowledge collectives: Understanding the role of science and technology policies in development, ed. Daniel Sarewitz, 3–48. Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes. Vol 2.
Bozeman, B. 2007. Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Bozeman, B., and M. Gaughan. 2002. Public value mapping: The case of breast cancer research. New York, NY: Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes—Report to the Rockefeller Foundation.
Bozeman, B., P. Laredo, and V. Mangematin. 2007. Understanding the emergence and deployment of ‘nano’ SandT: Introduction. Research Policy 36 (6): 807–812.
Bozeman, B., and D. Sarewitz. 2005. Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy 32 (2): 119–136.
Bruner, D.W., M. Jones, D. Buchanan, and J. Russo. 2006. Reducing cancer disparities for minorities: A multidisciplinary research agenda to improve patient access to health systems, clinical trials, and effective cancer therapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology 24 (14): 2209–2215.
Cicatiello, J.S. 2000. A perspective of health care in the past: Insights and challenges for a health care system in the new millennium. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 25 (1): 18–23.
Colon-Otero, G., R.C. Smallridge, L.A. Solberg Jr., T.D. Keith, T.A. Woodward, F. B. Willis, et al. 2008. Disparities in participation in cancer clinical trials in the United States. Cancer 112 (3): 447–454.
De Melo-Martin, I. 2009. Creating reflective Spaces: Interactions between philosophers and biomedical scientists. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52 (1): 39–47.
Emerich, D.F., and C.G. Thanos. 2003. Nanotechnology and medicine. Expert Opinion On Biological Therapy 3 (4): 655–657.
Faunce, T., and K. Shats. 2007. Researching safety and cost-effectiveness in the life cycle of nanomedicine. Journal Of Law And Medicine 15 (1): 128.
Feeney, M.K., and B. Bozeman. 2007. Public values and public failure. Public Integrity 9 (2): 175–190.
Fisher, E., and R.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, E., C. Selin., and J. Wetmore, eds. 2008. The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, Vol. 1: Presenting Futures. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.
Ford, J.G., M.W. Howerton, G.Y. Lai, T.L. Gary, S. Bolen, M.C. Gibbons, et al. 2008. Barriers to recruiting underrepresented populations to cancer clinical trials: A systematic review. Cancer 112 (2): 228–242.
Garber, M., and R. Arnold. 2006. Promoting the participation of minorities in research. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3): W14–W20.
Getz, K., and L. Faden. 2008. Racial disparities among clinical research investigators. American Journal of Therapeutics 15 (1): 3–11.
Goorden, L., M. Van Oudheusden, J. Evers, and M. Deblonde. 2008. Nanotechnologies for tomorrow’s society: A case for reflective action research in Flanders, Belgium, In The Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, Vol. 1: Presenting Futures, ed. E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. Wetmore. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media.
Gupta, A. 2002. Ensuring ‘safe use’ of biotechnology in India: Key challenges. Economic and Political Weekly 6: 2762–2769.
Guston, D.H. 2000. Between politics and science: Assuring the integrity and productivity of research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Guston, D.H. 2008. Innovation policy: Not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454 (7207): 940–941.
Guston, D.H., and Sarewitz, D. 2002. Real-time technology Assessment. Technology in Society 24: 93–109.
Healthy People 2010 and United States Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy people 2010: Understanding and improving health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Heath, J.R., and M.E. Davis. 2008. Nanotechnology and cancer. Annual Review of Medicine 59: 251–265.
Hede, S., and N. Huilgol. 2006. ‘Nano’: The new nemesis of cancer. Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics 2 (4): 186–195.
Kahn, K.L. 2008. Moving research from bench to bedside to community: There is still more to do. Journal of Clinical Oncology 26 (4): 523–526.
Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky, eds. 2000. Choices, values and frames. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lenk, C., and N. Biller-Andorno. 2007. Nanomedicine-emerging or re-emerging ethical issues? A discussion of four ethical themes. Medicine, Health Care, And Philosophy 10 (2): 173–184.
Long, J.A., V.W. Chang, S.A. Ibrahim, and D.A. Asch. 2004. Update on the health disparities literature. Annals of Internal Medicine 141: 805–812.
Mehta, M.D. 2004. The future of nanomedicine looks promising, but only if we learn from the past. Health Law Review 13: 16–18.
Murashov, V., and J. Howard. 2008. The U.S. must help set international standards for nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 3: 635–636.
Murthy, V.H., H.M. Krumholz, and C.P. Gross. 2004. Participation in cancer clinical trials: Race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association 291 (22): 2720–2726.
National Cancer Institute. 2006. The NCI strategic plan for leading the nation to eliminate the suffering and death due to cancer (No. NIH Publication No. 06-5773). Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and Human Services.
National Science and Technology Council. 2008. The science of science policy: A federal research roadmap. Report on the Science of Science Policy to the National Science and Technology Council, Office of Science and Technology Policy. November.
Nelson, R. 2000. The sources of economic growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Norton, B., and D. Noonan. 2007. Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed. Ecological Economics 63 (4) 664–675.
Pinto, H.A., W. McCaskill-Stevens, P. Wolfe, and A.C. Marcus. 2000. Physician perspectives on increasing minorities in cancer clinical trials: An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) initiative. Annals of Epidemiology, 10 (8 Suppl): S78–284.
Resnik, D.B., and S.S. Tinkle. 2007. Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine. Contemporary Clinical Trials 28: 433–441.
Roco, M.C., and W.S. Bainbridge. 2005. Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7, 1–13.
Romig Jr, A.D., A.B. Baker, J. Johannes, T. Zipperian, K. Eijkel, B. Kirchhoff, H.S. Mani, C.N.R. Rao, and S. Walsh. 2007. An introduction to nanotechnology policy: Opportunities and constraints for emerging and established economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74: 1634–1642.
Sarewitz, D., and E. Woodhouse. 2003. Small is powerful. In Living with the genie: Essays on technology and the quest for human mastery, ed. A.P. Lightman, D.R. Sarewitz, and C. Desser, 307–336. Washington, DC: Island.
Scheufele, D.A., E.A. Corley, T. Shih, K. Dallrymple, and S. Ho. 2009. Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the U.S. Nature Nanotechnology 4 (2): 91–94.
Scheufele, D.A. and B.V. Lewenstein. 2005. The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 7:651–667.
Slade, C. Forthcoming. Public value mapping of equity in emerging nanomedicine. Minerva.
Sparrow, R. 2009. The social implications of nanotechnology: An ethical and political analysis, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1): 13–23.
Swanson, G.M., and A.J. Ward. 1995. Recruiting minorities into clinical trials toward a participant-friendly system. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87: 1747–1759.
Wonglimpiyarat, J. 2005. The nano-revolution of Schumpeter’s Kondratieff cycle. Technovation 25: 1349–1354.
Yancy, C.W. 2008. Race-based therapeutics. Current Hypertension Reports 10: 276–285.
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
Slade, C.P. (2010). Exploring Societal Impact of Nanomedicine Using Public Value Mapping. 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_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_4
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)