Southern roles in global nanotechnology innovation: Perspectives from thailand and australia [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 3 (2):137-156 (2009)
The term ‘nano-divide’ has become a catch-phrase for describing various kinds of global nanotechnology inequities. However, there has been little in-depth exploration as to what the global nano-divide really means, and limited commentary on its early nature. Furthermore, the literature often presents countries from the Global South as ‘passive’ agents in global nanotechnology innovation—without the ability to develop endogenous nanotechnology capabilities. Yet others point to nanotechnology providing opportunities for the South to play new roles in the global research and development process. In this paper I report on the findings of a qualitative study that involved the perspectives of 31 Thai and Australian key informants, from a broad range of fields. The study was supplemented by a survey of approximately 10% of the Thai nanotechnology research community at the time. I first explore how the global nano-divide is understood and the implication of the divide’s constructs in terms of the roles to be played by various countries in global nanotechnology innovation. I then explore the potential nature of Southern passivity and barriers and challenges facing Southern endogenous innovation, as well as an in-depth consideration of the proposition that Southern countries could be ‘active’ agents in the nanotechnology process. I argue that it is the nano-divide relating to nanotechnology research and development capabilities that is considered fundamental to nanotechnology’s Southern outcomes. The research suggests that Southern countries will encounter many of the traditional barriers to engaging with emerging technology as well as some new barriers relating to the nature of nanotechnology itself. Finally, the research suggests that nanotechnology may offer new opportunities for Southern countries to enter the global research and development picture.
|Keywords||Nanotechnology Global south Developing countries Innovation Research and development Nano-divide 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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Soraj Hongladarom (2009). Nanotechnology, Development and Buddhist Values. NanoEthics 3 (2):97-107.
Chris Toumey (2011). Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 5 (3):251-267.
Rosalyn W. Berne (2004). Towards the Conscientious Development of Ethical Nanotechnology. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (4):627-638.
Ann Johnson (2009). Modeling Molecules: Computational Nanotechnology as a Knowledge Community. Perspectives on Science 17 (2):pp. 144-173.
Armin Grunwald (2005). Nanotechnology — a New Field of Ethical Inquiry? Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (2):187-201.
Rosalyn W. Berne (2006). Nanotalk: Conversations with Scientists and Engineers About Ethics, Meaning, and Belief in the Development of Nanotechnology. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Joachim Schummer, The Global Institutionalization of Nanotechnology Research: A Bibliometric Approach to the Assessment of Science Policy.
Andrew Jamison (2009). Can Nanotechnology Be Just? On Nanotechnology and the Emerging Movement for Global Justice. NanoEthics 3 (2):129-136.
Craig Cormick (2009). Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks About Nanotechnology? NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Added to index2009-07-04
Total downloads16 ( #154,465 of 1,699,830 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,935 of 1,699,830 )
How can I increase my downloads?