AAAS S&T Policy Forum
AAAS held its annual S&T policy powwow in DC May 7-8. Presidential science advisor John Holdren and energy secretary Steven Chu cheered the audience with their discussion of the administration's plans. Turnout was a record high of more than 600 people, and it was a happy crowd.
The most interesting session at the meeting was a panel discussion of how to regulate emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology. To grossly oversimplify a rich, wide-ranging, and thought-provoking discussion, the consensus was that we need to develop an iterative, evolutionary, adaptive, learning (choose your favorite) regulatory system that is designed to change as we learn more about the possible dangers of new technologies. We need to way to explore the potentially abundant benefits of these technologies as we closely watch for downsides. The panelists were looking the the middle course between a precautionary path that says don't commercialize until we are sure something is safe and the reactionary path that says don't regulate until there is clear evidence that damage has been done.
The critical need is careful monitoring of new technologies as they are gradually introduced and to somehow establish political legitimacy for a regulatory system that will be constantly updating the rules. Panelists with good ideas include Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State, Dave Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson Center, and John Kamensky of IBM's Center for the Business of Government.
The most interesting session at the meeting was a panel discussion of how to regulate emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology. To grossly oversimplify a rich, wide-ranging, and thought-provoking discussion, the consensus was that we need to develop an iterative, evolutionary, adaptive, learning (choose your favorite) regulatory system that is designed to change as we learn more about the possible dangers of new technologies. We need to way to explore the potentially abundant benefits of these technologies as we closely watch for downsides. The panelists were looking the the middle course between a precautionary path that says don't commercialize until we are sure something is safe and the reactionary path that says don't regulate until there is clear evidence that damage has been done.
The critical need is careful monitoring of new technologies as they are gradually introduced and to somehow establish political legitimacy for a regulatory system that will be constantly updating the rules. Panelists with good ideas include Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State, Dave Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson Center, and John Kamensky of IBM's Center for the Business of Government.
Labels: regulating emergy technologies