The central claims defended in this article are the following: (a) The social and ethical challenges of nanotechnology can be fully identified only if both the characteristic features of nanotechnologies and the social contexts into which they are emerging are considered. (b) When this is done, a host of significant social context issues, or issues that arise as a result of problematic features of the social contexts into which nanotechnology is emerging, become salient. (c) These issues can only be addressed by remedying the problematic features of the social contexts, which cannot be accomplished by technology design or risk management alone. (d) The U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative's conceptualization and operationalization of responsible development does not adequately recognize the significance of social context issues to responsible development. (e) Therefore, the National Nanotechnology Initiative is not yet comprehensive and needs to be expanded with respect to identifying and addressing social context issues.
Agyemon, J., Bullard, R. , & Evans, B. (Eds.). ( 2003). Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2.
Birch, K. (2005). Beneficence, determinism and justice: An engagement with the argument for the genetic selection of intelligence. Bioethics, 19(1), 12-28.
3.
Bostrom, N. (in press). Why I want to be a posthuman when I grow up. In B. Gordijn & R. Chadwick (Eds.), Medical enhancement and posthumanity. New York: Springer.
4.
Bostrom, N., & Ord, T. (2006). The reversal test: Eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics, 116(4), 656-679.
5.
Bostrom, N., & Sandberg, A. (in press). Cognitive enhancement: Methods, ethics, regulatory challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics. Preprint retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.nickbostrom.com/cognitive.pdf
6.
Buchanan, A., Brock, A., Daniels, N., & Wikler, D. (2000). From chance to choice: Genetics and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Bullard, R. D. (Ed.). (1994). Unequal protection: Environmental justice and communities of color. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
8.
Bullard, R. (2001). Decision making. In L. Westra & B. Lawson (Eds.), Faces of environmental racism (pp. 3-28). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
Bullard, R., Mohai, P., Saha, R., & Wright, B. (2007). Toxic wastes and race at twenty, 1987-2007: Grassroots struggles to dismantle environmental racism in the United States. Cleveland, OH: United Church of Christ.
10.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General. (2004, March 1). EPA needs to consistently implement the intent of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice (Report No. 2004-P-00007). Washington, DC: Author.
11.
Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council, Nanotechnology Workgroup. (2007). Nanotechnology white paper: External review draft. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm
12.
Faber, D. (2007). A more “productive” environmental justice politics: Movement alliances in Massachusetts for clean production and regional equity. In R. Sandler & P. Pezzullo (Eds.), Environmental justice and environmentalism (pp. 135-164). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13.
Faber, D., & Krieg, E. (2005). Unequal exposure to ecological hazards 2005: Environmental injustices in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston : Northeastern University, the Philanthropy and Environmental Justice Research Project.
14.
Food and Drug Administration, Nanotechnology Task Force. (2007). Nanotechnlogy. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.html
15.
Gorbis, M., & Pescovitz, D. (2006, September). Bursting tech bubbles before they balloon: IEEE fellows take a hard-nosed look at what technology is—and isn't—on the horizon. Spectrum Online. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep06/4435
16.
Jamieson, D. (2002). Morality's progress. New York : Oxford University Press.
17.
Kuzma, J., & VerHage, P. (2006). Nanotechnology in agriculture and food production: Anticipated applications. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
18.
Lux Research. (2006). The nanotech report (4th ed.). New York: Author.
19.
Maynard, A. (2006a, September 21). Committee on Science, House of Representatives. Hearing on research on environmental and safety impacts of nanotechnology: What are the federal agencies doing? [Testimony] . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
20.
Maynard, A. (2006b). Nanotechnology: A strategy for addressing risk . Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
21.
National Research Council, Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2006). A matter of size: Triennial review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22.
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology. (2000). National Nanotechnology Initiative: Leading to the next industrial revolution. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Technology, Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee. ( 2006). Environmental, health, and safety research needs for engineered nanoscale materials. Arlington, VA: National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
24.
President William J. Clinton. (1994, February 11). Executive order: Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/exec_order_12898.pdf
25.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2005). The National Nanotechnology Initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Retrieved September 5, 2007, from www.ostp.gov/pcast/PCASTreportFINALlores.pdf
26.
Renn, O., & Roco, M. (2006). White paper on nanotechnology risk governance . Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.
27.
Roco, M. (2004). Science and technology integration for increased human potential and societal outcomes. In M. Roco & C. Montemagno (Eds.), The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies (pp. 1-16). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
28.
Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (Eds.). (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation/National Science and Technology Council/ Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology.
29.
Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (Eds.). (2002a). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation/Department of Commerce .
30.
Roco, M., & Bainbridge, W. (2002b). Overview. In M. Roco and W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Converging technologies for improving human performance: Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 1-27). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation/ Department of Commerce.
31.
Roco, M., & Bainbridge W. (Eds.). (2005). Nanotechnology: Societal implications—Maximizing benefits for humanity (Report of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Workshop). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation/Nanoscale Science Engineering and Technology Subcommittee/National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.
32.
Roco, M., & Montemagno, C. (2004). Preface. In M. Roco & C. Montemagno (Eds.), The coevolution of human potential and converging technologies (pp. vii-viii). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
33.
Rodrigues, R. (2006). The implications for high-rate nanomanufacturing on society and personal privacy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(1), 38-45.
34.
Sandler, R., & Bosso, C. (2007). Tiny technology, enormous implications. Issues in Science and Technology, 23(4), 28-30.
35.
Sandler, R., & Pezzullo, P. (Eds.). (2007). Environmental justice and environmentalism: The social justice challenge to the environmental movement . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Savulescu, J. (2001). Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children. Bioethics, 15(5/6), 413-426.
37.
Shrader-Frechette, K. (2002). Environmental justice: Creating equality, reclaiming democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
38.
Taylor, M. (2006). Regulating the products of nanotechnology: Does FDA have the tools it needs?Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
39.
United Church of Christ Commission for Racial Justice. (1987). Toxic wastes and race in the United States. Cleveland, OH: Author.
40.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2003, October). Not in my backyard: Executive Order 12,898 and Title VI as tools for achieving environmental justice. Washington, DC: Author.
41.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2004, September). Redefining rights in America: The civil rights record of the George W. Bush administration, 2001-2004. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1983). Siting of hazardous waste landfills and their correlation with racial and economic status of surrounding communities. Washington, DC: Author.
43.
Wenz, P. (1988). Environmental justice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
44.
Wenz, P. (2001). Just garbage. In L. Westra & B. Lawson (Eds.), Faces of environmental racism (pp. 57-71). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
45.
Wenz, P. (2005). Engineering genetic injustice. Bioethics, 19(1), 1-11.
46.
Wenz, P. (2007). Does environmentalism promote injustice for the poor? In R. Sandler & P. Pezzullo (Eds.), Environmental justice and environmentalism (pp. 57-83). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
47.
Westra, L., & Lawson, B. (Eds.). (2001). Faces of environmental racism (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
