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 3/2013

01-12-2013 | Original Paper

Would You Mind, If We Record This? Perceptions on Regulation and Responsibility among Indian Nanoscientists

Author: Subhasis Sahoo

Published in: NanoEthics | Issue 3/2013

Log in

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Looking at our knowledge of the risks associated with nanotechnology, one wonders to what degree should its products and applications be regulated? Do we need any governing body to regulate nanotechnology research and development? Do individuals have a right to know to make informed decisions through labelling mechanism? The question of regulation and responsibility in the interaction between science, technology and society is one of the most pressing issues. Risks and regulations regarding nanoscience and nanotechnology are mostly debated amongst policy-makers and not amongst the nanoscientists, who actually produce the new science. Thus, the paper makes an attempt to contribute significantly to an increased body of knowledge regarding how scientists think and talk about science. Little has been documented about perceptions of nanotechnology regulation and responsibility in developing countries. Given the importance of perceptions in the genetically-modified foods debate, the way nanotechnology is perceived holds serious repercussions for the framing of its ethical, legal and social implications. Through a field-survey that records the opinions of leading Indian nanoscientists, the paper examines scientists' perceptions about nanotech-regulation. Such discussion is imperative to address technological risks and uncertainties. The paper further explores whether scientists have different views on what responsibility amounts to and under what conditions one is responsible. Though the study has considered Indian nanoscientists due to access issues, the research questions raised and addressed in this study are universal in nature.
previous article Responsible Management in Private Sector Nano Enterprises: Conversations with Lead Technologists and Managers

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
The singular “nanotechnology” is used in this paper to refer to the entire scientific and technological complex that comprises different nanotechnologies than plural “nanotechnologies”.
 
2
Throughout the paper I have deliberately used the expression ‘nanoscience and nanotechnology’ to capture the complexity of this technoscience [23, 32] speciality.
 
3
Please see Song et al. [49].
 
4
The concept of responsibility stretches back to its emergence in the 19th century and developing into the 20th century notions of political and social responsibility such as encountered in the environmental movement beginning with Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring [7]. This might be one way to characterize the term in its intellectual origins, even if it does not fully explain the emergence of the concept of in nanotechnology today, much less corporate social responsibility.
 
5
India was the third most attractive location for future investments in R&D behind the United States ([53]: 22–26). The Economist described India and China as ‘high-tech hopefuls’ in a special report on technology in the two countries in its November 2007 issue.
 
6
For more details see the NanoMission website: www.​nanomission.​gov.​in
 
7
The data was collected as part of TERI’s larger research project on capability, governance and nanotechnology developments: a focus on India (2008–10), which was funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDRC and TERI.
 
8
Experts, are defined as “…those who can provide relevant input to the nanotechnology development process, have the highest authority possible and are committed and interested”.
 
9
Indian Institute of Technology (In short, IIT) has been modelled on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA. IITs are the premier institutes of engineering and science in the country. They are the product of post-colonial industrial development in India.
 
10
In India, DST sanctions the grant for the establishment of the centre/unit on nanoscience and nanotechnology. Further details please see http://​www.​nanomission.​gov.​in/​
 
11
Each expert’s responses in this research are views held by themselves and do not necessarily represent those of the organizations with whom it is noted that they were affiliated. Where mentioned, each expert’s affiliation has been used to add credibility to their statements. Stated affiliations are those held at the time of interview.
 
12
For details please see Invernizzi & Foladori [24].
 
13
The archetype of good scientific behaviour is reflected in Merton’s [37] ethos of science, known under the acronym CUDOS. Merton stated that scientists should not only be involved in the production of new knowledge; scientists are also committed to the critical towards scientific knowledge claims raised by their colleagues, and are obliged to test their colleagues’ results.
 
Literature
1.
Agassi J (1998) Science real and ideal: Popper and the dogmatic scientist. Protosociology 12:297–304
2.
Barnett J, Carr A, Clift R (2007) Going public: risk, trust and public understandings of nanotechnology. In: Hunt G, Mehta MD (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics and law. Earthscan, London, pp 196–212
3.
Barker T, Lesnick M, Mealy T, Raimond R, Walker S, Rajeski D, Timberlake L (2005) Nanotechnology and the poor: opportunities and risks: Closing the gaps within and between sectors of society. Washington D.C.: Meridian Institute, pp 23
4.
Bauer M (2002) Arenas, platforms, and the biotechnology movement. Sci Commun 24(2):144–161CrossRef
5.
Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. Polity Press, Cambridge
6.
Burgi BR, Pradeep T (2006) Social implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology in developing countries. Curr Sci 90(5):645–658
7.
Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Mariner Books, New York
8.
Choi K (2003) Ethical Issues of Nanotechnology Development in the Asia-Pacific Region. In Regional Meeting on Ethics of Science and Technology. Bangkok: UNESCO Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and Pacific, pp 327–376
9.
De Marchi B, Ravetz JR (1999) Risk management and governance: a post-normal science approach’. Futures 31:743–757CrossRef
10.
11.
12.
Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation. Anchor, New York
13.
Duell CH (1999) Technological transformation: the increase in power and complexity is coming just as the ‘raw materials’ are eroding. Dev Dialogue 1–2:25–73
14.
Dupas C, Houdy P, Lahmani M (2004) Nanoscience: nanotechnology and nanophysics. Springer, Berlin
15.
16.
Falkner R (2008) Nanotechnology dangers: who’s afraid of nanotechnology? World Today 64(6):15–17
17.
Ferrari A (2008) Is it all about human nature? Ethical challenges of converging technologies beyond a polarized debate. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 21(1):1–24CrossRef
18.
Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243CrossRef
19.
Functowicz S, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRef
20.
Functowicz S, Ravetz JR (1992) Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky S, Golding D (eds) Social theories of risk. Prager, Westport, pp 251–273
21.
Functowicz S, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for a post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755CrossRef
22.
Greenemeier L (2008) Study says carbon nanotubes as dangerous as asbestos. Scientific American, May 20
23.
Haraway D (1997) Modest_Witness@Second-Millenium. Routledge, New York
24.
Invernizzi N, Foladori G (2005) Nanotechnology and the developing world: will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities? Nanotechnol Law Bus J 2(3):101–110
25.
Johnson D (2007) Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: an essay on the challenges of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:21–30CrossRef
26.
Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility. In: Search of an ethics for the technological change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
27.
Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(4)
28.
Juman C, Yee-Chong L (2005) Innovation: Applying knowledge in development. London: UN Millennium Project. UN Millennium Project Task Force on Science, Technology, and Innovation
29.
Kearnes M, Grove-White R, Macnaughten P, Wilsdon J, Wynee B (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Sci Cult 15(4):291–307CrossRef
30.
Kuhn T (1962) Structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
31.
Laird FN (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Sci Technol Hum Values 18(3):341–361CrossRef
32.
Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press, USA
33.
Lederman LM (1999) The responsibility of the scientist. New York Times, p. A15, July 24
34.
35.
McCarthy E, Kelty C (2010) Responsibility and nanotechnology. Soc Stud Sci 40(3):405–432CrossRef
36.
Mehta MD (2002) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bull Sci Technol Soc 22(4):269–273
37.
Merton RK (1968) Science and democratic social structure, in social theory and social structure. The Free Press, New York. The article was first published in 1942
38.
Neufeld V, MacLeod S, Tugwell, P, Zakus D, Zarowsky, C (2001) The rich poor gap in global health research: challenges for Canada. Can Med Assoc J 164(8). Retrieved May 20, 2012, from http://​www.​cmaj.​ca/​
39.
Osborne D, Gaebler T (1993) Reinventing government: how the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Penguin, New York
40.
Pinter GG, Pinter V (1998) From epistemology to rational science policy: Popper vs Kuhn. Perspect Biol Med 41(2):291–298
41.
Popper K (1970) Normal science and its dangers. In: Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 51–58
42.
Roco MC (2005) Environmental responsible development of nanotechnology. Environ Sci Tech 39(5):106A–112ACrossRef
43.
Sahai S (2003) The Bt cotton story: the ethics of science and its reportage. Curr Sci 84(8): 1–2
44.
45.
Scheufele DA, Shirley SH, Corley EA (2011) Value predispositions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology: the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33(2):167–200CrossRef
46.
Scoones I (2003) Regulatory manoeuvres: the Bt cotton controversy in India. Working Paper, 197, August, England: Institute of Development Studies
47.
Shelley-Egan C (2010) The ambivalence of promising technology. NanoEthics 4(2):183–189CrossRef
48.
Shiva V (1999) Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowledge. South End Press, Cambridge
49.
Song Y et al (2009) Exposure to nanoparticles is related to pleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma. Eur Respir J 34:559–567CrossRef
50.
Taverne D (2006) The march of unreason. Oxford University Press, Oxford
51.
The Project on Emerging Technologies, 22 September, 2010
52.
Tyshenko MG, Krewski D (2008) A risk management framework for the regulation of nanomaterials. Int J Nanotechnol 5(1):143–160CrossRef
53.
UNCTAD (2005) World investment report 2005: transnational corporations and the internationalization of R&D. United Nations Conference of Trade and Development, New York (downloadable from<www.​unctad.​org>)
54.
Von Wright GH (1963) Norm and action: a logical enquiry. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
55.
Weckert J (2002) Lilliputian computer ethics. Metaphilosophy, Oxford, Blackwell, 33(3):366–375
56.
Weinberg A (1978) The obligations of citizenship in the Republic of Science. Minerva 16:1–3CrossRef
57.
Wolfson JR (2003) Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology: lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies. Biotechnol Law Rep 22(4):376–396CrossRef
58.
Metadata
Title
Would You Mind, If We Record This? Perceptions on Regulation and Responsibility among Indian Nanoscientists
Author
Subhasis Sahoo
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
NanoEthics / Issue 3/2013
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Electronic ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-013-0182-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2013

NanoEthics 3/2013 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Responsible Management in Private Sector Nano Enterprises: Conversations with Lead Technologists and Managers

Original Paper

The European and Member States’ Approaches to Regulating Nanomaterials: Two Levels of Governance

Original Paper

Nanotechnologies and Novel Foods in European Law

Editorial

Nanotechnology, uncertainty and regulation. A guest editorial

Original Paper

Temporal Perspectives of the Nanotechnological Challenge to Regulation: How Human Rights Can Contribute to the Present and Future of Nanotechnologies