I agree that trying to remove institutional and political bias from a regulatory system is a good idea - and a jury system may be one way of doing this - but it seems as though there is also a real problem of definition with nanotechnology and new technology in general.
What is new? How do you draw a boundary between current systems/technologies and new ones that have disruptive negative impacts? With GE foods it was clear, with manufactured nanoparticles it is probably quite straightforward as well, but how do you even categorise let alone evaluate the kind of creeping technologies relating to human enhancement for example?
precautionary regulation
I agree that trying to remove institutional and political bias from a regulatory system is a good idea - and a jury system may be one way of doing this - but it seems as though there is also a real problem of definition with nanotechnology and new technology in general.
What is new? How do you draw a boundary between current systems/technologies and new ones that have disruptive negative impacts? With GE foods it was clear, with manufactured nanoparticles it is probably quite straightforward as well, but how do you even categorise let alone evaluate the kind of creeping technologies relating to human enhancement for example?
John H.