Abstract
This paper aims to look for a model of responsibility that could work in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. In order to achieve this, a methodology founded on the comparison with another ‘converging science’ – the so-called synthetic biology (henceforth ‘synbio’) – has been chosen. The analysis is developed in two ways: (a) a brief summary of the similarities and differences between synbio and nanotechnology, and (b) the examination of the associated risks and the possible ways of dealing with them. The paper presents the most common model of governance of risks towards new emerging technologies, i.e., a pattern based on the three phases of ‘risk assessment, risk management and risk communication’. It also examines the precautionary and proactionary principles, that are the main principles adopted within such a model, and it demonstrates their limits and problematic aspects, thereby showing that they are insufficient and non-operable for a complete governance of risks for nanotechnologies and synbio. Therefore, this paper proposes the consideration of the meaningful contribution of the Report New directions. The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, drafted by the US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI) in December 2010. In particular, this analysis suggests that the principle of responsible stewardship, which is mentioned therein, appears to be the most suitable and proper basis for building a rational, balanced, transparent, complete, cooperative, and dynamic model of governance and responsibility of emerging technologies.
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 subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
So begins St. John’s Gospel.
- 2.
As we know, one ‘nano’ is one billionth of a meter or 10−9.
- 3.
See, for example, Deplazes (2009), who proposes a subdivision in bioingeneering, synthetic genomics, protocell synthetic biology, unnatural molecular biology, in-silico approach; O’Malley et al. (2008), who suggests only a division in DNA-based device construction, genome-driven cell engineering and protocell creation.
- 4.
Beyond top-down and bottom-up approaches, there are: the functional approach (seeking to develop components of a desired functionality without regard to how they might be assembled), and the biomimetic approach (applying biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology). See Boncheva and Whitesides (2004).
- 5.
These principles influence the way of developing the phase of ‘risk assessment’ and ‘risk communication’ as well.
- 6.
Historically, the notion of ‘responsible stewardship’ was almost exclusively referred to the household servant’s duties for bringing food and drink to the castle’s dining hall, and then it was associated with managerial skills relating to property and income; nowadays, it is applied to the commercial field (i.e., service towards passengers on ships, trains, airplanes or guests in restaurants) and, in a more recent perspective, to the environmental field, as a new type of approach to assume towards nature and biodiversity.
- 7.
The theory of the three generations of rights was proposed by Karel Vasak (1977). This vision suggests that there is a first generation of rights represented by civil and political rights (typical of liberal societies), a second generation for economic, social and cultural life (connected with the welfare state), and a third generation that includes group and collective rights, the right to self-determination, the right to economic and social development, the right to a healthy environment, the right to natural resources, the right to communicate, the right to participation in cultural heritage, and the rights to intergenerational equity and sustainability.
References
Allhoff, F. 2009. Risk, precaution, and emerging technologies. Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 3(2): 1–27.
Anderson, J., et al. 2012. Engineering and ethical perspectives in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports 13(7): 584–590.
Aven, T. 2008. Risk analysis: Assessing uncertainties beyond expected values and probabilities. Chichester: Wiley.
Bachmann, A. 2007. Synthetic nanoparticles and the precautionary principle. An ethical analysis. Resource document. Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology. http://www.ekah.admin.ch/fileadmin/ekah-dateien/dokumentation/gutachten/e-Gutachten-Synthetische-Nanopartikel-2007.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Ball, P. 2005. Synthetic biology for nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 16(1): R01–R08.
Beck, U. 1992. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. New Delhi: Sage.
Beyleveld, D., and R. Brownsword. 2012. Emerging technologies, extreme uncertainty, and the principle of rational precautionary reasoning. Law, Innovation, and Technology 4(1): 35–65.
Bhutkar, A. 2005. Synthetic biology: Navigating the challenges ahead. The Journal of Biolaw and Business 8(2): 19–29.
Block, P. 2013. Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Boncheva, M., and G.M. Whitesides. 2004. Biomimetic approaches to the design of functional, self-assembling systems. In Dekker encyclopedia of nanoscience and nanotechnology, 287–294. Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
Buchanan, A., and R. Powell. 2010. The ethics of synthetic biology: Suggestions for a comprehensive approach. Resource document. US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, PCSBI. http://bioethics.gov/cms/sites/default/files/The-Ethics-of-Synthetic-Biology-Suggestions-for-a-Comprehensive-Approach.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Calladine, A.M., and R.T. Meulen. 2012. Defining synthetic biology. In Encyclopaedia of applied ethics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Calvert, J., and P. Martin. 2009. The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Reports 10(3): 201–204.
Cello, J., et al. 2002. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297: 1016–1018.
Chapin III, F.S., G.P. Kofinas, and C. Folke. 2009. Principles of ecosystem stewardship: Resilience-based natural resource management in a changing world. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cheshire, W.P. 2002. Toward a common language of human dignity. Ethics and Medicine 18(2): 7–10.
Clarke, S. 2005. Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology 7(3): 121–126.
Colussi, I.A. 2013. Synthetic biology between challenges and risks: Suggestions for a model of governance and a regulatory framework, based on fundamental rights. Review of Law and the Human Genome 38: 185–216.
Dando, M. 2009. Dual-use education for life scientists? Ideas for peace and security. Disarmament Forum 10(2): 41–44.
De Lorenzo, V. 2008. Systems biology approaches to bioremediation. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 19(6): 579–589.
De Vriend, H. 2006. Constructing life. Early social reflections on the emerging field of synthetic biology. Resource document. Rathenau Institute. http://www.cisynbio.com/pdf/Constructing_Life_2006.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Deplazes, A. 2009. Piecing together a puzzle. An exposition of synthetic biology. EMBO Reports 10(5): 428–432.
Dietrich, J., and E. Steen. 2007. Policy initiatives for safe realization of synthetic biology’s power. White paper. Science, Technology, and Engineering Policy Group. http://step.berkeley.edu/White_Paper/DietrichSteen.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Drexler, K.E. 1986. Engines of creation. New York: Anchor.
Eggers, J., et al. 2009. Is biofuel policy harming biodiversity in Europe? Global Change Biology Bioenergy 1(1): 18–34.
ETC Group. 2003. From genomes to atoms. The big down. Atomtech: Technologies converging at the nano-scale. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/big-down. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.
ETC Group. 2005. A tiny primer on nano-scale technologies and ‘the little bang theory’. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/tiny-little-primer-nano-scale-technology-and-little-bang-theory. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.
European Commission. 2000. Communication on the precautionary principle COM (2000) 1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2000:0001:FIN:EN:PDF. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Feynman, R.P. 1959. There’s plenty of room at the Bottom. http://www.pa.msu.edu/~yang/RFeynman_plentySpace.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Furnass, B. 2012. From anthropocene to sustainocene. Challenges and opportunities. Public lecture. Australian National University, 21 Mar 2012. http://billboard.anu.edu.au/event_view.asp?id=85103.http://www.anu.edu.au/emeritus/events/docs/From_Anthropocene_to_Sustainocene_text_only_150512.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Garfinkel, M.S., et al. 2007. Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. J. C. Venter Institute. http://www.synbiosafe.eu/uploads///pdf/Synthetic%20Genomics%20Options%20for%20Governance.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Gervais, D. 2010. The regulation of inchoate technologies. Houston Law Review 47(3): 666–705.
Gibson, D.G., J.I. Glass, C. Lartigue, V.N. Noskov, R.-Y. Chuang, et al. 2010. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329: 52–56.
Glass, J.I., N. Assad-Garcia, N. Alperovich, S. Yooseph, M.R. Lewis, M. Maruf, et al. 2006. Essential genes of a minimal bacterium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(2): 425–430.
Gouvernement du Québec. 2006. Position statement. Ethics and nanotechnology: A basis for action. Summary, recommendations and commentaries. Commission de l’éthique de la science et de la technologie. http://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/fr/assets/documents/Nano/AvisNano_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.
Graham, J.D. 2004. The perils of the precautionary principle: Lessons from the American and European experience. The Heritage Foundation. http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-perils-of-the-precautionary-principle-lessons-from-the-american-and-european-experience. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Grunwald, A. 2005. Nanotechnology – A new field of ethical inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics 11: 187–201.
High-Level Expert Group of the European Commission. 2005. Synbiology. An analysis of synthetic biology research in Europe and North America. http://www2.spi.pt/synbiology/documents/SYNBIOLOGY_Literature_And_Statistical_Review.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Hobom, B. 1980. Gene surgery: On the threshold of synthetic biology. Medizinische Klinik 75(24): 834–841.
Journal Editors and Authors Group. 2003. Joint statement on scientific publication and security. Uncensored exchange of scientific results. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100(4): 1464.
Joy, B. 2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Kirby, J.R. 2010. Synthetic biology: Designer bacteria degrades toxin. Nature Chemical Biology 6(6): 398–399.
Kysar, D.A. 2004. Climate change, cultural transformation, and comprehensive rationality. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 31(3): 555–590.
Manson, N.A. 2002. Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental Ethics 24(3): 263–274.
Marchant, G.E., D.G. Sylvester, and K.W. Abbott. 2008. Risk management principles for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2(1): 43–60.
Mast, E.E., and J.W. Ward. 2008. Hepatitis B vaccines. In Vaccines, ed. S. Plotkin, W. Orenstein, and P. Offit, 205–242. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Maynard, A.D. 2006. Nanotechnology: The next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Annals of Occupational Hygiene 51(1): 1–12.
Miller, G. 2006. Nanomaterials, sunscreens, and cosmetics: Small ingredients, big risks. Resource document. Friends of the Earth. http://nano.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/FoEA%20nano%20cosmetics%20report%202MB.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
More, M. 2005. The proactionary principle. http://www.ethique.gouv.qc.ca/fr/assets/documents/Nano/AvisNano_EN.pdf. Accessed 24 june 2014.
More, M. 2006. Proactionary nano-policy: Managing massive decisions for tiny technologies. The Journal of Geoethical Nanotechnology. http://www.terasemjournals.org/GNJournal/GN0102/more_01a.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Murray, T.H. 2011. What synthetic genomes mean for our future: Technology, ethics, and law, interests and identities. Valparaiso University Law Review 45(1): 1315–1342.
NanoAction. 2008. Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. http://nanoaction.org/nanoaction/doc/nano-02-18-08.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
O’Malley, M.A., A. Powell, J.F. Davies, and J. Calvert. 2008. Knowledge-making distinctions in synthetic biology. Bioessays 30(1): 57–65.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2003. Emerging risks in the 21st century: An agenda for action. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/23/37944611.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Paddock, L. 2006. Keeping pace with nanotechnology: A proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. Environmental Law Reporter News and analysis 36(12): 10943–10952.
Pathak, R.S. 1992. The human rights system as a conceptual framework for environmental law. In Environmental change and international law, ed. E.B. Weiss, 205–243. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Rawls, R. 2000. ‘Synthetic biology’ makes its debut. Chemical and Engineering News 78(17): 49–53.
Ro, D.K., et al. 2006. Production of the antimalarial drug precursor artemisinic acid in engineered yeast. Nature 440: 940–943.
Robinson, J.S., M.S. Walid, and A.C.M. Barth. 2012. Toward healthcare resource stewardship: Health care issues, costs, and access. New York: Nova Science.
Roco, M. 2006. Risk governance for nanotechnology. IRGC workshop. http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/Mike_Roco_Risk_Governance_for_Nanotechnology_.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Sandin, P. 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 5(5): 889–907.
Sandin, P. 2006. A paradox out of context: Harris and Holm on the precautionary principle. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15(2): 175–183.
Savage, D.F., J. Way, and P.A. Silver. 2008. Defossiling fuel: How synthetic biology can transform biofuel production. American Chemical Society Chemical Biology 3(1): 13–16.
Schmidt, M. 2009. Do I understand what I can create? Biosafety issues in synthetic biology. In Synthetic biology. The technoscience and its societal consequences, ed. M. Schmidt, A. Kelle, A. Ganguli, and H. De Vriend, 81–100. New York: Springer.
Science and Environmental Health Network. 1998. Wingspread consensus statement on the precautionary principle. http://www.sehn.org/wing.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Scrinis, G., and K. Lyons. 2010. Nanotechnology and the techno-corporate agri-food paradigm. In Food security, nutrition and sustainability: New challenges, future options, ed. G. Lawrence, K. Lyons, and T. Wallington, 252–270. London: Earthscan.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2000. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity: Text and annexes. http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Serrano, L. 2007. Synthetic biology: Promises and challenges. Molecular Systems Biology 3: 158.
Slovic, P. 2000. The perception of risk. London: Earthscan.
Soule, E. 2000. Assessing the precautionary principle. Public Affairs Quarterly 14: 309–328.
Stokes, E. 2009. Regulating nanotechnologies: Sizing up the options. Legal Studies 29(2): 281–304.
Stone, C.D. 2001. Is there a precautionary principle? Environmental Law Repertory 31(7): 10790.
Sunstein, C.R. 2002. Risk and reason: Safety, law and the environment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C.R. 2005. Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swiss Re. 2004. Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns. http://www.temas.ch/IMPART/IMPARTProj.nsf/35370CF58146AD0FC125736300496D94/$FILE/SwissRe_Nano_en.pdf?OpenElement&enetarea=02. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.
Synthetic Genomics Inc. 2009. Agricultural products. http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/what/agriculture.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Szostak, J.W., D.P. Bartel, and P.L. Luisi. 2001. Synthesizing life. Nature 409: 387–390.
Szybalski, W. 1974. In vivo and in vitro initiation of transcription. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 44(1): 23–24.
Teshome Demissie, H. 2008. Taming matter for the welfare of humanity: Regulating nanotechnology. In Regulating technologies. Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes, ed. R. Brownsword and K. Yeung, 327–356. Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.
The Royal Society. 1992. Risk, analysis, perception, management. London: The Royal Society.
The Royal Society, and The Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: The Royal Society.
Tumpey, T.M., et al. 2005. Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science 310: 77–80.
UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. 2009. The dual-use dilemma. http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn340.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
United Nations. 1972. Stockholm declaration. Conference on the human environment. http://hqweb.unep.org/. Accessed 30 Mar 2012.
United Nations. 1982a. World charter on nature (G.A. Res. 37/7. 11, UN Doc). A/RES/37/7. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/37/a37r007.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
United Nations. 1982b. Conventions on the law of the sea. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
United Nations. 1992a. Rio declaration on environment and development. Conference on environment and development. http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=78&articleid=1163. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
United Nations. 1992b. Framework convention on climate change. Conference on environment and development. http://unfccc.int/2860.php. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
United Nations. 1992c. Convention on biological diversity. Conference on environment and development. http://www.cbd.int/. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
US National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research. 1979. The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html. Accessed 24 Jun 2014.
US National Science and Technology Council. 1999. Nanotechnology research directions. IWGN workshop report. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Research.Directions/IWGN_rd.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
US Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, PCSBI. 2010. The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, DC: US Presidential Commission.
Vasak, K. 1977. Human rights: a thirty-year struggle: The sustained efforts to give force of law to the universal declaration of human rights. Paris: UNESCO.
Weir, L., and M.J. Selgelid. 2009. Professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology 3(1–4): 91–97.
Whittall, H. 2009. The ethics of synthetic biology. In Ethical aspects of synthetic biology, ed. The European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission, 27. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
World Health Organization (WHO). 2006. Biorisk management: Laboratory biosecurity guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Trade Organization (WTO). 1994. Agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS Agreement). http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e.htm. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
World Youth Alliance (WYA). 2002. Declaration on responsible stewardship for the world summit on sustainable development. http://www.wya.net/getinvolved/declarationsandstatements/declarationonresponsiblestewardship.html. Accessed 20 Dec 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Colussi, I.A. (2014). The Role of Responsible Stewardship in Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology. In: Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., Marin, F. (eds) Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9102-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9103-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)