The fifth annual meeting of S.NET, the Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies (the call for proposals was featured in my Mar. 6, 2013 posting), is being held Oct. 27 – 29, 2013 at Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts.

I found a draft copy of the meeting’s programme here, The 2013 Theme is: Innovation, Responsibility, and Sustainable Development, I see the plenary speaker for the meeting’s opening session on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2013 from 6 pm to 7:30 pm is Dr. Andrew Maynard,Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center (formerly Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies hosted by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,e etc). He will be speaking on the theme of Technology Innovation and the New Social Responsibility.

The next two days (Oct. 28 – 29, 2013) look to be packed and here’s sampling of what attendees can expect (Note: I’ve had to reformat this material dramatically),

Innovating for Personalised Medicine (8:30 – 10 am, Oct. 28. 2013)

Federica Lucivero, University of  Tilburg;
Marianne Boenink, University of Twente                      Living up to the P of promises: Innovation for 4P medicine

Christopher Groves, Cardiff  University                        Reifying uncertainty: personalised medicine and the somatic ethics of genomic risk

Effy Vayena, University of Zurich                                 The Swiss debate about personal genomics: reluctant engagement.

A Matter of Trust: Perceptions of Nanotechnology Risk and Responsibility (8:30 – 10 am, Oct. 28, 2013)

Cassandra Engeman & Barbara
Herr Harthorn  UC Santa Barbara                               Mobilizing in the Context of Uncertainty: Social Movement               Organizations and Contentious Issues of  Nanotechnology Safety, Governance, and Responsible Development

Michael Cacciatore, UC Santa
Barbara                                                                      Explaining Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology: The Interaction Between Risk Perceptions And Regulatory

Robert DeLeo, Bentley University                                  Trust On Public Support Issue Framing, Risk Perception, and Venue Shopping: Siting the Boston Univeristy Infectious Disease Laboratory

Visioning the Future (8:30 – 10 am, Oct. 28, 2013)

Nora Vaage, University of Bergen                                   Future Visions, Scenarios and Predictions: The Myths of What May Be

Norah Campbell, Trinity College
Dublin; Cormac Deane, Dun
Laoghaire Institute; Padraig
Murphy, Dublin City University                                       Nanotechnology in Advertising: Imagining the Invisible

Michael Burnam-Fink, Arizona
State U.                                                                          Eventuality: A Narrative (Nano) Foresight Engine

Next Generation Nanotech Innovation and Economic Development (13:45 – 15:15 Oct. 28, 2013)

Stacey Frederick, Duke U.                                                 Method and Platform for Identifying Stakeholders in the Nanotechnology Economy

Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of
Technology; Philip Shapira,
Georgia Tech / U. Manchester;
Arho Suominen, VTT Technical
Research Centre; Yin Li, Georgia
Tech                                                                                Re-assessing the Promise of Nanotechnology: A Bibliometric Analysis of Next Generation Complex  Engineered Nanomaterials

Benjamin Schrempf, European
Academy of Tech. Assessment                                          General purpose knowledge and innovation networks – an agent-based simulation approach                                    

Richard Appelbaum, Matt Gebbie,
Xueying Han, Galen Stocking,
U.C. Santa Barbara                                                         A Global Nanotech Education: A Trend Analysis of Chinese S&T Students in the United States

Governance Amidst Uncertainty (13:45 – 15:15 Oct. 28, 2013)

Wendell Wallach, Yale U.                                                Towards a Comprehensive Approach for Governing Emerging Technologies

Victoria Sutton, Texas Tech U.                                          Regulation and Litigation of the Future – A Model for Considering the Unknown

Robin Pierce, Delft Univ.                                                 Governing Sustainable Transitions: When issues fly below the public radar

Film and Discussion – Scenarios of the Nano-enhanced City (16:00 – 17:00 Oct. 28, 2013)

Rider Foley, Michael Bernstein
Ira Bennett, Arnim Wiek, and
David Guston, Arizona State U.                                          Film: PHX 2050

Kathryn de Ridder-Vignone,
Arizona State Univ.                                                           *The Futurescape City Tours: Material Deliberation as Public Engagement

Renata Hejduk and Darren
Petrucci, Arizona State U.                                                   Nano and the City: A Hyper-collaborative Design Studio Environment Exploring Future Scenarios on the  Impact of Nanotechnologies upon the City of Phoenix in the mid 21st Century.

*Policy and Nanotechnology Development in Brazil (8:30 – 10:00 am, Oct. 29, 2013)

Clecí Körbes and Noela
Invernizzi, Federal U. of Parana                                         Science Communication on Nanotechnology in Brazilian Media

Noela Invernizzi, Federal U. of
Parana                                                                              Nanotechnology Problem-oriented Research in Brazil

Paulo Roberto Martins, Brazilian
Research Network in Nano,
Society, and Environment                                                  Science for Production x Science for Impacts: Brazilian Development of Nanotechnology in Section XXI

The Future Agenda for Sustainable Development (16:00 – 17:30, Oct. 29, 2013)

Julia Silvia Guivant, Federal U. of
Santa Catarina                                                                  Certification of GMOs and non-GMOs: the implications of the search for sustainability and responsible technological innovation

*Gregor Wolbring, U. of Calgary                                           Analysis of the linkage between science and technology advancements and sustainable development goals: Introducing Eco-ableism as a conceptual framework

Louis-Etienne Pigeon, U. Laval                                            Nanotechnologies and the Land Ethic in the context of sustainable development: what progress? which objective?

Rodrigo Cortes-Lobos, Univ. de
Talca                                                                                  A decade of the US Public Research Agenda in Agrifood Nanotechnology: It is ready to Contribute toward  a more Sustainable Development?

etc.

I have starred (*) a few items. The first being, *The Futurescape City Tours: Material Deliberation as Public Engagement in the Film and Discussion session on Oct. 28, 2013. This is a public engagement programme which seems to have been developed at Arizona State University and is currently being imported into other jurisdictions including Edmonton, Alberta as per the Nanotechnology and the Community project at the University of Alberta,

2) Futurescape Cities Tour (October – November 2013) – A series of engagements and walking tours that encourage public participants to explore innovation and nanotechnology in relation to the city. These tours promote communication between publics, scientists, and business leaders as a means of jointly considering innovation and development plans in relation to desirable visions of the future of the City. In collaboration with research teams in the US, these tours will coincide with similar events being planned in Phoenix AR, St. Paul MN, Portland OR, Durham NC, Springfield MA, and Washington DC.

The second starred session is *Policy and Nanotechnology Development in Brazil and that’s because the Brazilian congress just voted down a motion to regulate nanotechnology as per a Sept. 9, 2013 news item on SciDevNet (Note: Links have been removed).

The Brazilian Congress has rejected a bill that aimed to introduce labelling on all food, drugs and cosmetics containing nanostructures, arguing that it was alarmist and that there was no scientific basis for warning people about nanotechnology in products.

The move is the latest rebuff to such regulation, even as the country spearheads multimillion-dollar nanotechnology programmes and experts argue that better oversight of this new technology could benefit both industry and consumers.

A Senate report on the rejected bill said that the proposed labelling could have been interpreted as a “warning” even on products improved by nanotechnology, potentially causing losses to companies that have invested in improving their products through this technology.

Consequently, there could be a fall in research and development investment in the sector, which would undermine national investment into nanotechnology such as the National Nanotechnology Programme, a multimillion-dollar initiative launched in 2005, and its extension the Brazilian Nanotechnology Initiative launched last month (19 August) that is worth 440 million reals (approximately US$186 million) by the end of 2014.

The bill’s demise marks the second failure to regulate the fast-growing sector: in 2005, a more ambitious bill, with provisions for a national policy on nanotechnology, including labelling, risk assessment and other decisions, was evaluated by the industry, science, and finance committees  from Congress’s Chamber of Deputies, which found the field to be at too early a stage for legislation.

*The third and last session I’ve starred is Gregor Wolbring’s (University of Calgary) Analysis of the linkage between science and technology advancements and sustainable development goals: Introducing Eco-ableism as a conceptual framework I have mentioned Gregor a number of times here in the context of human enhancement, most recently in a Jan. 30, 2013 posting. As his session integrates his concept of ableism and sustainability there is a description of ableism in my August 30, 2011 posting and of course, there’s always Gregor’s blog or you can check Gregor’s academic page for more information about ableism.