Anna's+HASS

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: Currently I am a second year PhD student in the Department of STS at RPI, and the courses that I have taken the past two years have prepared me well for the research demands of this project. In particular, two graduate courses, Advanced Research Methods (Spring 2008 and Spring 2009) and an advanced graduate seminar on Policy Studies (Spring 2009), provided me with the theoretical background needed for the proposed research. As an international student with a European Union citizenship, I will have easy access for the purposes of my research to many European Countries. Because of my knowledge of the EU and my experience living in the US, I will also have a good basis for understanding cultural differences in the two settings. Furthermore, I hold a bachelors and a master’s degree from the Department of Chemistry, University of Athens, Greece. This background gives me a unique standpoint and understanding of nanotechnology as a science and the capacity to talk with scientists, policy makers, and lay people. The study I am proposing will last 3 years (June 2009 – May 2012), and it is consistent with the doctoral program outlined in the graduate handbook for STS students. My dissertation project consists of a comparative study of the setting of nanotechnology standards in the US and EU. I will interview key figures involved in standards formation and nanotechnology policy making, and I will participate as an observer in the deliberations of the EU workshop and ANSI panel. In more detail the plan is as follows: Spring 2009: Finish comprehensive exams. Summer 2009: Conduct extensive documentary and literature review; Research and analysis of policy documents; Develop dissertation proposal; Identify key informants. Fall 2009: Defend dissertation proposal; Continue research and analysis of policy documents; begin pilot interviews in US; apply for NSF dissertation improvement grant; adjust pilot questions. Spring 2010: Continue interviews in US; participant observation of ANSI panel; present preliminary findings at IASTS conference. Summer 2010: Complete interviews and participant observation in the US; Continue analysis of the US case; Initial approach of my EU research field, first trip in Brussels. Fall 2010: Conduct interviews in Europe; participant observation in the EU Workshop; present findings from the US research at 4S; submit article manuscript on the same findings. Spring 2011: Analysis of EU case; write up and submit article manuscript on the EU research findings. Summer 2011: Dissertation writing Fall 2011: Dissertation writing Spring 2012: Defend dissertation This research project is a comparative study of standards development and harmonization processes concerning nanotechnology in two political cultures, the EU and the US. Through participant observation, interviews, and analysis of policy documents, I will explore the ways standards are discussed in different policy frameworks. Of central concern is how political power, neoliberal ideals, cultural values, and public participation affect the outcomes of proposed standards. 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 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. Comparative research reveals that different policymaking entities proceed and discuss policy issues in distinct ways. As Sheila Jasanoff (2005) points out, even when looking at the same set of events, policymakers in two different contexts may not necessarily “frame them in the same way. Things within the frame for one group of actors may fall outside the frame of others, even if all have accepted [the issue at hand] as a policy priority” (Jasanoff, 25). That is the case with nanotechnology policy procedures as well. Jasanoff argues that despite similarities of Western cultures, different “political cultures” produce diverging policy procedures and outcomes. Βy political cultures, Jasanoff refers to the policy choices and ways of thinking that are formed and become necessary within communities, through particular cultural mechanisms (2005). Examining the case of biotechnology policy, Jasanoff identifies differences not only in procedures, but also in public understanding and participation in policy making. Other STS scholars have also studied the differences between the US and EU with respect to biotechnology policy, pointing to additional differences in political cultures. For example, in the case of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) regulation, EU policymakers took into account not only the traditional three criteria for technology regulation—safety, efficacy, and quality—but also, at least in discussion, a fourth one: the evaluation of socio-economic effects. Because of this fourth criterion, the evaluation of rbGH in the EU was totally different from that in the US (Kleinman & Kinchy 2003). Further discussion of this criterion and its implementation in different policy cultures is discussed in the STS literature. Based on these and other studies (e.g., Kleinman & Kinchy 2007), I expect to find similar differences with respect to nanotechnology policies, procedures, and outcomes. EU debates about nanotechnology are likely to be more open to social welfare concerns, in contrast to the US. The influences on political cultures and their structure and organization vary. So, even though I am expecting differences in policy development, the reason why those differences occur has to be explored further through this project. Comparative studies have identified a variety of factors relevant to science and technology policymaking. For example, according to Abraham, commercial and corporatist interests have strongly influenced the policies concerning the carcinogenic risk assessment of benoxaprofen in the United Kingdom (UK) and the US (1993). Other studies have shown that because “significant differences are found to exist in the criteria used to infer carcinogenicity, in the type of scientists providing the authoritative interpretations, and in the choices with which the respective public authorities were faced”, different governments have issued opposite conclusions using the same scientific data (Gillespie, Eva, and Johnston 1979, 267). Furthermore, various comparative studies on risk taking between the US and Germany have shown that in the US, regulatory agencies and experts are openly criticized and their arguments and data can be challenged in public (Lehmbruch and Schmitter 1982; Jasanoff 1995), while “Germany and other northern European countries typically feature consensus- based politics that protect regulatory authorities from public criticism and maintain expertise in `closed-door’ settings” (Daemmrich and Krucken 2000, 507). In contradiction to that, other studies have shown that European governments encouraged firms to adopt environmental management standards provided by ISO while U.S. companies faced a hostile institutional framework with non regulatory commitment to the same standards. Because of that, “U.S. companies are fearful of the certification process which lays their performance open to public scrutiny” (Delmas 2002, 94). In general, the different criteria that each culture adopts, shapes the policy outcomes differently, although the role of the government and its connections to commercial regimes is of great importance as well. Through this project I will explore those two factors and how their connections shape the policy outcomes in the case of nanotechnology. This literature is quite developed for comparative studies of science and technology policymaking, 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. Policies, especially in the case of nanotechnology standards development and harmonization, are highly influenced by neoliberal ideals. Most of the existing literature on standards is focused primarily on agricultural standards and within national policy contexts. Nevertheless, this literature provides a good point of departure for the proposed research project. Standards can be seen as forms of regulation, and can “generate a strong element of global order in the modern world,” as Brunsson and Jacobsson argue (2000, 1). But as Busch suggests, standards are also “ways of defining a moral economy, for defining what (who) is good and what is bad” (2000, 274). Moreover, a global world discussion on standards increasingly involves recognition of the social and moral dimensions because standards not only frame technoscientific products and procedures, they define ways of acting and living; they also provide us with order and discipline (Bingen & Busch 2005). In the case of nanotechnology the question is whose order? Whose discipline? Whose values? Who is going to decide what a good nanotechnology standard is? An answer to those questions can be given by the hypothesis that the case of nanotechnology will follow a private path, as contemporary literature on food and agriculture standards has showcased. That path is a result of neoliberal practices that call for deregulation policies. The contemporary literature has drawn attention to the shift from government regulation to standard setting in private-sector industrial bodies or public-private partnerships. The private sector proceeds faster than the public, doesn’t have to go through committees for approval, and relies on the market for its approval (Busch and Bain 2004; Reardon et al. 2001). The establishment of private standards may have significant economic effects, such as increasing the market size of a product or reducing the barriers for entry (Reardon and Farina, 2002). The acceptance of a common standard across an industry can be “the single most important component of new product success” (Grindley 1995, 1). Likewise, the development of global or universal standards has coincided with trade liberalization and the globalization of the world economy (Busch and Tanaka 1996). 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. To the extent that standard-setting is privatized, it may lose legitimacy unless the standard-setting process involves a wide variety of stakeholders. Different governance structures seem to enable and restrict public participation in different ways. However, opening up the standard-setting process to public participation can also mean loss of the higher levels of industrial control that privatization enabled. Thus, the issue of public participation involves a complex balancing of legitimation and political power. However, what has changed lately is the fact that governments and the private sector encourage and create the space needed for public participation-the public spheres. That seems to be the case in nanotechnology policy development. But how do those public spheres function? Habermas views public spheres as spaces of critical discussion open to everyone (1991). But this concept does not reflect reality, especially in the case of nanotechnology where different stakeholders have different interests, different influence, and power. The STS literature on public participation and democracy in decision making, concerning science and technology issues, emphasizes the importance of public participation, discusses the great influence of experts, identifies the power issues that arise because of that, and explores the obstacles to achieving public participation: lack of time, expertise, etc. Does policy making in the case of nanotechnology represent a case of the declining public sphere (Boggs 2000)? I would argue that the nanotechnology case can be described more accurately by Fraser’s criticism of Habermas’ “public sphere.” Fraser argues that the public sphere is not open and accessible by everyone and that for achieving greater participatory parity multiple publics are necessary, publics that can be characterized as weak or strong according to the power they hold (1996). Power issues have been identified in other studies as well. Through a description and evaluation of many different ways of participating, and their effectiveness, Martin argues that “[i]n a technological society, technology policy is a central arena for power struggles” (1999). Following that, questions like how can we achieve democratic participation, who can participate, who has the authority, and who counts as an expert are of great importance, and have been explored by STS scholars (Cozzens and Woodhouse1995; Kleinman 2000). For example, Woodhouse and Nieusma propose the idea of democratic expertise (2001), while Sclove argues for strong democracy with regard to issues of decision making concerning new technologies (1995). Furthermore, by identifying problematic beliefs connected to lay knowledge, and by arguing that lay knowledge is in some way special, Irwin expands the relationship between science, technology, and citizens to consider the possibilities for a more active scientific citizenship, and links those issues to public policy for risk and environmental threat (1997). Similarly, Fischer discuses citizens’ participation in policy and decision making in terms of environmental policy making by addressing the need for professionals to adopt the role of facilitator, and the necessity for better connection between empirical knowledge and citizens’ knowledge (2000). Is lay knowledge going to be valued in nanotechnology policy making? Are the professionals going to facilitate participation and is strong democracy or any democracy at all going to occur? 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. 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. a. Policy Documents: By reviewing the existing policy documents, I will understand the different frameworks in which different policies develop their values and their influences. My study will not be limited to just formal policy documents but also will include reports from panels and workshop meetings as well as official web pages. === b. Interviews: 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. === c. Interview Guide: 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. These questions will change as my project develops and as I gain a more thorough understanding of my cases. || d. Participant Observation: I will attend the meetings of ANSI-NSP and the European Workshop. For the needs of this project, I will conduct participant observation in these two places. In the US, at the meetings of the ANSI-NSP, the panel meets more than once a year. In the EU, I will conduct participant observation at the meetings of the Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue Workshops. e. Analysis: I will analyze the material by organizing it according to the three major themes I am exploring. First of all, from the analysis of the documents I will extract conclusions about what drives the policy discussion, taking into account what appears to be different and what appears to be similar in the two political cultures. From the same analysis I will draw connections between the content of the documents and neoliberal ideals. I will use this information to develop my interview questions. Through the interviews, I will draw comparisons between the two political cultures’ procedures as it concerns all three of my research themes. I will identify the debates and the compromises, power issues, and the role of participation. Especially through the participant observation I will identify the role of deliberative institutions in policy making and how public participation is valued and used, paying attention to similarities and differences of the two cultures. Through this project I will locate myself as a scholar in comparative policy studies with a specific interest in various processes of standards development and harmonization processes for novel technoscientific fields like nanotechnology. I intend to return to Europe to become an STS scholar in an STS or public policy program. 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. For the future, I am planning to continue conducting comparative studies on different political cultures and different countries, with an emphasis on developing countries, focusing on how harmonization processes of novel technoscientific standards affect the development of those countries. Abraham, J. (1993). “Scientific standards and institutional interests: carcinogenic risk assessment of benoxaprofen in the UK and US.” __Social Studies of Science__ **23**: 387–444. Bingen, J. and L. Busch, eds. (2005). __Agricultural Standards: The Shape of the Global Food and Fiber System.__ Dordrecht: Springer. Boggs, C. (2000). __The end of Corporate power and the decline of the public sphere.__ New York: Guilford. Brunsson, N. and B. Jacobsson. (2000). __A World of Standards.__ Oxford: Oxford University Press. Busch, L. and K. Tanaka. (1996). “Rites of Passage: Constructing Quality in a Commodity Subsector.” __Science, Technology,__ __ & Human Values __**. 21 ** (1): 3-27 Busch, L. (2000). “The Moral Economy of Grades and Standards.” __Journal of Rular Studies__ **16:** 273-283. Busch, L. and C. Bain. (2004). “New! Improved? The Transformations of the Global Agrifood System.” __Rular Sociology.__ **69** (3): 321-346. Cozzens, S. and E. Woodhouse. (1995). “Science, Government, and the Politics of Knowledge.” in S. Jasanoff, et al. (Ed.), __ Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. __ Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications. Daemmrich, A. and Krucken, G. (2000) ‘Risk versus risk: decision-making dilemmas of drug regulation in the US and Germany ’, //Science as Culture//, **9:** 505–534. Delmas M. 2002. “The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and the United States: an Institutional Perspective. __Policy Sciences__//.// **35:** 91–119 Fischer, F. (2000). __Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge.__ Durham and London: Duke University Press. Fraser, N. (1996). __“Rethinking the Public Sphere,” from Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist”__ __ Condition. __ New York: Routledge. Gillespie, B., Eva, P., and R. Johnston. (1979). “Carcinogenic risk assessment in the United States and Great Britain: the case of aldrin/deildrin.” __Social Studies of Science__, **9**: 265–301. Grindley, P. (1995). __Standards, Strategy and Policy.__ Oxford, Oxford University Press. Habermas, J. (1991).__The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society.__ Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press. Irwin, A. (1997). //__Citizen Science__//. New York: Routledge. Jasanoff, S. (1995). “Product, process, or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology.” in M. Bauer (Ed.), __ Resistance to New Technology ____. __ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 311-334. Jasanoff, S. (2005). __Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States.__ Princeton University Press. ** Kleinman, D. L. eds. ( ** 2000). **__Science, Technology, and Democracy__****.** Albany : State University of New York Press. Kleinman, D. L., and A. J. Kinchy. (2003). “Why Ban Bovine Growth Hormone?: Science, Social Welfare, and the Divergent Biotech Policy Landscapes in Europe and the United States.” __Science as Culture__ **12** (3): 375-414. Kleinman, D. L. and A. J. Kinchy. (2007). “Against the Neoliberal Steamroller? The Biosafety Protocol and the Social Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology.” __Agriculture and Human Values__ **24** (2): 195-206. Lehmbruch, G. and P. Schmitter. (1982). __Patterns of Corporatist Policy-Making.__ London, UK: Sage Publications. Martin, Brian, ed., (1999). __Technology and Public Participation.__ ([]) Reardon, T., et al. (2001) “ Global Change in Agrifood Grades and Standards: Agribusiness Strategic Responses in Developing Countries.” __International Food and Agribusiness Management Review.__ **2:** (3). Reardon, T., Farina, E. (2002). “The Rise of Private Food Quality and Safety Standards: Illustrations from Brazil.” __ International Food and Agribusiness Management Review. __ **4:** 413-421 Sclove, R. (1995). __Democracy and Technology.__ New York: Guilford. Woodhouse, E.J., and D. C. Nieusma. (2001). “Democratic Expertise,” in Hischemoller et al., eds., //__Knowledge, Power, and__// //__ Participation in Environmental Policy Analysis. __// New Brunswick, NJ : Transaction Publishers. pp. 73-96. ** Anna Lamprou ** ** Science and Technology Studies RPI ** ** 110 8th Street **** Sage Building, Troy NY 12180-3590 ** ** lampra@rpi.edu ** ** 5189441350 ** PhD Student Science and Technology Studies Department Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute = Teaching/ Professional Experience: = = Woodhouse, E. and A. Lamprou (2008). “Green Chemistry” in Callicott, J. B. and R. Frodeman. __Encyclopedia of Environmental Ethics and Philosophy.__ Gale. = Lamprou, A. (2007). “The Ethics of Synthetic Chemistry: Myths and Reality” __Khimiya/Chemistry__ ** 16 ** (2): 149-160. Rentetzi, M. and A. Lamprou (2006). “Gender and the Physical and Life Sciences”, in Mouriki, A. et al., __Bibliographic Catalogue on Gender Equality Issues for the Enrichment of the Libraries of Technical Vocational Educational Schools and Vocational Training Institutes of Greece.__ National Centre for Social Research (in Greek). Lamprou, A. (2006), “The ethics of synthetic chemistry: Myths and reality”, First Annual Conference of the Bulgarian Society for the Chemistry Education and History and Philosophy of Chemistry (CE&HPC), Varna 2006 Lamprou, A., Baratsi A., Frantzi P., Trikaliti, A., Scoullos, M. (2005), “Paper and Enviroment”, 2nd National Symposium: “Inspiration, Cogitation and Imagination in the Environmental Education”, Athens 2005 Lamprou, A., Karaliota, A., Paparigopoulou, M., Stambaki, D. (2004), “Traditional Ways of Food Preservation. An Inter- disciplinary Proposal of Teaching Chemistry”, 8th Greece – Cyprus Chemistry Conference: “Chemistry, Quality of Life and Education”, Thessalonica 2004 Greek, English: Certificate of Proficiency in English (University of Michigan) Windows 98/2000/XP, MS Word, MS Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint, Internet, Adobe Photoshop 7.0, Cool Edit 2000, Adobe Premiere 6.5, Authorware 6.5, Dreamweaver
 * A Comparative Study of Nanotechnology Standards Development: Policy Making, Neoliberalism, Globalization, and the Public Sphere in the EU and the US **
 * Anna Lamprou **
 * STS Doctoral Student **
 * I. Project Summary **
 * 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.
 * II. Description of Prior Experience and Preparation **
 * III. Plan of Study **
 * IV. Overview of Planned Research **
 * 1. Summary and Research Questions **
 * 2. Intellectual Merit and Broader Significance: **
 * 3. Literature Review **
 * a. Political Cultures: Comparative Studies between the EU and the US **
 * b. Technology Studies Literature on Global Standards and Harmonization **
 * c. Political Participation and Deliberative Institutions **
 * 4. Research Methodology and Plan of Work **
 * 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?
 * V. Future Research and Career Plans **
 * VI. References **
 * VII. Curriculum Vitae **
 * Current Position **
 * Education: **
 * 2006 ** Master’s degree, Chemical Education and New Educational Technologies (Chemistry Didactics and New Educational Technologies), Department of Chemistry, University of Athens
 * 2003 ** B.S., Chemistry, Department of Chemistry, University of Athens
 * 1997 ** High School Diploma, 1st High School of Kalamata
 * Spring Semester 2009 ** Teaching Assistantship: Science, Technology, and Society. Dept. of STS, RPI
 * Fall Semester 2008 ** Teaching Assistantship: Science, Technology, and Society. Dept. of STS, RPI
 * Spring Semester 2008 ** Teaching Assistantship: Professional Development II. Dept. of STS, RPI
 * Fall Semester 2007 ** Teaching Assistantship: Science, Technology, and Society. Dept. of STS, RPI
 * 2004 – 05 ** Instructor at the 2nd Vocational Training Institute of Piraeus. Course subject: Technology of materials
 * 2004 – 05 ** Laboratory assistant, Laboratory of Inorganic Chemistry, Department of Chemistry – University of Athens (fall semester)
 * 2003 – 04 ** Laboratory assistant, Laboratory of Organic Chemistry (fall semester), Laboratory of Inorganic Chemistry (spring semester), Department of Chemistry – University of Athens.
 * 2003 (Oct – Nov) ** Internship /practical training in the context of “Chemistry Students Practice” in the Laboratory of Catalytic – Photocatalytic Researches (Solar Energy – Environment), Institute of Physical Chemistry, NCSR "Demokritos" Research field: “Analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons using High Pressure Liquid Chromatography (HPLC)”
 * Research Experience: **
 * 2006 (Oct – Dec) ** Researcher for the program: “Study of the National and International Bibliography on Gender Equality Issues and Development of a Bibliographic Catalogue on Gender Equality Issues for the Enrichment of the Libraries of Technical Vocational Educational Schools and Vocational Training Institutes of Greece.” – National Centre for Social Research
 * 2006 Master’s Thesis ** “The Ethical Dimension of Problems in the Education and Professional Life of Chemists. The Introduction of an Ethics Course in the Chemistry Curriculum.” - Athens, 2006.
 * 2003 Graduation Thesis ** “Hydroxyapatite one inorganic bio-material. Synthesis of micro - crystal apatite restraining by a multy – electrolyte.” - Laboratory of Inorganic Chemistry. Athens, 2003.
 * Publications: **
 * Presentations at conferences: **
 * Posters at conferences: **
 * Languages: **
 * Computer skills: **