What can prudent public regulators learn from the united kingdom government's nanotechnological regulatory activities?
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 1 (3):257-270 (2007)
This contribution discusses the United Kingdom (UK) government’s regulatory activities related to nanotechnological development. The central question is what other prudent public regulation can learn from the UK government’s regulatory strategy, its regulatory attitude and its large variety of regulatory measures. Other public regulators can learn from the interactive and integrative UK regulatory approach. They can also draw lessons from the critique on the UK government’s regulatory attitude and its problems to cope with specific nanotechnological challenges. These lessons are based on an evaluation of the UK government’s regulatory activities from the viewpoint of prudent regulation. The notion of responsive regulation, which provides basic ideas for the evaluation methodology, refers to a view on prudence that focuses on moral constitutional values. Interestingly, a similar view on prudence has been discussed in nanoethics.
|Keywords||Nanotechnological regulation Governance Governability Legitimacy Prudent regulation Responsive regulation|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Neelke Doorn (2013). Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance. NanoEthics 7 (1):29-43.
Matthias Fink, Rainer Harms & Isabella Hatak (2012). Nanotechnology and Ethics: The Role of Regulation Versus Self-Commitment in Shaping Researchers' Behavior. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 109 (4):569-581.
Stephen H. Cutcliffe, Christine M. Pense & Michael Zvalaren (2012). Framing the Discussion: Nanotechnology and the Social Construction of Technology--What STS Scholars Are Saying. NanoEthics 6 (2):81-99.
Similar books and articles
T. Randolph Beard, George S. Ford, Thomas Koutsky & Lawrence J. Spiwak, Developing a National Wireless Regulatory Framework: A Law and Economics Approach.
Cass R. Sunstein (1994). On Costs, Benefits, and Regulatory Success: Reply to Crandall. Critical Review 8 (4):623-633.
Laura Williamson, Marie Fox & Sheila McLean, The Regulation of Xenotransplantation in the United Kingdom After UKXIRA: Legal and Ethical Issues.
Sebastian Sethe & Alison Murdoch (2013). Comparing the Burden: What Can We Learn by Comparing Regulatory Frameworks in Abortion and Fertility Services? [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 21 (4):338-354.
Zahra Meghani & Jennifer Kuzma (2011). The “Revolving Door” Between Regulatory Agencies and Industry: A Problem That Requires Reconceptualizing Objectivity. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24 (6):575-599.
L. Katharine Harrington (1996). Ethics and Public Policy Analysis: Stakeholders' Interests and Regulatory Policy. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 15 (4):373 - 382.
Karinne Ludlow (2008). Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff. NanoEthics 2 (2):183-191.
Asolo Adeyeye Adewole (2007). Corporate Social Responsibility, Self-Regulation, and the Problems of Unethical Business Practices in Africa: A Case for the Establishment of a United Nations Global Business Regulatory Agency. International Corporate Responsibility Series 3:69-79.
Diana M. Bowman & Graeme A. Hodge (2008). A Big Regulatory Tool-Box for a Small Technology. NanoEthics 2 (2):193-207.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #177,741 of 1,410,135 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,743 of 1,410,135 )
How can I increase my downloads?