The case for publicly funded research on the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues raised by nanoscience and nanotechnology (NE3LS).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".