![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Advances in converging technologies (CTs) will certainly bring many economic and social benefits. Nevertheless, the uncontrolled development of CTs could also produce many types of risks. Even though all of the threats arising from the uncontrolled development of CTs for society may not yet be apparent today, we are already at the point where we must design suitable policy approaches in order to avoid possible risks. In this article it is argued that the precautionary principle is becoming an increasingly important forum for the inclusion of the lay public in R&D policy decision-making processes. A more active role of citizens in risk assessment and risk governance of CTs is also important due to the many ethical and social dilemmas arising from the new emerging technologies. In this article special attention is paid to the increasing processes of the commodification and commercialization of CTs. Disputes over intellectual property rights, perhaps more than any other CT-connected topic, have recently been touching on basic ethical dilemmas.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Jacquelyne Luce for her constructive criticism on earlier versions of the present article.
Notes
1. The first and most comprehensive presentation of the concept of CTs was given in the report entitled Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (Bainbridge and Roco Citation2002). The study was sponsored by the US National Science Foundation and the US Department of Commerce. As Fuller (Citation2008, p. 12) noted, the original 2002 NSF report decisively determines the meaning of the phrase “converging technologies”. Subsequently, a number of workshops and publications edited by William S. Bainbridge and Mihail C. Roco have achieved progress in the field of CTs. In our article we refer to the publication of 2006 (Bainbridge and Roco Citation2006). This publication entitled Managing nano-bio-info-cogno innovations. Converging technologies in society tackles the potential social impacts of CTs. The authors of the publication consider how innovations in the field of CTs can be encouraged and guided. They also deal with the societal implications of CTs.
2. As Whiteside (Citation2006, p. 53) stated: “PP does imply a broad range of possible measures – measures calibrated to the degree of uncertainty and the seriousness of the consequences that are feared”.
3. Of course, views also exist that state that increased public dialogue in Europe with the help of PP does not necessary engender trust between scientists and lay people (see, for example, Irwin Citation2007).
4. Last but not least, confidence in :“science-based risk assessment” lay behind the US decision in 2003 to file a case with the World Trade Organization against Europe on its alleged moratorium against GM crops and foods. The basic complaint of Americans against Europe was: the attack on GM crops was connected to the protection of small firms and endeavors to avoid dependency on powerful multinational firms
5. The 2004 EU report differentiates various types of risk connected to CTs: (1) the risk of investing in technological promise that does not materialize; (2) the risk that consumer acceptance of new technologies outpaces the careful consideration of their consequences; and (3) the risk inherited by converging technologies through the contribution from various enabling technologies (High Level Expert Group Citation2004, p. 39).
6. The Eurobarometer survey, performed soon after the food safety scandals, pointed out that only 14.6% of respondents in the representative sample agreed that GMOs do not present any particular danger, whereas 85.9% of respondents said they wanted to know more about this kind of food before eating it (Gaskell et al. Citation2003).
7. The European Commission's communiqué of 2000 suggests that the absence of scientific proof of the existence of a cause–effect relationship should not be used to justify inaction. Even if scientific advice is supported by a minority fraction of the scientific community, due account should be taken of their views (European Commission Citation2000).
8. The whole set of drawbacks in the development of nanotechnology has been empirically less visible recently, as was the case with biotechnology before it. The concerns of lay people have increased in recent times, especially concerning fears of the potential toxicity of nanoparticles. They demand stronger control of the further development of nanotechnology. Drexler's hypothetical scenario of the self-replicating “grey goo”, for example, has attracted a lot of interest amongst the public and media in some Western European countries (Macnaghten et al. Citation2005, p. 280) in spite of the fact that Drexler's scenario has been dismissed by leading nanoscientists
9. Material transfer agreements formalize the exchange of research material between the provider and receiver for research purposes. Unlike patents or copyrights, material transfer agreements are not based on codified legal statutes defining specific rights and obligations. The parties to an agreement have wide discretion in setting the terms of their agreements. They tailor the agreements to their specific needs. Material transfer agreements generally impose pre-publication review, disclosure restrictions, liability indemnification or a restriction on actual use (for more see Rodriguez Citation2007).
10. According to Nelkin and Andrews (Citation2001, p. 5) “only the most elemental physical phenomena (for example: electricity, gravity) are today reliably regarded as definitely not patentable. It does mean that interpretation, what is discovery and what invention, is more and more liberal”
11. As discussed by various authors (Thaker Citation2003; Kranakis Citation2004), the opposition believed that patenting organisms was unethical (e.g. GRAIN, RAFI), that the modification of either animal or human genomes was immoral (e.g. the European Ecumenical Commission for Church and Society, the German Protestant Church), that patenting would unfairly penalize developing world farmers and indigenous peoples (e.g. Action Aid) and that farmers would be obliged to pay royalties on every generation of plants and livestock they bought and reproduced for production purposes and that breeders would no longer have free access to germlines for developing new varieties of plants and animals (e.g. the Coordination Paysanne Européene/European Farmers' Coordination). Led by Greenpeace, this coalition opposed the legislation and had strong support from (mostly German) members of the European Parliament (MEPs) for the Green Party, despite the continued opposition of several EU member states
12. The term “big science” has been used by policy decision-makers, scientists and philosophers of science to describe a series of changes in science which occurred in industrial nations in the 1960s, when the production of scientific knowledge shifted from small group efforts to large-scale funded projects.
13. On the other hand, people's reliance on the personal credentials of experts is still rare in Slovenia. British expertise, for example, remains tied to a remarkable extent to the personal qualifications of the individual expert. Such an expert achieves standing not only through knowledge and competence, but through a demonstrated record of service to society. Only in this cultural setting can Prince Charles also appear as an authoritative science policy actor. Mohr (Citation2007, p. 109) states that the issue of nanotechnologies undoubtedly entered the public sphere in Britain when Prince Charles erroneously reported fears about self-replicating nanomachines
14. Currently, there are two special Eurobarometer studies of June 2005, i.e. “Europeans, Science and Technology” (Citation2005) and “Social Values, Science and Technology” (2005) covering very different aspects of general European attitudes to science and technology: citizens’ level of information about science and technology (new scientific discoveries, new inventions), citizens’ image of science and technology (what they consider to be “scientific”, how they assess science and technology's impact on society), citizens’ support for scientific research, citizens’ assessment of the responsibilities of scientists and policy-makers, citizens’ assessment of the new European Research Area, and citizens’ assessment of the ethical implications of scientific and technological development (cloning, the use of genetics, GMOs).