nach oben

NanoEthics

Erschienen in:

01.12.2015 | Original Paper

Anchoring European Governance: Two Versions of Responsible Research and Innovation and EU Fundamental Rights as ‘Normative Anchor Points’

verfasst von: Daniele Ruggiu

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Among the various experiments in ‘new governance’, the model of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is emerging in the European landscape as quite promising. Up to now, there have been two versions of RRI: a socio-empirical version which tends to underline the role of democratic processes aimed at identifying values on which governance needs to be anchored and a normative version which stresses the role of EU goals (among which fundamental rights) as ‘normative anchor points’ of both governance strategies and policy making. Both versions are unsatisfactory. The first since it suggests movable anchorage which could clash with prefixed values, such as individual rights. The second since it does not safeguard fundamental rights in the process of balancing ‘anchor points’. This result is counterintuitive because it exposes governance to the risk of facing adverse court decisions in the defense of individual rights, thus losing its anticipative attitude. In order to avoid this outcome, the paper argues that it is only through better integration between the system of human rights and that of EU fundamental rights that the anticipative feature of RRI can be preserved.

Vorheriger Artikel Analyses of Acceptability Judgments Made Toward the Use of Nanocarrier-Based Targeted Drug Delivery: Interviews with Researchers and Research Trainees in the Field of New Technologies

Nächster Artikel Human, Non-Human, and Beyond: Cochlear Implants in Socio-Technological Environments

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Regulation (EU) No. 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 December 2013 Establishing Horizon 2020—the framework program for research and innovation (2014–2020)—of 20 Dec. 2013, Official Journal of European Union, L347/104, http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/legal_basis/fp/h2020-eu-establact_en.pdf.

In this institutional framework, we need to mention that both the Lund Declaration [1] and the Council conclusions on the social dimension of the European Research Area [2] underline the importance of integrating societal needs and ethical concerns into research and development ([3], p. 3).

Similarly, three recurring aspects have recently been detected in the literature on responsibility: one refers to the notion in normative terms; the second addresses it as it is identified in contingent situations; and the third refers to it in general terms as a part of the legal and moral theory ([5], p. 11–12)

In this way, this participatory model should produce a shift from science in society to a science for society, with society [6]. This approach to RRI is also shared, among others, by Sutcliffe [7], Blok, Lemmens [8].

See, e.g., The Rome Declaration on Responsible Research and Innovation in Europe, signed in Rome on November, 21, 2014, https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/rome_declaration_RRI_final_21_November.pdf.

‘Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) refers to the comprehensive approach of proceeding in research and innovation in ways that allow all stakeholders that are involved in the processes of research and innovation at an early stage (A) to obtain relevant knowledge on the consequences of the outcomes of their actions and on the range of options open to them and (B) to effectively evaluate both outcomes and options in terms of societal needs and moral values and (C) to use these considerations (under A and B) as functional requirements for design and development of new research, products and services’ ([3], p. 3).

‘Responsible innovation is a collective commitment of care for the future through responsive stewardship of science and innovation in the present’ ([4], p. 36), ([13], p. 3).

While there is no shared definition, there is no agreement on the main features of RRI either. See, e.g., ([3], p. 57–58), ([4], p. 38), ([13], p. 3–5). For example, the Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission [36] has recently addressed six dimensions in the RRI framework (engagement, gender equality, science education, open access, ethics, and governance). See http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf.

It must be noted here, however, that the notion of the added value of participation processes is questionable and remains opaque in the academic literature, as well as in the institutional debate ([37], p. 96).

Namely, it does not address any normative dimension of either a legal or a moral nature on which reality ought to conform. The difference between the two versions cannot be interpreted in terms of the prescriptive/descriptive polarity since both versions are clearly prescriptive and identify a model able to transform the status quo through the process (of negotiation) on the one hand and legal and ethical norms on the other.

See ([13], p. 7).

A concrete example of this version is the SPICE project on geoengineering (i.e., the deliberate manipulation of the earth’s climate) funded by UK Research Councils which tried to develop a more democratic and legitimate framework for science and innovation by opening up ‘to a broad anticipation, reflection and inclusive deliberation, with the aim of making policy more responsive’ ([13], p. 10).

European Commission (2008) Recommendation on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research C (2008) 424 final, available at http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec_pe0894c_en.pdf.

In other words, the experience of EC CoC [41, 42] presents both aspects of the socio-empirical approach (consultations for identifying the code principles) and aspects of the normative approach (the consultation paper which represented the basis for consultations themselves).

European Union (2010) Consolidated version of the Treaty on the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union 2010/C/83/01, 30 March 2010 (TEU post-Lisbon).

‘The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of the Treaties’.

‘The Union shall comprise a customs union which shall cover all trade in goods and which shall involve the prohibition between Member States of customs duties on imports and exports and of all charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries’.

‘Within the framework of the provisions set out below, restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of Member States who are established in a Member State other than that of the person for whom the services are intended’.

European Union (2008) Consolidated version of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Union 2008/C/115/08, 9 May 2008 (TFEU).

‘A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities’.

‘Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity’.

‘Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices’.

‘A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all the Union’s policies and activities’.

For example, translation problems of the word ‘accountability’ were apparent during the NanoCode survey. Indeed, ‘the French and the German translations of the “accountability” principle as “responsibility” earned mistrust as they were interpreted with a connotation of implying legal liabilities as well as suggesting that scientists are held responsible for what is done with their work by decisions outside their control or by other actors in the future’ ([49], p. 6—italics mine).

European Union (2000) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union adopted in Nice on December 7, 2000 (came into force on December 1, 2009). After the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty (December 1st 2009), the Nice Charter is now legally binding according to Art. I-6 § 2 Lisbon Treaty.

For example, from the second 2010 survey on the EC CoC it emerged that only animal rights organizations had taken part in the second consultation in 2010 on the perception of the code among stakeholders, while neither trade unions, nor any consumers’ or patients’ organizations were involved. This fact inevitably leads us to doubt the extent, as well as the quality, of the sample of participants involved in the first consultation on the EC CoC held in 2007 and aimed at drafting the code [42].

Stamina is a protocol for the extraction, manipulation, and re-infusion of stem-cells in patients with diverse diseases ranging from Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and muscle-wasting disorders. Davide Vannoni, the inventor of the Stamina protocol, was sentenced in 2015.

Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) of Hazardous Substances and Mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, Official Journal of the European Union, L353/1, 31.12.2008.

Parliament resolution of 24/04/2009 on Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials (2008/2208 (INI)), Brussels: European Parliament, Point Q, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=−//EP//NONSGML+TA+P6-TA-2009-0328+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN.

See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/consultations/nanomaterials_2013_en.htm.

Despite the fact that they have a dual dimension, both moral and legal, here I will refer to human rights as those and exclusively those recognized by international law rules, listed in documents like the Universal Declaration, the Covenants of ‘66, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to individuals, groups and associations to the State and enforceable in the face of judicial or quasi-judicial organs like the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) or the UN Committees on Human Rights ([43], p. 106), ([44], p. 207 nt. 21). As regards the ethical perspective on human rights which has great relevance in moral argument see, e.g., Raz [63], Brownsword [64]. This latter perspective, which largely influences the legal thought of the Anglo-Saxon tradition, is to be deemed as complementary to that expressed in this article.

See the judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace eV (Case C-34/10), 18 October 2011, European Court Reports 2011 I-09821.

This decision was coupled by a similar decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) which has recently excluded the illegitimacy of the ban of embryonic stem cell research. See Parrillo v. Italia (Appl. 46470/11), judgment of 27 August 2015, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-157263#{‘itemid’:[‘001-157263]}.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17024494.

Council of Europe (1950) Convention for the Protection on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CETS n. 5), adopted in Rome on November 11, 1950 (entered into force on September 3, 1953).

See the judgment of the Court of Justice (Third Chamber), Waachauf v. Bundesamt für Ernährung und Forstwirtschaft (Case 5/88), 13 July 1993, European Court Reports 1989–02609, in particular §18: ‘restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of those rights (i.e., fundamental rights), in particular in the context of a common organization of a market, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community’.

See Art. 5 of the Oviedo Convention which protects third countries’ nationals who are subjected to clinical experimentation. Council of Europe (1997) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine or the Oviedo Convention) (CETS n. 164), adopted in Oviedo on April 4, 1997 (came into force on December 1, 1999)

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD), Mario Costeja González (Case 131/12), 14 May 2014, European Court Reports not yet published.

According to Article 15 ECHR, derogatory measures can be taken by States only in the case of war or another public emergency threatening the life of a nation. Nevertheless, Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture, inhuman, and degrading treatment, 4 §1 (prohibition of slavery) cannot be derogated and are in these terms absolute rights ([68], p. 27). Yet, with regard to Articles 8–11 ECHR (protection of private and family life, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of association) and Article 1 of Protocol n. 1 (property), the Strasbourg Court recognizes a margin of appreciation to States [53, 67, 68]. In these cases, although States enjoy a certain discretion in realizing their public interests, the judges of Strasbourg strictly scrutinize the nature, scope, and extent of the State measure, a fact that excludes the case-by-case application of the margin and thus any balancing. After criticisms of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation (e.g., [67‐69]), the doctrine has recently been established in a Protocol (n. 15) which has not yet entered into force.

The Treaty of Lisbon EU provides in Article I-6 § 2 that in the future the EU shall accede to the ECHR. Accordingly, on 17 March 2010, the Commission proposed a negotiation directive for the Union’s accession to the Council of Europe’s ECHR, and on June 3 and 4 2010, the Council of the European Union adopted the aforementioned negotiating mandate for the EU’s accession. Yet, recently, in December 2014, the ECJ delivered an opinion which identifies problems of compatibility of the draft agreement on the accession of the EU to the ECHR with EU law (in particular with regard to its autonomy). The Steering Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe is currently working with a view to removing the difficulties addressed by the ECJ opinion. See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62013CV0002&from=EN.

National Farmers’ Union et al. (Case C-157/96), judgment of 5 May 1998, Reports of cases I-02211.

Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004, OJ L304/18. In this case, the entry into force of the provision which introduces the mandatory labeling for foodstuffs containing nanomaterials was only December 2014 (art. 18.3).

Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetics products, OJ L349/59.

Lund Declaration (2009) Europe must focus on the grand challenge of our time, Swedish EU presidency, 8 July 2009, Lund (Sweden) http://www.vr.se/download/187dac901212646d84fd38000336/

Council of the European Union (2010) Council conclusions on the social dimension of the European Research Area http://register.consilium.europa.eu/doc/srv?l=EN&f=ST% 2010270%202010%20INIT

van den Hoven J, Jacob K, Nielsen L, Roure F, Laima R, Stilgoe J (eds) (2013) Options for strengthening Responsible Research and Innovation. Report of Experts Group on the state of the art in Europe on responsible research innovation. European Commission, Luxemburg http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/options- forstrengthening_en.pdf

Owen R, Stilgoe J, Macnaghten P, Gorman M, Fisher E, Guston D (2013) A framework for responsible innovation. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, London, pp 27–50CrossRef

Arnaldi S, Bianchi L (2016 forthcoming) Responsibility in science and technology elements of a social theory. Springer, Dordrecht

Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with Society. Sci Public Policy 39:751–760CrossRef

Sutcliffe H (2011) A report on Responsible Research and Innovation for European Commission. Matter http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/rrireport-hilary-sutcliffe_en.pdf

Blok V, Lemmens P (2015) The emerging concept of Responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In: Koops EJ, Oosterlaken I, Romijn HA, Swierstra TE, Van den Hoven J (eds) Responsible innovation 2: concepts, approaches and applications. Springer: 19–35

Owen R (2014) Responsible research and innovation: options for research and innovation policy in the EU. European Research and Innovation Area Board (ERIAB), Foreword Visions on the European Research Area (VERA). http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/expertgroups/Responsible_Research_and_Innovation.pdf

10.

von Schomberg R (2011) Introduction. In: von Schomberg R (ed) Towards responsible research and innovation in the information and communication technologies and security technologies fields. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp 7–16

11.

von Schomberg R (2011) Prospects for technology assessment in a framework of responsible research and innovation. In: Dusseldorp M, Beecroft R (eds) Technikfolgen abschätzen lehren. Bildungspotenziale transdisziplinärer Methoden. Vs Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp 39–61

12.

von Schomberg R (2013) A vision of responsible research and innovation. In: Owen R, Heintz M, Bessant J (eds) Responsible innovation: managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society. Wiley, London, pp 51–74CrossRef

13.

Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P (2013) Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733313000930

14.

Pariotti E, Ruggiu D (2012) Governing nanotechnologies in Europe: human rights, soft law and corporate social responsibility. In: Coenen C, Fleischer T, Konrad K, Krabbenborg L, Milburn C, Thoreau F, Zülsdorf TB, van Lente H (eds) Little by little. Expansions of nanoscience and emerging technologies. IOS Press/AKA-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 157–168

15.

Barben D, Fischer E, Selin C, Guston DH (2008) Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: foresight, engagement, and integration. In: Hackett E, Lynch M, Wajcman J (eds) The handbook of science and technology studies, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge

16.

Eberlein B, Kerwer D (2004) New governance in the European Union: a theoretical perspective. J Common Mark Stud 42(1):121–142CrossRef

17.

Lyall C, Tait J (2005) Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. In: Lyall C, Tait J (eds) New modes of governance. developing an integrated policy approach to science, technology, risk and the environment. Adelshot, Ashgate, pp 1–17

18.

Peters A, Pagotto I (2006) Soft law as a new mode of governance: a legal perspective. Report of the project NEWGOV new modes of governance. Integrated project. Priority 7 - citizens and governance in the knowledge-based society, 04: D11. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1668531&rec=1&srcabs=1876508&alg=1&pos=1

19.

Scott J, Trubek DM (2002) Mind the gap: law and new approaches to governance in the European Union. Europ Law J 8(1):1–18CrossRef

20.

de Burca G, Scott J (2006) Introduction: new governance, law and constitutionalism. In: De Burca G, Scott J (eds) Law and new governance in the EU and the US. Hart Publishing, Oxford, pp 1–12

21.

Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(155):17–28CrossRef

22.

Mandel GN (2013) Emerging technology governance. In: Marchant GE, Abbott KW, Allenby B (eds) Innovative governance models for emerging technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

23.

Smismans S (2008) New modes of governance and the participatory myth. West Europ Polit 31(5):874–895CrossRef

24.

Kearnes MB, Rip A (2009) The emerging governance landscape ofnanotechnology. In: Gammel S, Lösch S, Nordmann A (eds) Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 97–121

25.

Kurath M, Nentwich M, Fleischer T, Eisenberger I (2014) Cultures and strategies in the regulation of nanotechnology in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the European Union. Nanoethics 8(2):121–140CrossRef

26.

Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2(1):43–60CrossRef

27.

Dorbeck-Jung B, Shelley-Egan C (2013) Meta-regulation and nanotechnologies: the challenge of responsibilisation within the European Commission’s code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Nanoethics 7(1):55–68CrossRef

28.

Widmer M, Meili C, Mantovani E, Porcari A (2010) The FramingNano Governance Platform: a new integrated approach to the responsible development of nanotechnologies, February, 2010 http://www.framingnano.eu/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=161&Itemid=84

29.

Sorensen E, Triantafillou P (2009) Introduction. In: Sorensen E, Triantafillou P (eds) The politics of selfgovernance. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 1–22

30.

Roco M (2006) Progress in governance of converging technologies integrated from the nanoscale. Ann New York Acad Sci 1093:1–23CrossRef

31.

Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governance science. Minerva 41:223–244CrossRef

32.

Heydebrande W (2003) Process rationality as legal governance: a comparative perspective. Int Sociol 18(2):325–349CrossRef

33.

Waldron J (1999) Law and disagreement. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

34.

Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law. the moral reading of the American constitution. Harvard University Press, Oxford

35.

Raz J (1985) Authority and justification. Philos Public Aff 14(1):3–29

36.

Directorate-General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission (2012), Responsible research and innovation : Europe’s ability to respond to societal challenges. Publications Office of the European Union http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/ responsible-research-and-innovation-leaflet_en.pdf

37.

Smismans S (2015) Democratic participation and the search for a European Union institutional architecture that accommodates interests and expertise. In: Piattoni S (ed) The European Union democratic principles and institutional architectures in times of crisis. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 88–111CrossRef

38.

von Schomberg R (2010) Organising public responsibility: on precaution, code of conduct and understanding public debate. In: Fiedeler U, Coenen C, Davies SR, Ferrari A (eds) Understanding nanotechnology: philosophy, policy and publics. Ios Press, Amsterdam, pp 61–70

39.

Mandel GN (2009) Regulating emerging technologies, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper N. 2009–18, 04-08-2009. Law Innovation & Technology 1: 75

40.

Ruggiu D (2014) Responsibilisation phenomena: the EC code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. Europ J Law Technol 5(3):1–16, http://ejlt.org/article/view/338

41.

European Commission (2008) Commission Recommendation of 07/ 02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research. European Commission, Brussels

42.

European Commission (2007) ‘Code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research’ — detailed analysis of results from the consultation. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciencesociety/document_library/pdf_06/consultation-nano- sinapse-feedback_en.pdf

43.

Ruggiu D (2013) A rights-based model of governance: the case of human enhancement and the role of ethics in Europe. In: Konrad K, Coenen C, Dijkstra A, Milburn C, van Lente H (eds) Shaping emerging technologies: governance, innovation, discourse. IOS Press/AKA-Verlag, Berlin, pp 103–115

44.

Ruggiu D (2013) Temporal perspectives of the nanotechnological challenge to regulation. how human rights can contribute to the present and future of nanotechnologies. Nanoethics 7(3):201–215CrossRef

45.

Stoke E, Bowman DM (2012) Looking back to the future of regulating new technologies: the case of nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Europ J Risk Regulat 2:235–241

46.

Habermas J (1992) Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main; It. trans. (1996) Fatti e norme. Contributi a una teoria discorsiva del diritto e della democrazia. Guerini e Associati, Milano

47.

Weber M (1922) Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre. Mohr, Tübingen; It. trans. (1958) Il metodo delle scienze storico-sociali. Einaudi, Torino

48.

Holbrook JB, Briggle A (2014) Knowledge kills action: why principles should play a limited role in policy-making. J Res Innov 1(1):51–66

49.

Meili C, Widmer M, Schwarzkopf S, Mantovani E, Porcari A (2011) NanoCode MasterPlan: issues and options on the path forward with the European Commission code of conduct on responsible N&N research. http://www.nanocode.eu/files/NanoCode-MasterPlan.pdf

50.

European Parliament and the Council (2013) Establishing Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for research and innovation (2014–2020). Official Journal of European Union L347/104 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/doc/call/h2020/common/1595116-h2020-euestablact-oj_en.pdf

51.

Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism-and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review. Jenuary-February: 1–17

52.

Porter E, Kramer MR (2011) Creating shared value: how to reinvent capitalism-and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, January/February: 63–70

53.

Donati F, Milazzo P (2003) La dottrina del margine di apprezzamento nella giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. In: Falzea P, Spadaro A, Ventura L (eds) La Corte costituzionale e le Corti d’Europa. Atti del seminario svoltosi a Capannello (CZ) il 31 maggio-1 giugno. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 65–117

54.

Simakova E, Coenen C (2013) Visions, hype, and expectations: a place for responsibility. In: Owen R, Bessant J, Heintz M (eds) Responsible innovation. Wiley, London, pp 241–266CrossRef

55.

Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2000) Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Hum Values 25(1):3–29CrossRef

56.

Gornitzka A, Sverdrup U (2015) Societal inclusion in expert venues: participation of interest groups and business in the European Commission expert groups. Politics Govern 3(1):151–165CrossRef

57.

De Bruycker, I (2015) Pressure and expertise: explaining the information supply of interest groups in EU legislative lobbying. JCMS: J Common Market Stud 1–18

58.

Abbott A (2013) Stem-cell ruling relies researchers. Nature 495:418–419CrossRef

59.

Grunwald A (2010) From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4:91–101CrossRef

60.

Aitken R A, Bassan A, Friedrichs S, Hankin S M, Hansen S F, Holmqvist J, Peters SAK, Poland CA, Tran CL (2011) Specific advice on exposure assessment and hazards/risk characterisation for nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 3) - Final Project Report, RCN/ RIP-oN 3/FPR/1/FINAL, 07 July 2011. European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/pdf/report_ripon3.pdf

61.

European Commission (2012), Commission communication of 3/10/2012 Second regulatory review on nanomaterial, COM (2012) 572 final. European Commission, Brussels http://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0572&from=EN

62.

Beck U (2000) Risk society revisited: theory, politics and research programmes. In: Adam B, Beck U, Van Loon J (eds) Risk society and beyond: critical issues for social theory. Sage, London, pp 211–230CrossRef

63.

Raz J (2010) Human rights in the emerging world order. Transnatl Leg Theor 1:37–47

64.

Brownsword R (2008) Rights, regulation and the technological revolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRef

65.

Robles Morchon G (2001) La protezione dei diritti fondamentali nell’Unione Europea. Ars Interpretandi Ann di ermeneutica giuridica 6:249–269

66.

Pariotti E (2013) Diritti umani. contesto, teoria, evoluzione. CEDAM, Padova

67.

Benvenisti E (1998) Margin of appreciation, consensus, and universal standards. J Int Law Polit 31(4):843–854

68.

Greer S (2000) The margin of appreciation: interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg

69.

Kratochvil J (2011) The inflation of the margin of appreciation doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quart Hum Rights 29(3):324–357

70.

Bultrini A (2004) La pluralita dei meccanismi di tutela dei diritti dell’uomo, in Europa. Giappichelli, Torino

71.

Spielmann D (1999) Human rights case law in the Strasbourg and Luxembourg courts: conflicts, inconsistencies, and complementarities. In: Alston P (ed) The EU and human rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

72.

Cooper Robert G (1990) Stage gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Bus Horizons 33(3):44–54CrossRef

73.

Dworkin R (1986) The law empire. The Belkamp Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.); It. trans. (1989) L’impero del diritto. Il Saggiatore, Milano

Titel: Anchoring European Governance: Two Versions of Responsible Research and Innovation and EU Fundamental Rights as ‘Normative Anchor Points’
verfasst von: Daniele Ruggiu
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: NanoEthics / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0240-3

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Risk Calculation as Experience and Action—Assessing and Managing the Risks and Opportunities of Nanomaterials

S.NET and NanoEthics: A Pair of Siblings

Crossing the Line – “Science” and “Decisions” Facing Emerging Technologies

Human, Non-Human, and Beyond: Cochlear Implants in Socio-Technological Environments

Conceptual Questions and Challenges Associated with the Traditional Risk Assessment Paradigm for Nanomaterials

Ethics and Emerging Technologies