Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRodríguez Zabaleta, Hannot ORCID
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-01T16:17:35Z
dc.date.available2024-02-01T16:17:35Z
dc.date.issued2017-08-05
dc.identifier.citationNanoEthics 12(1) : 5-26 (2018)es_ES
dc.identifier.issn1871-4757
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10810/64559
dc.description.abstract[EN]The European Union (EU) is strategically committed to the development of nanotechnology and its industrial exploitation. However, nanotechnology also has the potential to disrupt human health and the environment. The EU claims to be committed to the safe and responsible development of nanotechnology. In this sense, the EU has become the first governing body in the world to develop nanospecific regulations, largely due to legislative action taken by the European Parliament, which has compensated for the European Commission’s reluctance to develop special regulations for nanomaterials. Nevertheless, divergences aside, political bodies in the EU assume that nanotechnology development is controllable and take for granted that both the massive industrial use of nanomaterials and a high level of environmental and health protection are compatible. However, experiences such as the European controversy over agri-food biotechnology, which somewhat delegitimized the regulatory authority of the EU over technological safety and acceptability, arguably show that controllability assumptions are contestable on the grounds of alternative socio-economic and cultural preferences and values. Recently developed inclusive governance models on safety and innovation, such as"Responsible Research and Innovation" (RRI), widelyclaim that a diversity of considerations and issues areintegrated into R&D processes. Even so, the possibility of more radically alternative constitutions of sociotechnical safety seems to be seriously limited by the current ideology of innovation and economic imperatives of the global, knowledge-based, capitalist economy.es_ES
dc.description.sponsorshipThis work is based mainly upon research supported by the Basque Government’s Department of Education, Universities and Research under a Postdoctoral Fellowship for the Improvement of Research Personnel in a Foreign Country (grant BFI08.183). It has also been supported by the Basque Government’s Department of Education, Language Policy and Culture (grant IT644-13), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (grant FFI2015-69792-R), and the University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU (grant EHUA15/13). The author also wishes to thank Heather A. Okvat for her assistance in revising the initial, original version of the article, and to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive and thorough comments on the present version. Any shortcomings in the work remain the responsibility of the author.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherSpringeres_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
dc.subjectEU risk governancees_ES
dc.subjectnanotechnologyes_ES
dc.subjectuncertaintyes_ES
dc.subjectagri-food biotechnologyes_ES
dc.subjectinclusive governancees_ES
dc.subjectRRIes_ES
dc.titleNanotechnology and Risk Governance in the European Union: the Constitution of Safety in Highly Promoted and Contested Innovation Areases_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.holder© 2017, Springer Science Business Media Dordrechtes_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11569-017-0296-3es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s11569-017-0296-3
dc.departamentoesFilosofíaes_ES
dc.departamentoeuFilosofiaes_ES


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record