Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nanotechnology and the Extension and Transformation of Inequity

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development

Part of the book series: Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society ((YNTS,volume 2))

Abstract

While the authors that have contributed to this book believe that furthering the cause of equity is a laudable goal, there are many people who benefit from existing unequal political arrangements. In this chapter, Georgia Miller and Gyorgy Scrinis argue that many of those currently directing the future of nanotechnology have a strong incentive to maintain these patterns of unequal distribution. They note that nanotechnology is arising from actions that align it with powerful economic and political interests in the Global North. Despite paying lip service to studying the “ethical, legal, and social implications” of nanotechnology, those who are driving the rapid expansion of nanotechnology have not shown any genuine commitment to reorienting the enterprise to human needs or a more equal society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • APEC. 2002. Nanotechnology: The technology for the 21st Century. vol. 2: The full report. Bangkok: The APEC Center for Technology Foresight, National Science and Technology Development Agency

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation, Journal of the American Planning Association 35 (4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, D. 2007. Patently obvious: Intellectual property rights and nanotechnology. Technology in Society 29 (3): 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, L. 2009. Nanotechnology: Changing the disability paradigm. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation 8 (2). http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL08_02/articles/cabrera.shtml (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Citizens Participation in Science and Technology.2008. Nanotechnology and society: Where do we stand in the ladder of citizen participation? CIPAST Newsletter Nanotechnology March 08. http://www.cipast.org/download/CIPAST%20Newsletter%20Nano.pdf (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Corporate Watch. 2005. Nanotechnology: What it is and how corporations are using it, London: Corporate Watch. http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=2147 (accessed August 03, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozzens, S.E., S. Gatchair, E. Harari, and D. Thakur. 2006. Distributional assessment of emerging technologies: A framework for analysis. http://www.cds.edu/globelics/susan%20E%20cozzens.pdf (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Cozzens, Susan E., Isabel Bortagaray, Sonia Gatchair, and Dhanaraj Thakur. 2008. Emerging technologies and social cohesion: Policy options from a comparative study. Paper presented at the PRIME Latin America Conference, September 24–26, 2008. http://prime_mexico2008.xoc.uam.mx/papers/Susan_Cozzens_Emerging_Technologies_a_social_Cohesion.pdf (accessed August 03, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cribb, J. 2007. The dwarf lords: Tiny devices, tiny minds and the new enslavement: The Governance of Science and Technology. A Joint GovNet/CAPPE/UNESCO Conference. August 9–10, 2007, Australian National University. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6323 (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Davies, J.C. 2009. Oversight of next generation nanotechnology, Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen18/ (accessed August 03, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • DIISR. 2009. National enabling technologies strategy – Discussion Paper, Department of Innovation, Industry Science and Research, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • DITR. 2002. Smaller, cleaner, cheaper, faster, smarter: Nanotechnology applications and opportunities for Australian industry. A Report for the Commonwealth Department of Industry, Tourism & Resources, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • DITR. 2006. Options for a national nanotechnology strategy. June 2006. Australian Government, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2001. New enclosures: Alternative mechanisms to enhance corporate monopoly and bioserfdom in the 21st century, ETC Group Communiqué No.73, Ottawa: ETC Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2004. Down on the farm: The impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture, Ottawa, ON: ETC Group. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=80 (accessed August 05, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2005a. Nanotech’s “second nature” patents: Implications for the global south, Ottawa, ON: ETC Group. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=54 (accessed August 05, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2005b. The potential impacts of nano-scale technologies on commodity markets: The implications for commodity dependent developing countries. South Centre research paper No.4., Ottawa, ON: ETC Group. http://etcgroup.org/en/node/45 (accessed August 05, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2005c. Nanogeopolitics, ETC Group Communiqué No.89, Ottawa, ON: ETC Group. http://etcgroup.org/en/node/51 (accessed August 05, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • ETC Group. 2008. Who owns nature? Corporate power and the final frontier in the commodification of life, Ottawa, ON: ETC Group http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/707. (accessed 05 August 2010).

  • Foladori, G., and N. Invernizzi. 2008, The workers’ push to democratize nanotechnology, Chapter 2. In The yearbook of nanotechnology in society vol. 1: Presenting futures. ed. E. Fisher, C. Selin, and J. Wetmore, 23–36. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forero-Pineda, C. 2006. The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy 35(6):808–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth Australia. 2006. The disruptive social impacts of nanotechnology, Melbourne, VIC: FoEA. http://www.nano.foe.org.au/node/152 (accessed August 03, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth Australia. 2007. Who’s afraid of the precautionary principle? Melbourne, VIC: FoEA. http://www.nano.foe.org.au/node/186 (accessed August 03, 2010)

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth. 2008. Out of the laboratory and on to our plates: Nanotechnology in food and agriculture, Sydney, NSW: FoE Australia, Europe and U.S. http://nano.foe.org.au/sites/default/files/Nanotechnology%20in%20food%20and%20agriculture%20-%20web%20resolution.pdf (accessed August 03, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Friends of the Earth Australia. 2009. Questioning government’s role as chief nanotechnology proponent – a biased adjudicator? Melbourne, VIC: FoEA. http://www.nano.foe.org.au/node/307 (accessed August 03, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepburn, J. 2006. Technology, risk and values: From genetic engineering to nanotechnology. Chain Reaction 97: 40–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hullman, A. 2006. Who is winning the global nanorace? Nature Nanotechnology 1:81–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IFRI. 2008. Nanotechnology, food, agriculture and development. IFPRI Policy Seminar, June 18, 2008. http://www.ifpri.org/event/nanotechnology-food-agriculture-and-development (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Inside U.S. Trade. 2009. U.S., EU differ on product safety for nanomaterials, trade fight looms. October 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Invernizzi, N., and G. Foladori. 2005. Nanotechnology and the developing world: Will nanotechnology overcome poverty or widen disparities? Nanotech Law & Business 2 (3): 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Invernizzi, N., G. Foladori, and D. Maclurcan. 2008. Nanotechnology’s controversial role for the south. Science Technology Society 13 (1): 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, A. 2006. The politics of talk: Coming to terms with the ‘new’ scientific governance. Social Studies of Science 36 (2): 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamison, A. 2009. Can nanotechnology be just? On nanotechnology and the emerging movement for global justice. Nanoethics 3:129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joly, P.B., and A. Kaufmann. 2008. Lost in translation? The need for ‘upstream engagement’ with nanotechnology on trial. Science as Culture 17 (3): 225–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M., P. Macnaughten, and J. Wilsdon. 2006a. Governing at the nanoscale: People, policies and emerging technologies. Demos, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearnes, M., R. Grove-White, P. Macnaughten, J. Wilsdon, and B. Wynne. 2006b. From bio to nano: Learning lessons from the UK agricultural biotechnology controversy. Science as Culture 15 (4): 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, S. 2005. Nanotech grows up. Technology Review 108 (6): 31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., P. Zhang, X. Li, H. Chen, Y. Dang, C. Larson, M. Roco, and X. Wang. 2009. Trends for nanotechnology development in China, Russia, and India. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 11:1845-1866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loka Institute. 2003. Langdon Winner’s testimony to the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives on the societal implications of nanotechnology, Wednesday, April 9. http://www.loka.org/Documents/Winner_nano_testimony.pdf (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Loka Institute. 2007. Precaution, participation and nanotechnology, Loka Nanotechnology Group. August 2007. http://www.loka.org/FedNanoPolicy.html (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Lyons, K., and J. Whelan. 2009. Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in Australia. Nanoethics. doi:10.1007/s11569-009-0070-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macnaghten, P., M. Kearnes, and B. Wynne. 2005. Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Science Communication 27 (2): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G., and G. Scrinis. Forthcoming 2010. The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: Challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation. Chapter 3. In International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, ed. G. Hodge, D. Bowman, and A. Maynard. London: Edward Elgar.

  • Mohr, A. 2007. Against the stream: Moving public engagement on nanotechnologies upstream. In Risk and the public acceptance of new technologies. ed. R. Flynn, and P. Bellaby, 107–125. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, P. 2006. Hype and hope: A past and future perspective on new technologies for development. Development 49 (4): 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NanoAction. 2007. Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials, Washington, DC: International Center for Technology Assessment. http://www.nanoaction.org/nanoaction/page.cfm?id=223 (accessed August 03, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science and Technology Council Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. 2000. National nanotechnology initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution. Washington, DC: NSTC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyéléni. 2007. Nyéléni 2007 Forum for Food Sovereignty, Sélingué Mali, February 23–27. http://www.foei.org/en/publications/pdfs/nyeleni-forum-for-food-sovereignty (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • OECD. n.d. Ratification of the convention on the OECD, http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html. (accessed August 03, 2010).

  • Parr, D. 2003. Without a reality check, claims of nanotech’s benefits are a con. Small Times, September 26. http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/stm_print_screen.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=268999 (accessed September 2, 2009).

  • Preschitschek, N. and D. Bresser. 2010. Nanotechnology patenting in China and Germany - a comparison of patent landscapes by bibliographic analyses. Journal of Business Chemistry. 7(1):3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regaldo, A. 2003. Greenpeace warns of pollutants derived from nanotechnology. Wall Street Journal. July 25. http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2003/Pollutants-From-Nanotechnology25jul03.htm. (accessed September 2, 2009).

  • Roco, M., and W. Bainbridge. 2002. Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (NBIC). NSF/DOC-sponsored report. http://www.wtec.org/ConvergingTechnologies/Report/ (accessed August 05, 2010).

  • Rogers-Hayden T., A. Mohr, and N. Pidgeon. 2007. Introduction: Engaging with nanotechnologies – engaging differently? NanoEthics 1:123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, K. 2007. Providing “thoughtful feedback”: Public participation in the regulation of Australia’s first genetically modified food crop. Science and Public Policy 34 (3) 213–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royal Society, and Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. London: RS-RAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamanca-Buentello, F., D. Persad, E. Court, D. Martin, A. Daar, and P. Singer. 2005. Nanotechnology and the Developing World. PLoS Med 2(5), e97 doi 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sclove, R. 1995. Democracy and technology. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrinis, G., and K. Lyons. 2007. The emerging nano-corporate paradigm: Nanotechnology and the transformation of nature, food and agri-food systems. International Journal for the Sociology of Food and Agriculture 15 (2): 22–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scrinis, G., and K. Lyons. 2010. Nanotechnology and the techno-corporate agri-food paradigm. Chapter 16: In Food security, nutrition and sustainability, ed. G. Lawrence, K. Lyons, and T. Wallington 252–270. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shand, H. 2005. New enclosures: Why civil society and governments should look beyond life patents. In rights and liberties in the biotech age: Why we need a genetic bill of rights, ed. Sheldon Krimsky, and Peter Shorett, 40–48. Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shand, H., and K. Wetter. 2006. Shrinking science: An introduction to nanotechnology. Chapter 5. In State of the world 2006: Special focus, China and India. The Worldwatch Institute. 78–95 New York, NY: WW Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparrow, R. 2007. Revolutionary and familiar, inevitable and precarious: Rhetorical contradictions in enthusiasm for nanotechnology. NanoEthics 1 (1): 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stilgoe, J. 2007. Nanodialogues: Experiments in public engagement with science. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  • US National Nanotechnology Initiative. 2005. Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry. Supplement to the President’s 2006 budget, nanoscale science, engineering, and technology subcommittee on technology, National Science and Technology Council. http://www.nano.gov/NNI_06Budget.pdf (accessed August 05, 2010).

  • Whitman, J. 2007. The governance of nanotechnology Science and Public Policy 34 (4): 273–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO. 2009. Joint FAO/WHO expert meeting on the application of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors: Potential food safety implications. June 1–5 2009. http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/meetings/nano_june09/en/index.html (accessed August 05, 2010).

  • Wolbring, G. 2002. Science and technology and the triple d (disease, disability, defect). In Converging technologies for improving human performance, ed. Mihail.C. Roco, and William S. Bainbridge, 232–243. Arlington: NSF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolbring, G. 2008. Why NBIC? Why human enhancement? European Journal of Social Science Research 21 (1): 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, E., and D. Sarewitz. 2007. Science policies for reducing societal inequities, Science and Public Policy 34 (2): 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 1993. Public uptake of science: A case for institutional reflexivity. Public Understanding of Science 2: 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. 2007. Public participation in science and technology: Performing and obscuring a political–conceptual category mistake. East Asian Science and Technology Society: an International Journal 1: 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Friends of the Earth Australia, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Georgia Miller

  2. RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Gyorgy Scrinis

Authors
  1. Georgia Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gyorgy Scrinis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georgia Miller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Oak Brooke Way 1147, Atlanta, 30319, USA

    Susan E. Cozzens

  2. Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Jameson Wetmore

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Miller, G., Scrinis, G. (2010). Nanotechnology and the Extension and Transformation of Inequity. In: Cozzens, S., Wetmore, J. (eds) Nanotechnology and the Challenges of Equity, Equality and Development. Yearbook of Nanotechnology in Society, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9615-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation