NanoJury Preliminary Verdict: Who Should Obey Or Enforce It?

We previously mentioned the formation of the Nano Jury (May podcast), where twenty randomly- chosen people from different backgrounds heard evidence about the role that nanotechnology might play in various future scenarios. Summer 2005 the jurors heard from a variety of witnesses with widely varying perspectives, which they drew on in formulating a final set of recommendations. The recommendations  include greater public involvement and increased clarity in communication, as well as more emphasis on health, equity and environmental protection. In all, the jury cited 20 some recommendations for nanotechnology development, including use of juries composed of members from various aspects of life to critique publicly funded research and the use of "plain English" to discuss nanotechnology. Although these goals are interesting, it is not clear how they should be implemented or if the government should develop or appoint an agency to oversee administration. For a report on the verdict click here (German), or here for a discussion by David Berube or here for sponsor information.