Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance
Source abstract
Abstract
After identifying the main characteristics and prospects of nanotechnology as an emerging technology, the paper presents the general risks associated with nanotechnology applications and the deficits of the risk governance process today, concluding with recommendations to governments, industry, international organizations and other stakeholders. The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) has identified a governance gap between the requirements pertaining to the nano- rather than the micro-/macro- technologies. The novel attributes of nanotechnology demand different routes for risk-benefit assessment and risk management, and at present, nanotechnology innovation proceeds ahead of the policy and regulatory environment. In the shorter term, the governance gap is significant for those passive nanostructures that are currently in production and have high exposure rates; and is especially significant for the several ‘active’ nanoscale structures and nanosystems that we can expect to be on the market in the near future. Active nanoscale structures and nanosystems have the potential to affect not only human health and the environment but also aspects of social lifestyle, human identity and cultural values. The main recommendations of the report deal with selected higher risk nanotechnology applications, short- and long-term issues, and global models for nanotechnology governance.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) (2001). Crops on Trial. AEBC, London
2. Altmann J., 2006. Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control. ISBN 0-415-37102-3, November 2005, Routledge, London/New York. http://www.ep3.rub.de/bvp/milntpac.html.
3. Amy D.J. (1983). Environmental mediation: an alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sci. 15: 345–36510.1007/BF00146007 ↗
4. Applegate J. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: the use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decision making. Indiana Law J. 73: 903
5. Armour A. (1995). The citizen‘s Jury model of public participation. In: Renn O., Webler T. and Wiedemann P. (eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Springer (formerly Kluwer), Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 175–18810.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_9 ↗
6. Arnall A., 2003. Future technologies, Today’s choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics; a technical, political and institutional map of emerging technologies (report for the Greenpeace Environmental Trust), Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of London.
7. Bainbridge W.S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology, J. Nanopart. Res. 4(6): 561–57010.1023/A:1022805516652 ↗
8. Baumgartner W., B. Jäckli, B. Schmithüsen & F. Weber, 2003. “Nanotechnologie in der Medizin” Studie des Schweizerischen Zentrums für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, TA 47/2003
9. Better Regulation Task Force (2003). Scientific Research: Innovation with Controls. London, Cabinet Office
10. Boholm A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J. Risk Res. 1(2): 135–16310.1080/136698798377231 ↗
11. Burke D., 2003. This will be like no other debate. Times Higher Education Supplement, 21 March 2003
12. Cobb M.D. and Macoubrie J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. Springer 6(4): 395–40510.1007/s11051-004-3394-4 ↗
13. Coglianese C. and Lazer D. (2003). Management-based regulation: prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law Society 37: 691–73010.1046/j.0023-9216.2003.03703001.x ↗
14. Collaborative Board for Advancing Nanotechnology between NNI and industry (CBAN). 2006. Joint NNI-ChI CBAN and SRC CWG5 Nanotechnology EHS Research Needs Recommendations. Washington, D.C., January 20, 2006, 18 pp
15. Collins H.M. and Evans R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 32(2): 235–29610.1177/0306312702032002003 ↗
16. Colvin V.L. (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat. Biotechnol. 21(10): 1166–117010.1038/nbt875 ↗
17. Crichton M. (2002). Prey. London, Harper Collins
18. Department of Trade and Industry/Office of Science Technology (DTI: 2002). New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology. London, DTI/OST
19. Dienel P.C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technological projects. In: Vlek C. and Cvetkovich G. (eds), Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 133–15110.1007/978-94-009-2425-3_8 ↗
20. Durant J. and Joss S. (1995) Public Participation in Science. Science Museum, London
21. EC (2004). Converging Technologies – Shaping the Future of European Societies. Alfred Nordmann – Rapporteur, Bruxelles
22. Environmental Defense, 2005. Getting Nanotechnology Right the First Time, in the National Academy of Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology, summer 2005, pp. 65–71.
23. ETC Group, 2003. The Big Down: From Genomes to atoms. ETC Group
24. ETC Group, 2005. The Potential Impact of Nanoscale Technologies on Commodity Markets: The Implications for Commodity Dependent Developing Countries, ETC Group – South Center.
25. Fiorino D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 15(2): 226–24310.1177/016224399001500204 ↗
26. Fogelberg H. & H. Glimell, 2003. Bringing Visibility to the Invisible. STS Research Reports, 6. http://www.sts.gu.se/publications/STS_report_6.pdf.
27. Funtowicz S. and Ravetz J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–75510.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L ↗
28. Garud R., Ahlstrom D. (1997). Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 14: 25–4810.1016/S0923-4748(97)00005-2 ↗
29. Gaskell G., Allum N., Wagner W., Kronberger N., Torgersen H., Hampel J. and Bardes J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24(1): 185–19410.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00421.x ↗
30. Goodwin P. and Wright G. (2004). Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. Wiley, London
31. Graham J.D. and Wiener J.B. (1995). Risk vs. Risk. Harvard University Press, Cambridge10.4159/9780674037878 ↗
32. Goorden L., 2003. Finding a balance between Technological Innovation and Deliberation: Lessons from Belgian Public Forums on Biotechnology, paper prepared for the session New Forms of Citizen Participation in Technology Policy: European perspectives at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, USA, August 28–31, 2003.
33. Gregory R., McDaniels T., Fields D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: a new perspective for environmental negotiation. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 20(3): 415–43210.1002/pam.1001 ↗
34. Grin J. et al. (1997). Interactive Technology Assessment: een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag
35. Grin J. and Grunwald A. (eds) (1999). Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Springer, Berlin
36. Grin J., 2004. De politiek van omwenteling met beleid. Rede, vrijdag 16 april 2004, Universiteit Amsterdam.10.5117/9789056293741 ↗
37. Grove-White R., Macnaghten P. and Wynne B. (2000). Wising up: The public and new technology. CSEC, Lancaster
38. Hammond J., Keeney R. and Raiffa H. (1999). Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge
39. Hampel J., Klinke A. and Renn O. (2000). Beyond ‘red’ hope and ‘green’ distrust, public perception of genetic engineering in germany. Politeia 16(60): 68–82
40. Hanssen L. and van Est R. (2004). De dubbele boodschap van nanotechnologie. Een onderzoek naar opkomende publiekspercepties. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag
41. Health and Safety Executive (eds.) (HSE: 2004) Health effects of particles produced for nanotechnologies. EH75/6 December 2004, Health and Safety Executive, Great Britain
42. Hett A. (2004) Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns. Risk Perception Series, Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich, Switzerland
43. Huang Z., Chen H., Roco M.C. (2004). Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering in 2003: country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J. Nanopart. Res. 6(4): 325–35410.1007/s11051-004-4117-6 ↗
44. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC: 2005). White Paper on Risk Governance. IRGC, Geneva
45. Johansson M. (2003). Plenty of room at the bottom: towards an anthropology of nanoscience. Anthropol. Today 19(6): 3–610.1111/j.0268-540X.2003.00228.x ↗
46. Jopp K. (2003). Nanotechnologie – Aufbruch ins Reich der Zwerge. Gabler, Wiesbaden10.1007/978-3-663-10873-3 ↗
47. Joy B., 2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(4), April 2004, pp. 1–11 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
48. Keeney R. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
49. Kom-passion Group – Germany, 2005. http://www.komm- passion.de/index.php?id=648&no_cache=1&sword_list[]= nanotechnologie
50. Löfstedt R.E., 1997. Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems. Working Paper No. 92, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Stuttgart
51. Lundgren R.E. (1994). Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Battelle Press, Columbus/Ohio
52. Lyall C. and Tait J. (2005). Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. In: Lyall C. and Tait J. (eds), New Modes of Governance, Developing an Integrated Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, pp. 1–17
53. Macoubrie J. (2005). Informed Public Perception on Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, New York
54. Maynard A.D. and Kuempel E.D. (2005). Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6): 587–61410.1007/s11051-005-6770-9 ↗
55. Meridian Institute, 2004. Summary of the International Dialogue for Responsible R&D of Nanotechnology. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. (www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/nano/dialog.htm)
56. Morgan K.(2005). Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal. 25(6): 1621–163510.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00681.x ↗
57. Morgan M.G. (1990). Choosing and Managing Technology-Induced Risk. In: Glickman T.S. and Gough M. (eds), Readings in Risk. Resources for the Future, Washington, pp. 17–28
58. Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A. and Atman C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, Boston and New York
59. Morgan M.G. and Henrion M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge10.1017/CBO9780511840609 ↗
60. Nano Frontiers, 2006. Frontiers in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Report from workshop held on Feb. 9–10, 2006, sponsored by National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., U.S
61. National Toxicology Program, 2005. Various documents published on the website: http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm.
62. Nature, 2003. Nanotech is not so scary. Nature 421(6921), 29910.1038/421299a ↗
63. Oberdörster G., Sharp Z., Atudorei V., Elder A., Gelein R., Kreyling W. (2004). Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhal. Toxicol. 16(6–7), June 2004: 437–44510.1080/08958370490439597 ↗
64. Oberdörster G., Oberdörster E., Oberdörster J. (2005). Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2005, 113(7): 823–83910.1289/ehp.7339 ↗
65. OECD (2002). Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management. OECD, Paris10.1787/6954d334-en ↗
66. Oliver J., 2003. Charles: ‘Grey Goo’ Threat to the World, The Mail on Sunday, 27 April, 2003
67. Perritt H.H. (1986). Negotiated rulemaking in practice. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 5 (Spring 1986): 482–49510.2307/3323257 ↗
68. Porritt J., 2003. Big questions now loom over the world’s smallest technologies. And the sooner we get to grips with them, the better it will be for all of us. The Mail on Sunday, 27 April, 2003
69. Ravetz J. (1999). What is Post-Normal Science?. Futures 31(7): 647–65310.1016/S0016-3287(99)00024-5 ↗
70. Rejeski D., 2005. Keynote speech at the EPA Grantees Conference. Washington, D.C., October 2005.
71. Renn O. (2004a). Perception of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 29(1): 102–11410.1111/j.1468-0440.2004.00275.x ↗
72. Renn O. (2004b). The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In: MacDaniels T.L. and Small M.J. (eds), Risk Analysis and Society An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, pp. 289–366
73. Rip A., 2002. Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society, expert review for the Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung’s Förderinitiatieve, Politik Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Twente University, Enschede.
74. Rip A., 2004a. Constructive Technology Assessment of Nanotechnology, 15 April 2004, University of Twente
75. Rip A., 2004b. Articulating Images, Attitudes and Views of Nanotechnology: Enactors and comparative Selectors, 14 April 2004, University of Twente
76. RISKO (2000). Mitteilungen für Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt: Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken. Bulletin 3, June 2000 : 2–3
77. Robichaud C.O., Tanzil D., Weilenmann U. And Wiesner M.R. (2005). Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ. Science Technol. 39(22): 8985–899410.1021/es0506509 ↗
78. Roco M.C. (2001). International strategy for nanotechnology research. J. Nanopart. Res. 3(5–6): 353–36010.1023/A:1013248621015 ↗
79. Roco M.C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5(3–4): 181–18910.1023/A:1025548512438 ↗
80. Roco M.C. (2004a). Nanoscale Science and Engineering: Unifying and Transforming Tools. AIChE J. 50(5): 890–89710.1002/aic.10087 ↗
81. Roco M.C., 2004b. Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology. In: Karn and Zhang eds. Special issue of Environmental Science and Technology, American Chemical␣Society. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag-a/2005/39/i05/pdf/030105feature_roco.pdf.10.1021/es053199u ↗
82. Roco M.C. (2005a). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6): 707–71210.1007/s11051-005-3141-5 ↗
83. Roco M.C. (2005b). The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(2–3): 129–14310.1007/s11051-005-3733-0 ↗
84. Roco, M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, NSET Workshop report, March 2001, Virginia; based on National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop in September 2000, Springer (formerly Kluwer): Dordrecht.10.1007/978-94-017-3012-9 ↗
85. Roco M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2003. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, NSF-DOC Report, June 2002, Virginia; based on National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop in December 2001, Springer (formerly Kluwer): Dordrecht10.1007/978-94-017-0359-8 ↗
86. Roco, M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2005. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology – Improving Benefits to Humanity (NSET and National Science Foundation) Arlington, Virginia; on the website www.nano.gov (also published by Springer, 2005).
87. Roco M.C. and Litten E. (2005). Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: (I) The Role of Government. IRGC, Geneva
88. Roco M.C. & R. Tomellini, (eds.) 2002. Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications, 3rd joint EC-NSF workshop on Nanotechnology, Lecce (Italy), 31 Jan–1 Feb. 2002, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.10.1007/978-94-017-3012-9_2 ↗
89. Rowe G., Frewer L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Human Values 25(1): 3–2910.1177/016224390002500101 ↗
90. Roxburgh C., 2003. Hidden Flaws in Strategy, McKinsey Quarterly No. 2.
91. Siegel R.W., E. Hu & M.C. Roco, (eds.) 1999. Nanostructure Science and Technology, Springer (former Kluwer Academic Publishers): Dordrecht, Netherlands (also available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/).
92. Slovic P. (1992). Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In: Krimsky S., Golding D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport CT, pp. 117–152
93. Small Times, 2005. Survey of nanotechnology companies and products (personal communication)
94. Spinardi G. and Williams R. (2005). The governance challenge of breakthrough science and technology. In: Lyall C. and Tait J. (eds), New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 45–66
95. Sweeney A.E., Seal S. and Vaidyanathan P. (2003). The promises and perils of nanoscience and nanotechnology: exploring emerging social and ethical issues. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 23(4): 236–24510.1177/0270467603256078 ↗
96. Tait J. (2001). More faust than frankenstein: the European debate about risk regulation for genetically modified crops. J. Risk Res. 4(2): 175–18910.1080/13669870010027640 ↗
97. Tait, J., 2005. Private communication
98. Tait J. and Williams R. (1999). Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness. Sci. Public Policy 26(2): 101–11210.3152/147154399781782536 ↗
99. Tegart G. et al. (2001). Nanotechnology: The technology for the 21st Century. APEC, Center for Technology Foresight, Bangkok, Thailand
100. Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–45810.1126/science.7455683 ↗