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)|
References found in this work BETA
Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society.Paul C. Stern & Harvey V. Fineberg (eds.) - 1996 - National Academies Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Nanotechnology and Ethics: The Role of Regulation Versus Self-Commitment in Shaping Researchers' Behavior. [REVIEW]Matthias Fink, Rainer Harms & Isabella Hatak - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 109 (4):569-581.
Framing the Discussion: Nanotechnology and the Social Construction of Technology--What STS Scholars Are Saying.Stephen H. Cutcliffe, Christine M. Pense & Michael Zvalaren - 2012 - NanoEthics 6 (2):81-99.
Similar books and articles
Risk and Distributive Justice: The Case of Regulating New Technologies.Maria Paola Ferretti - 2010 - Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (3): 501-515.
Avoiding the Trust Deficit: Public Engagement, Values, the Precautionary Principle and the Future of Nanotechnology. [REVIEW]Margaret Stebbing - 2009 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (1):37-48.
Risk-Driven Global Compliance Regimes in Banking and Accounting: The New Law Merchant.James Franklin - 2005 - Law, Probability and Risk 4 (4):237-250.
Risk, Fear, Blame, Shame and the Regulation of Public Safety.Jonathan Wolff - 2006 - Economics and Philosophy 22 (3):409-427.
Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk Management Models and Nanomedicine. [REVIEW]Joachim Schummer & Elena Pariotti - 2008 - NanoEthics 2 (1):39-42.
Varieties of Risk Representations.John Kadvany - 1997 - Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (3):123-143.
Antibiotic Resistance Due to Modern Agricultural Practices: An Ethical Perspective. [REVIEW]Joan Duckenfield - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):333-350.
Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology.E. Marchant Gary, J. Sylvester Douglas & W. Abbott Kenneth - 2008 - NanoEthics 2 (1):43-60.
Ethics of Risk Analysis and Regulatory Review: From Bio- to Nanotechnology. [REVIEW]Jennifer Kuzma & John C. Besley - 2008 - NanoEthics 2 (2):149-162.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads56 ( #92,929 of 2,163,629 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,037 of 2,163,629 )
How can I increase my downloads?