Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
NanoEthics
Published in: NanoEthics 1/2013

01-04-2013 | Original Paper

Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance

Author: Neelke Doorn

Published in: NanoEthics | Issue 1/2013

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Soft regulatory measures are often promoted as an alternative for existing regulatory regimes for nanotechnologies. The call for new regulatory approaches stems from several challenges that traditional approaches have difficulties dealing with. These challenges relate to general problems of governability, tensions between public interests, but also (and maybe particularly) to almost complete lack of certainty about the implications of nanotechnologies. At the same time, the field of nanotechnology can be characterized by a high level of diversity. In this paper, we discuss and compare two models for framing public policy in relation to technology regulation: the first is a deliberative model based on foresight knowledge and the second the wide reflective equilibrium model, developed by political philosopher John Rawls. In both models, the aim is to find consensus on (a framework for) policy measures and regulation. On the basis of a critical discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of both models, some tentative conclusions are drawn for effective policy making and implementation based on soft law.
previous article Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications
next article DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: an Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Footnotes
1
Although this claim may in general be true, it should be noted that many technologies are being developed in a host of other contexts, such as the military sector, which are not always uncontroversial. The notion of dual-use technology has been introduced to refer to research and technology with the potential both to yield valuable scientific knowledge and to be used for purposes with potentially serious detrimental consequences. Although dual-use is as old as engineering and design, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and recent developments in the life sciences have renewed the attention for the topic [85]. The moral assessment of dual-use technologies and the prevention of its harmful use is currently one of the most debated topics engineering ethics (cf. the recent special issue on “The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use” in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics; [71]).
 
2
It should be noted that both hard and soft regulation may have compliance problems. Compliance in the case of hard regulation may be critical because the regulated parties are not involved in rule making. Compliance in the case of soft and self-regulation may be critical if it is fully dependent on the on-going commitment, motivation, and goodwill of the individual organizations alone [5].
 
3
Critics of consensus policy often warn that the promotion of consensus is coercive, notwithstanding its democratic aims. The promotion of consensus runs the risk of prioritizing the interests of the most powerful, these critics argue; under the sway of deliberation, the goal of consensus can all too easily be equated with the interests of the powerful (see, for example, the work of Iris Marion Young [98, 99] or Chantal Mouffe [48, 49]). For reasons of space, we cannot go into detail in this discussion, but we agree that not any consensus is a democratic outcome and we therefore explicitly added the criteria of fairness and legitimacy, distinguishing a democratic consensus from a mere compromise or modus vivendi. In case of the latter, people come to an agreement on the basis of some process of negotiation in which power relations and mutual dependencies play a crucial role.
 
4
Formally, the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (available at http://​www.​unece.​org/​env/​pp/​treatytext.​html; last accessed July 12, 2012).
 
5
Hence, this is a different question from the normative one central to philosophy of law, which concerns the question under which condition people ought to feel that they have to obey the law (cf., [60]).
 
6
These projects include the DEEPEN project (http://​www.​geography.​dur.​ac.​uk/​projects/​deepen/​Home), the FRAMINGNANO project (http://​www.​framingnano.​eu), the NANOPLAT project (http://​nanoplat.​org), and the NANOCAP project (http://​www.​nanocap.​eu).
 
7
These four projects are “Tijdelijke Nanoreferentie-waarden” [translated: Temporary Nano-reference values], “Kennisdelen Nanodeeltjes in de verfketen” [translated: Sharing knowledge in the painting chain], “Informatie voorziening MKB bedrijven (MKB-vraagbaak)” [translated: Information provision SME (SME helpdesk)], and “Handreiking werken met nanodeeltjes” [translated: Support working with nano particles].
 
8
Letter from the Dutch Minister of State Infrastructuur & Milieu, ‘Invulling Strategie “Omgaan met risico’s van nanodeeltjes” [In English: Interpretation Strategy “Dealing with risks of nanoparticles”]’, Kamerstukken II 2010/11, 29 338, nr. 100, p. 6. It is interesting to note that the Minister presents the “industry” as a relatively one-dimensional entity of competitive companies. It should be noted that somewhat more successful stories are known from the UK, where the association of relevant companies participated in setting up the Defra voluntary self-reporting schemes. However, although the schemes were adopted, there were compliance problems due to the bureaucratic efforts companies had to make to provide the information and to their interest to keep this information secret.
 
9
Some actors and institutions even argue explicitly against the idea of updating regulations to account for nanomaterials (e.g., Commission, Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Nanomaterials in REACH and CLP, CA/90/2009/Rev 2).
 
Literature
1.
Allhoff F (2007) On the autonomy and justification of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:185–210CrossRef
2.
Amtenbrink F, De Haan J (2003) Economic governance in the EU: fiscal policy discipline versus flexibility. Common Mark Law Rev 40:1075–1106
3.
Benn TM, Westerhoff P (2008) Nanoparticle silver released into water from commercially available sock fabrics. Environ Sci Technol 42:4133–4139CrossRef
4.
Blaser SA et al (2008) Estimation of cumulative aquatic exposure and risk due to silver: contribution of nanofunctionalized plastics and textiles. Sci Total Environ 390:396–409CrossRef
5.
Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164CrossRef
6.
7.
Burd A (2011) Nano silver: environmental health effects. In: JO Nriagu (ed) Encyclopedia of environmental health. Elsevier, pp 22–23
8.
Christensen FM et al (2010) Nano-silver: feasibility and challenges for human health risk assessment based on open literature. Nanotoxicology 4:284–295CrossRef
9.
Cohen J (1989) Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Hamlin A, Pettit PH (eds) The good polity: normative analysis of the state. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford
10.
Corley E, Scheufele D, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1573–1585CrossRef
11.
12.
Daniels N (1996) Justice and justification: reflective equilibrium in theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
13.
DePaul M (2011) Methodological issues: reflective equilibrium. In: Miller C (ed) The continuum companion to ethics. Continuum, London, pp lxxv–cv
14.
Doorn N (2010) Applying Rawlsian approaches to resolve ethical issues: inventory and setting of a research agenda. J Bus Eth 91:127–143CrossRef
15.
Doorn N (2010) A Rawlsian approach to distribute responsibilities in networks. Sci Eng Ethics 16:221–249CrossRef
16.
Doorn N (2012) Exploring responsibility rationales in Research and Development (R&D). Sci Technol Hum Values 37:180–209CrossRef
17.
Dorbeck-Jung BR (2007) What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom government’s nanotechnological regulatory activities? NanoEthics 1:257–270CrossRef
18.
Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S (2006) Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. Am J Polit Sci 50:634–649CrossRef
19.
Elster J (1998) Deliberation and constitution making. In: Elster J (ed) Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 97–122CrossRef
20.
21.
EU (2006) Opinion of the European economic and social committee on nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009 (INT/277). 2006
22.
EU (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Commitee, in SEC(2008) 2036. 2008
23.
Fan AM, Alexeeff G (2010) Nanotechnology and nanomaterials: toxicology, risk assessment, and regulations. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 10:8646–8657CrossRef
24.
Felt U, Wynne B (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. Report of the expert group on science and governance to the science, economy and society directorate, directorate-general for research, European commission. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
25.
Ferrari A (2010) Developments in the debate on nanoethics: traditional approaches and the need for new kinds of analysis. NanoEthics 4:27–52CrossRef
26.
Glenna LL (2010) Value-laden technocratic management and environmental conflicts: the case of the New York City watershed controversy. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:81–112CrossRef
27.
Godman M (2008) But is it unique to nanotechnology? Reframing nanoethics. Sci Eng Ethics 14:391–403CrossRef
28.
Gorman ME, Werhane PH, Swami N (2009) Moral imagination, trading zones, and the role of the ethicist in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 3:185–195CrossRef
29.
Grin J et al (2004) Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:126–149CrossRef
30.
Gutmann A, Thompson D (1996) Democracy and disagreement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
31.
Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton
32.
Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (2010) Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 3–24
33.
Hogle LF (2009) Science, ethics, and the “problems” of governing nanotechnologies. J Law Med Ethics 37:749–758CrossRef
34.
Huckfeldt R, Johnson PE, Sprague J (2004) Political disagreement: the survival of diverse opinions within communication networks. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
35.
Jacobsson K (2004) Between deliberation and discipline: soft governance in EU employment policy. In: Mörth U (ed) Soft law and governance in regulation: an interdisciplinary analysis. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
36.
Keulartz J et al (2004) Ethics in a technological culture. A programmatic proposal for a pragmatist approach. Sci Technol Hum Values 29:3–29CrossRef
37.
Klabbers J (1998) The undesirability of soft law. Nord J Int Law 67:381–391CrossRef
38.
Kulinowski KM (2004) Nanotechnology: from “wow” to “yuck”? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:13–20CrossRef
39.
40.
Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:43–60CrossRef
41.
42.
McCarthy T (1994) Kantian constructivism and reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in dialogue. Ethics 105:44–63CrossRef
43.
McCray PW (2005) Will small be beautiful? Making policies for our nanotech future. J Hist Technol 21:177–203CrossRef
44.
McGinn RE (2010) What’s different, ethically, about nanotechnology?: Foundational questions and answers. NanoEthics 4:115–128CrossRef
45.
Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 446–461
46.
47.
48.
Mouffe C (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Soc Res 66:745–758
49.
Mouffe C (2000) The democratic paradox. Verso, London
50.
Mueller NC, Nowack B (2008) Exposure modeling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment. Environ Sci Technol 42:4447–4453CrossRef
51.
Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the other side: deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
52.
Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4:273–274CrossRef
53.
Nowack B, Krug HF, Height M (2010) 120 years of nanosilver history: implications for policy makers. Environ Sci Technol 45:1177–1183CrossRef
54.
Patenaude J et al (2011) Moral arguments in the debate over nanotechnologies: Are we talking past each other? NanoEthics 5(3):285–293
55.
Patra D (2011) Responsible development of nanoscience and nanotechnology: contextualizing socio-technical integration into the nanofabrication laboratories in the USA. NanoEthics 5:143–157CrossRef
56.
Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York
57.
Rawls J (1995) Political liberalism: reply to Habermas. J Philos 92:132–180CrossRef
58.
Rawls J (1999 [1971]) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
59.
Rawls J (2001) Justice as fairness: a restatement. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge
60.
Raz J (1979) The authority of law: essays on law and morality. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef
61.
Renn O (2005) White paper on risk governance: towards an integrative approach. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva
62.
Renn O, Klinke A, Van Asselt MBA (2011) Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity in risk governance: a synthesis. Ambio 40:231–246CrossRef
63.
Reuzel RPB et al (2001) Interactive technology assessment and wide reflective equilibrium. J Med Philos 26:245–261CrossRef
64.
Risse T (2009) Social constructivism and European integration. In: Wiener A, Diez T (eds) European integration theory, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–161
65.
Rogers JD, Bozeman B (2001) “Knowledge Value Alliances”: an alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:23–55CrossRef
66.
Saari E, Miettinen R (2001) Dynamics of change in research work: constructing a new research area in a research group. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:300–321CrossRef
67.
Sarewitz D (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environ Sci Pol 7:385–403CrossRef
68.
Schuurbiers D, Fisher E (2009) Lab-scale intervention. EMBO Rep 10:424–427CrossRef
69.
Seaton A et al (2010) Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation. J R Soc Interface 7:S119–S129CrossRef
70.
Snyder F (1995) The effectiveness of EU law. In: Daintith T (ed) Implementing EC law in the UK. Wiley, New York
71.
Spier RE (2010) “Dual Use” and “Intentionality”: Seeking to Prevent the Manifestation of Deliberately Harmful Objectives A Summary and Some Reflections on ‘The Advancement of Science and the Dilemma of Dual Use: Why We Can’t Afford to Fail’. Sci Eng Ethics 16:1–6CrossRef
72.
Stirling A (2008) “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values 33:262–294CrossRef
73.
Stokes E (2011) You are what you eat: market citizens and the right to know about nano foods. J Hum Rights Environ 2:178–200CrossRef
74.
Swierstra TE, Rip A (2007) Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. NanoEthics 1:3–20CrossRef
75.
Toumey C (2010) Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton, pp 46–59
76.
Trubek DM, Cottrell P, Nance M (2005) ‘Soft Law’, ‘Hard Law’ and European integration. In: G de Burca, J Scott (eds) New governance and constitutionalism in Europe and the US. Hart, Oxford, pp 65–94
77.
Tyler TR (2001) Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behav Sci Law 19:215–235CrossRef
78.
Tyler TR (2006) Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol 57:375–400CrossRef
79.
80.
Van Asselt MBA, Vos E (2008) Wrestling with uncertain risks: EU regulation of GMOs and the uncertainty paradox. J Risk Res 11:281–300CrossRef
81.
Van Calster G, Bowman DM (2009) Regulatory design for new technologies: spaghetti junction or Bauhaus principles for regulating innovative products. Notizie Politeia XXV:75–93
82.
Van de Poel IR (2008) How should we do nanoethics? A network approach for discerning ethical issues in nanotechnology. NanoEthics 2:25–38CrossRef
83.
Van de Poel IR (2009) The introduction of nanotechnology as a societal experiment. In: Arnaldi S, Lorenzet A, Russo F (eds) Technoscience in progress: managing the uncertainty of nanotechnology. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 129–142
84.
Van de Poel IR, Zwart SD (2010) Reflective Equilibrium in R&D networks. Sci Technol Hum Values 35:174–199CrossRef
85.
Van der Bruggen K (2012) Possibilities, intentions and threats: dual use in the life sciences reconsidered. Sci Eng Ethics 18(4):741–756
86.
Van der Burg S (2009) Imagining the future of photoacoustic mammography. Sci Eng Ethics 15:97–110CrossRef
87.
Van Est R, Walhout B (2007) Verslaglegging workshop nanoveiligheid. Rathenau, The Hague
88.
Van Oudheusden M, De Zutter H (2012) Contesting co-inquiry: “Noncommunicative” discourse in a Flemish participatory technology assessment. Sci Commun 34:84–114CrossRef
89.
Van Thiel, GJMW (2009) Moral Wisdom in the Balance: Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Empirical Model for Bioethics [PhD thesis]. Utrecht University, Utrecht
90.
Vogelezang-Stoute L, Popma J, Aalders M (2011) Is onze regelgeving ‘nanoproof’? Ned Juristenblad 1258
91.
Von Schomberg R (1993) Controversies and political decision making. In: Von Schomberg R (ed) Science, politics and morality: scientific uncertainty and decision making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
92.
Von Schomberg R (2007) From the ethics of technology towards an ethics of knowledge policy & knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels
93.
Von Schomberg R (2011) On identifying plausibility and deliberative public policy. Commentary on: “Negotiating plausibility: intervening in the future of nanotechnology”. Sci Eng Ethics 17:739–742CrossRef
94.
Von Schomberg R, Davies S (eds) (2010) Understanding public debate on nanotechnologies: options for framing public policy. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg
95.
Von Schomberg R, Guimarães Pereira Â, Funtowicz S (2005) Deliberating foresight knowledge for policy and foresight knowledge assessment. European Commission, Brussels
96.
Webb K (2004) Understanding the voluntary code phenomenon. In: Webb K (ed) Voluntary codes: private governance, the public interest, and innovation. Carleton University, Ottawa, pp 3–32
97.
WRR (2009) Uncertain safety: allocating responsibility for safety (report nr. 82; Scientific Council for Government Policy). Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam
98.
Young IM (1996) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy. In: Benhabib S (ed) Democracy and difference: contesting the boundaries of the political. Princeton University Press, Princeton
99.
Young IM (2000) Inclusion and democracy. Oxfort University Press, Oxford
Metadata
Title
Wide Reflective Equilibrium as a Normative Model for Responsible Governance
Author
Neelke Doorn
Publication date
01-04-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
NanoEthics / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Electronic ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0169-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

NanoEthics 1/2013 Go to the issue

Original Paper

DuPont and Environmental Defense Fund Co-Constructing a Risk Framework for Nanoscale Materials: an Occasion to Reflect on Interaction Processes in a Joint Inquiry

Original Paper

Discovering Specific Conditions for Compliance with Soft Regulation Related to Work with Nanomaterials

Original Paper

Bridging the Gap Between Innovation and ELSA: The TA Program in the Dutch Nano-R&D Program NanoNed

Original Paper

Meta-Regulation and Nanotechnologies: The Challenge of Responsibilisation Within the European Commission’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research

Original Paper

Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications

Original Paper

Transnational Governance Arrangements: Legitimate Alternatives to Regulating Nanotechnologies?