ORIGINAL PAPER

Would You Mind, If We Record This? Perceptionson Regulation and Responsibility among IndianNanoscientists

Subhasis Sahoo

Received: 30 September 2012 /Accepted: 25 October 2013 /Published online: 28 November 2013# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Looking at our knowledge of the risksassociated with nanotechnology, one wonders to whatdegree should its products and applications be regulated?Do we need any governing body to regulate nanotech-nology research and development? Do individuals have aright to know to make informed decisions through label-ling mechanism? The question of regulation and respon-sibility in the interaction between science, technologyand society is one of the most pressing issues. Risksand regulations regarding nanoscience and nanotechnol-ogy are mostly debated amongst policy-makers and notamongst the nanoscientists, who actually produce thenew science. Thus, the paper makes an attempt to con-tribute significantly to an increased body of knowledgeregarding how scientists think and talk about science.Little has been documented about perceptions of nano-technology regulation and responsibility in developingcountries. Given the importance of perceptions in thegenetically-modified foods debate, the way nanotechnol-ogy is perceived holds serious repercussions for theframing of its ethical, legal and social implications.Through a field-survey that records the opinions of lead-ing Indian nanoscientists, the paper examines scientists'perceptions about nanotech-regulation. Such discussionis imperative to address technological risks and uncer-tainties. The paper further explores whether scientistshave different views on what responsibility amounts to

and under what conditions one is responsible. Thoughthe study has considered Indian nanoscientists due toaccess issues, the research questions raised and addressedin this study are universal in nature.

Keywords Developing countries . India .

Nanotechnology. Perceptions . Regulation .

Responsibility

Introduction

Since the 1950s, developments in science have stimulat-ed major innovations in the respective fields of nucleartechnology, supersonic transport, food additives, infor-mation technology, genetically modified foods, andnanotechnology. Amongst all these innovations in thesocial development scenario, Nanotechnology, in partic-ular has brought a manufacturing revolution that hasresulted in tremendous material abundance [8, 44, 28,3]. Nanotechnology1 essentially involves deconstructingmaterials into atoms and then reassembling thedeconstructed atoms in different ways to create newmaterials which were so far unknown. Nanoparticlescan measure from 1 to 100 nm, a nanometre being onebillionth of a metre, roughly 80,000 times thinner than ahuman hair. Nanoparticles have potential applications inthe fields of medicine, garments, cosmetics, sports, food,and agriculture. It is expected to be a new engine for

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249DOI 10.1007/s11569-013-0182-6

1 The singular “nanotechnology” is used in this paper to refer tothe entire scientific and technological complex that comprisesdifferent nanotechnologies than plural “nanotechnologies”.

S. Sahoo (*)Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts,University of Allahabad, Allahabad 211 002, Indiae-mail: sahoo79@gmail.com

world economic growth. It is also expected to facilitatefurther progress in information technology, biotechnolo-gy, environmental and energy technology, and othersleading to the generation of new products, new jobs,new businesses, and even new industries. From this pointof view, nanotechnology is one of the transformativetechnologies of the 21st century. Proponents of nanotech-nology suggest that the world can avail a limitless supplyof atoms to manufacture valuable molecules [13]. Thepotential range of applications is staggering and cost ofbasic nanoscience and nanotechnology2 research is high.The global market for nanotechnology products is esti-mated to reach over $1 trillion in another two years, by2015 [42]. In 2006, 200 nanotechnology based productswere already in the market, mostly relating tohealthcare, and the number increased to around1,100 by 2009 [11]. This rate of growth in therelease of nanotechnology products has only increasedin recent years. As with biotechnology, universities,industries and states are committed to developinginnovations resulting from discoveries in nanotechnol-ogy [36].

In addition to stimulating innovation and conver-gence, nanotechnology has generated a pressing socialconcern to understand the risks and benefits that flowfrom such innovations and have brought into questionthe inadequacy of regulations and responsibilities. Verylittle is known about the risks of nanoparticles and thenegative impact of Nanotechnology on the health ofliving organisms is poorly understood. Looking at thelevel of knowledge that we have about risks associatedwith nanotechnology, little research is available regard-ing to what degrees should nanotechnology productsand applications of this technology be regulated?

Regulation and responsibility are two importantterms central to a number of different disciplines: Law,Economics, Political Science, Philosophy (most impor-tantly in the fields of ethics and political philosophy).They entail particular difficulties within each of thesedisciplines. In addition, important relationships existbetween them. In this paper I wish to relate the termsto one another in consideration of the character ofknowledge and draw conclusions for scientific and tech-nological developments. Regulation is a ubiquitous phe-nomenon. It may inhibit or stimulate technological

developments. Technology and regulation are oftenposed as adversaries. Technology symbolizes markets,enterprise, and growth, while regulation representsgovernment, bureaucracy, and limits to growth. Thesecond term, Responsibility is also a ubiquitous phe-nomenon. In fact, one hardly needs to point out theubiquity of responsibility. Someone or other is constantlyassuming responsibility, or having the assumption of re-sponsibility demanded of them. Awhole ethical doctrineof its own – the ethics of responsibility – has developedaround the expression.

The paper begins with an interest in responsiblescientific research in relation to nanotechnology devel-opment. This paper is particularly interested in whatregulation and responsibility really means to the scien-tists in the context of an emerging technology likenanotechnology. The first part of this paper takes acloser look at the notion of regulation and responsibilityand we seek to understand better how it has come to beso central in debating the governance of nanotechnolo-gy. The remaining parts of the paper focus on findingsfrom empirical work exploring the notion of regulationand responsibility under uncertainty. These findings arethen contextualized against the concepts of regulationand responsibility found in the theoretical and philo-sophical works of Von Wright and Hans Jonas. Thefollowing questions are to be addressed and answered:(1) How do different scientists position themselves onthe issue of nanotechnology regulation? (2) How dothese scientists position themselves on the issue of re-sponsibility in nanotechnology development? (3) Whatregulatory frameworks or solutions do they purpose?

Nanotechnology as a Post-Normal Science

Over the last decades, social scientists and others haveshown an increased level of interest in analysing theenterprise of science. In the Structure of ScientificRevolutions [30], Kuhn proposed that advances inscientific knowledge resulted from sudden, “intellectuallyviolent revolutions” are known as “paradigm shifts”.Instead of science being a steady accumulation of knowl-edge, Kuhn suggested that during periods of normalscience the main task of scientists is to help reconcile factwith theory. This involves the use of accepted scientifictechniques, tools, and analysis to solve puzzles and buildon the base of knowledge. Many of the innovations thatflowed from normal science involved steady building on

2 Throughout the paper I have deliberately used the expression‘nanoscience and nanotechnology’ to capture the complexity ofthis technoscience [23, 32] speciality.

232 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

this base of knowledge, and came from puzzle-solvingactivity. The puzzle-solving activity that occurred duringperiods of normal science would sometimes reach animpasse where standard scientific modes of inquiry gen-erated strong conflict and vocal disagreement amongscientists. For Kuhn, a paradigm shift was likely to occurat this point and the tradition-bound activity of sciencewould be shattered. For industry, the shattering of scien-tific tradition creates a range of challenges and opportu-nities. Karl Popper [41] viewed Kuhn’s explanation ofnormal science as a threat to civilization since it acts as aninstitutional barrier to innovation (see also [1, 40]). Pop-per believed that the concept of paradigm shift stifledinnovation by demarcating acceptable areas of inquiryfrom unacceptable ones and by creating institutionalmechanisms (e.g. peer review) for punishing novel andunorthodox approaches to knowledge discovery. Para-digms also constrain scientific research by placing apremium on discipline-based science. For popper, para-digms hold back scientific discovery by narrowing inqui-ry and channelling research into areas that many not havethe greatest social utility or commercial value.

The debate between Kuhn and Popper over normalscience has become contentious in recent years. Manyrecent discoveries in science have resulted from a con-vergence of various scientific disciplines cutting acrossdisciplinary boundaries. These discoveries have alsoresulted from a non-linear relationship between basicand applied science, and from the awareness that normalscience is being replaced by what Functowicz & Ravetz[21] called “post-normal science”. Post-normal sciencerecognizes that science is always tentative in its conclu-sions, and therefore subject to revisions or reversals.Functowicz & Ravez ([20]: 253) call technologies“where facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakeshigh, and decisions urgent” post-normal. By and large,a post-normal approach encourages science to findnovel ways of handling the world’s social and envi-ronmental problems. Therefore, post-normal scienceaims at producing knowledge for addressing “real-world” problems like global climate change, waterquality, and the sustainability of agriculture. It dealswith post-normal hazards (e.g. genetically modifiedfoods, nuclear radiation risks) that pose serious chal-lenges to governance due to low levels of trust [9], anda growing gap between science and policy [19]. Inci-dentally, post-normal hazards are also post-modernsince demonstrating actual harm is difficult because arange of new actors (e.g. transnational activists groups

like Greenpeace International and international groupslike ETC.) have some legitimacy at the snipping table.Post-normal science leads to post-normal decision-making and the development of a “new political epis-temology for science” ([20]: 254).

But, is nanotechnology post-normal? The speed,complexity, uncertainty, and power implicit in nanotech-nology suggest so, but let us look at this more specifi-cally. Nanotechnology involves uncertain facts; at thenanoscale substances with new properties. For instance,gold has a normal melting point of 1,336° Kelvin, butthe melting point of nanoscale clusters of gold atoms isroom temperature ([14]: 193). We are also uncertainabout the risks of nanotechnology. Further, there is stilla lot that science does not know about nanotechnologythat are currently in use (e.g. nanotechnology enhancedsunscreen).

Values are in dispute. Deborah Johnson [25] remindsus that nanotechnology could upset people’s widelydiffering visions of society. For instance, because nano-technology manipulates matter at a scale of one to onehundred nanometres, they could be incorporated intonearly every aspect of life, including the speculative,world-pervasive, robotic fogs that nanotechnology ex-perts Drexler and Hall promote. More realistically,micro-electronics could easily lead to undetectable sur-veillance equipment, which many would consider aninvasion of privacy (see [55]). These values conflictwith values that may consider scientific discovery tobe intrinsically good. The stakes of nanotechnologyare potentially very high, with risks and benefits thatcould affect millions. More concretely, the materialstakes are high; nanotechnology has been described asthe next industrial revolution ([29]: 302). Like any otherpost-normal science, decisions about nanotechnology’sdirection need to be made quickly because technologyadvances quickly than society, and ethicists. Even reg-ulation lags significantly behind the pace of innovation.Given all this, nanotechnology is certainly post-normal.

Fear of the Unknown: The Need for Regulationand Responsibility

Scientific knowledge is not always anchored on certain-ty and predictability. To talk of nanotechnology as if itexists in a Newtonian world is inadequate. Today, sci-ence is based on the idea of risk, a knowledge that wemay not be fully sure about. The work of science studies

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 233

experts (e.g. Sheila Jasanoff, John-Pierre Dupuy andespecially, Ulrich Beck, Anthony Giddens) show thatknowledge itself has become problematic. Some formsare certain (predictable) and others are uncertain. Un-certainty here is of two kinds: uncertainty where theknowledge gap is temporary and the other uncertaintywhere the knowledge may never get complete. One ofthe most commonly invoked regulatory tools to dealwith uncertainty is the Precautionary Principle, whichcan be defined by the statement: “Better Safe thanSorry!”This principle constitutes the response to thepost-modern characterization of science as uncertainand unpredictable.

While nanotechnology holds enormous potential forcommercial gain, cutting edge technological innovation,and the development of an innovative knowledge econ-omy, the risks associated with nanotechnologies andnanomaterial on human health and the environmentremain largely unknown. In his book, The March ofUnreason, British Member of Parliament Dick Taverne[50] points out that in debates about technology; “thereis a failure to distinguish between hazard, the potentialharm in question, and risk, the chance that it will actu-ally happen”. This is an important distinction to keep inmind. Recent laboratory experiments on carbon nano-tubes suggest that they could be as dangerous as asbes-tos fibres ([22]; see also [16, 45]). More importantly,nano toxicity is thought to display an inverse relation-ship to particulate size: the smaller the particulate matter,the more toxic such particles tend to be [51]. No con-clusive evidence exists of nanomaterials having causedactual health damage or deaths. However, reports in2009 of an industrial accident in China received wide-spread attention in expert circles. According to a Chi-nese toxicologist, seven workers were exposed to un-specified nanoparticles over 5 to 13 months, which issaid to have caused two of these workers to die and theremaining workers to be severely disabled.3

In European countries and in the United States, muchof the theoretical and empirical research is focused onparticipatory and upstream assessments of nanotechnol-ogy. Although each research program has its own spec-ificities that go accordingly to policy, social and aca-demic institutional settings, there are many commonmethodological and theoretical assumptions. Frame-works such as the “upstream public engagement” inthe United Kingdom, the “constructive technology

assessment” in the Netherlands and the “real time tech-nology assessment” in the United States try to modulatethe development among lay, expert and policy commu-nities. The inexorable unpredictability of emergent tech-nologies specific directions suggests that, more thanachieving precise foresights of future socio-technicalscenarios, enrolling a wide-ranging array of actors inthe debate and construction of such scenarios shouldpromote more reflexivity – which is directly linked tothe sense of responsibility. The attempts of self-regulatory governance, materialized by voluntary codesof conduct for researchers and developers, have beenalso prominent and important tools and reflect the zeit-geist of integrating responsibility at the sites of nano-technology R&D.

However, there are increasing critics of such activi-ties ([39]: 166–194; [18, 31]), many of them questioningtheir effectiveness on promoting more reflexivity andresponsibility at the laboratories themselves. Despite themethodological dilemmas of inclusion/exclusion in theparticipatory processes, there is still lack of evidenceregarding how the stakeholders’ actions are actuallyinfluenced by such interactions and how they could beimproved or adapted to better inculcate a reflexivethinking amongst nanotechnology developers. Whilethese and other questions demand deeper research, pub-lic engagement and ex ante technology assessments areyet credited as fundamental tools for promoting respon-sibility in the R&D environment among many devel-oped countries.

When one turns to other institutional contexts, suchas those of peripheral or semi-peripheral countries,where social and educational inequalities demand evenmore urgent efforts, implementing similar approaches isnot an easy task. Only “planned” or top-down organizedpublic participation activities are referred to as voices indebate about nanotechnology risks and responsibility.However, the bottom-up form of public participationwhich have also come to centre stage of politics andsociety in the last two decades andwhich are influencingthe research agenda in many areas of science (includingemerging technologies) are the NGOs, social interestgroups and social movements in ecology and the envi-ronment. The increasingmanifestation of these interests,among other aspects, is at the heart of the transformationof the social institution of science. One important con-sequence is that the scientists are subjected to the scru-tiny of, and accountability to, a number of interestgroups including their scientific peers. In India, it is3 Please see Song et al. [49].

234 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

yet to have a regulatory agency which has jurisdictionpresently over nanotechnology products released intothe market. However, India has a committee of scien-tists, which decides the direction and thrust areas ofnanotechnology research and development (R&D) inthe country. Although India is investing heavily innanotechnology (e.g. in 2005 Nano Science andTechnology Mission was established with an assuredfunding of $25 million which later increased to $125million annually since 2011), little work on assessingthe regulatory or social impacts of nanotechnology isbeing funded. Like with many new scientific andtechnological applications (e.g. biotechnology andinformation technology), regulations seems to occuras an afterthought. Sometimes, it gets originatedfrom concerns raised by a range of civil societyactors. When scientific actors emphasize any specificand general benefits, civil society actors (e.g. NGOs)emphasize concerns and (pre) caution. So, the ideaof responsible development becomes a junction forpositioning and debates. This study considered Indiannanoscientists and their perception towards regulationand responsibility due to access issues; however, theresearch questions that were raised and addressed in thisstudy were universal in nature.

Theorizing Regulation and Responsibility

One can envisage generally three kinds of situationsin relation to regulation in the context of research indeveloping new technologies. The first one is theneed for a simple permission, i.e., removal of obsta-cles to carry out research in a particular manner. Inthis particular situation, the norm authority does notimpose any restriction at any stage of the research.The second situation is that of strong permission. Inthis case there will be a properly constituted regula-tory body with the thorough going “integration” ofnatural science with social studies, humanities, policyand civil society. It cannot be helpful until unless themembers [experts from various fields, policy-makersand civil society representatives] with their expertisein various fields interact and share concern(s) for the[nano] technology. And the third kind is informedpermission (or informed consent) which lies betweenthe two situations. Here one feels the need forregulation at a certain stage of research when anew thing may be expected to create some ill effect

on the environment or society. The categories werebased on the scheme of weak permission and strongpermission provided by Von Wright [54].

One of the true statesmen of science, AlvinWeinberg[56], has remarked,

Of all the traits which qualify a scientist for citi-zenship in the republic of science, I would put asense of responsibility as a scientist at the very top.A scientist can be brilliant, imaginative, cleverwith his hands, profound, broad, narrow – but heis not much as a scientist unless he is responsible.

Before the paper continues with the imperative ofresponsibility, it is first of all focus on the definition ofthe concept itself in order come to a better understandingof this central notion. What exactly “responsibility” is tous?4 Responsibility, in an elementary sense of the word,bears the implication of original causality – “A shortcircuit was responsible for fire”. For a human being,however, responsibility means being the perpetratorof a deed or an action. This implies one assumesresponsibility for the consequences of an action,whereby this action can be described as the realisa-tion of an intention (which can succeed or fail). Inthis manner the expression ‘to assume responsibility’remains somewhat undefined. In a first approxima-tion it means only that one ascribes an action tooneself and allows it to be thus ascribed – in MaxWeber’s ethics of responsibility (Verantwortungsethik),one ‘declares for it’. So far this does not address whatresponsibility can entail, such as liability etc.

John Evans, a sociologist of religion, defines respon-sibility as being “answerable” or “accountable” to some-thing within one’s power, control and management. Innanotechnology policy, “accountability” is valued to thecitizens. The nature of responsibility is famouslycontested and multivalent [35], in Europe, at leastresponsible development of nanotechnology tends toimply the integration of activities such as soft lawregulation, public engagement, funded research onsocial and ethical aspects of nanotechnology, and

4 The concept of responsibility stretches back to its emergence inthe 19th century and developing into the 20th century notions ofpolitical and social responsibility such as encountered in the envi-ronmental movement beginning with Rachel Carson’s SilentSpring [7]. This might be one way to characterize the term in itsintellectual origins, even if it does not fully explain the emergenceof the concept of in nanotechnology today, much less corporatesocial responsibility.

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 235

codes of conduct and voluntary reporting into nano-technology research programmes. Recent researchhas started to chart the ways in which notions ofresponsibility are operationalized within public-fundedresearch, exploring how, for scientists, responsibility isdesigned to be delegated to others and to protect nano-technology from the dangers of a public ‘backlash’(Ibid.).

Notions of responsibility have also made impor-tant inroads into high-level discussion ofnanotechnology’s development in both public andprivate contexts. Soft law activities such as theResponsible NanoCode and the EC Code of Con-duct for Responsible Nanoscience and NanotechnolgiesResearch in Europe, for instance, or the Dupont-EDFNanoRisk Framework in the US, have meant that it iscommon for nanotechnology-oriented industry to asserttheir commitment to responsibility. What remains lessclear is the way in which responsibility is configured atthe level of everyday discourse and practice ofnanotechnology-oriented businesses and specifically,how this operationalized in the context of the UnitedStates of America [17, 47].

I point to the philosophy of Hans Jonas [26] as themost sustained attempt to develop a notion of responsi-bility for the future consequences of our actions. Jonasproposes that we should amend our ethics to deal withour more advanced powers. We should realize thatnature is a human responsibility. There is a responsibil-ity to know what the far-reaching effects of our actionsare, or to limit our actions in light of limitations in ourknowledge. Our technology now takes on moral signif-icance; according to Jonas, “morality must invade therealm of making, from which it had formerly stayedaloof, and must do so in the form of public policy” (ibid.120). Nanotechnologies clearly fall within the technol-ogies that Jonas is concerned about, not least becausethey are enabling technologies for the biotechnologiesthat he discusses.

Jonas talks about three responsibilities. First, weshould engage ourselves. Instead of waiting others toapproach us, we must seek out opportunities to engageourselves. We should recognize, though, that this is notalways easy. If we have never heard of nanotechnologythen we can’t be expected to engage in its development.Sometimes people will need to be engaged by others inorder to trigger their own desire to learn more. This iswhy there is also a responsibility to engage others, inaddition to a responsibility to engage ourselves. Second,

that Jonas endorses, is to be aware of the possibilities ofour action. This means we must educate ourselves andothers about the various possibilities of nanotechnologyso that we are able to anticipate which of its areas arebeneficial, and which are risky. It also means that weshould not just ban technologies that could harm us, asBill Joy [27] suggests. Instead we should learn about therisks, hazards and benefits of nanotechnologies andshould develop these technologies enough to prepareus for that technology if it is developed elsewhere.Because no one can know everything about nanotech-nologies, our duty to learn implies cooperation, “and weare more likely to cooperate if we understand howmuchwe have to gain from it” ([12]: 97). Cooperation wouldbuild cosmopolitan ties of understanding and knowl-edge sharing, and lead to harmonized regulations forthe benefit and safety of all. So, we should encourage astrong, accountable, government-funded presence innanotechnology. This could provide positive momen-tum to nanotechnology research while limiting the de-velopment of destructive or aggressive applications.Third kind of responsibility is to avoid harm. As im-plied, this is now more difficult than ever before sincethere are so many ways of affecting others unintention-ally. With the education we give ourselves we can createappropriate safeguards against nanotechnology enableddisasters, whether accidental or intentioned. We shouldbe willing to slow development while these systems areput in place. However, we should not block develop-ment as nanotechnologies could prevent harm as well ascause it. Rather than live in fear of disaster, we caninstead create and hope that humanity works quicklyenough to avoid the worst of the dangers. We shouldcertainly be cautious but we should not abandon thepossibility that with some foresight we could improvethe lives of billions.

Such position has two major inherent limitations.First, as we live in a modernity in which the futureappears as contingent, the actor cannot know the futurechain of consequences of his actions. This situationleads to a dilemma: either we don’t act (but then whotakes responsibility for the consequences of inaction?Inaction is only justifiable if we are certain that the badoutcome won’t happen.) or we act responsibly knowingthat we cannot know what our actions stochasticallylead to. We find ourselves in the world of being con-sciousness of accepting risk, at least until now, has notbeen able to provide any criteria for this. This approachseems to take the possibility of consensus for granted,

236 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

and this consensus would be reached in a process fromthe individual to society. What we see in the currentdebate on nanotechnology risks and benefits is that verydiverse stances are defended by different groups insociety. Second, it is next to impossible to predict some-thing valid about the full extent of the consequences ofour actions, because they are also subject to permanentchange. Change and development have become defin-ing factors in modernity on which we cannot anticipatewhen assessing the potential impact of the actions weperform now. In a sense our predictive knowledge hasgrown, but this is offset but the permanent addition ofunknown variables.

Nanotechnology: Indian Experience

Nanotechnology race also spreads across geographicaljurisdictions. India,5 alongside the European Union andthe United States, places nanotechnology as of her pri-ority areas in national science and technology (S&T)initiatives. R&D on nanotechnology in India – primarilyfunded by the Ministry of Science and Technology(MoST) – is still in its embryonic phase. Scientists have,however, established capabilities for synthesis and char-acterization of nanoparticles, nanotubes and nanowires.It was in the 1980s when intensification of research inhigh quality technology began, then in the year 2000 theDepartment of Science and Technology (DST) of theGovernment of India launched the Nano Science andTechnology Initiative (NSTI) with an allocation of$15 million over a period of 5 years, in 2004nanotechnology meeting was held in the PresidentHouse where Mission Mode was recommended fornanoscience and nanotechnology, hence Nano Scienceand Technology Mission (NSTM)6 was establishedin 2005 with assured funding of $25 million in2005, $50 million per year from 2006 until 2010, and$125 million annually from 2011. This is significantconsidering the Science and Technology Ministry’s totalR&Dbudget of $470million for physical and engineeringsciences and $100 million for life sciences in 2005. A

leading scientist of the country (also known as a pioneer innanotechnology revolution in India), says that:

nanotechnology is not a bandwagon, as somecritics allege, but an “express train” that the coun-try cannot afford to miss. [Having] missed thesemi-conductor ‘bus’, hence India does not wantto overlook the nanotechnology revolution. Infact, it wants to be at the forefront of it.

Surprisingly, there is a race to become the globalleader in nanoscience and nanotechnology, however,nanotechnology is very capital intensive. To the winner,will go vast fortunes, accelerated economic develop-ment, increasing spread of commercial spinoffs, highvalue adding manufacturing set ups, and allied benefitsassociated with emerging hubs of intellectual capital. Aswe have seen above, India is pumping in with funds fornanoscience and nanotechnology research. Thispumping in is very much strategic, (such as researchinto nuclear or atomic energy), aimed at developingareas with economic returns in the medium or long term.Secondly, the pumping of these resources might changethe way [scientific] research is conducted in institutionsand universities in India. Thirdly, having India’s nano-technology aspirations is like riding the nano [technology]express that will [no doubt] make India feel proud ofbeing in the international race of nanotechnological ad-vances. Finally, the prospects for nanotechnology researchis enhanced by international cooperative relations withestablished centres of excellence in countries of the Orga-nization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD), relations that are facilitated by the scientificdiasporas of Indian scientists and engineers to Europe,North America, and to a lesser extent, Japan.

Deborah Johnson [25] warns that while nanotechnol-ogy may have tremendous potential, “the question iswhether it is a good investment, not in the sense that itwill pay off, but in the sense that it will solve funda-mental problems”. The worst part is that this fear isgrounded in reality if we consider that the level ofmedical research on diseases like malaria is substantiallyoutweighed by the investment into the diseases of theaffluent [38]. In fact, current trends indicate that most ofthe developing countries might end up consuming muchmore nanotechnology enabled goods rather than onlyaffordable water purification.

As the paper highlights, however, S&T innovation areunderpinned by regulatory and institutional frameworks,and requires adroit policy supervision of complex

5 India was the third most attractive location for future investmentsin R&D behind the United States ([53]: 22–26). The Economistdescribed India and China as ‘high-tech hopefuls’ in a specialreport on technology in the two countries in its November 2007issue.6 Formore details see the NanoMissionwebsite: www.nanomission.gov.in

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 237

innovation eco-systems. More immediately, the manage-ment of nanotechnology risks and the appropriate frame-works to balance innovation, science, and safety issuesare essential if public trusts in the sector is to be sustainedand thus, funding and investment into the sector to besecured. But whether India is able to leverage off itsincreasing wealth and funnel this into global leadershipin S&T; or, whether technology will lead to the same fatelike other emerging technologies – as nuclear tech andbiotech did – in India. The former in large measuredepends on still nascent regulatory systems because tech-nologies make and break social norms by other means[4]. This is an experience that is often obscured in ataken-for-granted world. The coordination of social life,as done by legal and social norms, is also achievedthrough things and their associated characteristics thatblock or encourage certain activities and thereby channelthe flow of behaviour. This normative element of tech-nology explains in part why many technologies becomecontroversial.

In India, although presently there is not much policyconcern with regulation and responsibility in the nano-technology development (the issues of early societalconcern in the nanotechnology national program aremostly based upon the deficit model for science com-munication), there is a substantial institutional effort onpromoting socially robust general technologies. Nano-technology regulation and responsibility matters as itsapplications across industry-driven activities serve as anengine for economic growth. Regulation of nanotech-nology research to minimize risk in peripheral countrieslike India is important due to social amplification of risk.Burgi & Pradeep [6], however, claim that it is too earlyto develop mistrust about nanotechnology. But when itis too early to give an opinion about the negative socialeffects, the rule of reasoning suggests that it may also betoo early to highlight the yet untested positive socialeffects of the technology.

This study analyses the perception towards regula-tion and responsibility of nanotechnology developmentamong the Indian nanoscientists. The position of India,as far as nanotechnology is concerned, particularly thesignificant regulatory mechanism is still fresh. It mustbe noted that in India, research in this particular areais still limited. In addition, there is still a lack ofliterature and extensive academic studies conductedon the perspective of the scientists’ towards regulationand responsibility of emerging technologies in India,particularly with the emergence of nanotechnology, as

compared to such studies in other regions, such as theEU and the USA.

Methods

and thirty-five were male (See the Table 1 for a briefprofile of the interviewees). Out of the thirty-fivescientists twenty belong to the age group of abovefifty and fifteen belong to that below fifty. Apart fromtaking the interviews of the above scientists there wereopportunities to informally interact with the PhD andPostdoc students in various laboratories and also visiteddifferent laboratories. When talking about regulatingnanotechnology different types of scientists have differ-ent views, a PhD student usually do not have the sameview as postdocs and professors. People working direct-ly in clean rooms have different views on what needs tobe regulated compared to those who don’t. Further it isimperative by defining what type of scientists has beenstudied in the present study. The scientists in the presentstudy are well-versed in the subject matter and havebeen working in the field of nanoscience and nanotech-nology for past couple of years.

Nanotechnology R&D in India is organized in foursets of institutions. Much research is conducted in thenational laboratories and in various institutes of theministries of the central government. Research is alsoundertaken by the universities, institutes of technologyand certain autonomous research institutes and finally,there are industrial programmes in private business en-terprises. However, the industrial research programmesyet to have active connections among these varioustypes of institutions. These four sets of institutions

7 The data was collected as part of TERI’s larger research projecton capability, governance and nanotechnology developments: afocus on India (2008–10), which was funded by the InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. Any opinions,findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this mate-rial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the viewsof the IDRC and TERI.8 Experts, are defined as “…those who can provide relevant inputto the nanotechnology development process, have the highestauthority possible and are committed and interested”.

238 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

Data were collected via a field-survey from December,2009 to February, 2010.7 A set of interviews wasconducted with a specific group of experts8 withgood justification where a pool of thirty-five scientists(N=35) involved in nanotechnology research in India.Out of the thirty-five interviewees, five were female

served as the basis of the present study’s sample selec-tion. The present study sampled scientists from threetypes of institutions e.g. universities, public R&D insti-tutions and IITs9 while excluding the industry (Table 2).

Out of the fifteen institutions, five institutions hadnanoscience and nanotechnology centres/units and teninstitutions did not have nanoscience and nanotechnologycentres/units.10 The fifteen institutions were located in

9 Indian Institute of Technology (In short, IIT) has beenmodelled onthe Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA. IITs are thepremier institutes of engineering and science in the country. They arethe product of post-colonial industrial development in India.

10 In India, DST sanctions the grant for the establishment of thecentre/unit on nanoscience and nanotechnology. Further detailsplease see http://www.nanomission.gov.in/

Table 1 A Brief Profile of the Interviewees

Sl. No. Institutional affiliation Disciplinary background Topics addressed

1. NPL, Delhi Physics Risk & regulation

2. NPL, Delhi Physics Risk & regulation

3. NPL, Delhi Physics Regulation

4. Delhi University Chemistry Risk, regulation & accountability

5. Delhi University Physics & astrophysics Regulation

6. Delhi University Chemistry Ethical responsibility

7. IIT, Delhi Physics Risk

8. IIT, Delhi Chemistry Regulation

9. IIT, Delhi Chemistry Risk & regulation

10. IIT, Delhi Physics Regulation

11. IIT, Delhi Biological sciences Regulation

12. IISc., Bangalore Mechanical engineering Risk & regulation

13. IISc., Bangalore Instrumentation science Risk & regulation

14. IISc., Bangalore Solid state chemistry Risk & regulation

15. IISc., Bangalore Materials science Risk & regulation

16. IISc., Bangalore Physics Risk

17. NIAS, Bangalore Materials engineering Ethical, legal and social implications

18. NIAS, Bangalore Philosophy Risk perception & regulation

19. JNCASR, Bangalore Chemistry Regulation

20. JNCASR, Bangalore Chemistry Regulation

21. IIT, Bombay Biosciences & bioengineering Toxicity, regulation & governance

22. IIT, Bombay Electrical engineering Regulation & precautionary principle

23. TIFR, Bombay Physics Regulation

24. BARC, Bombay Materials science Regulation

25. BARC, Bombay Nuclear physics Risk& safety guidelines

26. IIT, Kharagpur Materials science Precautions & safety protocols

27. IIT, Kharagpur Law Toxicity & regulatory structure

28. IIT, Kharagpur Materials science Risk assessment

29. IIT, Kharagpur Materials science Ethics & toxicity tests

30. JNTU, Hyderabad Physics Hype & risk management

31. JNTU, Hyderabad Environmental chemistry Occupational health & safety

32. University of Hyderabad Sociology Risk governance & accountability

33. ARCI, Hyderabad Electrochemistry Safety guidelines & impact evaluation of toxicity

34. CCMB, Hyderabad Chemistry Sector-specific regulation

35. IICT, Hyderabad Toxicology Risk assessment

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 239

various places in India (Fig. 1). These institutions wereidentified based on their involvement in nanotechnologyresearch in India. In addition, their research and pub-lications were in the area of nanoscience and nano-technology. The sample list of institutions was pre-pared by visiting their respective institutions’ websites.The post-identification of the institutions enabled tocome up with the list of scientists’ (through web andliterature searches) located in various institutions work-ing in the area of nanoscience and nanotechnology.

The founder-chairman of the Nano Mission of Indiawas also a respondent of this study. Some of the respon-dents of this study were and are also members of thisNano Mission committee. The most common field inwhich scientists had the highest degree (i.e. Ph.D.) waschemistry and physics, followed by material scienceand engineering, biomedical engineering. Other lesscommon, though present, fields were electrical engineer-ing, mechanical engineering, instrumentation science(Table 3).

While the present study sought to be exploratoryrather than representative, in its study of nanotechnolo-gy regulation and responsibility in developing countrieslike India,11 a key interview process was used to ensurea range of perspectives. The interviews were semi-structured, face-to-face open ended, guided by a pre-designed and tested questionnaire, audio-recorded and

xthen transcribed to extract themes and content. Eachinterview lasted between twenty and sixty minutes.Given the argument that studies assessing perceptionson nanotechnology regulation relating to the developingcountries must go beyond consultations based purely onscientific perspectives,12 hence this study included inter-viewees with expertise in ethics, law, social science andscience policy studies. Financial and temporal limitations,as well as nanotechnology’s nascent stage at the time ofthe study, restricted the ability for increasing the numberof scientists and wider public engagement. A study of asmall number of scientists in India can in no way be seenas indicative of attitudes across the non-homogenous de-veloping countries. Despite every effort to ensure diversi-ty, the majority of interviewees had, at some stage, re-ceived educational training abroad. The results of thisstudy must be interpreted with these limitations in mind.

Noteworthy Findings

Perceived Regulation among Scientists

The first research question sought to examine the extentto which nanoscientists believe that nanotech requiresa regulatory body for R&D in India. Out of thethirty-five nanoscientists, 23 % didn’t know whether a

Fig. 1 Field sites for nanotechnology survey in India

11 Each expert’s responses in this research are views held bythemselves and do not necessarily represent those of theorganizations with whom it is noted that they were affiliated.Where mentioned, each expert’s affiliation has been used toadd credibility to their statements. Stated affiliations are thoseheld at the time of interview. 12 For details please see Invernizzi & Foladori [24].

Table 2 Distribution of institutions

Institutions Number Number of scientists/social scientists

Institute of Technology (IIT) 3 11

Institute of Science (IISc.) 1 5

CSIR Laboratory (NPL,CCMB, IICT)

3 5

Independent R&D Institute(ARCI, BARC)

2 3

Private Institute (NIAS) 1 2

University (Delhi University,Hyderabad University,JNTU, JNCASR, TIFR)

5 9

Total 15 35

240 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

regulatory body is required or not; 25 % said that aregulatory body was required to monitor nanotechnologyR&D in India; 12 % said that there was no need forregulation; 20 % viewed that one might require a regula-tory body later on when large scale industrial productionwill begin and 20 % said that the existing bodies can takecare of the regulation.

Regarding the relevance of this issue to thenanoscientists, their responses were seen at three levels.In India often the majority of the scientists articulate theneed for complete freedom in pursuing their scientificresearch. They think that there should not be any kind ofprohibition at any stage of research by the regulatoryauthority. This can be understood as a case of firstsituation i.e. simple permission. In this situation, someof the practicing scientists in India do think of theregulatory authority. To quote a practicing scientist fromJawaharlal Nehru University of Technology (JNTU),Hyderabad when he was asked if we need a regulatorybody in India for nanotechnology:

[There are] risks present in every technology, [but]to derive benefits, [those] risks need to be man-aged. [One must] avoid hype on benefits or risks.

To quote a scientist from National Physical Labora-tory (NPL), Delhi:

Restriction is there for all scientific/technologicaldevelopments. Tell me one invention/innovationwhich wasn’t questioned.

The weakness of the above two arguments stem pri-marily from the shaky analogy between any technology

and nanotechnology product oriented research andfrom conflating all cases if permission to be casesof simple permission especially in the context ofresearch. The scientists mistook deep permission tobe simple permission and hence saw no regulatorybody.

Scientists fear that limits on freedommight curtail thecreativity and growth of S&T. In addition, they couldmake some points that too much of a regulated system isineffective and therefore scientific creativity and inno-vation requires some freedom to develop. They refer to‘freedom of research’ as a license to do what they want.Taking freedom of research as a ‘higher’ value, theyreject any claims of particular groups or societies tothe control of their research. But the argument hardlyapplies to nanotechnology, however, because first, itsproducts are not only new ideas abut also newsubstances changing the material world and second,lack of knowledge about these materials might out-weigh the risk or unintended harm over benefits. Toquote, a social scientist located at University ofHyderabad:

[nano]scientists should have scientific freedom,but with accountability. [More importantly] theculture of science needs to change.

In the second situation (i.e. strong permission) scien-tists advocated for regulatory measures with safetyguidelines. Their argument is that no research iscompletely free from some kind of monitoring and forthem, safety guidelines will act as a mechanism for validstandards of controlling and ethically justifying things.A practicing scientist from NPL, New Delhi when hewas asked if we need a regulatory body in India fornanotechnology viewed that:

Yes, definitely, when it comes to medicine anddrugs, particularly health concern or impact onsociety. There should be some regulatory bodyor public health institutions or this could be a partof national initiative.

On being asked what kind of precautions scientiststake and what kind of things one should worry about, ascientist located in IIT, Kharagpur opined:

[There are] no ‘special’ precautions being taken inthe lab-work on nanomaterials. [There are] noformal safety guidelines for nanomaterials use.The safety protocols for research in nanotechnology,[particularly] and in general, in other areas must be

Table 3 Disciplinary backgrounds of the scientists/socialscientists

Institutions Number

Bioscience and Bioengineering 2

Chemistry 10

Humanities and Social Sciences 2

Electrical Engineering 1

Instrumentation Science 1

Law 1

Materials Science and Engineering 6

Mechanical Engineering 1

Physics 10

Toxicology 1

Total 35

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 241

developed. In case the nature of risks is ‘new’ thenthey must be explored. I myself had emphasized onsafety protocols and setting aside of 2 %–5 % ofproject revenue for addressing safety issues butthese efforts came to naught.

Another scientist located in IIT, Bombay madesimilar comments, noting that there is no agency forproviding any guidelines for it:

At the moment, it is left to the investigators.The investigators decide what students are right/wrong for his/her. For the products, you do notrequire regulation except at the experimentalphase. Rather we need more regulation in termsof laboratory procedures.

Interviewees highlighted the significance of theregulatory body in the context of risks in nanoparticlesand its toxicity. A chemical scientist from IIT, Delhiexplained this in the following manner:

Only if nanoparticle is harmful and the micropar-ticle is not harmful, then a regulatory body can beset up. Under such cases one should say whichmaterial is harmful and for that a regulatory bodyis needed.

A nano-biotechnologist at IIT, Kharagpur empha-sized that:

the risk of toxicity must be evaluated for healthapplications, studies on risk must be taken upearly on, bio-safety committee must emerge. Riskand impact assessments needed, regulatory struc-ture must be amended to include these aspects…

In order to assess the risk and regulate nanotech-nology one needs strong permission which amountsto restricting certain freedom at a certain point oftime of the scientific research. Here the notion ofrisk to health and environment can be understood inrelation to two types of consequences, namely prob-able and possible consequences. In the first type,(i.e. probable consequences) there is a finite likeli-hood of the risk being real e.g. asbestos nanoparti-cles in size. So, there is a higher probability thatnanoparticles might cause certain harm to humanhealth such as the harm caused by asbestos particles.In the long second type (i.e. possible consequences)the risk might become real in the long run.

The third situation is informed permission (orinformed consent) where one does not know at what

point of research there will be a need for a regula-tory body. A scientist made a comment during theinterview at IIT, Delhi:

…currently nanotechnology research is in itsinfancy; so at this stage regulation checks thegrowth of science. Once research takes that far,we may think of regulations.

Another scientist from Tata Institute of FundamentalResearch (TIFR), Bombay saw the positives in thesepoints, suggesting that:

regulation at this stage of nanotechnology R&Dis too early. Instead one should focus on morescientific research.

This reflects that scientists are aware of the risksassociated with nanotechnology, but they don’t advo-cate regulation at the present [nascent] stage of nano-technology R&D in the country as the regulatory mea-sures impede its growth. This has been justified in aslightly differentmanner by a scientist at Jawaharlal NehruCentre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR),Bangalore:

…planning very soon what type of regulatorybody can be done for nanotechnology here[in India]. Till date, we don’t have any [regulatorybody]. However, there are not many nanoscientiststo be worried about regulation as there are only fewhundred scientists working on nanotechnology inIndia. But, the time has come to look into thatmatter.

A group of scientists recommended for the sector-specific regulation in nanotechnology with labellingmechanism. They noted:

[The] regulatory body is required in the field ofmedicines and drugs, not for electronics andmaterials.

The reaction of a scientist from Indian Institute ofScience (IISc.), Bangalore highlighted this point:

When you talked about labelling of nano productsI say “yes to it” because every technology carriescertain amount of risks. What material is it? Whatis the effect of this material, if you use it? So, onecan’t isolate nanotechnology from those grounds.

At the large scale production of nanomaterials vis-à-vis specific applications, one group of scientists argued

242 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

for the involvement of various stakeholders in order toavoid some ill effect on the environment and society. Amaterial scientist located at NPL, Delhi perceives that:

nanotechnology carries certain kind of risksparticularly to human beings and environment.Human beings inhale these nanoparticles whichdo harm the respiratory system. In the environmentcase, nanoparticles and its wastage contaminate thesoil and water.

Another scientist from IISc., Bangalore has suggestedthat:

If we go for a regulatory body on nanotechnology,then we should have all the stakeholders representthere [in the regulatory body] including civil soci-ety organizations [e.g. NGOs].

To further increase the understanding of the nano-technology development, one needs to be sure aboutwhat scientists think nanoscience to be and what, ofit, is to be regulated? Working on the nanometre scalecannot be regulated; producing computer chips now-adays is done in the nanometre scale. Even onecannot regulate the technology as a whole ratherscientists often refer to certain processes or products(released into the market), such as carbon tubes,which can be regulated.

Perceived Responsibility among Scientists

A research question sought to examine nanoscientists’perceptions about ethical responsibility and under whatconditions nanoscientists are responsible. Out of thethirty-five scientists, little less than one third (31 %)somewhat said that they are willing to take up theresponsibility, almost 10 % of the scientists were notaware of ethical issues while 90 % were aware of ethicalissues. To avoid significant harm slightly less than onethird (29 %) nanoscientists somewhat agreed that theyshould have an ethical responsibility to spread theawareness among the public.

The fruits of scientific research, as per the conven-tional views go, are intrinsically neutral and can be putto good or bad ends by those who apply them. Scientists(69 %) more or less explicitly rejected taking ‘responsi-bility’ for any consequences of the knowledge theyproduce beyond quite narrowly defined imminent risksarising from their work. This shows the dismissiveattitude among the scientists for any consequence of

the knowledge they produce. They argued that takingrole in development of these consequences is not part oftheir ‘professional role’ because they create or generatethe knowledge from their research, but they do notcontrol how their knowledge is to be used. The formeris known as practitioners of science and the latter isknown as implementers of knowledge. Since scientistsdo not control which ends their knowledge is used topursue, they cannot reasonably be held ethically respon-sible for whatever negative consequences result fromsuch applications. To quote, Noble Physics LaureateLeon Lederman [33] here:

Our lame but perhaps time-honoured response isthat scientific knowledge is not good or evil; it isenabling. Modern science, however abstract, isnever safe. It can be used to raise mankind tonew heights or literally to destroy the planet. Asdemocratic government spreads, it is the peopleand their representatives who must use the powerprovided by science. We give you a powerfulengine. You steer the ship.

Whether this separation of responsibilities is ulti-mately sustainable is another matter, but for this, weshall accept it. At the societal level, it amounts to orga-nized responsibility [5], implies that it will often notclear who is responsible for what (thus might be praisedor blamed). Organized responsibility is a general featureof our late- modern risk society, and nanotechnology isthen one further site where this is played out. Thepractitioners of science and even the implementers ofknowledge are most often ignorant of the consequencesof changes that they have brought.

In pluralist societies like India, scientists have differ-ent views on what responsibility amounts to and underwhat conditions one is responsible. ContextualizingJonas philosophy of responsibility, nanoscientists’ re-sponses were recorded at three levels. Some scien-tists defend ethical approach to responsibility, i.e., itis the scientist’s responsibility to show the societyboth the merits and demerits of a technology atlarge. Such engagement informs the decision-makersfor what is done with scientific knowledge and theresultant effects. This can be understood as a case offirst responsibility (i.e. we should engage ourselves;instead of waiting others to approach us, we mustseek out opportunities to engage ourselves). A socialscientist located at NIAS, Bangalore, remarked thatscientists should not only have their own [ethical]

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 243

responsibilities in the nanotechnology laboratory butalso for the broader society. To quote him,

As things arise, it is a responsibility of the [nano]scientists who bring out the technology as themanufacturer of a drug tells the side effects ofthe drug to doctors and later on informed to thepatients by the doctors.

In the second kind of responsibility (i.e. aware of thepossibilities of our action), the majority of the scientistsagreed that the duty to contribute to a responsible nano-technology development as part of their ethos,13 as amatter of fact. A material scientist working in the area ofnano materials for health applications at IIT, Kharagpurbelieves:

[the] responsible development of nanotechnol-ogies is crucial to technology development, eval-uation of impacts and implications of researchmust factored in during the planning stage of theproject. I especially sensitize my students to issuesof undertaking nanotechnology R&D responsibly.

A chemical scientist from Delhi University has ar-gued for ‘moral responsibilities’ of scientists in thecontext of nanotechnology R&D in India. Scientists,however, with a more duty-based conception of respon-sibility may think in terms of a formal task descriptionand consider this particular responsibility not to be partof that description. In the present study, the majority ofthe scientists (slightly less than 70 %) interviewed wereeager to relegate responsibility to the state, policy-making bodies and industry promoting organizations.To quote a scientist located at IIT, Bombay:

Nano Mission can look after it…

To quote a scientist from International AdvancedResearch Centre for Powder Metallurgy and NewMaterials (ARCI), Hyderabad:

MoEF [Ministry of Environment and Forests] andDST must do something in this regard, as scien-tists’ goal is to conduct R&D so an ecosystemmustbe developed to facilitate assessment of impact andevaluation of toxicity can be undertaken…

Similar views were expressed by a scientist situatedat IISc., Bangalore and stressed on the role of industrypromotion organizations like CII (Confederation of In-dian Industry), FICCI (Federation of Indian Industryand Chamber of Commerce). To him,

whyn’t they [CII and FICCI] take up some respon-sibilities while promoting nanotechnology anddoing [technology] transfer.

These different conceptions may lead to differentdistributions of responsibilities, which may consequent-ly lead to gaps in the responsibility distribution becausepeople may expect someone else to assume the remain-ing responsibilities.

The third kind of responsibility is to avoid harm.From the perspective of a social scientist at NationalInstitute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), Bangalore:

They [scientists] should realize that technologyhas something of social character than equation.[So] the responsibility of nanoscientists is to edu-cate about the technology. [These] scientists arealso supposed to know the consumer of this tech-nology better.

This reflects the gut-feeling of the scientist thatthrough education, once can create appropriate safe-guards against foreseeable problematic effects in nano-technology products and by-products. Consequently, itcannot always be foreseeable that particular scientificknowledge will generate ethical issues. However, insome cases it will, for instance, in the case of militaryor economic advantages to be gained through theapplications of nanotechnology. In such cases scien-tists cannot avoid incurring ethical responsibility bywashing his/her hands or by invoking the Ledermanprinciple of the neutrality. In other words, they can-not behave ethically neutral and disconnected fromthe responsibility of its consequences to the worldand humankind. Rather, scientists should be willingto slow development till systems are put in place,for instance, what one of the scientists from IndianInstitute of Chemical Technology (IICT), Hyderabadrightly pointed out:

Studies in areas of toxicology have to catch upwith [the] nanotechnology development.

To find out whether scientists are keen to study riskissues associated with nanotechnology, it was realizedthat most of the scientists were not ready to devote time

13 The archetype of good scientific behaviour is reflected inMerton’s [37] ethos of science, known under the acronymCUDOS. Merton stated that scientists should not only be involvedin the production of new knowledge; scientists are also committedto the critical towards scientific knowledge claims raised by theircolleagues, and are obliged to test their colleagues’ results.

244 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

to such issues. They [scientists] have attributed to theunavailability of proper documentation, as the reasonfor not undertaking risks and safety issues. It is emergedthat scientists want policy-makers to take the initiative todevelop the [research] environment for assessing riskswhile technology is evolving and particularly, at nascentstage. This expresses a kneejerk reaction to risk regula-tion i.e. “not my job”. In fact, most of them had reser-vations while discussing risks that were associated withnanotechnology. Out of thirty-five scientists, 46 %was aware of different kinds of risks associated withnanotechnology and 54 % claimed the risk is thesame as that of any other technology. It seems thatthere was no consensus among scientists regardingthe risks associated with nanotechnology within aninstitution or across the institutions. It also shows thatthe institutional or disciplinary affiliation have norepercussion on the risk perception of the scientists.

Discussions

Through this paper, l ight could be shed onnanoscientists’ perceptions about regulation and respon-sibility in relation to their work by examining variouskinds of information e.g. respondents’ regulatory eval-uations, levels of regulatory concern in nanoscientists’minds, and information about how nanoscientists’ re-sponsibility about project nanotechnology develop-ments compared with those they have about existingtechnologies. The arguments from the scientists duringthe field-survey on nanotechnology showed two typesof utility: utility in terms of society and utility in termsof economy. Utility in terms of society concerns solvingenvironmental problems, curing diseases and relievingpain. It is in this view where nanotechnology may fixsocial problems, and social problems are often viewedfrom lack of technical capabilities. The economic utilityarguments concern business economic motives andnanotechnology as a source of increased [modern] cap-italism. In this view nanotechnology is a market-drivenor an industry-led innovation. Most often, [the] societalutility was considered a legitimate argument for theapplication of nanotechnology, whereas business eco-nomic motives were used as arguments against theapplication of nanotechnology.

Respondents in this study included scientists drawnfrom academics and public funded R&D institutes, whohad less time and inclination to engage in such

discussions. For them, editorials and articles in nano-technology journals, similar to what has appeared inbiomedical journals, may offer a better avenue for pro-moting awareness and [intellectual] discussion. Whilesome scientists mentioned that they had received infor-mation on regulatory issues or spoke to colleagues aboutthis topic, others, particularly young scientists, men-tioned that there was little discussion. Another possibil-ity is that this finding reveals an underlying uneaseamong scientists regarding risk regulation associatedwith nanotechnology. Scholars like Wolfson [57]questioned whether nanotechnology researchers, asany researchers, may be able to police themselves.

Responding to a question ‘do we need a regulatorybody in India?’ scientists provided various responses.Some considered applications within the health areamore negative than in the field of electronics. Whilegovernments taking the load in promoting biosciencesand engaging commercialization of technology, the reg-ulatory regime in one country may not be sufficient toregulate nanotechnology research elsewhere. There is aglobal market for stem cell therapy, tissues/samples andassisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) have resultedin more commodification of human reproduction. Cen-tral to the acquisition of globally competitive technolog-ical capabilities are strong supporting institutions andstable and efficient legal and governance systems, re-gardless of the nature of political systems. Continuoustechnological efforts demand the corresponding evolu-tion of the country’s legal and governance apparatus inorder to be more globally integrated and competitive. Inthis respect, India faces major challenges in improvinggovernment effectiveness and regulatory quality. Givensuch trends, the logical framework in India may beinadequate to address issues and provide a just andethical regulatory mechanism.

In fact the idea of the precautionary principle and itsapplication to S&T development has been quite margin-al so far, with some exceptions in some European coun-tries. Although the precautionary principle is much lessobserved or not observed at all in developing countries,there is not such widespread development of sciencepaying attention to precaution. Over the past one de-cade, nanotechnology has moved dramatically from thelaboratory into the marketplace. Indeed, the global ap-proach to nanotechnology so far has been “market first”.So far as the use of nanotechnology in India is con-cerned, the guiding precautionary principle of nanotech-nology and the use of nanomaterials appear problematic.

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 245

India is, also yet to have a strong tradition for promotingthe precautionary principle. Although majority of thescientists in the present study were aware of the risksassociated with nanotechnology, still they were not infavour of any regulation of the nanotechnology researchin India. In principle, the responsibility for adopting theprecautionary principle has to be distributed. Whenscientific data is scarce and/or uncertain, a range of riskmanagement options are available to decision-makers[52]. In India, it is likely that existing regulatory author-ities will share responsibility for regulating the environ-mental and human health impacts resulting from nano-tech products. Responsibility brings accountability ofscientists in their research to the larger society. This isone of the important aspects in the sociology of scien-tific knowledge (SSK).

Any new branch of technology holds an uncertainpayoff, most basically framed by what is actually, phys-ically possible. More under our control are the limitingfactors of what scientists choose to research and howthey research it, and how it is taken up by the largersociety. Nanotechnology is no different. Nevertheless, ifthe ‘hype’ is to be believed (it has been described as acardinal part of America’s economic future) the matura-tion of nanotechnology stands a better chance of havingsubstantial effect on this world than almost any otherphase of technological development. If that is true, andin fact, China is investing more effectively than much ofthe rest of the world ([15]: 6), even India is not laggingbehind nanotechnology which could overturn the cur-rent global political order.

In terms of its engagement with emerging technolo-gy, India has supportive infrastructure and strong hopesfor nanotechnology R&D. This analysis is supported byearly evidence of nanotechnology R&D, including theestablishment of a national nanotechnology mission,setting up of national centres and development of anational nanotechnology strategy. India has invested ina group of selected universities, which it hopes willbecome globally renowned hubs of technological andscientific research. Just as India faces significant chal-lenges with biotechnology innovation, so too do peopleclaim India might face significant challenges for nano-technology innovation. From the perspective of regula-tion and responsibility, India has a history of controver-sy in biotechnology, ranging from issues of morality[43] and environmental concerns, to issues of intellec-tual property such as ‘biopiracy’[10, 48] and compulso-ry licensing [46]. Though risks associated with

nanotechnology hasn’t created a storm yet in India, butthis is in large part due to a lack of public comprehen-sion of the magnitude of the risk we face. In addition,this is a perception problem that social scientists aretrying to determine how to overcome. Perspectives fromIndian nanoscientists could be act as a useful referencepoint given the country has firmly entrenched in otheremerging technology (e.g. biotechnology and nuclearenergy technology) debates.

Conclusions

The larger research question that has been examined inthis paper is: what are scientists’ perceptions of risk,regulation and responsibility (3R) associated withnanotechnology research and development. In orderto address the above mentioned question, a field-survey was employed and in-depth interviews of thescientists (thirty-five scientists working in the area ofnanoscience and nanotechnology), located in variousinstitutions, national laboratories and universities inIndia were conducted. This field-survey of nanoscientists’perception about regulation and responsibility issues inrelation to their work yielded both encouraging andconcerning findings. These findings might be utilized aspoints of reference for the responsible conduct of nano-technology research and innovation ecosystem, both inIndia and other developing countries.

Although nanotechnology industry is only justemerging, the major strength of India’s nanotechnologyis in the government and academic sector with a visiblescientific community. Some are based at universitiesgeared towards professionalizing and advancing researchand training in specific areas of nanoscience and nano-technology. Others are centres within governmentscience-oriented agencies, geared towards research,innovation and specialized services in nanotechnology.However, the main contribution of nanotechnology inIndia so far has been in the development of worldclass infrastructure, research programmes at the doc-toral level, and above all, manufacture of drugs. AsZiman [58] spelled out, “academic science is under-going a cultural revolution”.

What we observed that out of the thirty-fivenanoscientists 23 % of the nanoscientists didn’t knowif a regulatory body is required or not. 25 % said that aregulatory body was required to monitor nanotechnolo-gy R&D in India. 12 % said that there was no need for

246 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

regulation; 20 % of the nanoscientists viewed that onemight require a regulatory body later on when largescale industrial production will begin and 20 % ofthe scientists said existing bodies can take care ofthe regulation in this area. It is noted that there wasno consensus among scientists on regulatory issuesassociated with nanotechnology within an institutionor across the institutions. In other words, there was adiffering perception towards regulatory approach:whether to adapt existing systems for nanotech prod-ucts or to have a separate regulatory system.

During the course of my interview, the scientistsagreed that their level of knowledge regarding long-term safety of nanomaterials is not significant. Therewere also some scientists who accepted that there hasbeen a regulatory oversight among them and no advo-cacy towards it. Out of the thirty-five scientists, little lessthan one third (31%) said that they are willing to take upthe responsibility; almost 10 % of the scientists were notaware of ethical issues while 90 % were aware of ethicalissues. To avoid significant harm slightly less than onethird (29 %) nanoscientists somewhat agreed that theyshould have an ethical responsibility to spread theawareness among the public. This research showed thatperception of the scientists varied within an institutionregarding the responsibility issues related to nanotech-nology research. Therefore the institutional affiliationsor disciplinary affiliations seem to have no repercussionon the views or perceptions of the scientists.

Yet when comparing between interviewees fromtwo different institutions, it becomes readily apparentthat the distinctions in perception are less betweeninstitutions than between interviewees with expertisein differing fields. This is particularly true in termsof nanotechnology’s claimed novelty, its range of appli-cations and its complexity, and may be explained by anindividual’s level of nanotechnology awareness or theirmotivation to present nanotechnology in a way thatreinforces their own perspectives. Contrary to popularbelief amongst developed countries nanotechnology inIndia is framed in terms of its near-term capabilitiesrather than those attributed to the speculative paradigmof molecular manufacturing. Whilst one intervieweesuggested this as a phenomenon grounded in culturaldifference, the responses from Indian nanoscientists, aswell as previous research [34], suggest that the marketguides the framing of nanotechnology in the developingcountries, thereby a focus on the kind of nanotech-nology that presents foreseeable returns.

Technoscientific developments often have far-reachingconsequences, both negative and positive, for the public.Yet, because science and scientists have the authorityto decide which judgements about scientific issues aresound, public concerns are often dismissed becausethey are not part of the technoscientific paradigm theyquestion. This argument, made frequently by nanotech-nology contrarians, displays a lack of understandingabout risk management. I’m uncertain if I’ll ever be ina car accident, or if my house will catch fire, or if I’llbecome seriously ill or injured within the next fewyears. That uncertainty won’t stop me from buyingauto, home, and health insurance. It’s just a matter ofprudent risk management, making sure we’re preparedif something bad happens to something we value.That principle should certainly apply to the nanotech-nology development.

In light of increasing public unrest at the genetically-modified foods debate in India, the adoption of nano-technology should not follow the same trajectory. Thetrajectories of public opposition to genetically-modifiedfoods are often cited as an object of lesson for thoseconcerned with the nanotechnology development [2].In order to avoid trust-deficit on the technology andfollowing the schemes of various kinds of argumentsby Von Wright and Jonas, issues like regulation andresponsibility have to be contested and a consensushas to be arrived at in the context of nanotechnologydevelopment in India.

Acknowledgments The author wishes to express gratitude toLigia Noronha who introduced him to the sociological research onemerging technologies. Manish Anand, Shipanjali DeshpandeSarma, Nidhi Srivastava, and Indrani Barpujari made many help-ful suggestions for improving the questionnaire-design. KrishnaRavi Srinivas provided important feedbacks on a draft version ofthis essay. The author is grateful to the three anonymous reviewersfor providing numerous generous criticisms for the data-analysis.The author has been benefitted immensely from the pertinentliterature provided by Christopher Coenen, Alexei Grinbaum,and Arabinda Sahoo; fruitful discussions on ethics and responsi-bility with Paulo Fonseca, Sital Mohanty, Gopal Sahu, and VinodVerma. Boundless thanks to Sambit Panigrahi to take a look at themanuscript and pointed out the missing links. Special acknowl-edgement is due to AlessiaMuratorio and SimoneArnaldi for theirvaluable comments and many suggestions for improvements tothis paper. Earlier drafts of the paper were presented at Centre forEnvironmental Law Decisions and Corporate Ethical Certification(CIGA), University of Padova, Italy in 2011 and the IEEE Nano-technology Conference at Seoul, Korea in 2010. Support fromIDRC, Canada during the fieldwork made this research possi-ble. Remaining errors are the responsibility of the author.

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 247

References

1. Agassi J (1998) Science real and ideal: Popper and the dog-matic scientist. Protosociology 12:297–304

2. Barnett J, Carr A, Clift R (2007) Going public: risk, trust andpublic understandings of nanotechnology. In: Hunt G, MehtaMD (eds) Nanotechnology: risk, ethics and law. Earthscan,London, pp 196–212

3. Barker T, Lesnick M,Mealy T, Raimond R,Walker S, RajeskiD, Timberlake L (2005) Nanotechnology and the poor: op-portunities and risks: Closing the gaps within and betweensectors of society. Washington D.C.: Meridian Institute, pp 23

4. Bauer M (2002) Arenas, platforms, and the biotechnologymovement. Sci Commun 24(2):144–161

5. Beck U (1995) Ecological politics in an age of risk. PolityPress, Cambridge

6. Burgi BR, Pradeep T (2006) Social implications ofnanoscience and nanotechnology in developing countries.Curr Sci 90(5):645–658

7. Carson R (1962) Silent spring. Mariner Books, New York8. Choi K (2003) Ethical Issues of Nanotechnology Development

in the Asia-Pacific Region. In Regional Meeting on Ethics ofScience and Technology. Bangkok: UNESCO Regional Unitfor Social andHuman Sciences in Asia and Pacific, pp 327–376

9. De Marchi B, Ravetz JR (1999) Risk management andgovernance: a post-normal science approach’. Futures 31:743–757

10. DeGeer ME(2003) N Engl J Int Law Comp Law 9(1):179–208. Retrieved July 20, 2012 from http://www.visuality.org/globalization/wmst250_readings/biopiracy_and_indigenous_knowledges.pdf

11. Dharmakumar R (2010) Are nanoparticles health hazard.Forbes India, 18 June. http://forbesindia.com/printcontent/14132

12. Drexler KE (1986) Engines of creation. Anchor, New York13. Duell CH (1999) Technological transformation: the increase

in power and complexity is coming just as the ‘raw materials’are eroding. Dev Dialogue 1–2:25–73

14. Dupas C, Houdy P, Lahmani M (2004) Nanoscience: nano-technology and nanophysics. Springer, Berlin

15. ETC. Group (2006) “Medical applications of nano-scale tech-nologies: what impact on marginalized communities?” ETC.Group. Accessed June 17, 2011 http://www.etcgroup.org/en/

16. Falkner R (2008) Nanotechnology dangers: who’s afraid ofnanotechnology? World Today 64(6):15–17

17. Ferrari A (2008) Is it all about human nature? Ethical chal-lenges of converging technologies beyond a polarized debate.Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 21(1):1–24

18. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmentalrisk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol HumValues 15(2):226–243

19. Functowicz S, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality inscience for policy. Kluwer, Dordrecht

20. Functowicz S, Ravetz JR (1992) Three types of risk assess-ment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: KrimskyS, GoldingD (eds) Social theories of risk. Prager,Westport, pp251–273

21. Functowicz S, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for a post-normalage. Futures 25(7):739–755

22. Greenemeier L (2008) Study says carbon nanotubes asdangerous as asbestos. Scientific American, May 20

23. Haraway D (1997) Modest_Witness@Second-Millenium.Routledge, New York

24. Invernizzi N, Foladori G (2005) Nanotechnology and thedeveloping world: will nanotechnology overcome poverty orwiden disparities? Nanotechnol Law Bus J 2(3):101–110

25. Johnson D (2007) Ethics and technology ‘in the making’: anessay on the challenges of nanoethics. NanoEthics 1:21–30

26. Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility. In: Search ofan ethics for the technological change. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago

27. Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(4)28. Juman C, Yee-Chong L (2005) Innovation: Applying knowl-

edge in development. London: UN Millennium Project. UNMillennium Project Task Force on Science, Technology, andInnovation

29. KearnesM, Grove-White R,Macnaughten P,Wilsdon J,WyneeB (2006) From bio to nano: learning lessons from the UKagricultural biotechnology controversy. Sci Cult 15(4):291–307

30. Kuhn T (1962) Structure of scientific revolutions. Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago

31. Laird FN (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy, and tech-nological decision making. Sci Technol Hum Values 18(3):341–361

32. Latour B (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientistsand engineers through society. Harvard University Press, USA

33. Lederman LM (1999) The responsibility of the scientist. NewYork Times, p. A15, July 24

34. Maclurcan DC (2005) Nanotechnology and developingcountries: part 1—what possibilities. AzoNano Online JNanotechnol. Available from: http://www.aznano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1428

35. McCarthy E, Kelty C (2010) Responsibility and nanotechnol-ogy. Soc Stud Sci 40(3):405–432

36. Mehta MD (2002) Nanoscience and nanotechnology:assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bull SciTechnol Soc 22(4):269–273

37. Merton RK (1968) Science and democratic social structure, insocial theory and social structure. The Free Press, New York.The article was first published in 1942

38. Neufeld V, MacLeod S, Tugwell, P, Zakus D, Zarowsky, C(2001) The rich poor gap in global health research: challengesfor Canada. Can Med Assoc J 164(8). Retrieved May 20,2012, from http://www.cmaj.ca/

39. Osborne D, Gaebler T (1993) Reinventing government: howthe entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector.Penguin, New York

40. Pinter GG, Pinter V (1998) From epistemology to rational sci-ence policy: Popper vs Kuhn. Perspect Biol Med 41(2):291–298

41. Popper K (1970) Normal science and its dangers. In: LakatosI, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the growth of knowledge.Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 51–58

42. Roco MC (2005) Environmental responsible development ofnanotechnology. Environ Sci Tech 39(5):106A–112A

43. Sahai S (2003) The Bt cotton story: the ethics of science andits reportage. Curr Sci 84(8): 1–2

44. Samson AES, Symington A (2004) Gender equality and newtechnologies: nanotechnology. Available from: http://www.avoid.org/publications/primers/nanotech.en.pdf

248 Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249

45. Scheufele DA, Shirley SH, Corley EA (2011) Value predis-positions, mass media, and attitudes toward nanotechnology:the interplay of public and experts. Sci Commun 33(2):167–200

46. Scoones I (2003) Regulatory manoeuvres: the Bt cotton con-troversy in India. Working Paper, 197, August, England:Institute of Development Studies

47. Shelley-Egan C (2010) The ambivalence of promising tech-nology. NanoEthics 4(2):183–189

48. Shiva V (1999) Biopiracy: the plunder of nature and knowl-edge. South End Press, Cambridge

49. Song Y et al (2009) Exposure to nanoparticles is related topleural effusion, pulmonary fibrosis and granuloma. EurRespir J 34:559–567

50. Taverne D (2006) The march of unreason. Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford

51. The Project on Emerging Technologies, 22 September, 2010

52. Tyshenko MG, Krewski D (2008) A risk management frameworkfor the regulation of nanomaterials. Int JNanotechnol 5(1):143–160

53. UNCTAD (2005)World investment report 2005: transnationalcorporations and the internationalization of R&D. UnitedNations Conference of Trade and Development, New York(downloadable from<www.unctad.org>)

54. Von Wright GH (1963) Norm and action: a logical enquiry.Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

55. Weckert J (2002) Lilliputian computer ethics. Metaphilosophy,Oxford, Blackwell, 33(3):366–375

56. Weinberg A (1978) The obligations of citizenship in theRepublic of Science. Minerva 16:1–3

57. Wolfson JR (2003) Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology:lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies.Biotechnol Law Rep 22(4):376–396

58. Ziman J (1996) Is science losing its objectivity? Nature 382:751–754

Nanoethics (2013) 7:231–249 249