Nanotechnology and Ethics: The Role of Regulation Versus Self-Commitment in Shaping Researchers' Behavior [Book Review]
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Business Ethics 109 (4):569-581 (2012)
|Abstract||The governance of nanotechnology seeks to limit its risks, without constraining opportunities. The literature on the effectiveness of approaches to governance has neglected approaches that impact directly on the behavior of a researcher. We analyze the effectiveness of legal regulations versus regulation via self-commitment. Then, we refine this model by analyzing competition and autonomy as key contingency factors. In the first step, qualitative interviews with nanotechnology researchers are conducted to reflect this model. In the second step, its empirical relevance is tested using a survey of 90 nanotech researchers. The results indicate that legal regulations, as well as self-commitment to an informal CoC reduce the scope of behavior. Finally, that competition and autonomy affect the relative strength of these governance factors|
|Keywords||Code of conduct Governance Legal regulation Nanotechnology Research behavior Self-commitment|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Katherine McComas (2012). Researcher Views About Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):699-717.
Ellen-Marie Forsberg (2012). Standardisation in the Field of Nanotechnology: Some Issues of Legitimacy. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):719-739.
Jennifer Kuzma & Aliya Kuzhabekova (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility for Nanotechnology Oversight. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (4):407-419.
Phil Macnaghten, , Matthew B. Kearnes & Brian Wynne, Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?
Armin Grunwald (2005). Nanotechnology — a New Field of Ethical Inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):187-201.
Chris Toumey (2011). Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology. Nanoethics 5 (3):251-267.
Robert McGinn (2010). Ethical Responsibilities of Nanotechnology Researchers: A Short Guide. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 4 (1):1-12.
David Hess (2008). The Three Pillars of Corporate Social Reporting as New Governance Regulation. Business Ethics Quarterly 18 (4):447-482.
S. W. Kelley, O. C. Ferrell & S. J. Skinner (1990). Ethical Behavior Among Marketing Researchers: An Assessment of Selected Demographic Characteristics. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 9 (8):681 - 688.
Robert Sparrow (2009). The Social Impacts of Nanotechnology: An Ethical and Political Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):13-23.
David Kinkela (2005). The Question of Success and Environmental Ethics: Revisiting the Ddt Controversy From a Transnational Perspective, 1967-72. Ethics, Place and Environment 8 (2):159 – 179.
Robert McGinn (2008). Ethics and Nanotechnology: Views of Nanotechnology Researchers. [REVIEW] Nanoethics 2 (2):101-131.
Ibo van de Poel (2008). How Should We Do Nanoethics? A Network Approach for Discerning Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2 (1):25-38.
Gary E. Marchant & Douglas J. Sylvester (2006). Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 34 (4):714-725.
Andreas Woyke (2007). „Nanotechnologie” Als Neue „Schlüsseltechnologie”? —Versuch Eines Historischen Und Systematischen Vergleichs Mit Anderen Technologien / "Nanotechnology" as a New Keytechnology?—An Attempt of a Historical and Systematical Comparison with Other Technologies. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 38 (2):329 - 345.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-08-16
Total downloads1 ( #292,723 of 738,751 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,778 of 738,751 )
How can I increase my downloads?