Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology
Source abstract
Abstract
Federal oversight of nanobiotechnology in the U.S. has been fragmented and incremental. The prevailing approach has been to use existing laws and other administrative mechanisms for oversight. However, this “stay-the-course” approach will be inadequate for such a complex and convergent technology and may indeed undermine its promise. The technology demands a new, more dynamic approach to oversight. The authors are proposing a new oversight framework with three essential features: (a) the oversight trajectory needs to be able to move dynamically between “soft” and “hard” approaches as information and nano-products evolve; (b) it needs to integrate inputs from all stakeholders, with strong public engagement in decision-making to assure adequate analysis and transparency; and (c) it should include an overarching coordinating entity to assure strong inter-agency coordination and communication that can meet the challenge posed by the convergent nature of nanobiotechnology. The proposed framework arises from a detailed case analysis of several key oversight regimes relevant to nanobiotechnology and is informed by inputs from experts in academia, industry, NGOs, and government.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Research, Science, and Academia
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (96)
Show source-provided references
1. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. 15 U.S.C. § 7501 (2003)
2. Abbott KW, Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ (2006) A framework convention for nanotechnology? Environ Law Reporter 36:10931–10942
3. Alexander LT (2009) Stakeholder participation in new governance: lessons from Chicago’s public housing reform experiment. Georgetown J Poverty Law Policy 16:117–185
4. Beckstrom M (2010) The chemical revolt. Pioneer Press. Feb. 7, 2010
5. Birnbaum LS (2010) TSCA reform under way in congress. Environ Health Perspect 118:a106–a107. doi: 10.1289/ehp.100191710.1289/ehp.1001917 ↗
6. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38(9):1060–107310.1016/j.futures.2006.02.017 ↗
7. Breggin LK, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Environ Law 31:286–329
8. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) (2009) Many experts, many audiences: public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/public_engagement_with_science.pdf . Accessed 29 November 2010
9. Choi J, Ramachandran G (2009) Review of the OSHA framework for oversight of occupational environments. J Law Med Ethics 37:633–65010.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00437.x ↗
10. Choi J, Ramachandran G, Kandlikar M (2009) The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environ Sci Technol 43:3030–303410.1021/es802388s ↗
11. Collins FS, Gray GM, Bucher JR (2008) Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319:906–90710.1126/science.1154619 ↗
12. Crutchfield SR, Buzby JC, Roberts T, Ollinger M, Lin CTJ (1997) An economic assessment of food safety regulations: the new approach to meat and poultry inspection. Economic Research Service/USDA
13. Davies JC (2007) EPA and nanotechnology: oversight for the 21st century. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC
14. Davies JC (2009) Oversight of next generation nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC
15. Dryzek JS, Tucker A (2008) Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Admin Rev 68:864–87610.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00928.x ↗
16. DuPont, Environmental Defense (2007) Nano-risk framework. DuPont/Environmental Defense, Washington, DC
17. Engel-Cox JA, Van Houten B, Phelps J, Rose SW (2008) Conceptual model of comprehensive research metrics for improved human health and environment. Environ Health Perspect 116:583–59210.1289/ehp.10925 ↗
18. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register 63:26846–26924
19. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009a) Certain chemical substances; withdrawal of significant new use rules. Federal Register 40:42177–42178
20. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009b) Proposed new rules on certain chemical substances. Federal Register 40:6160–6161
21. ETC Group (2003) No small matter II: the case for a global moratorium. Occasional Paper Series 7(1). ETC Group, Ottawa
22. European Commission (2006) EC 1907/2006 REACH: what is reach? http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm . Accessed 29 November 2010
23. FDA Nanotechnology Task Force (2007) Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC
24. Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Pub. L. 3913, 34 Stat. 674
25. Federal Plant Pest Act. 7 U.S.C §§ 150aa-150jj (1957) as amended 1968, 1981, 1983, 1988, and 1994
26. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 15:226–24310.1177/016224399001500204 ↗
27. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2009) Chemical regulation: observations on improving the toxic substances control act. GAO-10-292T, Dec. 2, 2009
28. Greenwood M (2007) Thinking big about things small: creating and effective oversight system for nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC
29. Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DC
30. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–10910.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1 ↗
31. Guthrie DM (2003) Engaged governance: an institutional approach to government-civil society engagement. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan013171.pdf . Accessed 29 November 2010
32. Hamlett P, Cobb MD, Guston DH (2008) National citizens’ technology forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement. CNS-ASU Report #R08-0003
33. Hendriks CM, Grin J (2006) Ground reflexive governance in practice and context: some democratic considerations. http://www.sozial-oekologische-forschung.org/_media/Hendriks_Grin.pdf . Accessed 29 November 2010
34. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, London
35. Howard J, Murashov V (2009a) Essential features for proactive risk management. Nat Nanotechnol 4:467–47010.1038/nnano.2009.205 ↗
36. Howard J, Murashov V (2009b) National nanotechnology partnership to protect workers. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1673–168310.1007/s11051-009-9682-2 ↗
37. Inside EPA (2009) EPA poised to propose new reporting rules for nanomaterials. Dec. 25, 2009
38. International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) (2008) Citizen petition for rulemaking to the United States environmental protection agency. International Center for Technology Assessment, Washington, DC
39. International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), Friends of the Earth (FOE) (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. International Center for Technology Assessment, Washington, DC
40. Kandlikar M, Ramachandran G, Maynard AD, Murdock B, Toscano WA (2007) Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: a case for using expert judgment. J Nanoparticle Res 9:137–15610.1007/s11051-006-9154-x ↗
41. Karkkainen BC (2005) Panarchy and adaptive change: around the loop and back again. Minnesota J Law Sci Technol 7:59–77
42. Karkkainen BC (2006) Information-forcing environmental regulation. Fla State Univ Law Rev 33:861–902
43. Keiner S (2008) Room at the bottom? Potential state and local strategies for managing the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechonologies, Washington, DC
44. Kuzma J (2006) Nanotechnology oversight: just do it. Environ Law Reporter 36:10913–10923
45. Kuzma J, VerHage P (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food protection. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC
46. Kuzma J, Romanchek J, Kokotovich A (2008) Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology. Risk Anal 28:1081–109810.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x ↗
47. Kuzma J, Larson J, Najmaie P (2009) Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: a case study for genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:546–58610.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00431.x ↗
48. Kysar DA (2004) Preferences for processes: the process/product distinction and the regulation of consumer choice. Harvard Law Rev 118:525–64210.2307/4093392 ↗
49. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Ferguson E, Pleus RC (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J Nanoparticle Res 9:543–55410.1007/s11051-007-9211-0 ↗
50. Lux Research (2007) The nanotech report, 5th edn. Lux Research Inc., New York
51. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perception of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC
52. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Understanding Sci 15:221–24110.1177/0963662506056993 ↗
53. Mandel GN (2009) Regulating emerging technologies. Law Innovation Technol 1:75–9210.1080/17579961.2009.11428365 ↗
54. Marchant GE, Sylvester D (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34:714–72510.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00091.x ↗
55. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:43–6010.1007/s11569-008-0028-9 ↗
56. Maynard AD (2006) Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 51:1–1210.1093/annhyg/mel071 ↗
57. Meaney ME (2006) Lessons from the sustainability movement: toward an integrative decision-making framework for nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):682–68810.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00087.x ↗
58. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2010) Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget, Report prepared by National Science and Technology Council Committee of Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, February 2010
59. National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009. S.1482 §§ 6, 8, 11
60. National Research Council (NRC) (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
61. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
62. National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Evaluating research efficiency in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Academies Press, Washington, DC
63. Neo BS, Chen G (2007) Dynamic governance: embedding culture, capabilities and change in Singapore. World Scientific, New Jersey10.1142/9789812771919 ↗
64. Office of Management, Budget (OMB) (2009) Federal Register 74:8819
65. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (1986) Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Federal Register 51:23302–23393
66. Office of Science, Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (2001) CEQ and OSTP assessment: case studies of environmental regulations for biotechnology. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC
67. Office of Science, Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (2008) OSTP 2.0 critical upgrade enhanced capacity for White House science and technology policymaking: recommendations for the next president. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC
68. Olsen JP (2004) Citizens, public administration and the search for theoretical foundations. Polit Sci Polit 37:69–7910.1017/S1049096504003786 ↗
69. Paradise J, Wolf SM, Ramachandran G, Kokkoli E, Hall R, Kuzma J (2008) Developing oversight frameworks for nanobiotechnology. Minnesota J Law Sci Technol 9:399–416
70. Paradise J, Tisdale AW, Hall R, Kokkoli E (2009a) Evaluating oversight of human drugs and medical devices: a case study of the FDA and implications for nanobiotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 37:598–62410.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00434.x ↗
71. Paradise J, Wolf SM, Kuzma J, Kuzhabekova A, Tisdale AW, Kokkoli E, Ramachandran G (2009b) Developing U.S. oversight strategies for nanobiotechnology: learning from past oversight experiences. J Law Med Ethics 37:688–70510.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00441.x ↗
72. Philbrick M, Barandiaran J (2009) The national citizens’ technology forum: lessons for the future. Sci Public Policy 36:335–34710.3152/030234209X442052 ↗
73. Powell MC, Kleinman DL (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Underst Sci 17:329–34810.1177/0963662506068000 ↗
74. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2007) Nanotechnology and life cycle assessment: A systems approach to nanotechnology and the environment. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC
75. Roco MC (2008) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 10:11–2910.1007/s11051-007-9269-8 ↗
76. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2008) Developments in public participation in nanotechnology: towards sustainability. J Cleaner Prod 16:1010–101310.1016/j.jclepro.2007.04.013 ↗
77. Scholz JT, Stiftel B (eds) (2005) Adaptive governance and water conflict. Resources for the Future Press, London
78. Schot J, Rip A (1996) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54:251–26810.1016/S0040-1625(96)00180-1 ↗
79. Shatkin J (2008) Nanotechnology health and environmental risks. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FL10.1201/9781420053647 ↗
80. Shaw SY, Westly EC, Pittet MJ, Subramanian A, Schreiber SL, Weissleder R (2008) Perturbational profiling of nanomaterial biologic activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:7387–739210.1073/pnas.0802878105 ↗
81. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–20310.1111/0272-4332.202020 ↗
82. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–6910.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x ↗
83. Slovic P (1987) Perceptions of risk. Science 236:280–28510.1126/science.3563507 ↗
84. States’ Principles on Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, December 2, 2009, at http://www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/States%27_TSCA_Principles_TSCA_Reform_Principles_Signatures_FInal.pdf
85. Subramanian V, Youtie J, Porter AL, Shapira P (2010) Is there a shift to “Active” nanostructures? J Nanoparticle Res 12:1–1010.1007/s11051-009-9729-4 ↗
86. Sunstein CR (2005) Group judgments: statistical means, deliberation, and information markets. New York University Law Rev 80:962–1049
87. Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science: the shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Reports 10:S18–S2210.1038/embor.2009.138 ↗
88. Tikhomorov A (2005) Engage governance and public policy during transition to a market economy. http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Tikhomirov-Alexei-final.pdf . Accessed 29 November 2010
89. USDA-FSIS (1998) Preliminary pathways and data for a risk assessment of E. coli O157:H7 in beef. USDA-FSIS, Washington, DC
90. Virus-Serum-Toxic Act 1985. 21 U.S.C. §§ 151-15910.1016/0378-5963(85)90014-5 ↗
91. Voss JP, Kemp R (2005) Reflexive governance for sustainable development: incorporating feedback in social problem solving. Paper for ESEE Conference, June 14–17, 2005 in Lisbon
92. Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Deshpande S (2008) Identification of risks in the life cycle of nanotechnology-based products. J Ind Ecol 12:435–44810.1111/j.1530-9290.2008.00029.x ↗
93. Wiener JB (2004) The regulation of technology, and the technology of regulation. Technol Soc 26:483–50010.1016/j.techsoc.2004.01.033 ↗
94. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
95. Wolf SM, Gupta R, Kohlhepp P (2009a) Gene therapy oversight: lessons for nanobiotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 37:659–68410.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00439.x ↗
96. Wolf SM, Ramachandran G, Kuzma J, Paradise J (eds) (2009b) Symposium on “Developing Oversight Approaches to Nanobiotechnology: The lessons of history. J Law Med Ethics 37:543–78910.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00430.x ↗