Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

De facto Governance of Nanotechnologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Futures of Science and Technology in Society

Abstract

New and emerging technologies, especially nanotechnologies with the structural uncertainties about their eventual functionalities and risks, are a challenge to governance. Regulatory agencies in Europe and the USA review existing regulation and consider voluntary reporting as a transitional measure. Risk governance is opened up to include public dialogues and deliberative processes. What is striking is how much actual governance is already occurring in and around nanotechnology without any particular actor being responsible for the emerging governance arrangements.

Source: Morag Goodwin, Bert-Jaap Koops and Ronald Leenes (eds.), Dimensions of Technology Regulation, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers, 2010, pp. 285-308.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (revised ed.). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barben, D., Fisher, E., Selin, C., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Anticipatory governance of nanotechnology: Foresight, engagement, and integration. In E. J. Hackett et al. (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (3rd ed.). (pp. 979-1000). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basic Books National Research Council. (2006). A matter of size: Triennial review of the national nanotechnology initiative. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. Towards a new modernity. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization. Problematic, hypotheses and research programme. Theory, Culture & Society, 20, 1-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. M., and Hodge, G. A. 2006: Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38(9), 1060-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., & Drahos, P. (2000). Global business regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M.-L., & Andersson, K. S. (Eds.). (2006). Transnational governance. Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorbeck-Jung, B. (2007). What can prudent public regulators learn from the United Kingdom Government’s nanotechnological regulatory activities? Nanoethics, 1, 257-270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11, 147-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doubleday, R. (2008). No room for doubt: Public engagement, science policy and democracy at the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science and the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology. Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunsire, A. (1996). Tipping the balance: Autopoiesis and Governance. Administration and Society, 28, 299-334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E., Mahajan, R. L., & Mitcham, C. (2006). Midstream modulation of technology: Governance from within. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 26(6) 485-496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanf, K., & Toonen, T. A. J. (1985). Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems. Questions of analysis and design. Dordrecht, Boston, Lancaster: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series, D23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joly, P.-B., & Rip, A. (2007). A timely harvest. Nature, 450, 308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M. B., Macnaghten, M., & Wilsdon, J. (2006). Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M., & Rip, A. (2009). The emerging governance landscape of nanotechnology. In S. Gammel, A. Losch & A. Nordmann (Eds.), Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit Nanotechnologie. Berlin: Akademische Verlagsanstalt, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698-716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984) Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston/Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as governance. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Decouverte.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meridian Institute & National Science Foundation. (2004). Report: International dialogue on responsible development of nanotechnology. Washington, D.C.: Meridian Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1977). In search of a useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6, 36-76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pels, D., Hetherington, K., & Vandenberghe, F. (2002). The status of the object. Performances, mediations, and techniques. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5/6), 1-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J.L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., & Roco, M. (2006). Nantechnology risk governance. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council, June 2006. White Paper #2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Misa, T. J. & Schot, W. (Eds.). (1995). Managing technology in society. The approach of constructive technology assessment. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Groen, A. (2001). Many visible hands. In R. Coombs, K. Green, V. Walsh & A. Richards (Eds.), Technology and the market. Demands, users and innovation (pp. 12-37). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance – and its ironies. In J.-P. Vos, D. Bauknecht & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82-100). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., Robinson, D. K. R., & te Kulve, H. (2007). Multi-level emergence and stabilization of paths of nanotechnology in different industries/sectors, paper prepared for International Workshop on Paths. Berlin, 17-18 September 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & te Kulve, H. (2008). Constructive technology assessment and sociotechnical scenarios. In E. Fisher, C. Selin & J. M. Wetmore (Eds.), The yearbook of nanotechnology in society (1st ed.): Presenting futures (pp. 49-70). Berlin etc: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & van Amerom, M. (2009). Emerging de facto agendas around nanotechnology: Two cases full of contingencies, lock-outs and lock-ins. In S. Maasen, M. Kaiser, M. Kurath & C. Rehmann-Sutter (Eds.), Deliberating future technologies: Identity, ethics, and governance of nanotechnology. Heidelberg et al.: Springer, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. K. R. (2009). Complexity scenarios for emerging techno-science. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real people play. Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schot, J.W., Lintsen, H.W., Rip, A., & de la Bruheze, A. A. A. (2003). (en mede-redactieleden), Techniek in Nederland in de Twintigste Eeuw. VII. Techniek en Modernisering. Balans van de Twintigste Eeuw. Zuthphen: Walburg Pers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shibuya, E. (1996). Roaring mice against the tide: The South Pacific Islands and agenda-building on global warming. Pacific Affairs, 69, Winter 1997/1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1978). A Social World Perspective. Studies in symbolic interaction, 1, 119-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swiss R. (2004) Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns. May. Zurich: Swiss Re. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomellini, R., & Giordani, J. (2008). Report: Third international dialogue on responsible research and development of nanotechnology. Brussels: European Commission. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/research/industrial_technologies/pdf/policy/report-third-international-dialogue-2008_en.pdf

  • UNESCO, Division of Ethics of Science and Technology (2006). The ethics and politics of nanotechnology. Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Kersbergen, K., & van Waarden, F. (2004). Governance as a bridge between disciplines: Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governance and problems of governability, accountability and legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43, 143-171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality—design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361-380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voβ, J.-P. (2007). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. Enschede: University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Arie Rip

Authors
  1. Arie Rip
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arie Rip .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rip, A. (2018). De facto Governance of Nanotechnologies. In: Futures of Science and Technology in Society. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21754-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation