David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 2 (2):149-162 (2008)
Risk analysis and regulatory systems are usually evaluated according to utilitarian frameworks, as they are viewed to operate “objectively” by considering the health, environmental, and economic impacts of technological applications. Yet, the estimation of impacts during risk analysis and the decisions in regulatory review are affected by value choices of actors and stakeholders; attention to principles such as autonomy, justice, and integrity; and power relationships. In this article, case studies of biotechnology are used to illustrate how non-utilitarian principles are prominent in risk analysis and regulatory review and to argue that these relationships should be carefully considered as we consider nanotechnology oversight systems for its products. We argue that there are not distinct separations between “science-based” review systems, in which evaluations of the consequences of technological products are primarily considered, and principles of integrity, justice, non-maleficence, and autonomy. It should further be expected that, given research into fair treatment during decision-making processes, attention to ethics will affect how citizens assess emerging technologies. Finally, a more holistic approach for evaluating oversight systems for the products of nanotechnology is suggested, one which does not draw a sharp distinction between risk analysis, regulation, and respect for non-utilitarian values.
|Keywords||Agricultural biotechnology Risk Regulation Nanotechnology|
|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
Fern Wickson & Brian Wynne (2012). Ethics of Science for Policy in the Environmental Governance of Biotechnology: MON810 Maize in Europe. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (3):321 - 340.
Céline Kermisch (2012). Do New Ethical Issues Arise at Each Stage of Nanotechnological Development? NanoEthics 6 (1):29-37.
Jennifer Kuzma (2011). Allhoff, Fritz, Patrick Lin, and Daniel Moore. 2010. What is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter? From Science to Ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (2):209-211.
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.
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.
Similar books and articles
E. Marchant Gary, J. Sylvester Douglas & W. Abbott Kenneth (2008). Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2 (1).
Geert van Calster (2008). Risk Regulation, EU Law and Emerging Technologies: Smother or Smooth? [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (1):61-71.
Karinne Ludlow (2008). Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff. NanoEthics 2 (2):183-191.
Padmavati Manchikanti & Tapas K. Bandopadhyay (2010). Nanomaterials and Effects on Biological Systems: Development of Effective Regulatory Norms. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 4 (1):77-83.
Joan Duckenfield (2013). Antibiotic Resistance Due to Modern Agricultural Practices: An Ethical Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):333-350.
Maria Paola Ferretti (2010). Risk and Distributive Justice: The Case of Regulating New Technologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (3): 501-515.
Margaret Stebbing (2009). Avoiding the Trust Deficit: Public Engagement, Values, the Precautionary Principle and the Future of Nanotechnology. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):37-48.
Robert Sparrow (2009). The Social Impacts of Nanotechnology: An Ethical and Political Analysis. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):13-23.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #84,628 of 1,707,715 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #49,643 of 1,707,715 )
How can I increase my downloads?