Abstract
Due to its potential to take advantage of novel properties of matter at the atomic level, nanotechnology promises to provide innovations that will have a tremendously beneficial economic and social impact. However, there are also risks and problems associated with it that must be properly assessed and responsibly dealt with, not just by researchers, businesses and public authorities, but also by society as a whole. The creation of matters of concern related to nanotechnology and of the different publics surrounding those concerns is an open process. To clarify the process, the epistemological status of nanotechnology as a technoscience should also be examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnaldi, S. (2014). ¿Qué tan suave debería ser la regulación nano? Identidades sociales y opiniones de los stakeholders italianos. Mundo Nano. http://www.revistas.unam.mx/index.php/nano/article/view/48704. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Beck, U. (1998). World risk society. Cambridge: Polity Press.
de Cózar-Escalante, J. M. (2010). Nanotecnología, salud y bioética. Gijón: Junta General del Principado de Asturias (JGPA), Sociedad Internacional de Bioética (SIBI).
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), (1988) The later works, 1925–1953 (Vol. 2). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dupuy, J. P. (2007). Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 32(3), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/03605310701396992.
European Commission. (2004). Communication from the commission–towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. https://cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nano_com_en_new.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
European Commission. (2008). Communication from the Commission–Regulatory aspects of nanomaterials. Brussels. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0366:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
European Commission. (2012). Communication from the Commission–Second regulatory review on nanomaterials. Brussels. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0572:FIN:en:PDF. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology. A critical theory revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferrari, A. (2013). From nanoethics to the normativity of technological visions. Ethics & Politics, XV(1): 220–235. http://hdl.handle.net/10077/8898. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Foladori, G. (2010). Las nanotecnologías en contexto. Sociología y tecnociencia. Revista Digital de Sociología del Sistema Tecnocientífico, 0(2), 35–55. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3715576. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Guston, D., & Sarewitz, D. (2002). Real-time technology assessment. Technology in Society, 24(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1.
Hodge, G., Bowman, D., & Maynard, A. (Eds.). (2010). International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Hottois, G. (1984). Le signe et la technique. La philosophie à l’épreuve de la technique. Paris: Aubier Montaigne.
Latour, B. (2007). Turning around politics: A note on Gerard de Vries’ paper. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707081222.
Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706077367.
Nordmann, A. (2010). Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance. In G. Hodge, D. Bowman, & A. Maynard (Eds.), International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies (pp. 25–45). Northampton: Edward Elgar.
NSTC, National Science and Technology Council. (1999). Nanotechnology. Shaping the world atom by atom. http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/IWGN.Public.Brochure/. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Palm, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2006). The case for ethical technology assessment (eTA). Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(5), 543–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.002.
Sargent J. F. Jr. (2014). The national nanotechnology initiative: Overview, reauthorization, and appropriations issues. Congressional Research Service: Library of Congress, Washington, DC. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34401.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Wynne, B. (2006). What could the foundations of NanoBioInfoethics be? Some lateral thoughts. For Stanford-Paris conference on Social and Ethical Implications of Nano-Bio-Info Convergence, Avignon. http://stanford.edu/dept/france-stanford/Conferences/Ethics/Wynne.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Cózar-Escalante, J.M., Núñez-Castro, A.M. (2018). Matters of Concern Regarding Nanotechnology. In: Laspra, B., López Cerezo, J. (eds) Spanish Philosophy of Technology. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71958-0_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71958-0_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71957-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71958-0
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)