Rights, Regulation, and the Technological Revolution

Abstract

Rights, Regulation, and the Technological Revolution confronts a central question facing modern government: how can regulators respond to both the challenges and opportunities presented by a technologically driven society without sacrificing legitimacy for effectiveness, or weakening the essential conditions of a stable, aspirant moral community? The book analyses developments across biotechnology, information and communications technology, nanotechnology, and neurotechnology. In part one, Regulatory Challenge, it explores the difficulties facing the public control of rapid technological change, focusing on the problems of regulatory effectiveness, connection, legitimacy, and compliance. In part two, Regulatory Opportunity, it covers genetic databases, code and control and the corrosion of moral community. The book argues that as regulators struggle to find adequate frameworks to limit, license, and support new technologies, they will increasingly rely on a technological approach to complement, enhance, and even replace traditional legal strategies. The book breaks new ground by offering the first overarching commentary on the relationship between regulators, industry, and wider society as the new technologies of the 21st century achieve an ever-greater penetration in our daily lives.

Normative Alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition

“…At Metaconstitutional level, so-called rules of recognition [6] Currently, the push for legally facilitating CESs is both a bottom-up and a top-down process. Bottom-up, persons involved at operational level in exploring the possibilities for CES are faced with a regulatory disconnect [13,14,50]: existing Regulated market-based regulation, made at higher levels, does not allow for (i.e., resists) group-prosumerism. Hence these parties call for change.…”

Regulating Nanomedicine—The Smallest of Our Concerns?

“…12 In practice, the judgments that we make depend on which of these considerations we take into account, how much weight we give to them, and which considerations we prioritise. With regard to nanotechnology, there is a problem about getting the riskprofile to a meaningful first base.…”

“…15 Certainly, we need to be sensitive to the tendency to identify risk with physical and environmental hazard only, to characterise the risk as low (rather than high) by reference to the probability of its eventuating, and to reverse the precautionary principle 11 See, e.g., Jasanoff [32]; and this question arises pervasively in Bauer and Gaskell [4]. 12 On these second and third considerations, see Bauer [3], esp at 8-11. See, too, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics [43] at 8: "it is always possible, in principle, to distinguish between the two distinct questions of 'how bad?'…”

Taking Blockchain Seriously

“…Mueller (2017) (Mueller 2017, p. 11). Whilst blockchain may not be considered a particularly risky technology in terms of potential threats or harms it poses to individuals or communities-compare this with, for example, cautionary tales surrounding 'the malign aspect of technology' (Arthur 2009, p. 215) including perceived threats from bioengineering, artificial intelligence and nanotechnologies (Brownsword 2008)-this does not mean that no threats or harms exist, but instead manifest in other, more subtle ways. There are for instance conceivable threats and harms posed by the blockchain ecosystem in further entrenching and disseminating neoliberal ideology for instance.…”