31 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

It is often argued that immediate government action regarding nanotechnology is needed to ensure that public opinion does not mistakenly view nanotechnology as dangerous, to restore public trust in government, and to increase the legitimacy of government action through increased public participation. This article questions whether governments can achieve these goals. As the world lurches toward regulation of nanotechnology, we should ask Why the rush? Can anticipatory action, perceived as the government doing something, fulfill the competing hopes to "restore trust," "pave the way" for nanotechnology, "increase awareness," and "satisfy democratic notions of accountability"? Or is government action more likely to increase existing divisions over nanotechnology's future?

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)165-185
Number of pages21
JournalRegulation and Governance
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

nanotechnology
regulation
public opinion
legitimacy
responsibility
participation

Keywords

  • Cognitive psychology
  • Nanotechnology
  • Public opinion
  • Responsive regulation
  • Risk regulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law
  • Public Administration

Cite this

Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology. / Sylvester, Douglas; Abbott, Kenneth; Marchant, Gary.

In: Regulation and Governance, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009, p. 165-185.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1d46b247483549628afa53b1ddc74f40,
title = "Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology",
abstract = "It is often argued that immediate government action regarding nanotechnology is needed to ensure that public opinion does not mistakenly view nanotechnology as dangerous, to restore public trust in government, and to increase the legitimacy of government action through increased public participation. This article questions whether governments can achieve these goals. As the world lurches toward regulation of nanotechnology, we should ask Why the rush? Can anticipatory action, perceived as the government doing something, fulfill the competing hopes to {"}restore trust,{"} {"}pave the way{"} for nanotechnology, {"}increase awareness,{"} and {"}satisfy democratic notions of accountability{"}? Or is government action more likely to increase existing divisions over nanotechnology's future?",
keywords = "Cognitive psychology, Nanotechnology, Public opinion, Responsive regulation, Risk regulation",
author = "Douglas Sylvester and Kenneth Abbott and Gary Marchant",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "165--185",
journal = "Regulation and Governance",
issn = "1748-5983",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Not again! Public perception, regulation, and nanotechnology

AU - Sylvester, Douglas

AU - Abbott, Kenneth

AU - Marchant, Gary

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - It is often argued that immediate government action regarding nanotechnology is needed to ensure that public opinion does not mistakenly view nanotechnology as dangerous, to restore public trust in government, and to increase the legitimacy of government action through increased public participation. This article questions whether governments can achieve these goals. As the world lurches toward regulation of nanotechnology, we should ask Why the rush? Can anticipatory action, perceived as the government doing something, fulfill the competing hopes to "restore trust," "pave the way" for nanotechnology, "increase awareness," and "satisfy democratic notions of accountability"? Or is government action more likely to increase existing divisions over nanotechnology's future?

AB - It is often argued that immediate government action regarding nanotechnology is needed to ensure that public opinion does not mistakenly view nanotechnology as dangerous, to restore public trust in government, and to increase the legitimacy of government action through increased public participation. This article questions whether governments can achieve these goals. As the world lurches toward regulation of nanotechnology, we should ask Why the rush? Can anticipatory action, perceived as the government doing something, fulfill the competing hopes to "restore trust," "pave the way" for nanotechnology, "increase awareness," and "satisfy democratic notions of accountability"? Or is government action more likely to increase existing divisions over nanotechnology's future?

KW - Cognitive psychology

KW - Nanotechnology

KW - Public opinion

KW - Responsive regulation

KW - Risk regulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67449135209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67449135209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01049.x

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 165

EP - 185

JO - Regulation and Governance

JF - Regulation and Governance

SN - 1748-5983

IS - 2

ER -