Philosophy and Technology (tba):1-26 (2021)

Zahra Meghani
University of Rhode Island
This paper argues that regulatory agencies have a responsibility to further the public interest when they determine the conditions under which new technological products may be commercialized. As a case study, this paper analyzes the US 9th Circuit Court’s ruling on the efforts of the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate an herbicide meant for use with seed that are genetically modified to be tolerant of the chemical. Using that case, it is argued that when regulatory agencies evaluate new technological products, they have an obligation to draw on data, analyses, and evaluations from a variety of credible epistemic sources, and not rely solely or even primarily on the technology developer. Otherwise, they create conditions for their own domination and that of the polity by the technology developer. Moreover, in the interest of advancing the public interest, regulatory agencies must evaluate new technologies in a substantively and procedurally unbiased manner.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2021
DOI 10.1007/s13347-021-00467-2
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Inclusion and Democracy.Iris Marion Young - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Autonomy, Gender, Politics.Marilyn Friedman - 2002 - Oxford University Press.

View all 21 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Bohman on Domination and Epistemic Injustice.Simon Căbulea May - 2012 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 8 (1):7-12.
Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity.David B. Resnik - 2007 - Health Care Analysis 15 (3):211-222.
Gene Patents.Kerri Anne Brussen - 2011 - Chisholm Health Ethics Bulletin 16 (3):9.
Patents and Human Rights: A Heterodox Analysis.E. Richard Gold - 2013 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 41 (1):185-198.
In Defence of Public Ownership: A Reply to Frye.Tom O’Shea - 2020 - Political Theory 48 (5):581-587.


Added to PP index

Total views
14 ( #717,442 of 2,463,162 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #53,478 of 2,463,162 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes