IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v33y2006i1p5-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Fisher
  • Roop L Mahajan

Abstract

This paper argues that the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development (R&D) Act embodies an unresolved tension between two policy trends that pose a growing dilemma for future science and technology (S&T) policy makers: the imperative towards rapid technological implementation; and mounting pressure to conduct technology development with more effective regard to societal considerations. The tension emerges when comparing various ‘Program Activities’ set forth in the Act that require divergent policy models, by which the legislation attempts to balance international competition with concern over the perceived risks of nanotechnology applications. By prescribing the integration of societal and technical concerns during nanotechnology R&D, the Act could mark a radical shift in S&T policy in so far as it allows the consideration of societal concerns to influence technological activities and outcomes. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Fisher & Roop L Mahajan, 2006. "Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 5-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:1:p:5-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154306781779181
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Woodson, Thomas S. & Hoffmann, Elina & Boutilier, Sophia, 2021. "Evaluating the NSF broader impacts with the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion: A retrospective analysis of nanotechnology grants," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. Patrick S. Roberts & Jon Schmid, 2022. "Government‐led innovation acceleration: Case studies of US federal government innovation and technology acceleration organizations," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(3), pages 353-378, May.
    3. Fisher, Erik, 2019. "Governing with ambivalence: The tentative origins of socio-technical integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1138-1149.
    4. Ruud Smits & Rutger van Merkerk & David H. Guston & Daniel Sarewitz, 2008. "The role of TA in Systemic Innovation Policy," Innovation Studies Utrecht (ISU) working paper series 08-01, Utrecht University, Department of Innovation Studies, revised Feb 2008.
    5. Thomas Woodson & Sophia Boutilier, 2022. "Impacts for whom? Assessing inequalities in NSF-funded broader impacts using the Inclusion-Immediacy Criterion [The Role of Governance in Mobile Phones for Inclusive Human Development in Sub-Sahara," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 168-178.
    6. Kroll, Henning & Berghäuser, Hendrik & Blind, Knut & Neuhäusler, Peter & Scheifele, Fabian & Thielmann, Axel & Wydra, Sven, 2022. "Schlüsseltechnologien," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 7-2022, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Liu, Na & Guan, JianCheng, 2016. "Policy and innovation: Nanoenergy technology in the USA and China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 220-232.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:33:y:2006:i:1:p:5-16. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.