Avoiding the trust deficit: Public engagement, values, the precautionary principle and the future of nanotechnology [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):37-48 (2009)
Debates about the regulatory requirements surrounding the introduction of nanotechnology products have, at least in Australia, remained largely within disciplinary boundaries and industry and academic circles. This paper argues for a more interdisciplinary and inclusive upstream debate about the introduction of ethical, regulatory and legal frameworks that may avoid the loss of public trust that has characterised the introduction of many new technologies in the past. Insights from risk-perception theory and research are used to introduce the notion of risk as narrative as a framework for action. This paper suggests three main strategies for moving forward; drawing insights from the “trust gap” experiences of other new technologies; the application of the active form of the precautionary principle; and, the creation of nano-futures that meet both community and industry values through effective public engagement.
|Keywords||Risk perception Risk communication Trust Values Precautionary principle Sustainability 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
Ulrich Beck, Wolfgang Bonss & Christoph Lau (2003). The Theory of Reflexive Modernization: Problematic, Hypotheses and Research Programme. Theory, Culture and Society 20 (2):1-33.
Diana M. Bowman & Karinne Ludlow (2009). Filling the Information Void: Using Public Registries as a Tool in Nanotechnologies Regulation. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):25-36.
Thomas Faunce, Katherine Murray, Hitoshi Nasu & Diana Bowman (2008). Sunscreen Safety: The Precautionary Principle, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration and Nanoparticles in Sunscreens. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (3):231-240.
Phil Macnaghten, , Matthew B. Kearnes & Brian Wynne, Nanotechnology, Governance, and Public Deliberation: What Role for the Social Sciences?
Tsjalling Swierstra & Arie Rip (2007). Nano-Ethics as NEST-Ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 1 (1):3-20.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Trond Grønli Åm (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 5 (1):15-28.
James Moor (2006). The Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):191-204.
Trond Åm (2011). Trust in Nanotechnology? On Trust as Analytical Tool in Social Research on Emerging Technologies. NanoEthics 5 (1):15-28.
Carl F. Cranor (2004). Toward Understanding Aspects of the Precautionary Principle. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):259 – 279.
Craig Cormick (2009). Why Do We Need to Know What the Public Thinks About Nanotechnology? NanoEthics 3 (2):167-173.
Steve Clarke (2005). Future Technologies, Dystopic Futures and the Precautionary Principle. Ethics and Information Technology 7 (3):121-126.
Renee Kyle & Susan Dodds (2009). Avoiding Empty Rhetoric: Engaging Publics in Debates About Nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (1):81-96.
E. Marchant Gary, J. Sylvester Douglas & W. Abbott Kenneth (2008). Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2 (1).
Gary E. Marchant, Douglas J. Sylvester & Kenneth W. Abbott (2008). Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2 (1):43-60.
Added to index2009-02-16
Total downloads20 ( #84,715 of 1,100,913 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #116,144 of 1,100,913 )
How can I increase my downloads?