LamprouMemo37

 || ANNA LAMPROU, GRADUATE STUDENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES ||  || April 1, 2009

Kim M. Cardillo // Executive Assistant // Office of the Vice President for Research Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute CII 7015, 110 8th Street Troy, NY 12180

Ms. Cardillo, Attached please find a project description and informed consent form for the dissertation research project titled “A Comparative Study of Nanotechnology Standards Development: Policy Making, Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the Public Sphere in the EU and the US.” Sincerely,

Anna Lamprou Graduate Student Department of Science and Technology Studies

= = =** Summary **= 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.
 * PROJECT DESCRIPTION: **
 * __ Title: __**
 * A Comparative Study of Nanotechnology Standards Development: Policy Making, Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the Public Sphere in the EU and the US. **

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. I will conduct 60 interviews with participants in various policy bodies in the EU and US. The interviews will be conducted with a variety of stakeholders/participants: scientists; policy makers; and representatives of NGOs, civil societies, industries, and governments. In the US, interviews will be conducted with key actors in the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI); Working Groups of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee; and American National Standards Institute – Nanotechnology Standards Panel (ANSI-NSP). In the EU, interviews will be conducted with actors that play a key role in the development of the European Commission Nanotechnology Policy and the European Commission DG Health and Consumer Protection / Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue Workshops. 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 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.


 * __ RESPONSE TO IRB QUESTIONS __**

1. Title of Proposal: “A Comparative Study of Nanotechnology Standards Development: Policy Making, Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the Public Sphere in the EU and the US.”

2. Principal Investigator: Anna LAmprou

3. Address: Sage 5707

4. Phone: 518-944-1350

5. N/A

6. Department: Science and Technology Studies

7. Objective: This sociological and ethnographic study will document and analyze the emerging field of nanotechnology standards development and their harmonization in the EU and the US, conducting in-depth semi-constructed interviews to understand the role of neoliberalisim, globalization and political participation in those processes. 8. Methods: Approximately 60 in-depth interviews (approximately two hours in length) with scientists, policy makers, industry stakeholders, and members of civil society organizations will be conducted for this study. Interview subjects will be recruited through email messages that describe the aims and methods of the project, and include a copy of the project’s informed consent form. Initial contacts will be drawn from the list of the members of the American National Standards Institute Nanotechnology Standards Panel (ANSI-NSP) as well as from the list of participants of the annual meetings of the Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue Workshops. The contact list will evolve as the project progresses though discussion with interviewees and engagement with the published scientific literature. A preliminary interview guide is included below.

9. Effects on the subjects: There will be minimal physical effects on the subjects because they will be interviewed.

10. Measures to minimize risk: All interviews will be voluntary. Interviewees will be given the opportunity to be anonymous, to stop the interview at any point, or to retract the interview or parts of it before publication. The tape of the interview will be stored on the computers of Anna Lamprou as password protected (128-bit) encrypted files, and will not be shared with anyone. The transcriber has been instructed to consider all transcripts strictly confidential, and to destroy all copies of the interview once the transcription has been concluded. Once a digital text file, the transcript will be stored on the computers of Anna Lamprou, again with password protection and encryption. All hard copies of the transcript will be stored in the offices of Anna Lamprou, which are locked when she is not present. Only Anna Lamprou will have access to both electronic and hard copies of transcribed interviews. All copies of the interview (recorded and transcribed) will be destroyed at any time on the request of the interviewee. This is detailed in the attached informed consent form for interviews

11. Likelihood of harm: Minimal.

12. Documentation of risks: None.

13. Benefits to participants: Participants in this study will directly and indirectly benefit from development of the analysis of the field of nanotechnology standards development and harmonization. Results of the study will be presented to civil society organizations and various other interest groups in the case of nanotechnology and also to policy-makers primal responsible for developing and harmonizing standards.

14. Alternative Method not Using Human Subjects: None possible.

15. Qualifications of Researchers: Anna Lamprou is a PhD student in the Department of STS at RPI, and the courses she have taken the past two years have prepared her well for the research demands of this project. Anna Lamprou conducts interviews in accordance with the code of research ethics established (and recently updated) by the American Anthropological Association.

16. Recruiting of subjects: Interview subjects will be contacted directly, informed of the purposes of the interview, and given the opportunity to refuse the interview. 17. Confidentiality: The participants will be given the opportunity to define the extent to which their names will be associated with any (or all) statement(s) during the interview, and will be given the right to retract any statement at any time prior to publication of research results. Any statements that participants designate as “off the record” will not be attributed to the participant, nor used in a way that would link their statement to said participant. As is codified in the Informed Consent Form, I will use any such comments only as background information, and will not quote them in either an attributed or unattributed fashion in any of my future work.

18. Specimen of Consent Form: Please see attached “Informed Consent Form.” 19. Preliminary Interview Guide is also attached below. Contact information for Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Review Board: Chair, Institutional Review Board, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, CII 7015, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180 This interview with __is being conducted as part of an anthropological study of the exposure assessment research community. The research will result in public talks, articles, and a book. The interview will be recorded on tape, with the following conditions:__ __ 1. Your participation in this interview is voluntary. You may terminate the interview at any time during our conversation. The interview will last approximately two hours. 2. You may ask that the tape be turned off at any time during this interview, and I will turn the tape off. 3. You may designate any comments you make on the tape as “off the record.” You may also designate comments as “off the record” retrospectively, either at a later point in the interview or in the process of approving the transcript. I promise to use such comments only as background information, and will not quote them in either an attributed or unattributed fashion in any of my future work. 4. I will transcribe the tape in part or in full. I will submit any such full or partial transcript to you for your approval. You will be free to edit, clarify, amend, or delete any part of the transcript before returning it to me, having made a copy of the transcript and any changes you make to it for your own files. 5. I will be free to quote from this approved transcript, and only this approved transcript, in my future work. The tape itself will not be made public in any fashion, and can also be destroyed if you so request. The transcript of the interview will not be made public unless you explicitly approve a request to do so. 6. The tape of the interview will be stored on the computers of Anna Lamprou as password protected (128-bit) encrypted files, and will not be shared with anyone except for the person hired to transcribe the interview. The transcriber has been instructed to consider all transcripts strictly confidential, and to destroy all copies of the interview once the transcription has been transmitted to Anna Lamprou. Once as a digital text file, the transcript will be stored on the computers of Anna Lamprou, again with password protection and encryption. All hard copies of the transcript will be stored in the offices of either Anna Lamprou, which are locked when she is not present. Only Anna Lamprou will have access to both electronic and hard copies of transcribed interviews. All copies of the interview (recorded and transcribed) will be destroyed at any time on the request of the interviewee. 7. You have the right to remain anonymous, and can do so by initializing here: ___. If you do not choose to remain anonymous, in quoting from the approved transcript in my future work, I may attribute remarks directly to you, but will not necessarily do so. 8. If you have any additional conditions that you would like to add, write them here and they will be considered part of this agreement:
 * __INFORMED CONSENT FORM__**
 * ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDY OF EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT RESEARCH COMMUNITY **
 * Anna Lamprou, Department of Science and Technology Studies **
 * Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / Troy, NY 12180 (518-944-1350) / lampra@rpi.edu **

Additional Conditions:

Finally, if for any reason you change your mind about this interview or any of these conditions in the future, I promise to respect any request that you make to me. I will not be able to retract anything that is already in print or in press based on the approved transcript, but I will honor any future request to change any of the terms of this agreement, up to and including complete retraction of the interview and permission to quote from it. INTERVIEWER INTERVIEWEE date: address _ _ phone _ email _ The interview questions provided in the table below are a sample of the type of issues that I am going to draw out of my interviews. ||
 * PRELIMINARY INTERVIEW GUIDE **
 * Research Questions || Interview Questions ||
 * How does the structure and organization of the political cultures of the US and EU affect the discussion and development of nanotechnology standards? || * What happens when a disagreement arises?
 * Who leads the discussion? Is there a group that has more influence when it comes to decisions?
 * Do some participants compromise more often or more easily than others?
 * Does everyone have time to state their opinion?
 * Do you see differences between stakeholders who prefer soft regulation, such as voluntary standards, and those who prefer more mandatory forms of regulation?
 * How has trade liberalization and free trade ideology affected how people think about nanotechnology regulation and standards? ||
 * How are policies developed with respect to neoliberalism and its critics? || * How has the free market changed the standardization and harmonization processes?
 * How would you identify its role?
 * Would you say that commercialization is the driving force of harmonization processes? To what extent?
 * How does the political orientation of the participants influence the policy decisions?
 * Are there any instances where you think that political preferences have no connection to policy ideas and suggestions? ||
 * How do the governance structures enable and restrict political participation in nanotechnology policy making? || * Are there representatives from all the interest groups?
 * Are there any groups that are not represented?
 * Are there any groups that have a more dominant presence?
 * Does every group address its concerns?