For nanotechnology decisions, use decision analysis
Source abstract
Abstract
Summary Management of nanotechnology is rife with complicated, contentious, and risky decisions. These decisions involve significant uncertainty, multiple stakeholder groups, competing objectives, and dynamic, non-linear interdependencies which test the limits of unaided human judgment. In the past, formal methods of risk analysis have been used to evaluate new technologies, but these methods ignore decision-relevant qualitative information and rely on a volume of quantitative engineering and scientific data that simply does not exist for many nanomaterials. Yet, we know that robust production decisions need to be holistic and based on all available information if we are to minimize negative externalities to society, human health, and the environment. We discuss how the use of decision analytical methods such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis and value of information analysis can help to fill existing gaps in nanomaterial risk management to make the best use of all available qualitative and quantitative information and prioritize future research based on expected decision relevance. This will help nanoparticle scientists and manufacturers to better develop and identify optimal materials and production methods in the midst of high uncertainty.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Multi-Criteria Decision Making · Sustainable Supply Chain Management · Technology Assessment and Management
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (24)
Show source-provided references
1. Lux Research, Sizing Nanotechnology's Value Chain, Lux Research Framework Report, New York, 2004.
2. Lux Research, Overhyped Technology Starts to Reach Potential: Nanotech to Impact $3.1 Trillion in Manufactured Goods in 2015, Lux Research Report, New York, 2008.
3. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Improved performance information needed for environmental, health, and safety research, GAO-12-427. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-427, 2012 (accessed 29.06.12).
4. Mohan · Environ. Sci. Technol. · 2012 · 46 · 795510.1021/es3003266 ↗
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nanomaterial Research Strategy, Washington, DC. http://www.epa.gov/nanoscience/files/nanotech_research_strategy_final.pdf, 2009 (accessed 29.06.12).
6. U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy, Washington, DC. http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_2011_ehs_research_strategy.pdf, 2011 (accessed 29.06.12).
7. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Emerging Risks in the 21st Century: An Agenda for Action, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/23/37944611.pdf, 2003 (accessed 29.06.12).
8. European Commission, Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nano_com_en_new.pdf, 2004 (accessed 29.06.12).
9. European Commission, Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: An Action Plan for Europe 2005–2009, Second Implementation Report 2007–2009, Brussles, 2009.
10. National Research Council · 2009
11. Landry · Public Adm. Rev. · 2003 · 63 · 19210.1111/1540-6210.00279 ↗
12. Hammond · Harv. Bus. Rev. · 1998 · 76 · 47
13. Linkov · Risk Anal. · 2012 · 32 · 37410.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01683.x ↗
14. National Research Council · 1996
15. National Research Council · 2009
16. Raiffa · 1961
17. Linkov · 2012
18. Linkov · Nat. Nanotechnol. · 2011 · 6 · 78410.1038/nnano.2011.163 ↗
19. Keeney · 1993
20. Tervonen · J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. · 2008 · 15 · 109910.1002/mcda.407 ↗
21. Tylock · Energy Policy · 2012 · 47 · 15610.1016/j.enpol.2012.04.040 ↗
22. Howard · IEEE Trans. Syst. Sci. Cybern. · 1966 · 1 · 2210.1109/TSSC.1966.300074 ↗
23. Seager · J. Ind. Ecol. · 2008 · 12 · 28210.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00048.x ↗
24. Keeney · 1992