Dwarfing the Social? Nanotechnology Lessons From the Biotechnology Front

Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 28-33

  Einsiedel, Edna F ^a   Goldenberg, Linda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Ethics; Nanotechnology; Social impacts; Technology assessment

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; DECISION MAKING; DNA; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; NATURAL RESOURCES; SOCIAL ASPECTS;

ETHICS; SOCIAL IMPACTS;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 1642357569     PISSN: 02704676     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0270467604263110     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Anonymous. (1998, February 11). CGIAR urges halt to granting of intellectual property rights for designated plant germplasm. CGIAR News. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.worldbank.org/html/cgiar/press/germrel.html
2. Baber, Z. (2001). Globalization and scientific research: The emerging triple helix of state-industry-university relations in Japan and Singapore. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(5), 401-408.
3. Bach, F. H., Fishman, J., Daniels, N., Proimus, J., Anderson, B., Carpenter, C., et al. (1998). Uncertainty in xenotransplantation: Individual benefits versus collective risk. Nature Medicine, 4, 141-144.
4. Bauer, M., Kohring, M., Allansdottir, A., & Gutteling, J. (2001). The dramatization of biotechnology in elite mass media. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy. London: Science Museum.
5. Boyle, J. (1996). Shamans, software and spleens: Law and the construction of the information society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6. Bruns, B. (2001). Open sourcing nanotechnology research and development: Issues and opportunities. Nanotechnology, 12(3), 198-201.
7. Burke, D. (2003, March 12). This will be like no other debate. Times Higher Education Supplement, p. 13.
8. Canadian Chemical Producers Association. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.ccpa.ca/englisli/index.html
9. Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. (1998). Report of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association Expert Committee on rBST, Report to Health Canada, Ottawa.
10. Colvin, V. (2002). Responsible nanotechnology: Looking beyond the good news. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from www.eurekalert.org/context.php?context=nano&show=essays&essaydate=1102
11. Colvin, V. (2003). Testimony of Dr. Vicki L. Colvin, Director, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) and Associate Professor of Chemistry, Rice University, Houston, Texas before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science in regard to "Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003," April 9, 2003. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.ruf.rice.edu/cben/ColvinTestimony 040903.shtml
12. Drexler, K. E., & Peterson, C. (1992). Unbounding the future: The nanotechnology revolution. New York: Morrow.
13. Einsiedel, E. F. (2001). Cloning and its discontents. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 943-945.
14. Einsiedel, E. F. (2002). Assessing a controversial medical technology: Canadian public consultations on xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11(1), 1-17.
15. ETC Group Communique Issue #76. (2002). No small matter: Nanotech particles penetrate living cells and accumulate in animal organs. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/Comm_NanoMat_July02.pdf
16. ETC Group. (2003, January). The big down: From genomes to atoms. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf
17. Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Nielsen, T., Jelsoe, E., Kohring, M., et al. (2001). In the public eye: Representations of biotechnology in Europe. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-2000: The years of controversy (pp. 53-79). London: Science Museum.
18. Gollin, M. (1999). Legal consequences of biopiracy. Nature Biotechnology, 17, 1230-1239.
19. Heimer, C. (2001). Solving the problem of trust. In K. S. Cook (Ed.), Trust in society (pp. 55-81). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
20. Heller, M., & Eisenberg, R. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280, 698-701.
21. Joy, B. (2000, April). Why the future doesn't need us. Wired Magazine, 5(4). Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
22. Kantrowicz, A. (1990). The weapon of openness (Foresight Background Paper 4). Retrieved April 12, 2003, from www.foresight.org/Updates/Background4.html
23. Kleinman, D. L. (2000). Science, technology, and democracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24. Knight, H., & Pierce, J. (2003). A technology to kill. The Engineer, 20. Retrieved April 4, 2003, from www.e4engineering.com/theengineer.co...m.asp?id=48254=features
25. Langford, C. H., & Langford, M. W. (2003). Funding strategic university research in Canada. Unpublished manuscript, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
26. Levitt, N., & Gross, P. (1994). Higher superstition: The academic left and its quarrels with science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
27. Mehta, M. D. (2002a). Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society, 22(4), 269-273.
28. Mehta, M. D. (2002b, April). Regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology in Canada: A postnormal science approach for inclusion of the fourth helix. Paper presented at the International Workshop on Science, Technology, and Society - Lessons and Challenges, Singapore.
29. Mnyusiwalla, A., Daar, A., & Singer, P. (2003). "Mind the gap": Science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 14, 9-12.
30. National Nanotechnology Institute. (2004). Budget by agency. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.nano.gov/html/about/nnibudget.html
31. Peterson, C. (2003, April 9). Molecular manufacturing: Societal implications of advanced nanotechnology. Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science Hearings. Retrieved April 30, 2003, from www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/peterson.htm
32. Reuters News. (1999). Monsanto vows not to develop "Terminator Gene." Retrieved January 24, 2004, from www.biotech-info. net/monsantovows.html
33. Reynolds, G. (2001). Environmental regulation of nanotechnology: Some preliminary observations. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
34. Rip, A., Misa, T. J., & Schot, J. (1995). Constructive technology assessment: A new paradigm for managing technology in society. In A. Rip, T. J. Misa, & J. Schot (Eds.), Managing technology In society, the approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter.
35. Roco, M. (2002). Government nanotechnology funding: An international outlook. National nanotechnology initiative. Retrieved May 7, 2003, from www.nano.gov/intpersp_roco.html
36. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. (1999). Report of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons Expert Panel on Human Safety of rBST. Report to Health Canada, Ottawa.
37. Schulz, W. (2002, December 9). Nanotechnology under the scope. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://pubs.acs.org/cen/nanotechnology/nanoarchive.html.
38. Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.
39. Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203.
40. Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., von Bergmann-Winberg, M. L., Bridgman, E., Durant, J., & Einsiedel, E. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 21-94). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41. Wright, S. (2001). Legitimating genetic engineering. Foundation for the Study of Independent Social Ideas, Inc. Retrieved January 24, 2004, from http://www.biotech-info.net/legitimating. html
42. Wright, W. (1992). Wild knowledge: Science, language, and social life in a fragile environment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.