What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom government's nanotechnological regulatory Activities?

NanoEthics

Volumn 1, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 257-270

  Dorbeck Jung, Bärbel R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Governability; Governance; Legitimacy; Nanotechnological regulation; Prudent regulation; Responsive regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 37249083521     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-007-0022-7     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anderson A, Allan S, Petersen A, Wilkinson C (2005) The framing of nanotechnologies in the British newspaper press. Sci Commun 27:200-220
2. Asch P (1988) Consumer safety regulation, putting a price on life and limb. Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation: Transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press, Oxford
4. Bauer M (ed) (1997) Resistance to new technology: Nuclear power, information technology and biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
5. Black J (2002) Critical reflection on regulation, CARR Discussion Paper, Series 4. London School of Economics en Political Science, London
6. Bowman D, Van Calster G (2007) Does REACH go too far? Nat Nanotechnol 2:525-526
7. Coglianese C, Lazer D (2003) Management-based regulation: Prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law Soc Rev 37(4):691-728
8. De Burca G, Scott J (2006) Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Hart, Oxford
9. Dorbeck-Jung BR (1999) Realistic legisprudence, a multidisciplinary approach to the creation and evaluation of legislation. Associations 3(2):211-235
10. Dorbeck-Jung BR, Amerom M (2007) The hardness of soft law in United Kingdom regulatory activities related to nanotechnological development. Paper presented at the Author Conference The State Legislature and Non-State Law, Tilburg, 2007
11. Dorbeck-Jung BR, de Jong H (2000) Legitimate governance with the state. In: Wagenaar H (ed) Government instEtutions: effects, changes and normative foundations. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 109-127
12. Drexler E (1986) Engines of creation. Anchor, New York
13. Dupuy JP (2007) Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundation of nanoethics. J Med Philos 32:237-261
14. Dupuy JP, Grinbaum A (2004) Living with uncertainty: Towards a normative assessment of nanotechnology. Techné 8:4-25
15. EU (2004) Nanotechnologies. A preliminary risk analysis. http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/events_risk_en.htm
16. EU (2005) Commission of the European Communities. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009 [COM(2005) 243 final]
17. EU (2006) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on: nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009 (INT/277)
18. European Commission (2001) European Governance. (White Paper 428, Brussels: COM)
19. European Environment Agency (EEA) (2001) Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896-2000. Copenhagen. http://www.eea.eu.int
20. Franzius C (2001) Technikermöglichungsrecht. Die Verwaltung 34:487-516
21. Griffiths J (2003) The social working of legal rules. J Leg Plur Unoff Law 48:1-37
22. Gunningham N, Grabosky P (1998) Smart regulation. Designing environmental policy. Clarendon, Oxford
23. Haum R, Petschow U, Steinfeldt M (2004) Nanotechnology and regulation within the framework of the precautionary principle. IOW, Berlin
24. Hoffmann-Riem W (2000) Innovationssteuerung durch die Verwaltung. Die Verwaltung 33:155-173
25. International Risk Governance Council (2006) Nanotechnology, risk governance, White paper no. 2. IRGC, Geneva
26. Jopp K (2003) Nanotechnologie-Aufbruch ins Reich der Zwerge. Gabler, Wiesbaden
27. Kalil TA (2004) Next steps for the national nanotechnology initiative. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(1):55-62
28. Ladeur KH (2003) The introduction of the precautionary principle into EU law: A pyrrhic victory for environmental and public health law? Decision-making under conditions of complexity in multi-level political systems. Common Mark Law Rev 40(6):1455-1479
29. Lyall C, Tait J (2005) New modes of governance. Ashgate, Aldershot
30. Maynard AD et al (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267-269
31. Mehta M (2003) On nano-panoptocism. A sociological perspective. http://chem4823.usask.ca
32. Nonet P, Selznick P (1978) Law and society in transition. Toward responsive law. Harper, New York
33. Oakdene Hollins (2007) Environmentally beneficial nanotechnologies: barriers and opportunities. Report for the UK Department for environment, food and rural affairs (DEFR01 098 report.doc)
34. Ogus AI (1994) Regulation, legal form and economic theory. Clarendon, Oxford
35. Pierre J, Peters BG (2000) Governance, politics and the state. Macmillan, Houndsmills
36. Rhodes M (2005) Employment policy: Between efficacy versus experimentation in new modes of governance. In: Wallace H, Wallace W, Pollack M (eds) Policy-making in the European Union, 5th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 279-304
37. Rip A (2006a) The tension between fiction and precaution in nanotechnology. In: Fisher E, Jones J, von Schomberg R (eds) Implementing the precautionary principle. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 270-283
38. Rip A (2006b) A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance - and its ironies. In: Voss JP, Bauknecht D, Kemp R (eds) Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Incorporating unintended feedback in societal problem-solving. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
39. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2007) Nanotechnology: Societal implications II. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg New York
40. Rochlin GI (1997) Trapped in the net: The unanticipated consequences of computerization. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
41. Sandler R (2006) The GMO-nanotech (dis)anology. Bull Sci Technol Soc 26:57-62
42. Selznick P (1985) Focusing organizational research on regulation. In: Noll RG (ed) Regulatory policy and the social sciences. University of California Press, Berkely, pp 359-370
43. Selznick P (1992) The moral commonwhealth. Social theory and the promise of community. University of California Press, Berkeley
44. Sorensen KH, Williams R (2002) Shaping technology, guiding policy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
45. Sunstein C (1990) After the rights revolution. Reconceiving the regulatory state. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
46. Synder F (1995) The effectiveness of EC law. In: Daintith T (ed) Implementing EC law in the UK. Wiley, New York
47. Trubek DM, Cottrell P, Nance M (2006) Soft law, hard law and EU integration. In: De Burca G, Scott J (eds) Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Hart, Oxford, pp 343-364
48. Van Amerom M, Rip A (2007) Pattern in the co-evolution of nanotechnology and society. Paper presented at the Conference of the Deliberating Future Technologies, Basel University, 2007
49. Van Waarden F (1996) Regulation, competition and innovation. Report. Dutch Advisory Committee on Technology Policy, The Hague
50. Whitman J (2006) Governance challenges of technological systems convergence, bulletin of science. Technol Soc 26:398-409