Abstract
The central conclusion from the cumulative insights of the contributions to this volume is that existing regulatory systems and ethical frameworks are inadequate to provide effective, meaningful and timely oversight of the current and future generations of emerging technologies. Technologies such as genetics, robotics, information technologies, nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and neuroscience are racing forward at a pace of technology development that has never before been experienced in human history. In contrast, our traditional government oversight systems are mired in stagnation, ossification and bureaucratic inertia, and are seriously and increasingly lagging behind the new technologies accelerating into the future.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 2000. Hard and soft law in international governance. International Organizaion 54: 421–456.
Cross, F.B. 1996. Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Washington and Lee Law Review 53: 851–925.
Davies, J. Clarence. 2008. Nanotechnology oversight: An agenda for the new administration. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Technologies.
Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302: 1907–1912.
Fiorino, Daniel J. 2010. Nanoscale regulation (letter). Issues in Science and Technology (Winter): 10–12.
FramingNano Project. 2010. The FramingNano governance platform: A new integrated approach to the responsible development of nanotechnologies, Final Report.
Furger, Franco, & Francis, Fukuyama. 2007. Beyond bioethics: A proposal for modernizing the regulation of human biotechnologies. Innovations (Fall): 117–127.
Garmestani, Ahjond S., Craig R. Allen, and Heriberto Cabezas. 2009. Panarchy, adaptive management and governance: Policy options for building resilience. Nebraska Law Review 87: 1036–1054.
Gersen, Jacob E., and Eric A. Posner. 2008. Soft law: Lessons from congressional practice. Stanford Law Review 61: 573–627.
Gwinn, M.R., and V. Vallyathan. 2006. Nanoparticles: health effects – pros and cons. Environmental Health Perspectives 114: 1818–1825.
Harremoës, P., D. Gee, M. MacGarvin, A. Stirling, J. Keys, B. Wynne, and S.G. Vaz. 2001. Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. European Environmental Agency Environmental Issue Report No. 22, available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf.
Holling, C.S., ed. 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York: Wiley.
Holm, S., and J. Harris. 1999. Precautionary principle stifles discovery (letter). Nature 400: 398.
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2007. Nanotechnology risk governance. Geneva: IRGC.
Lee, Robert Lee, and P.D. Jose. 2008. Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20: 113–125.
Marchant, G.E. 2003. From general policy to legal rule: The aspirations and limitations of the precautionary principle. Environmental Health Perspectives 111: 1799–1803.
Marchant, G.E., and K.L. Mossman. 2004. Arbitrary and capricious: The precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. Washington: AEI Press.
Marchant, G., A. Meyer, and M. Scanlon. 2010. Integrating social and ethical concerns into regulatory decision-making for emerging technologies. Minnesota Journal Law Science and Technology 11: 345–363.
Marchant, Gary E., Douglas J. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott. 2009. What does the history of technology regulation teach us about nano oversight. Journal Law, Medicine and Ethics 37: 724–731.
Marchant, Gary E., Douglas J. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott. 2008. Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2: 43–60.
Moses, Lyria Bennett. 2007. Recurring dilemmas: The law’s race to keep up with technological change. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 2007: 239–285.
Raffensperger, C., and J. Tickner, eds. 1999. Protecting public health & the environment: Implementing the precautionary principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Ruhl, J.B. 2005. Regulation by adaptive management – Is it possible? Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 7: 21–57.
Sandin, P. 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5: 889–907.
Shapiro, Sidney A., and Robert L. Glicksman. 2003. Risk regulation at risk: Restoring a pragmatic approach. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Sunstein, C.R. 2003. Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151: 1003–1058.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Science policy council, nanotechnology white paper, EPA 100/B-07/001, available at http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marchant, G.E. (2011). Addressing the Pacing Problem. 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_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1355-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1356-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)