LamprouMemo26

Memo 26 Abstract 1: **Nanotechnology Policy: Public Participation, Political Cultures, and Harmonization** Nanotechnology has been praised as a promising new technology, but it can also be viewed as a new type of synthetic chemistry. Like synthetic chemistry, nanotechnology has the potential to produce toxic nanomaterials and thus must be regulated. But beyond that, in a globalization age, regulatory policies must be harmonized. How does the public engage in discussions concerning the development of nanotechnology regulatory policies and their harmonization? The STS literature has identified some significant comparative differences in political cultures and regulatory policy among different countries. For example, the EU policymakers take into account, at least in discussion, an additional socio-economic criterion. There is some evidence that the EU shows a greater tendency toward experimentation with deliberative institutions and openness to what Kleinman and Kinchy call "social regulation." This is in contrast to the technocratic and scientistic orientation that is more typical in U.S. regulatory settings. Building on this work, I will explore three related issues concerning the case of nanotechnology regulation: 1) How do social movements and civil society organizations participate in nanotech regulatory policy in the U.S. and EU? 2) Are there differences in their levels of participation, and if so, how are those differences related to established differences in the political cultures of regulation? 3) How have different cultures of regulatory policy and civil society participation come together or confronted each other during recent processes of regulatory harmonization? For the purposes of this study I will review the existing comparative literature on political cultures of regulation and civil society participation in political decision making, and I will explore empirically how these issues come together in nanotechnology harmonization policy.  Abstract 2: **Theories of Standards: the Case of Nanotechnology**   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. In this paper, I argue that because neoliberal deregulation strategies have given the private sector the authority to discuss and develop nanotechnology standards; the standards that are beginning to emerge address the needs of industry and the market, at the expense of public welfare or the environment. This study is a contribution to debates concerning the neoliberal influence in standardization processes and policy making. Building on theories of standard-setting in the area of food and agriculture, I consider how neoliberal ideas are shaping the development of nanotechnology standards. In particular, I examine two cases: the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a not-for profit private organization that claims to provide a neutral space and brings together interested U.S. parties to promote and facilitate voluntary consensus standards, and in 2004 established a Nanotechnology Standards Panel (ANSI-NPS); and the European’s Commission Directorate General for Health and Consumers, which has as its main task to keep up to date the established EU laws on safety, health protection, and consumers rights, and since 2007 holds an annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue Workshop. While the European Workshop appears to achieve broader participation than ANSI’s panel, with government bodies present, and discussions more centered in consumer and health issues, power structures seem once again to shape and drive the standardization processes and suggestions according to market interests. ** Abstract 3: Towards Harmonized Standards for Nanotechnology: EU, US, and the Role of ISO and the Industry. ** Within ten years nanotechnology became the main promising technoscientific frontier in research for academia, industry and federal government. In 2001, the Clinton administration established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and in 2003 the ‘21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act’. A year later the European Union through the European Commission discusses the European nanotechnology policy and in 2005 establishes the First Implementation Report. Even though different continents have established their independent policies and regulatory regimes concerning nanotechnology, harmonization of the policies in particular of standards are necessary. The STS literature has identified significant differences in political cultures between different countries affecting the procedures and the policy outcomes. Under the necessary procedures of harmonization the different political cultures will come together or confront each other towards common nanotechnology policies and regulations. How do different political cultures affect trans-Atlantic harmonization processes? How do different political cultures proceed in order to establish their knowledge power? This study will build and contribute to literature and debates on technology studies literature on standards and harmonization as well as on literature on comparative policy studies in Europe and the US. Even though the EU policy procedures and outcomes appear to be more oriented towards environmental and safety issues and more open to public participation, while in the US the same policy procedures and outcomes seem to be more market driven, under the globalization regime, both cultures seem to focus in establishing their knowledge power in order to lead in the activities of the free market.