David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
NanoEthics 2 (1):61-71 (2008)
Risk analysis as a regulatory driver has now become firmly entrenched in public health and environmental protection. Risk analysis at any level essentially has to accommodate two gut feelings of the constituency: whether society should be risk-prone or risk averse, and whether government and its institutions can be trusted to make the necessary decisions with a high or a low degree of discretion. The precautionary principle (or rejection thereof) arguably is the ultimate reflection of the promotion of risk to a societal value. There is no doubt that especially amongst the representatives of the Member States (as opposed to the officials at the European Commission), public (pre)caution with respect to the long-term environmental and public health implications of gene technology influenced the reluctance to allow marketing of GM foods and feeds until a strict regulatory regime had been rolled out. Industry would argue that the delay in regulation, as well as the eventual regime was of such a nature as to stifle the technology. This contribution reviews a number of features of standard EU risk analysis decisions, so as to assess its current propensity towards smothering rather than smoothing the introduction of new technology. The current development of a regulatory framework for nanotechnology serves as a case study.
|Keywords||Emerging technologies Law Nanotechnology Regulation Risk analysis|
|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
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.
Stephen H. Cutcliffe, Christine M. Pense & Michael Zvalaren (2012). Framing the Discussion: Nanotechnology and the Social Construction of Technology--What STS Scholars Are Saying. NanoEthics 6 (2):81-99.
Similar books and articles
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.
James Franklin (2005). Risk-Driven Global Compliance Regimes in Banking and Accounting: The New Law Merchant. Law, Probability and Risk 4 (4):237-250.
Jonathan Wolff (2006). Risk, Fear, Blame, Shame and the Regulation of Public Safety. Economics and Philosophy 22 (3):409-427.
Joachim Schummer & Elena Pariotti (2008). Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk Management Models and Nanomedicine. [REVIEW] NanoEthics 2 (1):39-42.
John Kadvany (1997). Varieties of Risk Representations. Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (3):123-143.
Joan Duckenfield (2013). Antibiotic Resistance Due to Modern Agricultural Practices: An Ethical Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):333-350.
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 index2009-01-28
Total downloads20 ( #85,199 of 1,101,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #81,804 of 1,101,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?