¹ Dukas, H. & Hoffmann, B. (eds.), Einstein: The Human Side (Princeton University Press, 1981), at p. 56.Google Scholar

² The administrative branch of the European Commission consists of 40 Directorates General (DGs), which are equivalent to ministries at the national level and service the different policy areas for which the Commission has responsibility, including DG Environment, DG Internal Market, and DG Research: see Chalmers, D., European Union Law (2^nd edn., Cambridge University Press, 2010), at pp. 57–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ European Commission, ‘DG Research Workshop on Responsible Research & Innovation in Europe’, 16–17 May 2011, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/responsible-research-and-innovation-workshop-newsletter_en.pdf.

⁴ See Williams, R., Lost Icons: Reflections on Cultural Bereavement (T & T Clark, 2000), Ch. 1.Google Scholar

⁵ See National Research Council, Committee to Review the National Nanotechnology Initiative, A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (National Academies Press, 2006), Ch. 4.Google Scholar

⁶ Kearnes, M. & Rip, A., ‘The Emerging Governance Landscape of Nanotechnology’, in Gammel, S. et al. . (eds.), Jenseits von Regulierung: Zum politischen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie (AKA Verlag, 2009), pp. 97–121.Google Scholar

⁷ Though my colleague, Chris Groves, would argue that both utilitarian and deontological approaches become problematic when obligations to the future are at stake: see Groves, C., ‘Future Ethics: Risk, Care and Non-Reciprocal Responsibility’ (2009) 5(1) Journal of Global Ethics, pp. 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ This might reflect the notion of dignity to complete Brownsword’s triangular analysis on modern technologies based on utility, deontology and dignity: see Brownsword, R., Rights, Regulation and the Technological Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹ Lyall, C. and Tait, J., ‘Foresight in a Multi-level Governance Structure: Policy Integration and Communication’ (2004) 31(1) Science and Public Policy, pp. 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Brownsword, n. 8 above.

¹¹ Although in an environmental journal I am placing an emphasis on the impact on the natural world, this is not to ignore issues such as privacy, human dignity and autonomy reviewed and seen to be under threat in n. 8 above.

¹² Krohn, W. & Weyer, J., ‘Society as a Laboratory: Social Risks of Experimental Research’ (1994) 21(3) Science and Public Policy, pp. 173–83.Google Scholar

¹³ Jennings, B., ‘Possibilities of Consensus: Toward Democratic Moral Discourse’ (1991) 16 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, pp. 447–63, at 452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁴ Owen, R. & Goldberg, N., ‘Responsible Innovation: A Pilot Study with the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council’ (2010) 30(11) Journal of Risk Analysis, pp. 1699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ Beck, U., Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity (Sage, 1992)Google Scholar translated from the German original: Beck, U., Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne (Suhrkamp, 1986).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Moore, G.E., ‘Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits’ (1965) 38(8) Electronics, pp. 114–7.Google Scholar Moore predicted that for the immediate future ‘the number of transistors incorporated in a chip will approximately double every 24 months’, at p. 117.

¹⁷ Giddens, A., ‘Risk and Responsibility’ (1999) 62(1) Modern Law Review, pp. 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Applegate, J.S., ‘Bridging the Data Gap: Balancing the Supply and Demand for Chemical Information’ (2007) 86(7) Texas Law Review pp. 1365–407.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See the approach of the European Chemicals Agency to Socio Economic Analysis under REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals, Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006, [2006] OJ L396/1), which has a strong focus on questions of the protection of the environment and of human health, ranked against the economic consequences of decisions to restrict chemicals but which, in spite of the label, has hardly anything ‘socio’ in the mechanism: ECHA (2008) ‘Guidance on Socio Economic Analysis – Restrictions’, European Chemicals Agency, May 2008, available at: http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/17233/sea_restrictions_en.pdf.

²⁰ Jonas, H., The Imperative of Responsibility (University of Chicago Press, 1984), at p. ix.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid., at pp. 4–12.

²³ Groves, n. 7 above.

²⁴ Heidegger would put it much more strongly than this, arguing that technology does not follow science in the form of an application of scientific knowledge but sets the very agenda and mind-set of modern science through its ‘enframing’ capacity: see Heidegger, M., The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (Harper, 1977) (edition in translation).Google Scholar

²⁵ Some would contest this depiction of technology as producing the concrete results of scientific knowledge not least because it seems to assert the neutrality of science: see Agazzi, D., ‘From Technique to Technology: The Role of Modern Science’ (1998) 4(2) Philosophy and Technology, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

²⁶ Sandler, R., ‘Nanotechnology and Social Context’ (2007) 27(6) Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, pp. 446–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Beck, Risk Society, n. 15 above.

²⁸ Jonas, n. 20 above.

²⁹ Sandler, n. 26 above.

³⁰ Wilsdon, J. & Willis, R., See-Through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream (DEMOS, 2004).Google Scholar

³¹ Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R., ‘Proceduralism and Precaution in a Community of Rights’ (2006) 19(2) Ratio Juris pp. 141–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Laredo, P. & Mustar, P. (eds.), ‘General Introduction’, in Research and Innovation Policies in the New Global Economy (Edward Elgar, 2001), pp. 2–4.Google Scholar

³³ House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, Science & the RDAs: SETting the Regional Agenda (The Stationery Office Ltd, 2003).Google Scholar

³⁴ Leydesdorff, L. & Meyer, M., ‘The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations’ (2004) 58(2) Scientometrics, pp. 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ European Commission, ‘The Regional Dimension of the European Research Area Communication from the Commission’, COM(2001)549 final; but see Kaiser, R. & Prange, H., ‘Missing the Lisbon Target? Multilevel Innovation and EU Policy Coordination’ (2005) 25(2) Journal of Public Policy, pp. 241–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ Woodrow Wilson Institute, ‘Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’, available at: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer.

³⁷ Theodore, L. & Kunz, R.G., Nanotechnology: Environmental Implications and Solutions (Wiley-Interscience, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ Reynolds, G.H., ‘Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy: Three Futures’ (2003) 17 Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, pp. 179–209.Google Scholar

³⁹ European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291 (US), WT/DS292 (Canada), and WT/DS291 (Argentina), Panel Report of 29 Sept. 2006, available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm.

⁴⁰ Winickoff, D., Jasanoff, S., Grove-White, R., Busch, L. & Wynne, B., ‘Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law’ (2005) 30(1) Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 81–123.Google Scholar

⁴¹ United States – Certain Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) Requirements, WT/DS384, Panel Report of 18 Nov. 2011), available at: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds384_e.htm.

⁴² Falkner, R., Breggin, L., Jaspers, N., Pendergrass, J. & Porter, R., Consumer Labelling of Nanomaterials in the EU and US: Convergence or Divergence? EERG Briefing Paper 2009/03, Chatham House, Oct. 2009, available at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/papers/view/109136.Google Scholar

⁴³ Labelling is now required in the EU, see Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products [2009] OJ L342/59.

⁴⁴ See the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna (Austria), 21 May 1963, in force 12 Nov. 1977, available at: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Conventions/liability.html; and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy, Paris (France), 29 July 1960, in force 1 Apr. 1968, available at http://www.oecd-nea.org/law/nlparis_conv.html.

⁴⁵ Where the desire to continue to exploit hydrocarbon fuel has led to rapid transitions in the international law framework for sub-seabed storage, see Lee, R.G., ‘Sub-seabed Carbon Sequestration: Building the Legal Platform’ (2009) 30 Liverpool Law Review, pp. 131–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁶ Knoppers, B. & LeBris, S., ‘Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical and Social Issues’ (1991) 17 American Journal of Law & Medicine, pp. 329–61, at 333.Google ScholarPubMed

⁴⁷ As has happened with the Council of Europe (CoE) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine (Oviedo Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine), Oviedo (Spain), 4 Apr. 1997, in force 1 Dec. 1999, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm, which to date has received just five ratifications. For the problems, see Mori, M. & Neri, D., ‘Perils and Deficiencies of the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine’ (2001) 26 Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, pp. 323–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁴⁸ For this sort of difficulty see the judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in A, B, and C v. Ireland, Appl. No. 25579/2005, 16 Dec. 2010, available at: http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2010/echr/index.pdf.

⁴⁹ Pennings, G., ‘Reproductive Tourism as Moral Pluralism in Motion’ (2002) 28 Journal of Medical Ethics, pp. 337–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁵⁰ R v. HFEA, ex parte Diane Blood [1997] 2 All ER 687 (CA).

⁵¹ Morgan, D. & Lee, R.G., ‘In the Name of the Father? Ex parte Blood: Dealing with Novelty and Anomaly’ (1997) 60 Modern Law Review, pp. 840–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and see Hervey, T., ‘Buy Baby: The European Union and Regulation of Human Reproduction’ (1998) 18 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 207–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁵² See n. 39 above.

⁵³ European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation amending Directive 2001/18/EC as regards the Possibility for the Member States to Restrict or Prohibit the Cultivation of GMOs in their Territory, COM(2010)375 final, 13 July 2010, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/docs/proposal_en.pdf.

⁵⁴ The Welsh Government ‘takes the most restrictive stance possible to Genetically Modified (GM) crops that is consistent with European and UK law’: see Welsh Government, ‘Genetically Modified Organisms’, available at: http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/farmingandcountryside/plantsseedsbiotechnology/geneticallymodifiedorganisms/?lang=en.

⁵⁵ Hunt, J., ‘Devolution and Differentiation: Regional Variation in EU Law’ (2010) 30(3) Legal Studies, pp. 421–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁶ Jacobs, D., ‘Innovation Policies within the Framework of Internationalization’ (1998) 27(7) Research Policy, pp. 711–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ European Commission, ‘Life Sciences and Biotechnology – A Strategy for Europe’, COM (2002) 27 final, 23 Jan. 2002, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/biotechnology/pdf/com2002-27_en.pdf.

⁵⁸ Warnock, M. (Chair), Report of a Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Cmnd. 9314, HMSO, 1984).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Parsons, J. & Savvas, M., ‘Why We Shouldn’t Abolish the HFEA’, BioNews, 4 Oct. 2010, available at:http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_71776.asp.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ayres, I. & Braithwaite, J., Responsive Regulation Transcending the Deregulation Debate (Oxford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Pierre, J. & Peters, G.B., Governance Politics and the State (Macmillan, 2000).Google Scholar

⁶² Walls, J., Horlick-Jones, T., Niewöhner, J. & O’Riordan, T., ‘The Meta-Governance of Risk and New Technologies: GM Crops and Mobile Telephones’ (2005) 8 Journal of Risk Research, pp. 635–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶³ Judt, T., Reappraisals: Reflections on the Forgotten Twentieth Century (Heinemann, 2008), at p. 8.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Bobbitt, P., The Shield of Achilles (Penguin, 2002).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Brownsword, n. 8 above, at p. 242; and Lessig, L., Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (Basic Books, 1999).Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Stokes, E., ‘Regulating Nanotechnologies: Sizing up the Options’ (2009) 29(2) Legal Studies, pp. 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁷ Frater, L., Stokes, E., Lee, R. & Oriola, T., An Overview of the Framework of Current Regulation Affecting the Development and Marketing of Nanomaterials (UK Department of Trade and Industry, 2006).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Mörth, U., Soft Law in Governance and Regulation (Edward Elgar, 2004).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ With law ‘in the rear and limping a little’, see Mount Isa Mines v. Pusey [1970] 125 CLR 383 (Windeyer J).

⁷⁰ Vogel, D., ‘The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct’, in Mattli, W. & Woods, N. (eds.), The Politics of Global Regulation (Princeton University Press, 2009), pp. 151–88Google Scholar; and hard law and soft law ought not to be seen as in opposition but rather can meld into hybrid structures: see Heyvaert, V., ‘Levelling Down, Levelling Up, and Governing Across: Three Responses to Hybridization in International Law’ (2009) 20(3) European Journal of International Law, pp. 647–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Kirton, J.J. & Trebilcock, M.J., ‘Introduction: Hard Choices and Soft Law in Sustainable Global Governance’, in Kirton, J.J. & Trebilcock, M.J. (eds.), Hard Choices, Soft Law: Voluntary Standards in Global Trade, Environment and Social Governance (Ashgate, 2004), pp. 3–29.Google Scholar

⁷² Heyvaert, V., ‘Globalizing Regulation: Reaching Beyond the Borders of Chemical Safety’ (2009) 36(1) Journal of Law and Society, pp. 110–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷³ Brownsword, n. 8 above, at pp. 1–6.