IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v37y2014icp16-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context: Entangling approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Fonseca, Paulo F.C.
  • Pereira, Tiago Santos

Abstract

The present article discusses the governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context. By firstly identifying what we term as the European model of governance we conclude that the Brazilian policy and research environment of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology does not similarly emphasise Anticipatory Governance processes, based on anticipating future scenarios of controversies and risks and broadening the participation in the upstream phase of development. Instead, there has been a predominant concern on the promotion of competiveness and a lack of debate of environmental, health and safety issues. However, we identify the Social Technology approach as a potentially distinct mode of governance in the Brazilian context. Although it has not hitherto been applied to the local or global nanotechnology governance practices, it shares many of the tenets of the Anticipatory Governance approach. We conclude with an entanglement of both approaches and propose the concept of Social Nanotechnologies, which we suggest to be a feasible research agenda for the governance of emerging technologies in semi-peripheral contexts such as Brazil.

Suggested Citation

  • Fonseca, Paulo F.C. & Pereira, Tiago Santos, 2014. "The governance of nanotechnology in the Brazilian context: Entangling approaches," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 16-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:37:y:2014:i:c:p:16-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X13000626
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.07.003?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    2. David H Guston, 1996. "Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 229-240, August.
    3. Jim Whitman, 2007. "The governance of nanotechnology," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 273-283, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Karlijn Muiderman & Aarti Gupta & Joost Vervoort & Frank Biermann, 2020. "Four approaches to anticipatory climate governance: Different conceptions of the future and implications for the present," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    2. Saidi, Trust & Zeiss, Ragna, 2016. "Investigating promises of nanotechnology for development: A case study of the travelling of smart nano water filter in Zimbabwe," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 40-48.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Jong, Stefan P.L. & Wardenaar, Tjerk & Horlings, Edwin, 2016. "Exploring the promises of transdisciplinary research: A quantitative study of two climate research programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1397-1409.
    2. Avery Sen, 2017. "Island + Bridge: how transformative innovation is organized in the federal government," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(5), pages 707-721.
    3. Braun, Dietmar & Benninghoff, Martin, 2003. "Policy learning in Swiss research policy--the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1849-1863, December.
    4. Wipo, 2011. "World Intellectual Property Report 2011- The Changing Face of Innovation," WIPO Economics & Statistics Series, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, number 2011:944, April.
    5. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    6. Rajeev K. Goel, 2023. "Seek foreign funds or technology? Relative impacts of different spillover modes on innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1466-1488, August.
    7. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    8. Krzysztof Klincewicz & Szymon Szumiał, 2022. "Successful patenting—not only how, but with whom: the importance of patent attorneys," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5111-5137, September.
    9. Paula Susana Figueiredo Moutinho & Margarida Fontes & Manuel Mira Godinho, 2007. "Do individual factors matter? A survey of scientists’ patenting in Portuguese public research organisations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 70(2), pages 355-377, February.
    10. Crespi, Gustavo & D'Este, Pablo & Fontana, Roberto & Geuna, Aldo, 2011. "The impact of academic patenting on university research and its transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 55-68, February.
    11. Deepak Hegde, 2005. "Public and Private Universities: Unequal Sources of Regional Innovation?," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 19(4), pages 373-386, November.
    12. Waters, James, 2014. "Introduction of innovations during the 2007-8 financial crisis: US companies compared with universities," MPRA Paper 59016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Geuna, Aldo & Nesta, Lionel J.J., 2006. "University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 790-807, July.
    14. Nicolas Carayol & Elodie Carpentier, 2022. "The spread of academic invention: a nationwide case study on French data (1995–2012)," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1395-1421, October.
    15. Shen, Huijun & Coreynen, Wim & Huang, Can, 2022. "Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    16. Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, Banji & Gehl Sampath, Padmashree, 2006. "Rough Road to Market: Institutional Barriers to Innovations in Africa," MERIT Working Papers 2006-026, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    17. Yi Zhang & Kaihua Chen & Guilong Zhu & Richard C. M. Yam & Jiancheng Guan, 2016. "Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1383-1415, September.
    18. Arho Suominen & Matthias Deschryvere, 2024. "Barriers to immaterial property rights development in research organizations: an explorative study from Finland," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1935-1958, October.
    19. Saeed Saadat & Muffatto Moreno & Yousafzai Shumaila, 2014. "A Multi-level Study of Entrepreneurship Education among Pakistani University Students," Entrepreneurship Research Journal, De Gruyter, vol. 4(3), pages 297-321, July.
    20. Wernsdorf, Kathrin & Nagler, Markus & Watzinger, Martin, 2022. "ICT, collaboration, and innovation: Evidence from BITNET," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).

    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:37:y:2014:i:c:p:16-27. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.