text:
Henry E. ATTAYA et al. v. TOWN OF GONZALES et al.
COUNSEL: Miriam T. Attaya, Gonzales, Gordon M. White, Baton Rouge, for Appellants.
Penrose C. St. Amant, of St. Amant & Crawford, Gonzales, for Appellees.
JUDGES: Landry, Ellis and Bailes, JJ.
OPINION: [*189] This action originated as a suit by fifteen citizens of the Town of Gonzales, Ascension Parish (sometimes hereinafter referred to simply as "The Town" or "The Municipality"), wherein the numerous petitioners prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting and restraining the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of said Municipality (Governing Authority) from fluoridating the municipal water supply. At one stage or another of the proceedings, the suit has been abandoned by all save one of the original petitioners, namely, Henry E. Attaya, who alone appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing and rejecting his said demands.
We conclude our learned brother below has correctly resolved the numerous issues presented herein for determination.
In substance the petition filed herein recites that pursuant to a motion or resolution adopted August 10, 1964, the governing authority proposed to fluoridate the municipal water supply and that such intended [**2] action will damage petitioners "since it may produce certain ill effects in them" and that they "would be forced to take medicine against their will, since there is only one source of water for the people to drink." Upon the foregoing allegations petitioners prayed for judgment "decreeing the above described acts of the defendants to be injurious to plaintiffs and an impairment of their rights" and further prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction restraining and prohibiting the Governing Authority from proceeding with the proposed fluoridation of the municipal water supply.
The Governing Authority responded by filing exceptions of no right and no cause of action which were referred to the merits by the trial court. Apparently said exceptions have never been passed upon.
At a pre-trial conference, the lower court ruled that fluoridation of a municipal water supply was a proper exercise of the police power vested in the Governing Authority pursuant to the ruling in Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 225 La. 859, 74 So.2d 142, and limited the issue upon trial solely to the question of whether the Governing Authority acted reasonably in ordering the proposed fluoridation. The [**3] trial court also declined to permit introduction of evidence to prove or disprove the relative merits or demerits of fluoridation in general. Notwithstanding his aforesaid ruling, however, our colleague below permitted all parties to introduce into the record any and all depositions, books, pamphlets, periodicals or other literature concerning fluoridation which they desired. As as result the record contains numerous depositions in addition to a considerable volume of scientific and professional information and studies pointing out both the favorable and unfavorable aspects of fluoridation.
In substance appellant attacks the legality of the aforesaid action of the Governing Authority on two basic grounds: First, it is contended the authority for the action, a motion or resolution adopted August 10, 1964, is null, void and of not effect because of defects of form and procedure. In this regard appellant argues the motion [*190] or resolution is violative of the provisions of LSA-R.S. 33:406 because (a) it was not presented to the Governing Authority in writing; (b) it was not signed by the Mayor and Clerk, and (c) it was not published or promulgated within twenty days of its [**4] adoption. Secondly, the action of the Governing Authority is assailed on constitutional grounds. In this respect counsel for appellant contends (1) The resolution was secretive, unreasonable and arbitrary; (2) The action was taken hastily without due deliberation and upon inadequate information and investigation by the Governing Authority, and (3) Fluoridation constitutes an invasion of appellant's freedom of choice guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The assignment of alleged errors argued by counsel for appellant both in brief and oral argument before this court may be summarized as follows: (1) The trial court erred in concluding the motion of August 10, 1964 was valid as to form and procedure; (2) The lower court incorrectly held adoption of the motion was a valid exercise of the police power of the Municipality by declining to find the action of the Governing Authority secretive, unreasonable and arbitrary; (3) The trial court mistakenly held the action of the Governing Authority was taken after full investigation and disclosure of the subject matter of fluoridation; (4) The trial court erroneously found that fluoridation did not [**5] infringe upon appellant's constitutional guarantee of freedom of choice and consequent right to be free of enforced medication, and (5) The district tribunal incorrectly refused to permit appellant to prove his allegation that fluoridation might be harmful.
Considering first appellant's contention the motion or resolution of August 10, 1964 was invalid because of failure to follow the form and procedure prescribed by LSA-R.S. 33:406, we point out that the Municipality is chartered pursuant to the Lawrason Act (LSA-R.S. Title 33, Chapter 2, Part I, Sections 321-481, inclusive). As contended by counsel for appellant, LSA-R.S. 33:406 provides that municipal ordinances shall be presented in writing, shall be read section by section and after adoption shall be signed by the Mayor and Clerk and published within twenty days of adoption. While the record before us is not conclusive regarding the circumstances surrounding the motion or resolution attacked, we are of the opinion it preponderates in favor of the conclusion that the motion was not in fact presented to the Governing Authority in writing. The record also leaves serious doubt whether the resolution in question was properly promulgated [**6] within twenty days of its adoption. We point out also that appellant argues the action of the Municipality being legislative in nature could only be accomplished by an ordinance as distinguished from a resolution or motion.
It is unnecessary to answer any of the arguments of appellant regarding the alleged defects in form attributed to the motion or resolution of August 10, 1964. We find in the record an ordinance adopted by the Governing Authority on May 24, 1965, ordering controlled fluoridation of the municipal water supply by directing the Utilities Manager to adjust its fluoride content to the level of one part of fluoride per million parts of water as recommended by the Louisiana State Board of Health and maintain said ratio by periodic addition of such quantities of fluoride as may be necessary.
Not only has counsel for appellant failed to attack the ordinance of May 24, 1965, but also the record reveals beyond doubt said ordinance was eminently proper as to form and was duly promulgated, all in strict accordance with the provisions of the controlling statute LSA-R.S. 33:406. Consequently, we hold that the question of validity of the motion or resolution of August 10, [**7] 1964, has been rendered moot by adoption of the ordinance approved May 24, 1965. Since there exists upon the records of the Municipality an ordinance valid as to form covering the subject matter of [*191] this litigation any comment by this court upon the alleged invalidity of a prior motion or resolution would be pure obiter dictum.
Adverting now to appellant's attack on the ordinance upon constitutional grounds, we initially note that the Supreme Court of this state in Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 225 La. 859, 74 So.2d 142, has expressly held fluoridation of a municipal water supply bears a reasonable relation to the general welfare and health of the citizens of the community and as such constitutes a valid exercise of the police powers vested in municipalities pursuant to Louisiana Constitution of 1921, Article 14, Section 37.
Counsel for appellant acknowledges the authority of the municipality to exercise its police powers but contends that nevertheless such powers cannot be exercised secretively, unreasonably or arbitrarily upon authority contained in Town of Jonesville v. Boyd, 161 La. 278, 108 So. 481 and State ex rel. Galle v. City of New Orleans, 113 La. 371, 36 [**8] So. 999, 67 L.R.A. 70. On this premise it is argued the action of the Governing Authority in enacting both the motion of August 10, 1964, and the ordinance of May 24, 1965, are invalid because they were adopted without notice to the public and without sufficient information or investigation to enable the Governing Authority to intelligently consider the subject matter.
Our careful consideration of the voluminous testimony appearing in the record shows that appellant's foregoing contention is without foundation. It conclusively appears that fluoridation of the Town's water supply was a plank in the campaign platform of the Mayor and at least one of the present Aldermen in the election which preceded by some months adoption of the resolution or motion of August 10, 1964. Likewise it is shown that on one occasion a full page advertisement was run in the local paper at the expense of certain citizens extolling the virtues of fluoridation and urging fluoridation of the municipal water supply as a health measure. Further, it appears that, preceding adoption of the August 10th resolution, the Mayor and members of the Board of Aldermen attended a meeting of the Lions Club of Gonzales, [**9] a civic organization, at which one of the club members, Dr. Doyle F. Philippe, D.D.S., showed two movies which in some degree detailed the cases of both the proponents and opponents of fluoridation. On this occasion Dr. Philippe personally discussed fluoridation and recommended its adoption for the Town of Gonzales.
At the August 10, 1964 meeting, Dr. Philippe appeared in person and urged the Governing Authority to proceed with the proposed fluoridation project. He presented the Governing Authority a document containing the written approval and endorsement of fluoridation by every physician, dentist and pharmacist then practicing in the area. In addition, Dr. Philippe submitted for consideration by the Governing Authority a voluminous amount of literature consisting of documents, pamphlets, studies and reports of various organizations, some of which favored, endorsed and recommended fluoridation while others condemned and opposed the practice. The literature of record discloses that among those organizations favoring and recommending fluoridation of public water supplies may be found, inter alia, The American Dental Association, The American Nurses Association, The American Hospital [**10] Association, all branches of the United States Armed Services, The Louisiana State Board of Health and the United States Department of Public Health, Education and Welfare. Certain literature of the American Medical Association appearing in the record discloses the policy of said organization to be that whereas it considers fluoridation beneficial to public health, nevertheless it neither recommends nor disapproves fluoridation of public water supplies.
As appears from both his testimony and deposition of record herein, Dr. Philippe [*192] quite frankly advised the Governing Authority that fluoridation was a controversial subject. He further declared that based on research which involved consideration of literature both pro and con the subject, he was of the firm opinion there was no sound basis for opposition and that fluoridation would benefit the residents of the community, especially the youth for whom fluoridation would mean less dental cavities.
Under the circumstances it can hardly be said the action of appellee was secretive, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Granted the subject of fluoridation is controversial as hereinbefore shown, such circumstance alone [**11] does not prohibit the Governing Authority of a municipality from decreeing fluoridation of its water supply.
"Appellees contend that it is arbitrary and unreasonable to compel a person to submit to the taking of preventive medicine except for the purpose of controlling the spread of contagious or infectious diseases. Their argument is not entirely appropriate to the instant case. In the first place there is no direct compulsion on anyone to drink the water. The compulsion at most is an indirect one, but it cannot be questioned, of course, that the fluoridation is undertaken with the view that the citizens or a large majority of them will receive its benefits by drinking the public water. The witnesses from the dental profession considered that the addition of fluoride to the water was not medicating it in the generally accepted sense, but was adding to it one of the mineral properties found naturally [**12] in water in some sections of the country."
We note similarity between the case at bar and that of Chapman v. City of Shreveport, supra, to the effect that the degree of fluoridation decreed in each instance is identically the same, namely, one part fluoride to one million parts water. Further likeness is to be found in the circumstance that in each instance the petitioner alleged merely that fluoridation "may" be harmful and that there was no specific averment that fluoridation was in fact harmful.
The remaining contention of appellant is that the trial court erred in declining to permit proof of his allegation that fluoridation might be harmful to his physical welfare.
The ordinance in question is entitled "An ordinance to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Town of Gonzales, State of Louisiana, by providing for the adjustment of the fluoride content of the municipal water supply for the purpose of reducing the incidence of dental caries."
"There is no merit in appellees' argument that, if the city charter grants to the city council of Shreveport authority to fluoridate its water supply, such action [*193] to that extent is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment does not deprive a state or its subdivisions of the right to preserve order or to protect the health of the people under its police power, and in the exercise of its power the legislative branch may interfere with and impair the individual [**14] liberty of the citizens in a manner and to an extent reasonably necessary for the public interest, and the courts will not interfere except where the measures invade fundamental rights or are arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable. This is not a proper case for judicial interference. See Cooley on Constitutional Law (4th ed.), p. 289; 2 Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (8th ed.), pp. 1223 et seq.; Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 25 S. Ct. 358, 49 L. Ed. 643; State v. McCormick, 142 La. 580, 77 So. 288, L.R.A. 1918C, 262."
Granted some of the literature appearing of record does contend that fluoridation may be harmful, nevertheless we are convinced, as were the members of the Governing Authority, that the overwhelming weight of the evidence establishes the contrary and shows that the public has nothing to fear from fluoridation. That fluoridation may be a controversial subject does not in itself justify the court substituting their judgment for that of the legislative body. The merits or demerits of the subject, in the absence of a clear showing of abuse of discretion, unreasonableness or capriciousness on the part of the legislative body, is solely [**15] within the province of the Governing Authority. Furthermore, conceding the wisdom of legislative choice may be questionable with respect to a debatable or controversial issue, again such circumstance does not justify judicial interference with the legislative choice absent a clear abuse of legislative discretion or a showing of arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of the legislative body. We believe the foregoing principle peculiarly applicable in the instant case because appellant herein does not argue that fluoridation IS HARMFUL but merely that he has the right to establish that it MAY BE harmful. An adverse determination having been made by the Governing Authority after what we deem a reasonable and proper study, investigation and consideration of the subject matter by the legislative body concerned, this court is unable to find that the Governing Authority exceeded its police powers or acted either unreasonably, arbitrarily or capriciously. Chapman v. City of Shreveport, supra.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


Zurzeit erfolgt im Landtag des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen die Überprüfung des Archivgesetzes NRW auf dessen Praxistauglichkeit. In § 10 Abs 5 Satz 2 des aktuellen Entwurfs (s. u.) gilt die Unveräußerlichkeit für Archivgut bei Kommunen nur für Verwaltungsunterlagen.
Stadtarchive und Kreisarchive in Nordrhein-Westfalen verwahren nicht nur Unterlagen amtlicher Herkunft, die aus den behördlichen Registraturen stammen, sondern auch vielfältiges Sammlungsgut wie beispielsweise Nachlässe bedeutender Persönlichkeiten. Nach dem jetzt gültigen Archivgesetz ist dieses Sammlungsgut nicht unveräußerlich, darf also verkauft werden. Das soll nach dem Entwurf der Gesetzesüberarbeitung so bleiben. Damit sind wir nicht einverstanden. Auch kommunales Archivgut muss unveräußerlich sein!
Video der Landtagsdebatte über einen Antrag der Piratenfraktion zur Evaluierung des Archivgesetzes.
Einbringungsrede zum Entwurf des Archivgesetzes (Anlage 6 zu TOP 23).
Der aktuelle Stand der Petition lautet 592 Mitzeichnende, davon 316 aus NRW. Auch aus dem Kreisgebiet haben schon erfreulich viele diese Petition unterschrieben. Vielen Dank!
Der aktuelle Stand der Petition lautet 1736 Mitzeichnende, davon 890 aus NRW. Auch aus dem Kreisgebiet haben weiterhin erfreulich viele diese Petition unterschrieben. Die Facebook-Seite der Petition (s. o.) hat derzeit 165 Likes. Vielen Dank!
Die Fraktion der FDP im Düsseldorfer Landtag widmet sich in einer kleinen Anfrage dem Anliegen der Petittion: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-6082.pdf . Die Antwort der Landesregierung liegt ebenfalls online vor: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-6344.pdf .
Currently the state parliament of North Rhine Westphalia is verifying the practicability of the newly instated “Archive Act NRW”. Also the historians of NRW are following these investigations with great concern…, since in § 10 clause 5 phrase 2 of this draft (see below) it is stated, that the inalienability of records now only applies for municipal documents.
But town and county archives in North Rhine Westphalia do not only store municipal documents derived from official registries, but also diverse documents such as papers of important personalities, club records or collections of photographs, posters and newspapers. According to the laws currently valid, archived goods are not inalienable, therefore may be sold. The redraft of the new law does not contain any change. Historical researchers in NRW cannot agree to this: All communally archived goods need to be inalienable. To effectively protect the cultural heritage of our country, § 10, clause 5, phrase 2 must be removed without replacement from the National Archives Act!
Modern municipal archives have long been more than only the archives of the government, they are archives of the citizens, depicting the social life in its entire width. In a civilian society with an increasingly retreating government, certificates from the private sector concerning the lives of citizens are becoming increasingly important. As these sources are fundamental to regional and local historical studies, their results must be verifiable according to historical science standards, claiming a proof with the original. If this cannot be guaranteed, for example through loss or sale, all research loses value. Ultimately this opportunity for a sale of communally archived goods puts an end to all research concerning the regional history of North Rhine Westphalia. Just one example: The most important source for the history of the city of Jülich during the Weimar Republic, after the destruction of most of the official documents in late 1944, is the collection of the local press prints in the city archives. A sale of this collection would end all further research concerning this topic.
As the successful protest against the sales from the high school archive of Stralsund in 2012 proved, a wide consensus against the sale of communally archived goods, therefore also items so far being valued as archived goods, does exist. Regarding alienations, especially sales are problematic, since they remove the archived goods from public accessibility and split them up in the case of collections, resulting in a entire loss of the historical source. The protection, the state constitution provides for monuments of history and culture, must also be ensured for archived goods. In the other provinces archived goods are generally inalienable.
Parliamentary debate on a motion of the pirate faction to evaluate the Archives Act: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok28El2Iq2I.
Session transcript of the debate: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMP16-51.html#_Toc380942657.
Three members of the FDP parliamentary group in Düsseldorf parliament devote themselves in a small request of the inalienability of collection items: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-6082.pdf. The response of the state government is also present: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-6344.pdf.
An online petition has been addressed under: https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/kein-sale-by-urban-archive-in-nrw.
The petition Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/keinverkaufkommunalesarchivgutnrw.
Mittwoch, 19.02.2014 Top 7. Archivgesetz NRW jetzt evaluieren und ein geordnetes Gesetzgebungsverfahren gewährleisten Antrag der Fraktion der PIRATEN Drucksa….
LikeLike · · Share..Write a comment…..28 people reachedBoost Post.Kein Verkauf von kommunalem Archivgut in NRW 17 hours ago.Nachfolgend ein englischer Textentwurf zur Petition. Kann jmd drüber schauen und ggf. verbessern. Ansonsten darf er gerne weiterverbreitet werden: Currently in the state parliament of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) is done to check the Archives Act NRW on its practicality. The historians in NRW pursue this method with care. For in § 10 paragraph 5, sentence 2 of the draft bill (see below) applies th…e inalienability for archival in municipalities only for administrative records.
But city and county archives in North Rhine-Westphalia store not only documents of official origin, derived from the official registries, but also diverse documents such as papers of important personalities, club records or collections of photographs, posters and newspapers. After the Archives Act now in force this collection items is not inalienable, and can therefore be sold. The draft law revision provides for no change. Historical research in NRW can not agree explain: The entire municipal archives in NRW must be inalienable. To effectively protect the cultural heritage of our country, § 10, paragraph 5, sentence 2 must be removed without replacement in the National Archives Act!
Because modern municipal archives have long been more than authorities archives, they are citizen archives that depict the social life in its entire width. In a civil society with an increasingly retreating government certificates from the private sector over the lives of citizens are becoming increasingly important. These sources are fundamental to regional and local historical studies, their results must be verifiable historical science standards following the original. This is no longer the case – for example, through loss or just sell the sources – decreases the value of the research. Ultimately therefore means the possibilities of disposing of municipal archives from for the scientific regional history in NRW. Just one example: The most important source for the history of the city of Jülich during the Weimar Republic, after most of the official documents in the destruction of the city was destroyed in late 1944, is the collection of the local press in the city archives. A sale of this collection would stop any further research.
How has the successful protest against the sales from the high school library Stralsund shown in 2012, there is a great consensus, local cultural goods, including archival properly valued collection items, be regarded as inalienable. In the sale is to think primarily of sales beyond the affected cultural heritage of its public accessibility in the rule and destroy in the case of collections by dismemberment as a historical source. The protection of the state constitution for the monuments of history and culture must also be ensured for archival. In the other provinces archive is generally inalienable.
Three members of the FDP parliamentary group in Düsseldorf parliament devote themselves in a small request of the inalienability of city archives collection items: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-6082.pdf. The response of the state government is also present: http://www.landtag.nrw.de/portal/WWW/dokumentenarchiv/Dokument/MMD16-6344.pdf.
The online petition has been addressed for publication of the draft bill against the possibilities of disposing of municipal archives: https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/kein-sale-by-urban-archive-in-nrw.
Das “Gesetz zur Änderung des Archivgesetzes Nordrhein-Westfalen” ist im Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt (GV. NRW.) Ausgabe 2014 Nr. 27 vom 29.9.2014, Seite 603 bis 606, veröffentlicht. Die Unveräußerlichkeit des gesamtem, kommunalen Archivguts ist dort in § 1 Ziff. 4 Buchst. b geregelt.


GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA CO. SAME v. GRAHAM DEPARTMENT STORES CO. et al. SAME v. WALGREEN CO. et al.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Iowa.
Messrs. Edw. L. O'Connor, of Des Moines, Iowa, Frank F. Messer, of Iowa City, Iowa, and W. E. Wallace, of Williamsburg, Iowa, for appellants.
Mr. J. G. Gamble, of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.
Appellees brought these suits to restrain the enforcement of a statute of Iowa known as the Chain Store Tax Act of 1935, Acts 46th Gen.Assem. c. 75 (Iowa Code of 1935, c. 329-G1, § 6943-g1 et seq.). The District Court, composed of three judges, held that the provision of section 4, subdivision b, of the Act (Code 1935, § 6943-g4, subd. b), imposing a tax based on gross receipts from sales according to an accumulative graduated scale, was invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States as creating an arbitrary discrimination. 12 F.Supp. 760. The case comes here upon direct appeal from a final decree granting a permanent injunction. 28 U.S.C. 380 (28 U.S.C.A. § 380).
The decree is affirmed upon the authority of Stewart Dry Goods Co. v. Lewis, 294 U.S. 550, 55 S.Ct. 525, 79 L.Ed. 1054.
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS and Mr. Justice CARDOZO dissent.
Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration of decision of this case.


text:
The article discusses various views on the emergence and impacts of nanotechnology. It proposes a multidimensional framework for analyzing the different technological, economical, environmental and social dimensions of nanotechnology. The research method consists of a three step investigation of both the positive and negative impacts of nanoscience and nanotechnology on different Brazilian stakeholders. From the insights provided by a group of experts it was possible to design a survey instrument that was applied to 59 Brazilian nanobiotechnology researchers. The survey results show that, on the one hand, nanotechnology is expected to lead to economic development, product development, business competitiveness, greater job specialization, less pollution, improvements to the health system and extended life expectancy. On the other hand, however, nanotechnology may cause specific forms of contamination due to nanotechnological manipulation, more layoffs, massive industrial restructuring, and other potential risks. Both perspectives would suggest the need for a regulatory framework to deal with the uncertainty and ensure a regular pathway for the stakeholders to be able to exploit this technology to its full potential.
Scientific and technological novelties have always been challenging for mankind. New technology brings with it numerous opportunities and great apprehension. In this context, there is a natural interest in emerging technologies, such as biotech, cognitech and nanotech. If, on the one hand, new technological applications normally offer increased opportunities, higher living standards, and lead to the redefinition of social and cultural paradigms, on the other hand, as they lead to the breakdown of previous social rules, they always create a sensation of discomfort and insecurity.
It is essential to prepare the scientific community so that it can provide up-to-date information and new insights to facilitate the dissemination of any new technology, reducing the risk of misunderstanding either the benefits or the negative impacts. As an example, Shellenberger & Nordhaus (2004) have shown that environmental research failed to forecast negative impacts (such as global warming). Another example was the alarming delay between the onset of the social and economic impacts of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and the initiation of the scientific debate on the subject.
The last five years have seen a significant growth in nanoscience and nanotechnology developments from academic publications and patents to multiple industrial and economic applications. The benefits are extended through new applications in chemistry, materials, electronics, computing, medicine and pharmaceuticals, among others. Due to its overall and horizontal range of applications, nanotechnology has already become inevitable.
The expected positive impacts of nanotechnology range from a technological revolution in the manufacturing process, new employment skills, and the emergence of new industries, to a variety of economic opportunities. However, many of the expected impacts are not exactly clear to the different stakeholders. Moreover, doubts still remain regarding the safety of the nanotechnology for human health and the ecological system. It is claimed that the nanometric size of new molecular structures in itself represents a threat due to the ease with which their action mechanism can spread within life systems, causing contamination and toxicity.
Given this, there is an urgent need to discuss the ways in which social, environmental and economic certainty can be increased. It is our belief that such changes could be better monitored and harmful effects better predicted and controlled, if an enhanced concept of Freeman & Perez´s (1988) techno-economic paradigm, based on the multidimensional interlinking of agents and different outcomes, is used.
Evolutionary Economics (Dosi, 1991; Pavitt, 1992) suggests that any on-going technology is dependent on a path, in which it is possible to foresee its future development. In the case of a new technology it is harder to predict their development path as their path is unknown. The lack of knowledge and the inherent uncertainty of any new venture certainly enhance doubt and create fear. Any new technology will obviously engender both positive and negative impacts. To better understand this issue, it is necessary to understand the entire phenomenon from a technical/economic perspective, while it is also imperative to incorporate new dimensional sights, such as the social and the environmental perspectives.
This paper proposes to identify, through extensive research carried out within the Brazilian nanobiotechnology research network, the potential benefits and threats to the economy, society and environment offered by the emergence of nanoscience and nanotechnology.
This paper includes five more sections: The next, section two, will address the emergence of new technologies in general. Section three focuses on the path of nanotechnology and its positive and negative impacts. Sections four and five are dedicated, respectively, to the methodology and the results obtained from the research effort made during 2004 and 2008. The final remarks are in section six.
The Schumpeterian tradition suggests that the successful spread of innovation throughout the economy and society will generate a new cycle, value creation and wealth. Freeman and Perez (1988) defined any major new technological breakthrough as a new techno-economic paradigm.
This kind of analysis, in which different revolutionary periods are perceived primarily from a techno-economical perspective, has proven to be of limited use when dealing with the complexity of the real world (Perez, 1993). That is why, for example, it was hard for environmentalists to predict impending events, such as global warming and biotech hazardous products, of recent industrial innovations. Ignoring precise test validation, companies violated ethical principles and only considered economic returns (Shellenberger and Nordhaus, 2004; ETC Group, 2004).
In order to deal with a complex world, significant changes are required to the definition of development when attempting to understand an emerging new technology. The current debate, which is actually contributing towards broadening that definition, is primarily focused on research into sustainable development (Asheim, Buchholz and Tungodden, 2001; Banerjee, 2003; Bansal, 2003; Borron and Murray, 2004; Greaker, 2003; Spangenberg, 2004).
In fact, depending on the intensity of the innovation cycle, both positive and negative impacts are felt over a multitude of dimensions. If it is intense, as in the case of revolutionary technologies, the impacts are not restricted only to the economic dimension, but will certainly extend to other dimensions, such as the social and environmental ones.
This multidimensional approach (i.e. technological and economic dimensions plus social and environmental ones) better reflects the complexity of the contemporary technology scenario.
This approach emphasizes the role of different relevant agents, such as the individual, organizations, or groups of organizations, as engines for and/or the consequence of change. This situation suggests that the scope of analysis that explains the existence and the systemic role of any individual or organization should be enlarged to consider their different interlinkages (Nielsen, 2001). If, on the one hand, these actors may fulfil a more significant role in a certain dimension, on the other hand, they can also play simultaneous roles in different dimensions. The major stakeholders are universities and public research centres, companies, the State, consumers, citizens and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (Marques, 2008).
This complex system is better understood by considering the cross impacts of the different dimensions and their respective interlinked stakeholders, who undergo possible general effects (both positive and negative) of a new technological trajectory. Figure 1 shows how the multidimensional model for the analysis of new technology impacts works.
4) and the emergence of a diversity of new products and technological processes.
However, many different paths can be followed. First, the use of new technology implies positive effects in the economic dimension, by establishing productivity growth and wealth creation (Schumpeter, 1934; Solow, 1957; Nelson & Winter, 1982). Second, it also implies negative effects like, the disappearance of economic sectors, increases in new investments, the exclusion of existing businesses in the market, as well as more difficulty on distributing wealth, generating employment and standards of competence (Tobin, 1989; Furtado, 2001).
In order to fully comprehend the phenomenon, besides understanding the impacts of new technology on the economic dimension, it is also necessary to understand how it affects the social and the environmental dimensions.
Normally, the mainstream society continues to follow as old concept of development that adheres to a different pattern of generating social benefits and exploiting natural resources. But as new industries and products emerge, a new social structure is needed. New cultural behaviour and attitudes change expectations and profiles. It is as if a new kind of society emerges within the old as a result of new techno-economic trends. New behaviour also leads to new environmental impacts.
Martinet and Reynaud (2004) have shown, for example, that deforestation for commercial use has impacted on water resources, soil and world climate; in some regions, the looming desertification has caused soil erosion and infertility, the extinction of species, and shrinkage of the agricultural area. In fact, the impacts are all interlinked, and generate significant direct and indirect technological costs, and the emergence of new sub-patterns and the search for new technical solutions.
In the opinion of experts, nanotechnology is an emerging general purpose technology. The forthcoming nanorevolution needs to be better understood (Carlaw et al. 2005; Elsi, 2005; Roco & Bainbridge, 2006).
Nanotechnology is the group of technologies resulting from scientific discoveries made in different fields of knowledge, such as chemistry, physics, biology, material and computational engineering, where the dimension of manipulation is nanometric (Nanologue, 2006). In essence, nanotechnology consists in the ability to manipulate matter at an atomic scale, in order to create structures with a differentiated molecular organization and different properties (Crandall, 1997).
Regarding that material property, nanotechnology has the potential of creating several technical applications with impacts in many different economic sectors. One example is the carbon nanotube that promise to enable lighter, stronger materials that can be used in civil construction, heavy machinery, car manufacturing, electronics industry and so many others (Nanologue, 2006). This variety of applications makes it difficult to evaluate and measure the impacts of nanotechnology using the traditional linear view (NIST, 1999; Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004).
When analyzing the development of nanotechnology and its various spill-overs, publishing (articles) and patenting (number of patents) are interesting ways of measuring the timelag that occurs between the publication of scientific findings to the patenting of technological applications (Zucker & Darby, 2005).
This timelag can be clearly seen by comparing the number of articles and patents involving nanotechnology vis a vis biotechnology (of which Genetically Modified Organisms is a significant example), as shown in Figure 2 below.
Between 1983 and 1990, the number of articles dealing with nanoscience and nanotechnology grew exponentially, doubling roughly every 7.3 years. Between 1991 and 2005, however, the rate of new publications increased considerably, doubling every 3.3 years (Zucker and Darby, 2005; Kaiser, 2006). With biotechnology research and applications, the results are almost the same: exponential growth. Observing the biotech time lag pattern, it is interesting to note that there was an increase in number of related patents several years after the expansion in the number of new papers.
By following the trends shown in Figure 2, the same pattern can be expected to take place with nanotechnology.
This idea is reinforced by Zanetti-Ramos and Creczynski-Pasa (2007) for whom the growing number of articles published suggests significant investments in research. Consequently, Fishbine (2002) claims that research stimulates investments in nanotechnologies reaching figures that surpass billions of dollars.
Research leads to new investment and stimulates new entrants in the business of nanoscience and nanotechnology. According to Kingon et al. (2004), in 1999 the number of new entrants whose main products or services were based on nanotechnology was around 100. However, this figure has now surpassed 1,000 in only 3 years. Moreover, according to Alves (2004), 15 years from now, the estimated annual production of products based on nanotechnology will be in the range of 1 trillion dollars, a value that will require the employment of at least 2 million workers in this sector.
These figures are sufficiently important to draw attention to the debate on the predictability of nanotechnology. It is particularly important since the expected negative impacts of nanotechnology include applications that would be potentially harmful to mankind, such as the capacity to build mass destruction weapons (Marques, 2008). These potential negative impacts cast doubt on the safety of nanotechnology in terms of human health and various biological chains (Nanologue, 2006).
The problem with nanotechnology is not just related to size but, instead, whether it is safe and controllable. This has led to a new debate, which addresses the consequences of the nanotechnology. This debate covers the technological, economic, social and environmental dimensions of the impacts of nanotechnology.
Regarding the technological dimension, it is necessary to asses the impact on the pace of progress in nanoscience and the diversity of its technological applications. This evolution will raise the level of professional skills and enhance scientific discoveries and future scenarios for the nanotechnology trajectory.
Regarding the possible variables involved in the economic impact of nanotechnology on the various agents it is necessary to consider the level of economic development, the average level of profitability, the degree of optimization of the use of inputs, the average prices of new products in relation to those of a previous technological generation, the level of manual labour required to establish the new paradigm, as well as the cost of living and income distribution.
The social dimension involves the impact of nanotechnology on the level of employment in various economic sectors, the level of welfare created, and the progress made with its application in human health.
Finally, the environmental dimension concerns the degree of environmental pollution, the degree of contamination, the destruction of different existing biomes and the conservation of natural resources.
This complex scenario demands a new regulatory framework to control the pace of nanotechnological development in a fair manner. If such a regulatory framework is delayed, nanotechnology could come to be seen in a negative light. It is necessary to stress that a regulatory framework may lose its capacity to guide the development of the technology, thus becoming incapable of controlling its spread and that of its associated dangers.
To prevent such an “unstoppable” trend, it is worth carrying out a cross study of the major events that have characterized the emergence of previous revolutionary technologies. The opinions of experts and the perceptions of the actors involved are useful in identifying the most relevant impacts of nanotechnology and represent an important guideline for a future regulatory framework.
Important questions are raised within this debate such as: what are the major impacts emerging from nanotechnology? When will they occur? What is the right timing for regulation?
In an effort to analyze the technological trajectory of nanotechnology and its possible impacts a two-fold, in-depth study and a survey were carried out. The research was conducted in three different stages between October 2004 and May 2008. In the first stage, experts in nanotechnology, from various analytical perspectives, were asked to identify the potential impacts of nanotechnology. In the second stage, a survey was conducted among the researchers belonging to the Brazilian Nanobiotechnology Network. The third stage consisted in an effort at reconfirming the data by interviewing businessmen involved in and affected by the application of nanotechnology.
Sixteen experts from diverse fields of knowledge and experience were interviewed. They were selected in a non-probabilistic way from the areas of basic sciences, engineering, social sciences, ethics, politics, and representatives of non-governmental and commercial organizations. The experts were: 6 researchers (Biotechnology, Physics, Chemistry, Materials, Pharmacology, Sociology); 1 catholic priest who is a federal congressman; 1 federal judge; 1 international NGO representative; 6 Brazilian government representatives (from CNPq, FINEP, 2 MCT, MMA and Embrapa); and 1 businessman.
They were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire dealing with the potential impacts of nanotechnology that, in their opinion, may actually occur.
From the collected data, a set of impacts was listed showing the potential general effects from nanotechnology on the technological, economic, social and environmental dimensions. This list gave rise to 35 statements that were used in the survey instrument.
In an effort to facilitate the understanding the interlinked effects, the statements relating to the application of nanoscience and nanotechnology were limited to the field of nanobiotechnology, and two specific economic sectors: cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. Both sectors have a high level of R&D investment (around 10% of sales) and also, due to the already mastered scientific capability of designing new molecular structures, are accelerating the launch of new products.
The sample consisted of members of the Brazilian Nanobiotechnological Network (an institutional research and development network formed by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development – CNPq – of the Ministry of Science and Technology – MCT). The Network consists of 92 PhD researchers; 59 of whom returned the questionnaire (64% return rate). They were contacted by telephone and e-mail in order to reduce time and costs involved.
The sample profile shows that 93.2% of surveyed researchers are primarily related to public institutions, and the remaining 6.8% related to private institutions.
Regarding the type of institution, 86.4% are from universities, 11.9% from technology centres and 1.7% from foundations. By using the Lattes-CNPq database it was possible to identify each professor’s areas of knowledge in relation to nanotechnology (Lattes, 2006). Thus, researchers with recognised expertise in physics constitute 25.4% of respondents, chemistry 22%, biology 33.9% and pharmacology 18.6%.
Using the data collected in stage I, a survey instrument (questionnaire) was elaborated which included a four-step Likert scale, where the level of agreement of the respondent varied from a lower limit, represented by the number one (1) –meaning “I totally disagree” – to an upper limit, represented by the number four (4) – meaning “I totally agree”. The use of this scale required the researcher to position himself in relation to a determined aspect of the subject. Appendix shows the general results (percantage) for all statements. Furthermore, the results will be presented as means (m) and standards-deviation (s) of the total of responses to the four-step Likert scale.
The statements followed the order of the multidimensional model, where the first part dealt with the technological dimension, followed, in sequence, by the economic, social and environmental dimensions.
The second exploratory in-depth study was conducted with five representatives from companies within the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. It was decided to restrict the research to companies geographically established in Brazil.
This phase consisted on comparing the outcomes from the survey (scientific and technological-based study) with the points of view offered by the companies (profit-oriented impression) in order to deal with real possible effects and impacts of nanotechnology on the dimensions under consideration.
In order to identify companies with in-house R&D into nanotechnology that could provide representatives for interviews the Brazilian Innovation Agency (FINEP) was consulted. As a result, five companies were selected and their respective representatives were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire.
The analysis of the results is divided into three sections. First, the impacts, as perceived by the experts in the interviews are presented and then divided into seven domains. In the second section, the survey statistics are described following the order of the four nanotechnology impact dimensions, the impacts on stakeholders, and the need for a regulatory framework for nanotechnology. The final section shows the perceptions of entrepreneurs in relation to potential impacts of nanotechnology.
The research findings shows that nanotechnology affects the stakeholders involved both positively and negatively. However, although it is impossible to identify the full consequences, it is possible to outline a set of double impacts that may be used to establish a future regulatory framework.
The following section contains a summary of the foreseen impacts. As can be seen, new businesses, new products and new materials will certainly lead to new productions systems and yet unknown social impacts.
Nanotechnology will provide a wide range of new applications, based on either in-use technology or completely new applications. As a general purpose technology, nanotechnology is fully able to create or to enhance novelty within almost every scientific domain.
New scientific research areas, new kinds of raw materials, new products and new industries, will lead to a new individual, organizational and collective behaviour.
The replacement of existing principles and techniques is, perhaps, the most important impact. Obsolescence will affect business competiveness, employment perspectives and social wealth. Since it is almost impossible to mechanically replace obsolete technological and competence structures for new ones, outdated knowledge and practices will be erased from different communities. It is unlikely, for example, that the workers from the traditional metal-casting industry will simply be employed by new steel injection companies.
The cost of the shift to a new educational and professional paradigm will change State and university institutional structures. Once-valued skills may not necessarily be applicable to new technology.
The new technological standards will certainly change the way in which matter is manipulated. Since nanotechnology deals with physical structures at the molecular level, a whole range of new products can be imagined and developed. As a consequence of this technological innovation, a variety of new businesses will emerge.
Not only new companies with, as yet unknown, new product alternatives, but also existing businesses will profit from the opportunities provided. R&D capabilities will reach new levels, both in terms of the specific skills of personnel and in terms of laboratory structures, thus requiring greater expenditure on R&D. Sectors and companies with less investment capability will tend to fall behind in this new technological trajectory.
Since nanoscience and nanotechnology are new fields, companies will certainly need to establish new patterns of open innovation with universities and technocentres. Equally, to avoid the misuse of principles and techniques, research and laboratory procedures will need to be redesigned.
New products will lead to new patterns of consumer behaviour. It is expected that new products will appear with significant advantages in terms of quality, reliability and price. However, major doubts have emerged in relation to the issue of consumption. Since particle manipulation is the very essence of nanotechnology, consumers may be exposed to different and unknown forms of contamination and environmental change. The risk to health is greater the more invasive is the product, such as food, drugs or cosmetics.
State agencies, NGOs and citizen’s organizations will face new challenges to understand, prevent and avoid any possible negative impacts.
One of the most important positive impacts is the complete change in the supply of raw materials. Nanotechnology has the potential to replace traditional extraction by synthetic production and, thus, to effectively reduce environmental impacts. This touches on one of the basic pillars of capitalism, i.e. the exacerbated use of natural sources of inputs.
According to the experts, this major shift will completely change the structure of value chains. Reductions in raw material and logistics costs, as well as in other transaction costs will to lead to a reorientation of business strategies. There will be a shift from supply to demand oriented strategies, where new products, with new price relations, will become easier to obtain, not only because they may become cheaper, but also due to the reduction in procurement and sales.
New materials, new logistic and operational structures, new products and new consumer behaviour will give rise to new industrial production chains, where productivity, efficiency, quality and cost will reach new standards.
However, as with any new production process, the extraction of the raw material demanded by nanotechnology will require new safety and hazard-free structures. As yet there are no standardized technical procedures to ensure safety with nanomanipulation; therefore nanoproduction is certainly one of the major challenges to be overcome. Universities, research centres, industrial organizations and NGOs have a key role to play in this quest.
Nanoproduction, as stated above, is one of – if not - the major challenge for business ventures seeking to take advantage of nanotechnology. While new materials, new applications and new products are perfectly imaginable, the problem remains as to how to use, apply and produce them.
It is not merely a question of quality or productivity. It is more a question of how to concretely produce stable nanometric structures. Size has not yet been fully mastered and many nanoproducts are still micrometric products. Moreover, there is still a knowledge gap in relation to inert and active matter. While new nanoelectronic devices have already been successfully produced in the semiconductor industry, there remains a problem in bionanotechnology sectors, such as chemicals.
University-based scientific research, especially in engineering, will face great challenges in the next ten years. Society, as a whole, is still waiting for new nanoproduction technologies. Until then, traditional production process will be adapted to new nanotechnology products. And here lies a high risk of creating a negative impact, as traditional production processes may not be fully adequate to deal with nanometric structures. In the cosmetic industry, the unstable scale of the nanometric liposome in dermocosmetics can be expensive for costumers or harmful for human health, since if they are too big they may be useless, while, if too small, they may reach the bloodstream and produce undesirable side effects.
It will be difficult for State regulatory agencies to deal with such uncertainties.
As a result of the challenges that come with nanoproduction, automation seems to be absolutely necessary to achieve competitive productivity and high quality standards in nanometric products. Since it is almost impossible to use traditional manufacturing procedures, labour tasks will certainly change.
Even highly trained personnel will probably find themselves out of the work. On the one hand, the above-mentioned gap between scientific knowledge and technical practice is hard to be filled using their existing skills. On the other hand, there is still a lack of people with sufficient experience in the new technology to efficiently work in nanoproduction.
Because of the rapid pace at which nanotechnology is being adopted in many sectors, new investment will probably be much more equipment oriented then competence oriented. Therefore, nanotechnology is likely to reduce job generation and so affect welfare and undermine social relations.
Here, government and NGOs seem to have an important role; in developed countries, to avoid high rates of unemployment and, in emerging economies, to guarantee balanced investments in new technology and new industrial sectors.
This is, perhaps, the classic negative impact. The “nanofear” effect is based much more on ignorance than on reality. The popular idea that nanostructures will invade human bodies and then dominate the world is science fiction, but there are hazards involved.
Since people lack of information, consumer behaviour will remain sceptical. This certainly affects the demand for new products and, thus, the success of the new companies based on nanoproduction. In fact, the ease with which nanoparticles could penetrate living systems, both human and natural resources, could effectively cause damage to health, contamination, pollution and degradation. However, the extent to which this can happen is not fully measurable. For example, as has happened with agro-toxins, cumulative and chronic effects may only come to light many years later.
Once again, in this area regulatory agencies and NGOs have a major role to play. The State should increase expenditure on research, prevention and control, while NGOs should dedicate themselves to gathering relevant information and increasing public awareness. This is why a new regulatory framework is urgent.
Until further information is available, the care taken by civil society will prevail over blind confidence in this new technology.
Here, once again, there is an evident double effect. The discovery of new medical procedures and drugs are the most valuable developments of nanoscience, though, at the same time, the risk of contamination remains high.
On the one hand, medical research is pointing to a whole new world of possibilities. New treatments, new cures, new devices, new techniques can and will make use of new nanoscience and nanotechnology-based developments and devices. Moreover, further extending the human life span is a long-held dream of mankind. Improved human health and life quality are without doubt the most hoped outcomes of nanotechnology.
On the other hand, if this is achieved, society as a whole and the State will benefit. Public health services will enhance quality and reduce expenditure, since new upcoming nano-based treatments are expected to be more accurate than existing procedures. That is why most R&D expenditure made by private companies is still being cantered on the medical, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries.
From the data collected, for example, the mean of the responses to the first statement shows that the researchers tend to believe (m = 2.6) that nanotechnology can provide unlimited solutions to many of the problems faced by society, and almost all (m = 3.9) believe that research in nanotechnology will open new frontiers for knowledge and new scientific discoveries (see Table 1).
Regarding the impact of nanotechnology on the process of product development, most of the researchers (m = 2.93) believe that the time between a product’s development and its launch will be reduced.
Yet, the analysis of the standard deviation shows that there is wide variance in the responses to the majority of the statements concerning the technological dimension, which may suggest a certain level of doubt in relation to the real potential of nanotechnology, notably in terms of what products will look like.
Moreover, they believe that nanotechnology could increase the level of employment in the economy, since most of the researchers disagree that nanotechnology will be a factor leading to the exclusion of the low-income-population (m = 1.85).
Another aspect pointed out by the researchers was that the expense involved in treating waste from nanotechnology will be lower when compared to other technologies (m = 1.94). It may also lead to a rise in spending on health care, as nanotechnological products will be more expensive than conventional products.
In contrast, the researchers strongly believe in the need for investments in nanotechnology-qualified-labour (m = 3.65). In the in-depth interviews (stage 1), labour representatives mentioned that such investment will not be only operational but also technological, that is, the workers performing routine activities in the production process will be affected as well as higher ranking staff, and the technical positions will have to hold the necessary knowledge in nanotechnology.
The economic dimension also revealed a wide range of responses to most of the statements. This demonstrates the difficulty involved in forming a position about the potential of a new technology. This happens because of the certainty that nanotechnology demands higher investments in professional qualification (m = 3.67), due to the variation in the physical properties of matter, which leads to a need for greater knowledge specialization.
There is considerable doubt regarding the possible environmental impacts (see Table 3). The interviewed researchers believe in reduction of pollution in general (m = 2.88). Moreover, they disagree that nanotechnology is harmful to the human race and to the environment (m = 1.79), and with a high level of uncertainty (s = 0.88) they tend to disagree that nanotechnology will induce higher environmental consciousness and researcher ethics (m = 2.25).
The standard deviation among the environmental issues is high, which demonstrates a certain degree of uncertainty about the potential benefits of the new technology for the environment.
The social impact is influenced by other impacts, in both positive and negative ways. However, most of the researchers believe that nanotechnology will be able to improve the quality of life among the population and that it might lead to further extension of the human life span (respectively, m = 3.58 and m = 3.13). But they disagree that, currently, nanotechnology has a negative image among the population (m = 1.69) and that it may cause harm to human health (m = 2.02).
The expectation that nanotechnology will bring benefits to the population is, thus, generally confirmed. The interviewed researchers seem to expect a great deal from the nanotechnological revolution, reflecting the transforming role of the scientific discoveries in the society (see Table 4).
The interviewed researchers agree (m = 3.37) that the laws and rules should help prevent any potential negative impact from nanotechnology. However, they are not fully in accordance that the standards of ethical conduct of researchers should be stricter with nanotechnology (m = 2.54 and s = 1.00). This may indicate a certain fear within the academic community regarding the risks of misusing the expected potential of nanotechnology (see Table 5). This is, perhaps, better explained if one considers the fact that they are also doubtful over the standardization of laboratory procedures and health care researchers should be stricter with nanotechnology (m = 2.66 and s = 0.95). However, respondents agree with tightening control of the manipulation of nanotechnology by lab workers in order to prevent health risks. This shows some concern about the possibility of contamination by nanotechnology, with a similar proportion who agree that nanotechnology could pollute the biological chain and cause harm to human health.
Here, once again, the standard deviation is high, reinforcing the perception of uncertainty.
In the course of introducing a new techno-economic paradigm several stakeholders influence and are influenced by the technological innovation process.
Questioned as to whether nanotechnology will negatively impact the stakeholders, the surveyed researchers strongly disagree (m = 1.12 and s = 0.37) that this could happen to the scientific community, industry and companies, consumers, the population, governments, and NGOs (see Table 6).
Moreover, in almost all the statements regarding the impacts on the stakeholders the standard-deviation tends to be low, which suggests the scientific community has a positive concept of nanotechnology.
Yet the highest standard deviation (s=0.77) is related to the impacts of nanotechnology on non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which may reflect a certain fear on the part of the scientific communities related to the actions of more critical NGOs that emphasized the negative aspects of Genetically Modified Food technology.
While R&D expenditures on nanotechnology is steadily growing in developed countries, in Brazil, the number of companies that have initiated a nanotechnological trajectory is still very low. In our research, only five representatives of such companies were interviewed. Even with the small sample of the representatives from the business world, the impact of nanotechnology outlined in the interviews corresponds with the expectations identified by the experts interviewed in the previous step in this study.
The technological impacts of nanotechnology are (and will) be significant in several industrial sectors, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, as shown by the four respondents from this sector.
Nanotechnology is expected to reduce the risks involved in product development to help change the paradigm within the pharmaceutical industry from a process of trial and error to one which is planned, and focused on specific uses of the new active ingredient. In this industry, nanotechnology research is motivated by the special features it appears to offer. On-going research can be divided into two types: the scientific and technological.
The scientific search for new compounds, whether synthetic, vegetable or animal, can generate new drugs. Despite the tremendous advances in biotechnology, the fine chemicals industry still employs the traditional synthesis of substances technique. Nanotechnology offers the opportunity to synthesize the molecules from which substances are made.
The technological research involves the search for new forms of administration and absorption, and longer lasting action of the drug in the body and seeking ways to enhance and restrict the action of the drug at an exact point in the body in order to increase the chances of effective action and reduce side effects. The first discoveries involving the application of nanotechnology are taking place within technological research.
In this section, applications are broken down into the categories of drug action control process, the extent of treatment by synthetic drugs, enhancement of active healing and disinfecting systems, the scope and effectiveness of external (equipment and techniques) and internal (in vivo) diagnosis, new synthesis production processes, new techniques for controlling the dimension of the production process, among others.
The Brazilian cosmetics industry has only two companies capable of designing nanotechnology-based products. A representative of one of these companies asserted that research into nanotechnology offers a number of technological benefits such as increased productivity during the release of the active cosmetics on human skin, increasing the effectiveness of the cosmetic effect on the surface of human epidermis, slowing the aging of human epidermis, increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the cosmetic action of sunscreen achieved by the combination of functional properties in the cosmetic product (in addition to maintaining the quality of the skin, the cosmetic can change the colour itself in accordance with changes in indicators of the environment such as temperature), among other impacts.
In addition to the impacts on specific technological industries, impacts of greater magnitude were indirectly mentioned, such as unlimited solutions, technology integration, new procedures, creation of new materials and cutting the time required for product development.
For both industries, respondents foresee that nanotechnology will save the active ingredient per unit of output, enable faster development of new and efficient products, create jobs for highly qualified professionals (PhDs and researchers), increase competition between companies in different sectors, require higher levels of initial investment for R & D, permit the development of more productive processes, among other impacts.
The reasons given by the interviewees for this were: ignorance of the matter, difficulty anticipating uncertain events (since at the time of the interviews, all the potential products were in the early or intermediate stages of development), and fear that an opinion might impede the path of some innovation strategies.
Unlike the experts, the company representatives do not have clear opinions about impacts on social and environmental dimensions. In general, the consideration of environmental and social concerns in the development of new technologies is relatively new in Brazilian companies, which means that they do not create adequate condition for further nanotechnological innovation.
Regarding this issue, the most plausible conclusion is that the initial investment in nanotechnology, as estimated by these companies, may be significantly increased by the ignoring/exclusion of the social and environmental impacts. Business decisions are increasingly influenced by other types of stakeholders (such as unions, NGOs, etc.) in technologically innovative projects, in addition to traditional stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers and government). This tends to lead to a lack of a close quality control during the process of developing a new technology or product.
The present study examined the technological, economic, environmental and social dimensions of nanotechnology. In order to perceive the different interlinked effects and relations, a three-fold study was conduced within different communities. Experts representing different social stakeholders, nanobiotech researchers and some businessmen were consulted in an attempt to shed light on uncertainty surrounding the possible impacts of nanotechnology.
However, they all seem to agree with some conclusions. Nanotechnology will certainly lead to the growth of new industrial sectors, requiring increased spending in R&D and new professional skills. Moreover, the new drugs, new treatments and new materials resulting from the nanotechnological revolution will change quality of life for mankind. New products seem to offer a whole new range of value perception and profitability.
Negative impacts were also commonly perceived, especially in terms of the impacts on human health and the growth in unemployment. These two drivers fall within the social dimension, since they affect public expenditure on maintaining health and social security systems.
Like any other new technology, it is absolutely necessary to have a regulatory framework that ensures the control of any possible harmful impacts. This new framework should consider the commitment of different stakeholders, and the use of and the results from nanotechnology R&D.
Considering the possible impacts listed for Nanotechnology, one can say that universities, in particular, as well as companies and technological centres demonstrate a "commitment" to the new emerging techno-economic paradigm.
There are some significant points that should guide the development of applications and products that relay on nanotechnology, such as: (a) the benefits of nanotechnology must outweigh the highlighted risks in order to reach a wide range of people, both in terms of its use and advantages; and (b) regulation should not overstate the severity of risk, in order not to inhibit investments in the R&D of nanotechnological applications, such as was seen in the case of stem-cell research debate.
A new mode of regulation must, above all, safeguard the rights of consumers and individual citizens. With nanotechnology it should not be different, so that appropriate methods of testing the reliability and safety of products in terms of their effects on human and environmental health need to be developed and introduced. Any product that incorporates nanotechnology should be identified as such and if the advantages, for example, reliability and safety, of such a product are already established they should have preference (e.g. government may subsidize their R&D and production) over products devoid of such technology.
Any regulatory framework should be built within the context of a debate involving all the stakeholders, informed by the technical opinion of scientists, where relations are based on mutual trust and communication is clear and open. All new products should be assessed, considering factors such as the potential risks, interactions with other particles or substances and toxicity, among others. The priority is to evaluate new materials, determine their risk levels and add basic information to establish the regulatory clauses.
1) Statistical tests were applied to cross-reference data. The first set of statistical tests used was intended to verify whether the sample was subject to a normal distribution. Thus, the homogeneity test and the Kolgomorov-Smirnov test showed that in all the research questions the answers did not show normal distribution. Hence, the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test was applied, because statistical techniques are best suited for use with small samples in the absence of normal distribution (MENDENHALL, 1990). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed the existence of statistically significant differences in the responses from the surveyed researchers due to their different fields of knowledge. The test showed that all the questions received answers of little statistical significance (p> 0.01), concluding that there are differences in responses between the knowledge areas surveyed in all dimensions.
2) These impacts were included together in this section because none of the respondents identified any positive or negative social or environmental impacts arising from nanotechnology.
3) It is noteworthy that the type of field research influences the results. It is our belief that, an important limitation of this study was the use of different investigative methods for each community. And, thus, two limitations emerged: the researchers were too optimistic about the application of nanotechnology; and five company representatives is too small a sample to draw generalizations and consistent comparisons. However, even with these limitations, the results show that the impacts identified in the field study are in line with observations made in the literature in relation to nanotechnology.
Alves, O. L. (2004): Atividade prospectiva em nanotecnologia: desenvolvimento científico da nanociência e nanotecnologia nos últimos 10 anos (janeiro1994 - julho 2004). Relatório Parcial. Unicamp, 2004.
Asheim, G. B. ; Buchholz, W. ; TUNGODDEN, B. (2001): Justifying sustainability. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 252-268.
Banerjee, S. B. (2003): Who sustains whose development? sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. Organization Studies. v. 24, p. 143-180.
Bansal, P. (2003): From issues to actions: The importance of individual concerns and organizational values in responding to natural environmental issues. Organization Science, v. 14, n.5, 510-527.
Boron, S. ; Murray, K. (2004): Bridging unsustainability Gap: A framework for sustainable development. Sustainable Development, v. 12, p.65-73.
Bresnahan, T. F.; Trajtenberg, M. (1995): General purposes technology: engines of growth? Journal of Econometrics, v. 65, pp. 83-108.
Carlaw, K. I.; Lipsey, R.G. (2002): Externalities, technological complementarities and sustainable economic growth. Research Policy, v. 31, pp. 1305-1315.
Carlaw, K; Lipsey, R. G.; Bekar, C. T. (2005): Economic transformations: general purpose technologies and long term economic growth. Oxford University Press.
Crandall, B.C. (1997): Nanotechnology. London: MIT Press.
Dosi, G. (1991): "Perspectives on evolutionary theory". Science and Public Policy, 18(6):353-61, dezembro.
Elsi. (2005): Benefits, risks, ethical, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology. 4 º Nanoforum Report.
ETC Group (2004): Down on the farm. The impact of nano-scale technologies on food and agriculture. Ottawa.
FINEP (2003): Editais. Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos. Available in http://www.finep.gov.br, researched in August, 1st.
Fishbine, G (2002): The investor's guide to nanotechnology and micromachines. Wiley Finance Series n.107, v.1.
Freeman, C. (1982): The economics of industrial innovation. The MIT press.
Freeman, C.; Perez, C. (1988): Structural crises of adjustment: business cycles and investment behavior. in: DOSI, G. et al. (eds.). Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter, London.
Furtado, C. (2001): Raízes do desenvolvimento. Rio de Janeiro, Civilização Brasileira.
Greaker, M. (2003): Strategic environmental policy; eco-dumping or a green strategy? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management. v. 45, p.692-707.
Kaiser, D. (2006): Notes toward a Nanotech Timeline. OSTI Working Paper 6-06-001.
Kingon, A. I.; Collins, M. J.; Gentry, S. T.; Bean, A. S.; Wolff, M. F. (2004): Corporate responses to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Research Technology Management. v. 47, pp. 6-8, May/June.
Lattes (2006): Lattes Cientific Curriculum Database. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico. Brasil, 2006. Available in: < http://buscatextual. cnpq.br/buscatextual /busca.do?metodo=apresentar>, researched in August 10.
Marques, L. F. M. (2008): Modelo de Análise Mutidimensional para Impactos de Novas Tecnologias: nanotecnologia, economia, sociedade e meio-ambiente. Doctoral dissertation. Escola de Administração, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
Martinet, A.; Reynaud, E. (2004):Stratégies d’Entreprise et Écologie. Paris: Econômica, 165p. NANOFORUM. 4th Nanoforum report: benefits, risks, ethical, legal and social aspects of nanotechnology. Nanoforum.org, June, 2004. Available in: http://www.ipcc.ch /ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm, on November, 3rd, 2008.
Nelson, R. R.; Winter, S. (1982): An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).
Nielsen, K. (2001): Institutionalist approaches in the social sciences: typology, dialogue, and future challenges. Journal of Economic Issues, 35, 2.
NIST (1999): Nanotechnology Research Directions: Vision for Nanotechnology R & D in the Next Decade. National Science and Technology Council, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, September.
Pavitt, K. (1992): “Some foundations for a theory of large innovating firm”. In: DOSI, G. et al. (Eds.). Technology and Enterprise in a Historical Perspective. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Perez, C. (1983): Structural change and assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social systems. Futures, 15, 357-375.
Perez, C. (2004): Finance and technical change: a neo-schumpeterian perspective. In: Hanusch, H.; Pyka, A. (eds.). The Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Roco, M.; Bainbridge, W. S. (2006): Nanotechnology: societal implications. Nanotoday, 493 p.
Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering (2004): Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Report of the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering Working Group.
Shellenberger, M; Nordhaus, T. The death of environmentalism: global warming politics in a post-environmental world, 36p. 2004. Available in: http:// www. thebreakthrough.org/images/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf - read in July 10, 2005.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934): The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.
Spangenberg, J. H (2004): Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators, policies. Sustainable Development. v.12, p.74-86.
Solow, R. M. (1957): Technical change and the aggregate production function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 3, pp. 312-320.
Tobin, J (1989): Policies for Prosperity: Essays in a Keynesian mode. 528 p.
Zawislak, P. A.; Andrade, A. M.; Larentis, F.; Machado, C. B. (2008): Inovação, Curva-S e as Ações da Firma: impressões e avanços a partir do setor de videogames no Japão. In: Proc. XXV Simpósio da Gestão da Inovação Tecnológica. Brasília.
Zawislak, P. A.; Marques, L. F. M.; Cruz, L. B. (2006): Nanotechnology and the need for a regulatory agenda: towards a broader approach for the technological paradigm leading concepts. In: Proceedings of 16 IAMOT, Pequim.
Zucker, L. G.; Darby, M. R. (2005): Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and Nanobank. NBER working paper series.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


In United States ex rel. Adams v. Aurora Loan Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 697771, — F.3d —- (9th Cir. Feb. 22, 2016), the Ninth Circuit found that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were not government entities for purposes of the False Claims Act. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit provided further clarity to the distinction between claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i) (claims presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the government) and claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii) (claims presented to entities that contract with the government and the government’s funds are used to advance a government program).
In Adams, the relator alleged that various lenders and loan servicers violated the FCA by making false certifications to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that certain loans were free and clear of liens and charges. The relator pursued its FCA claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i), contending that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be considered government officers, employees or agents. The relator focused solely on 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i), arguing that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were government agents because: (1) the Ninth Circuit had previously determined that these entities were federal instrumentalities for state/city tax purposes; and (2) these entities were subject to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) conservatorship. The relator—for reasons unexplainable to the Ninth Circuit—did not bring claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii) or otherwise allege that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac received and used money from the government to advance a government program.
In rejecting the relator’s arguments, the Ninth Circuit explained that although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are chartered by the federal government, they are still private companies. The Ninth Circuit reasoned further that “just because an entity is considered a federal instrumentality for one purpose does not mean that the same entity is a federal instrumentality for another purpose.” The Court also found that the relator’s conservatorship argument was faulty, explaining that the conservatorship did not provide the FHFA with the authority to control Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it simply gave the FHFA the same rights and duties as these entities.
The Ninth Circuit declined to express an opinion on whether the relator could have stated a claim under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii); however, it did note that the trial court “was mistaken” in ruling that claims made to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could never constitute claims under the FCA, stating that “[a] properly pled claim under § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii) could give rise to FCA liability” if pled properly. Adams serves to benefit the FCA defense bar as it provides a strong explanation of the distinction between claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(i) and claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(2)(A)(ii) and underscores the importance of properly establishing the government’s relationship to the purportedly fraudulent activity.


Argued January 13, 14, 1903.
Messrs. Ansley Wilcox and Arthur Von Briesen, and Messrs. Wilcox & Miner for plaintiffs in error.
 Messrs. Edmund W. Kittredge and Joseph Wilby for defendant in error.
This case comes here from the United States circuit court of appeals for the sixth circuit by writ of error. Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 828, shap. 517, § 6, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 549, 550). It is an action brought by the plaintiffs in error to recover the penalties prescribed for infringements of copyrights. Rev. Stat. §§ 4952, 4956, 4965 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 3406, 3407, 3414), amended by act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. at L. 1109, chap. 565), and act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat. at L. 965, chap. 194). The alleged infringements consisted in the copying in reduced form of three chromolithographs prepared by employees of the plaintiffs for advertisements of a circus owned by one Wallace. Each of the three contained a portrait of Wallace in the corner, and lettering bearing some slight relation to the scheme of decoration, indicating the subject of the design and the fact that the reality was to be seen at the circus. One of the designs was of an ordinary ballet, one of a number of men and women, described as the Stirk family, performing on bicycles, and one of groups of men and women whitened to represent statues. The circuit court directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the chromolithographs were not within the protection of the copyright law, and this ruling was sustained by the circuit court of appeals. Courier Lithographing Co. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. 44 C. C. A. 296, 104 Fed. 993.
There was evidence warranting the inference that the designs belonged to the plaintiffs, they having been produced by persons employed and paid by the plaintiffs in their establishment to make those very things. Gill v. United States, 160 U. S. 426,  435, 40 L. ed. 480, 483, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 322; Colliery Engineer Co. v. United Correspondence Schools Co. 94 Fed. 152; Carte v. Evans, 27 Fed. 861. It fairly might be found, also, that the copyrights were taken out in the proper names. One of them was taken out in the name of the Courier Company and the other two in the name of the Courier Lithographing Company. The former was the name of an unincorporated joint-stock association formed under the laws of New York (Laws of 1894, chap. 235), and made up of the plaintiffs, the other a trade variant on that name. Scribner v. Clark, 50 Fed. 473, 474, 475, S. C., sub nom. Belford, C. & Co. v. Scribner 144 U. S. 488, 36 L. ed. 514, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 734.
Finally, there was evidence that the pietures were copyrighted before publication. There may be a question whether the use by the defendant for Wallace was not lawful within the terms of the contract with Wallace, or a more general one as to what rights the plaintiff reserved. But we cannot pass upon these questions as matter of law; they will be for the jury when the case is tried again, and therefore we come at once to the ground of decision in the courts below. That ground was not found in any variance between pleading and proof, such as was put forward in argument, but in the nature and purpose of the designs.
We shall do no more than mention the suggestion that painting and engraving, unless for a mechanical end, are not among the useful arts, the progress of which Congress is empowered by the Constitution to promote. The Constitution does not limit the useful to that which satisfies immediate bodily needs. Burrow-Giles Lithographing Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 28 L. ed. 349, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 279. It is obvious also that the plaintiff's case is not affected by the fact, if it be one, that the pictures represent actual groups,—visible things. They seem from the testimony to have been composed from hints or description, not from sight of a performance. But even if they had been drawn from the life, that fact would not deprive them of protection. The opposite proposition would mean that a portrait by Velasquez or Whistler was common property because others might try their hand on the same face. Others are free to copy the original. They are not free to copy the copy. Blunt v. Patten, 2 Paise, 397, 400, Fed. Cas. No. 1,580. See Kelly v.  Morris copy is the personal reaction of an individual upon nature. Personality always contains something unique. It expresses its singularity even in handwriting, and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man's alone. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act.
If there is a restriction it is not to be found in the limited pretensions of these particular works. The least pretentious picture has more originality in it than directories and the like, which may be copyrighted. Drone, Copyright, 153. See Henderson v. Tompkins, 60 Fed. 758, 765. The amount of training required for humbler efforts than those before us is well indicated by Ruskin. 'If any young person, after being taught what is, in polite circles, called 'drawing,' will try to copy the commonest piece of real work,—suppose a lithograph on the title page of a new opera air, or a woodcut in the cheapest illustrated newspaper of the day,—they will find themselves entirely beaten.' Elements of Drawing, first ed. 3. There is no reason to doubt that these prints in their ensemble and in all their details, in their design and particular combinations of figures, lines, and colors, are the original work of the plaintiffs' designer. If it be necessary, there is express testimony to that effect. It would be pressing the defendant's right to the verge, if not beyond, to leave the question of originality to the jury upon the evidence in this case, as was done in Hegeman v. Springer, 49 C. C. A. 86, 110 Fed. 374.
We assume that the construction of Rev. Stat. § 4952 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3406), allowing a copyright to the 'author, designer, or proprietor . . . of any engraving, cut, print . . . [or] chromo' is affected by the act of 1874 (18 Stat. at L. 78, 79, chap. 301, § 3, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3412). That section provides that, 'in the construction of this act, the words 'engraving,' 'cut,' and 'print' shall be applied only to pictorial illustrations or works connected with the fine arts.' We see no reason for taking the words 'connected with the fine arts' as qualifying anything except the word 'works,' but it would not change our decision if we should assume further that they also qualified 'pictorial illustrations,' as the defendant contends.
 These chromolithographs are 'pictorial illustrations.' The word 'illustrations' does not mean that they must illustrate the text of a book, and that the etchings of Rembrandt or Muller's engraving of the Madonna di San Sisto could not be protected today if any man were able to produce them. Again, the act, however construed, does not mean that ordinary posters are not good enough to be considered within its scope. The antithesis to 'illustrations or works connected with the fine arts' is not works of little merit or of humble degree, or illustrations addressed to the less educated classes; it is 'prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture.' Certainly works are not the less connected with the fine arts because their pictorial quality attracts the crowd, and therefore gives them a real use, if use means to increase trade and to help to make money. A picture is none the less a picture, and none the less a subject of copyright, that it is used for an advertisement. And if pictures may be used to advertise soap, or the theatre, or monthly magazines, as they are, they may be used to advertise a circus. Of course, the ballet is as legitimate a subject for illustration as any other. A rule cannot be laid down that would excommunicate the paintings of Degas.
Finally, the special adaptation of these pictures to the advertisement of the Wallace shows does not prevent a copyright. That may be a circumstance for the jury to consider in determining the extent of Mr. Wallace's rights, but it is not a bar. Moreover, on the evidence, such prints are used by less pretentious exhibitions when those for whom they were prepared have given them up.
It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the worth of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme, some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke. It may be more than doubted, for instance, whether the etchings of Goya or the paintings of Manet would have been sure of protection when seen for the first time. At the other end, copyright would be denied to  pictures which appealed to a public less educated than the judge. Yet if they command the interest of any public, they have a commercial value,—it would be bold to say that they have not an aesthetic and educational value,—and the taste of any public is not to be treated with contempt. It is an ultimate fact for the moment, whatever may be our hopes for a change. That these pictures had their worth and their success is sufficiently shown by the desire to reproduce them without regard to the plaintiffs' rights. See Henderson v. Tompkins, 60 Fed. 758, 765. We are of opinion that there was evidence that the plaintiffs have rights entitled to the protection of the law.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the Circuit Court is also reversed and the cause remanded to that court with directions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial.
Judges Lurton, Day, and Severens, of the circuit court of appeals, concurred in affirming the judgment of the district court. Their views were thus expressed in an opinion delivered by Judge Lurton: 'What we hold is this: That if a chromo, lithograph, or other print, engraving, or picture has no other use than that of a mere advertisement, and no value aside from this function, it would not be promotive of the useful arts, within the meaning of the constitutional provision, to protect the 'author' in the exclusive use thereof, and the copyright statute should not be construed as including such a publication, if any other construction is admissible. If a mere label simply designating or describing an article to which it is attached, and which has no value separated from the article, does not come within the constitutional clause upon the subject of copyright, it must follow that a pictorial illustration designed and useful only as an advertisement, and having no intrinsic value other than its function as an advertisement, must be equally without the obvious meaning of the Constitution.  It must have some connection with the fine arts to give it intrinsic value, and that it shall have is the meaning which we attach to the act of June 18, 1874 (18 Stat. at L. 78, chap. 301, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3411), amending the provisions of the copyright law. We are unable to discover anything useful or meritorious in the design copyrighted by the plaintiffs in error other than as an advertisement of acts to be done or exhibited to the public in Wallace's show. No evidence, aside from the deductions which are to be drawn from the prints themselves, was offered to show that these designs had any original artistic qualities. The jury could not reasonably have found merit or value aside from the purely business object of advertising a show, and the instruction to find for the defendant was not error. Many other points have been urged as justifying the result reached in the court below. We find it unnecessary to express any opinion upon them, in view of the conclusion already announced. The judgment must be affirmed.' Courier Lithographing Co. v. Donaldson Lithographing Co. 44 C. C. A. 296, 104 Fed. 993, 996.
I entirely concur in these views, and therefore dissent from the opinion and judgment of this court. The clause of the Constitution giving Congress power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited terms to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective works and discoveries, does not, as I think, embrace a mere advertisement of a circus.
Mr. Justice McKenna authorizes me to say that he also dissents.
Original Item: "Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.,"