Nanotechnology and Ethics: The Role of Regulation Versus Self-Commitment in Shaping Researchers’ Behavior

The governance of nanotechnology seeks to limit its risks, without constraining opportunities. The literature on the effectiveness of approaches to governance has neglected approaches that impact directly on the behavior of a researcher. We analyze the effectiveness of legal regulations versus regulation via self-commitment. Then, we refine this model by analyzing competition and autonomy as key contingency factors. In the first step, qualitative interviews with nanotechnology researchers are conducted to reflect this model. In the second step, its empirical relevance is tested using a survey of 90 nanotech researchers. The results indicate that legal regulations, as well as self-commitment to an informal CoC reduce the scope of behavior. Finally, that competition and autonomy affect the relative strength of these governance factors.

[1]  P. Adler.  Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capitalism , 2001 .

[2]  Lawrence M. Friedman,et al.  The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective , 1975 .

[3]  Bruce R. Gaumnitz,et al.  Contents of Codes of Ethics of Professional Business Organizations in the United States , 2002 .

[4]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology: Maximizing human benefit , 2005 .

[5]  R. Hyman.  Strategy or Structure? Capital, Labour and Control , 1987 .

[6]  M. Haase.  Customer Integration and Beyond - Towards a Business Economic-Ethical Theory of the Firm , 2008 .

[7]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  Acceleration and Extension of Opportunity Recognition for Nanotechnologies and Other Emerging Technologies , 2008 .

[8]  Ian H Maitland.  The Limits of Business Self-Regulation , 1985 .

[9]  David Silver.  Corporate Codes of Conduct and the Value of Autonomy , 2005 .

[10]  P. Muschamp,et al.  Future Technologies , 2004 .

[11]  K. Manfreda,et al.  Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates , 2008 .

[12]  G. Hodge,et al.  Editorial – Governing Nanotechnology: More than a Small Matter? , 2007 .

[13]  G. V. Calster,et al.  Risk Regulation, EU Law and Emerging Technologies: Smother or Smooth? , 2008 .

[14]  F. Dwyer,et al.  Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships: , 1987 .

[15]  E. Hood.  Nanotechnology: Looking As We Leap , 2004, Environmental health perspectives.

[16]  Sascha Kraus,et al.  Cooperative internationalization of SMEs: Self-commitment as a success factor for International Entrepreneurship , 2008 .

[17]  Jennifer Kuzma,et al.  Ethics of Risk Analysis and Regulatory Review: From Bio- to Nanotechnology , 2008 .

[18]  Steven Walsh,et al.  Entrepreneurship, Emerging Technologies, Emerging Markets , 2008 .

[19]  Swati Prakash,et al.  Human genetics, environment, and communities of color: ethical and social implications. , 2004, Environmental health perspectives.

[20]  Michael Kyobe,et al.  Factors Influencing SME Compliance with Government Regulation on Use of IT: The Case of South Africa , 2009, J. Glob. Inf. Manag..

[21]  Kyoko Fukukawa,et al.  Values and the Perceived Importance of Ethics and Social Responsibility: The U.S. versus China , 2007 .

[22]  Vanessa Hill,et al.  Curves in the high road , 2007 .

[23]  J. Jensen,et al.  Ethical tension points in whistleblowing , 1987 .

[24]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  A theory of innovation for process-based innovations such as nanotechnology , 2008 .

[25]  H. Kastenholz,et al.  Laypeople's and Experts' Perception of Nanotechnology Hazards , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[26]  Tom R. Tyler,et al.  Can Businesses Effectively Regulate Employee Conduct? The Antecedents of Rule Following in Work Settings , 2005 .

[27]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  Integrating Innovation and Learning Curve Theory: An Enabler for Moving Nanotechnologies and Other Emerging Process Technologies into Production , 2004 .

[28]  Stephen E. Humphrey,et al.  The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. , 2006, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  R. Brownsword.  Regulating Nanomedicine—The Smallest of Our Concerns? , 2008 .

[30]  W. Bainbridge,et al.  Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2001 .

[31]  Christopher E. Clarke.  A Question of Balance , 2008 .

[32]  Graeme Hodge,et al.  Nanotechnology: Mapping the wild regulatory frontier , 2006 .

[33]  Jarunee Wonglimpiyarat,et al.  The nano-revolution of Schumpeter's Kondratieff cycle , 2005 .

[34]  Graeme Hodge,et al.  A Big Regulatory Tool-Box for a Small Technology , 2008 .

[35]  O. Williamson.  Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization , 1993, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[36]  Klaus-Michael Weltring,et al.  Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Brain-Implants Using Nano-Scale Materials and Techniques , 2008 .

[37]  G. Guerra.  European Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine , 2008 .

[38]  A. Schutz.  The phenomenology of the social world , 1967 .

[39]  Steve Clarke,et al.  Future Technologies, Dystopic Futures and the Precautionary Principle , 2005, Ethics and Information Technology.

[40]  Robert Lee,et al.  Self-interest, self-restraint and corporate responsibility for nanotechnologies: Emerging dilemmas for modern managers , 2008, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[41]  André H.J. Nijhof,et al.  Beyond codes of ethics: an integrated framework for stimulating morally responsible behaviour in organisations , 1999 .

[42]  Richard A. Posner,et al.  Social Norms and the Law: An Economic Approach , 1997 .

[43]  Scott Shane,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation , 2004 .

[44]  Philipp Mayring.  Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse : Grundlagen und Techniken , 2003 .

[45]  N. Luhmann.  Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives , 2000 .

[46]  Cynthia A. Montgomery,et al.  What is an Attractive Industry , 1986 .

[47]  Ernest G. Bormann,et al.  Discussion and group methods : theory and practice , 1968 .

[48]  Albertus Laan,et al.  Measuring the Implementation of Codes of Conduct. An Assessment Method Based on a Process Approach of the Responsible Organisation , 2003 .

[49]  Claus W. Langfred,et al.  Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[50]  Matthias Fink,et al.  Cooperation, Trust and Performance – Empirical Results from Three Countries , 2009 .

[51]  Steven T. Walsh,et al.  AN INTRODUCTION TO NANOTECHNOLOGY POLICY: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR EMERGING AND ESTABLISHED ECONOMIES , 2007 .

[52]  Erik Fisher,et al.  Ethnographic Invention: Probing the Capacity of Laboratory Decisions , 2007 .

[53]  Harold A. Linstone,et al.  Three eras of technology foresight , 2011 .

[54]  Kevin Morrell,et al.  The Narrative of Evidence Based Management: A Polemic , 2008 .

[55]  Mark S. Frankel,et al.  Professional codes: Why, how, and with what impact? , 1989 .

[56]  S. Walsh,et al.  IAMOT and Education: Defining a Technology and Innovation Management (TIM) Body-of-Knowledge (BoK) for graduate education (TIM BoK) , 2010 .

[57]  L. Treviño.  Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation Interactionist Model , 1986 .

[58]  S. Park,et al.  Interfirm Rivalry and Managerial Complexity: A Conceptual Framework of Alliance Failure , 2001 .

[59]  Karin D. Knorr,et al.  Producing and reproducing knowledge: Descriptive or constructive? , 1977 .

[60]  O. C. Ferrell,et al.  A Contingency Framework for Understanding Ethical Decision Making in Marketing , 1985 .

[61]  Alan J. Dubinsky,et al.  Analyzing ethical decision making in marketing , 1989 .

[62]  Matthias Schonlau,et al.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Internet Research Surveys: Evidence from the Literature , 2002 .

[63]  P. Kitcher.  Scientific Research–Who Should Govern? , 2007 .

[64]  P. Ring,et al.  Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations , 1992 .

[65]  S. Rogelberg,et al.  Introduction Understanding and Dealing With Organizational Survey Nonresponse , 2007 .

[66]  Barbel R. Dorbeck-Jung.  What can Prudent Public Regulators Learn from the United Kingdom Government’s Nanotechnological Regulatory Activities? , 2007 .

[67]  O. Ferrell,et al.  The Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations: A Framework for Ethical Compliance , 1998 .

[68]  Gerald P. O'driscoll,et al.  THE CASE FOR MARKET-BASED REGULATION , 2006 .

[69]  Alison Anderson,et al.  A Question of Balance or Blind Faith?: Scientists’ and Science Policymakers’ Representations of the Benefits and Risks of Nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[70]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Trust, Opportunism and Governance: A Process and Control Model , 1996 .