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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 165-185 |
| Number of pages | 21 |
| Journal | Regulation and Governance |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2009 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -