LamprouMemo41

Memo 41 Despite extensive investments in nanotechnology and the promising novel materials that it has produced, the field still lacks standards concerning a variety of issues, including nomenclature, materials properties, testing, measurement, and safety. Global scientific cooperation in the area of nanotechnology will require development of common standards. However, this may prove challenging, given significant differences in European and American styles of science and technology policymaking. Broadly speaking, the US approach is privatized and technocratic, while the process in the European Union has been more open to public participation. These differences are evident in their approaches to setting standards for nanotechnology. In the US, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non-profit private organization primarily supported by industry, is the official representative of the US in the International Standards Organization (ISO), while in the EU, nanotechnology policy is discussed by the European Commission, a democratic institution. Despite these differences, however, there are some signs of harmonization. Specifically, a preference for neoliberal deregulation strategies is evident in both cases, and, as a result, the shared standards that are beginning to emerge address the needs of industry and the market, at the expense of public welfare or the environment. By analyzing these two distinct policy settings, the proposed project contributes to three central debates in the field of science and technology studies (STS) and policy studies. Broadly, this research will contribute to the understanding of: The literature on comparative studies is quite developed, but the comparative policy cultures perspective has yet to be employed in the study of nanotechnology. Furthermore, the problem of how the different policy cultures interact in the transnational settings of harmonization policymaking remains to be explored. On these two grounds, the study will move forward the literature on comparative policy cultures for technology policy. At the same time the neoliberal approach to regulation, which encourages the shift to the “soft regulation” of industrial standard-setting bodies, may be favored by industry, but it is often contested by environmental and other public interest groups. Furthermore, in the global setting, the harmonization of standards often involves conflicting governmental approaches to regulation and standards; consequently the privatization of standard-setting is limited by the necessity to equilibrate different national or continental policy cultures. Although neoliberalism continues to inform the politics of standards at the international level, the need to harmonize national policy cultures also raises issues that may be sidestepped at the national level. Thus, the study of technology harmonization contributes to the STS literature on standards by exploring the limits of privatization and the role of neoliberalism in transnational regulatory bodies. Finally, my research will contribute in the literature on political participation by exploring the ways in which public participation is incorporated into the international bodies of harmonization policymaking. The proposed research aims to answer questions in three main areas: 1. How does the structure and organization of the political cultures of the US and EU affect the discussion and development of nanotechnology standards? What drives and structures the discussions over standards in different cultural frameworks? How do different political cultures affect trans-Atlantic harmonization processes? 2. How are policies developed with respect to neoliberalism and its critics? What are the conflicting approaches to nanotechnology regulation and standards development? How is neoliberalism connected to those approaches? What is the role of neoliberalism (influential or contested) in the transnational policy settings of nanotechnology standards development? 3. How do the governance structures enable and restrict political participation in nanotechnology policy making? How do deliberative and participatory institutions work? What role do they play in policy making procedures and harmonization processes? This study will be based on data collected through the analysis of policy documents, semistructured interviews, and participant observation. Since my research is a comparative study, my field sites will be located in the US and Europe. More specifically, my main European site will be in Brussels where the European Commission meets and where the European Workshop takes place. In the US, my main field sites will be located in Washington DC where the standards organizations have their offices. At the same time, this study will contribute to scholarly literatures on comparative studies in policymaking of different policy cultures, advance the conceptualization of technoscientific standards and their harmonization processes, and contribute to the literatures concerning public participation and expertise in policy making, with a focus on studies of the public sphere. The research will have policy implications for improving the understanding of cultural differences in technology harmonization policy and improving the potential for enhanced public participation in the studies. Finally, this research project will result in publications in major journals for the STS field, like //Science as Culture//, //Social Studies of Science//, and //Science, Technology, and Human Values//, and it will be of interest for scholars in the fields of STS, policy, and political science. Although I aim for a highly intellectual project, I am interested in the broader policy implications of my project as well. Results of this study can be used in advancing discussions on the importance and influence of public participation and expertise in policy making procedures and political decision making, as well as in discussions concerning the construction of standards that frame novel technoscientific fields.
 * Overview **
 * the structure and organization of different political cultures involved in technology policymaking, with a particular focus on nanotechnology harmonization policy;
 * conflicting approaches to regulations and standards, their relationship to neoliberalism, and the ways in which neoliberalism is both influential and contested in the transnational policy settings of nanotechnology policy;
 * political participation and deliberative institutions in global governance.