IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v27y2005i3p321-328.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program

Author

Listed:
  • Fisher, Erik

Abstract

This paper considers federal requirements to institute a research program on societal and ethical considerations of nanotechnology, and to integrate the results of this research with nanotechnology research and development. It identifies research selection and assessment criteria derived in part from criticism of the Human Genome Project's Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications program. This criticism concerns the capacity of bioethics research to influence policy. Since integration of societal research with nanotechnology development is meant to influence the direction of nanotechnology development, an explicit emphasis ought to be placed on the capacity of the new program's societal and ethical research to influence federal nanotechnology development policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Fisher, Erik, 2005. "Lessons learned from the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program (ELSI): Planning societal implications research for the National Nanotechnology Program," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 321-328.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:27:y:2005:i:3:p:321-328
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X05000278
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuwan Malakar & Justine Lacey & Paul M Bertsch, 2022. "Towards responsible science and technology: How nanotechnology research and development is shaping risk governance practices in Australia," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Bowman, Diana M., 2007. "Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 307-315.
    3. Kaplan, Leah R. & Farooque, Mahmud & Sarewitz, Daniel & Tomblin, David, 2021. "Designing Participatory Technology Assessments: A Reflexive Method for Advancing the Public Role in Science Policy Decision-making," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    4. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    5. Wiek, Arnim & Zemp, Stefan & Siegrist, Michael & Walter, Alexander I., 2007. "Sustainable governance of emerging technologies—Critical constellations in the agent network of nanotechnology," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 388-406.
    6. Pardo-Guerra, Juan Pablo, 2011. "Mapping emergence across the Atlantic: Some (tentative) lessons on nanotechnology in Latin America," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 94-108.
    7. Rodríguez, Hannot & Fisher, Erik & Schuurbiers, Daan, 2013. "Integrating science and society in European Framework Programmes: Trends in project-level solicitations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 1126-1137.
    8. Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
    9. Philip Shapira & Jan Youtie & Alan L. Porter, 2010. "The emergence of social science research on nanotechnology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 595-611, November.
    10. Erik Fisher & Catherine P. Slade & Derrick Anderson & Barry Bozeman, 2010. "The public value of nanotechnology?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 29-39, October.
    11. Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2017. "Exploring public values implications of the I-Corps program," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 1362-1376, December.
    12. Schaper-Rinkel, Petra, 2013. "The role of future-oriented technology analysis in the governance of emerging technologies: The example of nanotechnology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 444-452.
    13. Boer, Duncan den & Rip, Arie & Speller, Sylvia, 2009. "Scripting possible futures of nanotechnologies: A methodology that enhances reflexivity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 295-304.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:27:y:2005:i:3:p:321-328. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.