The program is headed by Christopher Bosso, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Nanotechnology and Society Research Group. The local organizing committee includes S.NET President Davis Baird of Clark University as well as Northeastern faculty Michael Bennett and Sonia Rolland (School of Law); Ronald Sandler (Ethics); Kirsten Rodine-Hardy (Political Science); Ahmed Busnaina, Matthew Eckelman, and Jacqueline Isaacs (Engineering).

The theme of the 2013 meeting is: Innovation, Responsibility, and Sustainable Development  

Proposals can be submitted at the S.NET Proposal Submission Form

Venue accessibility: Dockser Hall, home to the Northeastern University School of Law, is fully accessible to persons with mobility impairments. The Northeastern campus itself is readily accessible by public transportation.

Hotels: We have arranged for a block of rooms at the Boston Park Plaza, a classic hotel a short subway ride from the Northeastern campus. Room rates will be $165 + 14% tax per night for single and double rooms, $185 + 14% tax for triples. Rooms will be available at this rate from Saturday, October 26 through Thursday, October 31. Reservations can be made by calling the Park Plaza directly, toll-free at 1-800-225-2008, or locally at 1-617-426-2000. Be sure to mention “S.NET Boston” in making your reservations.

Registration: Registration fees through August 1 are fixed at $175 USD; the special rate student fee is $125 USD. Payment is by credit card at: https://commerce.cashnet.com/SFNSRG.

Any general queries about the meeting can be directed to: S.NETBoston@gmail.com

Among the topics the fellows studied were geoengineering to address global climate change, the use of genetic testing in employment decisions, the use of reproductive technologies to select the sex of one’s children, the justification for property rights over digital goods, the use of genetic ancestor profiling in criminal justice contexts, and the testing of cognitive enhancement technologies on non-human animals. In addition to conducting cutting edge research in these areas, fellows were encouraged to develop their work in ways that are accessible to non-specialists and that effectively communicate the importance of the ethical issues raised by emerging technologies. Fellows worked closely with one another and with Northeastern University faculty in an interdisciplinary setting to execute their projects.

Two fellows, John Basl and Valentina Urbanek, are former Northeastern undergraduate students who recently received their Ph.D.’s in philosophy from the University of Wisconsin – Madison and MIT, respectively. Urbanek is currently a lecturer in philosophy at Tufts University and Basl begins this fall as an assistant professor of philosophy at Bowling Green State University. This year’s summer fellowship program was funded through a National Science Foundation award (Grant No. SES-0609078). More information about this summer’s research fellows and their projects can be found here.

This is the first volume to engage scholarly perspectives on environmental regulation in light of the challenges of nanotechnology. Contributors focus on the overarching lessons of decades of regulatory response to new technologies, while posing a fundamental question: How can regulatory systems satisfy the desire for scientific innovation while also taking into account the direct and indirect effects of 21st century emerging technologies, particularly in the face of scientific uncertainties? With perspectives from economics, history, philosophy, and public policy, this new resource illuminates the challenges inherent in the development of nanotechnology and works toward a reconceptualization of government regulatory approaches.

Edited by Director and Principal Investigator Christopher J. Bosso Governing Uncertainty: Environmental Regulation in the Age of Nanotechnology, contains seven contributions by NSRG members. Order the book from Earthscan Publishing here.

Christopher Bosso is the director and principal investigator for NSRG

Nanotechnology is a continually developing branch of science, one with political, environmental and ethical implications that are not yet fully understood. Among those taking the lead to clarify those issues is Christopher J. Bosso, associate dean of Northeastern’s School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs and director and principal investigator for the University’s Nanotechnology and Society Research Group. Bosso is also author of a new book “Governing Uncertainty: Environmental Regulation in the Age of Nanotechnology.” Here, he discusses public policy related to nanotechnology and the potential impact of the fast-growing science, for good and ill.

Can you explain how you became involved in thinking about nanotechnology?

Every new technology has direct and indirect consequences for human health, the natural environment and the society at large. I have had a long interest in the public policy dimensions of such consequences going back to my doctoral work on chemical pesticides. So it did not take much convincing when faculty colleagues Jackie Isaacs (mechanical and industrial engineering), Ron Sandler (philosophy and religion) and Woody Kay (political science) asked me to join them in ongoing policy and ethics work connected to Northeastern’s Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN).

We quickly realized that we were confronting a set of issues beyond CHN’s immediate domain, so with CHN director Ahmed Busnaina’s help, we put together our own National Science Foundation proposal to look at the broader environmental and health challenges posed by nanomaterials. We had the right proposal at the right time, giving us a rare opportunity to do organized and sustained interdisciplinary thinking about policy and ethical issues related to nanotechnology and other emerging technologies.

Is it common for a university with so much science and engineering research in nanotechnology to also study its possible societal impacts? What are the benefits?

It is not uncommon. The difference lays in organization, breadth and sustained effort, and the degree to which such research is connected to and informed by basic and applied research and development.

The benefits are two-fold. First, having ready access to colleagues in science and engineering informs our thinking about policy and ethical issues, which in turn enables us to advise them on how policy and ethical concerns affect basic research, product development and technology adoption. All of this makes for a lively and truly interdisciplinary discourse. Equally important, these collaborations benefit students across the disciplines. They show our students that the greatest insights about any problem are derived from spanning disciplinary boundaries.

Nanotechnology is a vast area. From your perspective, what is the greatest potential for developments in the field?

It is hard to imagine any sector that won’t be reshaped. Perhaps the most exciting breakthroughs are in areas like electronics and medicine.

The work at CHN and other research laboratories here and elsewhere point to revolutionary breakthroughs in the continued miniaturization and speed of computing in the near future, making your iPhone a clunky monster by comparison. It borders on the stuff of science fiction.

Breakthroughs in nanomedical applications — including a lot of work at Northeastern — portends fundamental shifts in how we detect and treat cancer, devise therapies for neurological diseases like Parkinson’s or enhance the body’s capacity to heal itself when damaged. The prospects for a future where we are able to effectively deal with cancer, Alzheimer’s or diabetes is a startling one and merits our close attention along all kinds of policy and ethical dimensions.

What are the near- and long-term environmental and health concerns about nanotechnology, and how do we address them?

Short term concerns are rather prosaic and largely focused on ensuring that those working in laboratories and production facilities aren’t exposed to potentially harmful engineered nanoparticles, and that they practice proper disposal procedures in dealing with nanomaterial waste.

Longer-term concerns include the extent to which nanoparticles are toxic to human and animal health — for example, whether cosmetics containing engineered nanoparticles have harmful long-term effects — and the possibly harmful side effects of nanomaterials introduced into the environment for otherwise beneficial reasons, such as injecting iron nanoparticles into the soil to remediate chemical-saturated “brownfields.”

What is the appropriate role for government in all of this?

It is not always obvious. As citizens, regardless of overall ideology or partisan views, at minimum we expect government to address those risks that we as individuals can neither understand nor personally control. And we expect government to do so in some reasonably responsive and transparent way. And we also want government to promote economic growth, technological innovation and human health.

These are all balancing acts —and often, difficult ones — so the “appropriate” role for government will depend on our own priorities. And that requires citizens to be more aware of and critical about the benefits and possible costs of revolutionary technologies.

Click here to see this article in its original form on the Northeastern University News site.

Rob Goble
Research Professor
George Perkins Marsh Institute
Clark University

Implications of uncertainty for risk communication about emerging technologies

Thursday, November 5, 2009
Northeastern University

Abstract

Emerging technologies such as nanotechnology pose a variety of challenges to risk management depending on the nature of the information available. Sometimes there is little or no information about whether a hazard exists, and the issue is coping with the “unknown”; sometimes there is a sudden discovery, a “surprise” that requires interpretation. Or much information may be available, but the information base may be in flux with new aspects acquiring prominence. In all cases there may be strong interests eager to present and interpret particular aspects of the information base.

We have identified three modes of management response that can be appropriate in such settings: 1)) reframing (or redefining) the presenting problem (often this means embedding it in a broader problem), 2) adaptive management, and 3) maintaining vigilance to seek out new findings and things that can go wrong. Communication with the public will be a key element of each of these management modes, but the issues to be discussed and the primary concerns will be different. The social amplification of risk framework can be helpful in elucidating some of the issues that arise. These observations are intended to open a general conversation about risk governance and risk communication issues such as legitimacy and trust relating to various uses of nanotechnologies.

This talk is supported by a National Science Foundation Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team award, “Nanotechnology in the Public Interest: Regulatory Challenges, Capacity, and Policy Recommendations” (SES #0609078), Christopher Bosso, PI.

“Nanotechnology has tremendous potential to contribute to human flourishing in socially just and environmentally sustainable ways,” said Ronald Sandler, philosophy and religion professor at Northeastern and author of the report. “The National Nanotechnology Initiative affords a unique opportunity to take a critical and constructive perspective on the relationship between technology, government, environment and society. Emerging nanotechnologies offer a novel chance to make social progress through broad, innovative, forward-looking responsible development.”

Click To Read The Report At The Project For Emerging Nanotechnologies Website

Written by Sandler in collaboration with the Nanotechnology and Society Research Group, the report emphasizes ways in which social and ethical issues intersect with governmental functions and responsibilities including science and technology policy and funding, regulation and research support. It also provides a typology of the social and ethical issues associated with nanotechnology and discusses several specific issues of each type.

“Many of the social and ethical issues associated with emerging nanotechnologies are determinate, immediate, distinct, significant and actionable,” explained Sandler. “Consideration and responsiveness to them is needed now in order to anticipate and proactively address potential negative aspects of emerging nanotechnologies, as well as to identify and promote opportunities for them to contribute to human flourishing and environmental sustainability.”

Although there are many products containing nanoscale materials in the marketplace already, the current report did not evaluate whether current uses of nanomaterials represent risks to the public. Instead, the committee responsible for the report notes the shortcomings of the 2007 NNI Strategic Plan.

One shortcoming the report points out in the NNI plan is “there is no evaluation of the existing state of science or of federally funded research in each of the five categories identified in the strategy.” It goes on to note that the data used to evaluate the NNI standards of environmental health and safety risks were inappropriate for use in that manner, since those specific projects did not focus on such risks as research goals. “There is no clear connection between the research projects and how they will inform an understanding of risk.” The solution, according to the NRC report, is for the NNI to fund specific research that focuses on risk assessment in these areas.

In a January 5th response to the report posted on the website nanotech-now.com, David Rejeski of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) explains that the new report by the National Research Council makes apparent the dangers of ignoring public perceptions of risk: “If government and industry do not work to build public confidence in nanotechnology by proactively addressing any emerging risks, consumers may reach for the ‘No-Nano’ label.”

Rejesky, the director of PEN, has testified before Congress on the ongoing need to examine risk more closely in the burgeoning nanotechnology field. He notes that the National Research Council report is extremely valuable and can provide a new administration with “guidance for getting it right.”

Indeed, combining appropriate studies of risk management with effective and honest communication with the public can ensure the U.S. Government’s investment in nanotechnology research will pay off in the long term.

Read the Review of the Federal Strategy For Nanotechnology-Related Environmental, Health, And Safety Research for free here.