Large players in the nanogame: dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities?

Nanotechnologies are reshaping the boundaries between industries, combining two aspects of innovation—both enhancing competences based on cumulative knowledge and experience and destroying competences by forcing the renewal of the firm’s knowledge base. To analyze how worldwide R&D leaders adapt to this new technology, we conduct an econometric analysis of about 3,000 subsidiaries of the largest R&D spenders. We find that large groups are creating medium size subsidiary companies to explore nanotechnologies. Knowledge circulates mostly amongst subsidiaries within the same group and scientific clusters do not affect their involvement in nanotechnologies. Nanotechnologies remain marginal within these subsidiaries’ knowledge bases and are distributed within corporate groups, stimulating recombination between nanotechnology and other technologies.     

PIs as boundary spanners,science and market shapers

The research program organization has been generalized to implement research policies in OECD countries. Principal investigators are the linchpin of the program based organization as they are developing research project to fit within programs. However, principal investigators are not only project managers but they also enact their environment, shape organization, heterogenous networks, research avenues, research communities and transepistemic arenas. Principal investigators are not only researchers they are also boundary spanners amongst academic and private sectors and amongst subfields and disciplines. Principal investigators, especially serial Principal investigators act as scientific entrepreneurs who enact their environment. It questions the relationship between principal investigators and their organization. It also questions the efficiency and effectiveness of program based research policy.     

Restoring Responsibility: Promoting Justice, Therapy and Reform Through Direct Brain Interventions

Direct brain intervention based mental capacity restoration techniques—for instance, psycho-active drugs—are sometimes used in criminal cases to promote the aims of justice. For instance, they might be used to restore a person’s competence to stand trial in order to assess the degree of their responsibility for what they did, or to restore their competence for punishment so that we can hold them responsible for it. Some also suggest that such interventions might be used for therapy or reform in criminal legal contexts—i.e. to make non-responsible and irresponsible people more responsible. However, I argue that such interventions may at least sometimes fail to promote these responsibility-related legal aims. This is because responsibility hinges on other factors than just what mental capacities a person has—in particular, it also hinges on such things as authenticity, personal identity, and mental capacity ownership—and some ways of restoring mental capacity may adversely affect these other factors. Put one way, my claim is that what might suffice for the restoration of competence need not necessarily suffice for the restoration of responsibility, or, put another way, that although responsibility indeed tracks mental capacity it may not always track restored mental capacities.     

La régulation des affaires sociales: une analyse politique††

Sommaire. Le gouvernement peut être défini comme la régulation des affaires publiques¹ et à des fins d'analyse cette régulation, comme d'ailleurs les régulations privées, peut être distinpée en communication et en commandement. Pour que la régulation s'accomplisse, la communication doit être commandée, et le commandement communiqué. Nous nous situerons ici dans la première perspective:celle où la régulation est vue comme commandement de la communication. C'est la perspective de l'analyse politique, par opposition à une analyse davantage socio-économique qui se donnerait pour objet les phénomènes de communication eux-mêmes. Abstract. Government can be defined in terms of the regulation of public affairs. For purposes of analysis, public regulation, like private regulation, can be identified as communication and command. For regulation to be achieved, communication must be ordered and the order communicated. Here we will explore the first notion, the consideration of regulation as ordering communication. This is the viewpoint of political analysis, as opposed to a more socio-economical analysis which is concerned with the phenomena of communication itself.