International Governments & Global Regulations
|
International organizations such as the United Nations have a role in fostering new technologies and mitigating negative effects on a global scale. For example, the United Nations monitors international uses of nuclear power and works to limit the development and dissemination of nuclear weapons. Just as viruses and pollens can travel across continents, new technologies are not constrained by national borders. Thus nanotechnology issues will require engagement and consensus from around the world. Of course, not all governments around the world engage new technologies in the same way. Just as cultures, languages, and ideas about the world differ from nation to nation, governments have different concerns based upon their own citizens’ perceptions of the role of government as well as new technologies. For example, the majority of European citizens do not accept genetically modified (GM) foods that were developed by large agribusiness firms in the US, and European Union policy has shifted towards placing limitations on the farming, selling, and consumption of genetically modified crops. One of the primary reasons cited by the European Union for regulating GM foods is that this new application of agricultural science and technology is not well understood. What happens if new strands of corn, for example, cross-pollinate with existing varieties? What are the effects of GM foods to public health? Many of these questions cannot be answered adequately at this time but the response in Europe has been very different from the response by US consumers. Europeans have adopted the ‘precautionary principle’ approach with respect to GM foods by rejecting the products until scientific analysis can confirm the risks and benefits to society. The same types of questions that have been raised with GM foods have the potential to be applied to nanotechnologies in the future.
The ban on new stem cell creation has limited research by US scientists while creating new opportunities around the world for non-US researchers. This may eventually create a competitive disadvantage for US corporations and researchers in developing new biotechnology applications. In response to the US government’s policy on funding stem cell research, many state governments in the US have devised their own policies and funding priorities. In 2006, the state of California allotted $150 million for stem cell research, and the state of Illinois offered $5 million in grants. This far exceeds the $72 million previously made available by state governments, before federal policy was revised. In the US, stem cell research has become an electoral politics issue, a rare occurrence for science and technology policy. However, most countries have yet to devise an official policy dealing with stem cell research or nanotechnology. Countries in traditionally poorer regions of the world such as Africa, Latin America , and Central Asia may not have the resources to carry out such research, or may be engaged with more basic needs for its citizens such as sanitation and vaccination. This is not to say, however, that the impacts of nanotechnology or stem cell research will not affect citizens of those countries. It reflects the digital/nano divide in many areas of technological invention and dissemination. |
|
Further Reading:
|
Debates about embryonic stem cell research also illustrate clearly how different countries approach emergent technologies in different ways. Several countries, including Poland, Austria, Norway, Italy, Costa Rica, and Ecuador have banned all forms of stem cell research. In the US, the Bush administration’s policy of limiting stem cell research led to a moratorium on federal funding for the creation of new lines of cells for research. Germany and France have also banned the creation of new stem-cell lines, while other countries such as Sweden, China, India, South Africa, and Japan allow for the derivation of new cell lines without restrictions.
