MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W271466871

The case for publicly funded research on the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues raised by nanoscience and nanotechnology (NE3LS).

2004· article· en· W271466871 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Lorraine Sheremeta, Abdallah S. Daar

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBiotechnology and Related Fields
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Health EconomicsUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolitical scienceMultidisciplinary approachPublic relationsLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The campaign against GMOs was successful despite the lack of sound scientific data demonstrating threat to society. In fact, I argue that the lack of sufficient public scientific data on GMOs, whether positive or negative, was controlling factor in the industry's fall from favor. The failure of the industry to produce and share information with public stakeholders left it ill-equipped to respond to GMO detractors. This industry went, in essence, from wow to yuck to bankrupt. There is powerful lesson here for (1) On Tuesday, June 15, 2004, the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta hosted multidisciplinary workshop in Edmonton, Alberta, to consider ways to promote collaborative N[E.sup.3]LS research in Canada. (2) The Workshop was one part of continuing effort, commenced in Spring 2003, led by Timothy Caulfield and Abdallah Daar, to develop Canadian N[E.sup.3]LS Forum. (3) The Forum is envisioned to be an inclusive, collaborative, multidisciplinary research team with relevant expertise and desire to develop N[E.sup.3]LS research capacity in Canada. Specifically, the June 15 Workshop was held to review the current status of N[E.sup.3]LS research, identify priorities and explore existing sources of research funding in Canada, the United States and Europe that may be sought to further the development of the nascent N[E.sup.3]LS Forum in Canada. Workshop Participants unanimously agreed that N[E.sup.3]LS issues must not be ignored if Canada is to move forward and become world leader in the field of Nanotechnology has been given priority in Canada's national innovation agenda. This is evidenced by the Federal and Provincial governments' commitment to the National Institute for Nanotechnology (4), for which new state of the art facility is currently being built at the University of Alberta. In addition, recent comments in the Speech from the Throne highlight the fact that Canada must strive to be a world leader in developing and applying the path-breaking technologies of the 21st Century--biotechnology, environmental technology, information and communications technologies, health technologies, and nanotechnology. (5) In becoming true leader in the area of nanotechnology, Canada would be remiss if it were not to carefully and proactively consider and address the N[E.sup.3]LS issues that have already been raised and that are likely to arise in the future. For these reasons, we believe that N[E.sup.3]LS research must, along with the scientific research, be considered priority area for research funding at both the federal and provincial levels. As matter of primary importance, Workshop Participants sought to develop taxonomy of the major issues likely to face nanotechnology research, development and commercialization. The main issues identified by the Workshop Participants are identified in Table 1. Public trust in academia, industry and in the government's innovation agenda must not be taken lightly if nanotechnology is to reach its potential. Public trust is necessary to ensure that the public will not prematurely and inappropriately impose moratorium on nanotechnology research and development before the risks and benefits are adequately understood. Rejection or acceptance of nanotechnology by society should be firmly footed in genuine understanding of the potential risks and benefits that the technology poses to society. Meaningful public engagement is necessary to foster and maintain public trust. In conclusion, the Workshop Participants unanimously agree that there is clear need for well-defined and well-funded Canadian N[E.sup.3]LS research agenda. They also agree with the view held by many scholars and researchers that it is both necessary and desirable to allocate percentage of research funding towards N[E.sup.3]LS research. The approach adopted by the U. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,202
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,188
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,202
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,984

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2020,188
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,003
Bibliométrie0,0020,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0190,055
Communication savante0,0370,028
Science ouverte0,0050,020
Intégrité de la recherche0,0690,046
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0120,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,047
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2004
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetBiotechnology and Related FieldsTravaux en français237 207