Knowledge transfer from citizens' panels to regulatory bodies in the domain of nano-enabled medical applications

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 125-142

  Evers, Johan ^a   D'Silva, Joel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Ethical principles; Interdisciplinarity; Knowledge transfer; Nanotechnology; Participatory Technology Assessment; Regulation

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; ETHICS; FUTURE PROSPECT; HEALTH CARE; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; INNOVATION; KNOWLEDGE; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; MEDICAL GEOGRAPHY; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY POLICY; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; THEORETICAL STUDY;

BELGIUM; BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 70350023530     PISSN: 13511610     EISSN: 14698412     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13511610902770685     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Abels, G., 2007. Citizen involvement in public policy-making: does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA. Interdisciplinary information sciences, 13 (1), 103-116.
2. Allhoff, F., Lin, P., Moore, J., and Weckert, J., 2007. Nanoethics. The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
3. Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F., 2001. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Deblonde, M., Van Oudheusden, M., Evers, J., and Goorden, L., 2008. Co-creating nanoimaginaries. Report of a Delphi exercise. Bulletin of science and technology, 28 (5), 372-89.
5. Decker, M. and Ladikas, M., 2004. Technology assessment in Europe: between method and impact (TAMI-project). Technikfolgenabschätzung - Theorie und Praxis, 13 (1), 71-80.
6. D'Silva, J., 2007. Nanotechnology: development, risk and regulation. Paper presented at the BILETA annual conference, Hertfordshire, 16-17 April 2007.
7. D'Silva J and Van Calster, G. 2008. Taking temperature - a review of European Union regulation in nanomedicine. Work in progress. Available from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract_1285099 [Accessed 14 December 2008].
8. Ebbesen, M., 2006. Ethics in nanotechnology: starting from scratch? Bulletin of science, technology and society, 26, 451-462.
9. EGE, 2007. Opinion on the ethical aspects of nanomedicine. The European Group of Ethics (EGE) in Science and New Technologies. European Commission of the European Communities.
10. Evers, J., Aerts, S., and De Tavernier, J., 2008. An ethical argument in favour of nano-enabled diagnostics in livestock disease control. Nano Ethics, 2 (2), 163-178.
11. Farrelly, C., 2007. Deliberative democracy and nanotechnology. In: F. Allhoff, P. Lin, J. Moore and J. Weckert, eds. Nanoethics. The ethical and social implications of nanotechnology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 215-224.
12. Genus, A., 2006. Rethinking constructive technology assessment as democratic, reflective, discourse. Technological forecasting and social change, 73 (1), 13-26.
13. Hennen, L., 1999. Uncertainty and modernity. Participatory technology assessment: a response to technical modernity? Science and public policy, 26 (5), 303-312.
14. Hermerén, G., 2006. European values, ethics and law. Present policies and future challenges. Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik, 11, 5-40.
15. Hunt, G., 2006. Nanotechnologies and society in Europe. In: G. Hunt and M. Mehta, eds. Nanotechnology. Risk, ethics and law. Science in Society Series. London: Earthscan, 92-104.
16. Jonas, H., 1985. The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
17. Kaiser, M., Millar, K., Thorstensen, E., and Tomkins, S., 2007. Developing the ethical matrix as a decision support framework: GM fish as a case study. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 20 (1), 65-80.
18. Kearnes, M. and Wynne, B., 2007. On nanotechnology and ambivalence: the politics of enthusiasm. NanoEthics, 1 (2), 131-142.
19. Klüver, L., et al., 2000. European participatory technology assessment (EUROPTA). Copenhagen: The Danish Board of Technology.
20. Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., and Wynne, B., 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: what role for the social sciences? Science communication, 27 (2), 1-24.
21. Marris, C., Wynn, B., Simmons, P., and Weldon, S., 2001. Public perceptions of agricultural biotechnologies in Europe (PABE). Commission of European Communities, Brussels.
22. McCarthy, J., 2003. Principilism or narrative ethics: must we choose between them? Journal of medical ethics: medical humanities, 29, 65-71.
23. Mehta, M.D. 2002. Regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology in Canada: a post-normal science approach for inclusion of the fourth helix. Presented at the International workshop on science, technology and society: lessons and challenges, National University of Singapore, 19 April 2002. Available from: http://www.nanoandsociety.com/ourlibrary/documents/mehta-nus-paper2002.pdf [Accessed 21 November 2008].
24. Mepham, B., 1996. Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: an evaluative framework. In: B. Mepham, ed. Food ethics. Routledge, London, 101-119.
25. Mepham, B., Kaiser, M., Thorstensen, E., Tomkins, S., and Millar, K., 2006. Ethical matrix. Manual. Ethical Bio-TA tools. The Hague: LEI.
26. Morgan, B. and Yeung, K., 2007. An introduction to law and regulation: text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 306-312.
27. Palm, E. and Ove Hansson, S., 2006. The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological forecasting and social change, 73, 543-558.
28. Ratner, M. and Ratner, D., 2003. Nanotechnology: a gentle introduction to the next big idea. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 108-119.
29. Rip, A., 2006. Folk theories of nanotechnologists. Science as culture, 15 (4), 349-365.
30. Rip, A. and Te Kulve, H., 2008. Constructive technology assessment and socio-technical scenarios. In: E. Fisher, C. Selin and J. M., Wetmore eds, The yearbook of nanotechnology in society, volume 1: presenting futures. Wetmore: Springer, 49-70.
31. Roszek, B., de Jong, W.H. and Geertsma, R.E., 2005. Nanotechnology in medical applications: stateof-the-art in materials and devices. RIVM report 265001001/2005. Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
32. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, technology and human values, 25 (1), 3-29.
33. Schmid, G., et al., 2006. Ethical aspects of nanotechnology. In: G. Scmidt, et al., eds. Nanotechnology: assessment and perspectives. Berlin: Springer, 400-438.
34. Schot, J. and Rip, A., 1997. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technological forecasting and social change, 54 (2-3), 251-268.
35. Schummer, J., 2007. Identifying ethical issues of nanotechnologies. In: H. Ten Have, ed. Nanotechnologies, ethics and politics. Ethics Series. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 78-98.
36. Swierstra, T. and Rip, A., 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nano Ethics, 1 (1), 3-20.
37. Swiertstra, T., Korthals, M., and Keulartz, J., 2002. You only live twice. Ethische tekorten in het omgaan met genomics. Wageningen: Wageningen University and Research Center Publications.
38. Tangwa, G.B., 2005. Morality and culture: are ethics culture dependent? In: F. Thiele and R.E. Ashcroft, eds, Bioethics in a small world, vol. 24. Ethics of Science and Technology Assessment, Berlin: Springer, 17-24.
39. UNESCO, 2006. The ethics and politics of nanotechnology. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
40. Van Calster, G., 2006. Regulating nanotechnology in the European Union. Nanotechnology, law and business, 3 (3), 359-372.
41. Van der Burg, W., 1991. The slippery slope argument. Ethics, 102 (1), 42-65.
42. Van Merkerk, R., 2007. Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies. A cTA of Lab-on-a-chip. Doctoral thesis, Koninlijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht.