Stakeholders and Technology: Challenges for Nanotechnology

The innovation trajectory is no longer the linear tale that has been told countless times. As technologies have emerged, their directions have been pushed, pulled, shaped and reshaped by various groups with interests in a given technology's outcomes. Much of the literature on innovation as well as on stakeholder theory has argued that stakeholders do matter--both normatively, as well as practically. (1) While most of this work has focussed on the firm and its stakeholders, we would argue that discussions about technology, as part of an exercise in foresight and, more importantly, as part of anticipating technology's impacts much earlier in the design process (2), need to consider the range and nature of stakeholder interests. Freeman has described a stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objectives. (3) 'Organization' may be broadly applicable to public agencies involved in regulating, private sector companies producing applications, scientific organizations involved in technological development. These groups often have responsibilities such as making strategic decisions, providing opportunities to stakeholder groups to articulate their interests, or balancing competing stakeholder interests. Decision-making and resource allocation decisions may be most applicable to government agencies, large companies or major scientific organizations, but increasingly, even scientists doing research find a need to engage a variety of stakeholders, as well as the general public. Stakeholder analysis is a relatively complex process, where the objective is identifying and understanding multiple (often competing) political, social, legal, economic and moral claims of many constituencies. (4) Who are the emerging stakeholders on nanotechnology and what sorts of interests are they articulating? What are the policy implications for understanding these interests? A diverse collection of groups has emerged to put forward their interests in nanotechnology. While these groups might be simplistically categorized as either supportive of or opposed to this particular technology, the spectrum of acceptability is more reflective of a continuum. As was the case with biotechnology, groups have emerged with concerns relating to environmental impacts, health and safety, control and ownership, and ethical questions. On this side of the spectrum is the ETC Group (or Erosion, Technology and Concentration Group). (5) An advocacy group which originated in Canada, formerly known as Rural Advancement Foundation, or RAFI, the ETC Group has played a large role in the debate over GM foods and biotechnology as a whole, challenging policymakers and scientists alike on their rapid development and deployment of gene-altered products and the lack of consideration of issues such as environmental impacts, patents and ownership. The ETC Group has taken a keen interest in nanotechnology, publishing several papers over the past two years that criticize nanotechnology and its proponents for neglecting environmental, social and health concerns and calling for an immediate global moratorium on its development. The first major ETC paper on nanotechnology, No Small Matter! was released in May 2002. It discussed the lack of regulation and the potential problems with unpredictable and largely unproven nanoscale particles within cells. (6) The paper suggests that a concerted effort to ask and answer the most basic questions is necessary and that an international body to govern the development and regulation of emerging technologies is necessary. (7) The second major ETC Group paper is a 'sequel' to the first, updating the technological and regulatory efforts a year later and renewing its call for a moratorium. Pointing out that nanoscale particles are already in use in cosmetics, medicine and sporting goods like tennis rackets, the paper suggests that there has been a disturbingly low investment in research on nanotoxicity or the physical effects that nanoparticles will have on cells. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.