David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 3 (1):43-59 (2009)
In order to explore public views on nanobiotechnology (NBT), convergence seminars were held in four places in Europe; namely in Visby (Sweden), Sheffield (UK), Lublin (Poland), and Porto (Portugal). A convergence seminar is a new form of public participatory activity that can be used to deal systematically with the uncertainty associated for instance with the development of an emerging technology like nanobiotechnology. In its first phase, the participants are divided into three “scenario groups” that discuss different future scenarios. In the second phase, the participants are regrouped into three “convergence groups”, each of which contains representatives from each of the three groups from the first phase. In the final third phase, all participants meet for a summary discussion. This pilot project had two aims: (1) to develop and assess the new methodology and (2) to gather advice and recommendations from the public that may be useful for future decisions on nanobiotechnology (NBT). Participants emphasized that they wanted the technology to focus on solutions to environmental and medical problems and to meet the needs of developing countries. The need for further public participation and deliberation on NBT issues seemed to be acknowledged by all participants. Many of them also raised equality concerns. Views on the means by which NBT should be steered into socially useful directions were more divided. In particular, different views were expressed on how much regulation of company activities is needed to curb unwanted developments. The participants’ responses in a questionnaire indicate that the methodology of the convergence seminars was successful for decision-making under uncertainty. In particular, the participants stated that their advice was influenced both by access to different possible future developments and by the points of view of their co-participants, which is what the method is specifically intended to achieve.
|Keywords||Convergence seminars Public participation Nanotechnology Nanobiotechnology Hypothetical retrospection Technology assessment Future studies Ethics|
|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
Marion Godman (2008). But is It Unique to Nanotechnology? Science and Engineering Ethics 14 (3):391-403.
Sven Ove Hansson (2004). Great Uncertainty About Small Things. Techne 8 (2):26-35.
Sven Ove Hansson (2007). Hypothetical Retrospection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (2):145 - 157.
Citations of this work BETA
Karim Jebari & Sven-Ove Hansson (2013). European Public Deliberation on Brain Machine Interface Technology: Five Convergence Seminars. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):1071-1086.
Payam Moula & Per Sandin (2015). Evaluating Ethical Tools. Metaphilosophy 46 (2):263-279.
Daan Schuurbiers, Susanne Sleenhoff, Johannes Jacobs & Patricia Osseweijer (2009). Multidisciplinary Engagement with Nanoethics Through Education—The Nanobio-RAISE Advanced Courses as a Case Study and Model. NanoEthics 3 (3):197-211.
Similar books and articles
Erik Schneiderhan & Shamus Khan (2008). Reasons and Inclusion: The Foundation of Deliberation. Sociological Theory 26 (1):1-24.
Laurel S. Gleason (2011). Revisiting “the Voice of the People”: An Evaluation of the Claims and Consequences of Deliberative Polling. Critical Review 23 (3):371-392.
Holger Mitterer, Yiya Chen & Xiaolin Zhou (2011). Phonological Abstraction in Processing Lexical-Tone Variation: Evidence From a Learning Paradigm. Cognitive Science 35 (1):184-197.
Elizabeth Soliday & Annette L. Stanton (1995). Deceived Versus Nondeceived Participants' Perceptions of Scientific and Applied Psychology. Ethics and Behavior 5 (1):87 – 104.
George Khushf (2007). Open Questions in the Ethics of Convergence. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (3):299 – 310.
Malcolm Parker (2007). Two Into One Won't Go: Conceptual, Clinical, Ethical and Legal Impedimenta to the Convergence of Cam and Orthodox Medicine. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 4 (1):7-19.
Joachim Schummer, From Nano-Convergence to NBIC-Convergence: “The Best Way to Predict the Future is to Create It”.
Steven Eggermont, Heidi Vandebosch & Stef Steyaert (2006). Towards the Desired Future of the Elderly and ICT: Policy Recommendations Based on a Dialogue with Senior Citizens. Poiesis and Praxis 4 (3):199-217.
Added to index2009-02-28
Total downloads26 ( #182,983 of 1,940,983 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #333,940 of 1,940,983 )
How can I increase my downloads?