journal article·2013-05

Nanotechnology in the marketplace: how the nanotechnology industry views risk

Sean Becker

Journal of Nanoparticle Research· Volume 15· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

Despite uncertainty about the potential human health and environmental risks of nanotechnology, major stakeholders such as regulatory agencies and the nanotechnology industry are already negotiating the emerging regulatory framework for nanotechnology. Because of a relative lack of nano-specific regulations, the future of nanotechnology development will depend greatly on the views held by the nanotechnology industry. This study fills the research gap in understanding how the nanotechnology industry perceives the risks of nanotechnology. This is the first interview-based study of the nanotechnology industry in the United States. Semi-structured, open-ended phone interviews were conducted with 17 individuals involved in the commercialization of nanotechnology in the United States. Results indicate that while the industry acknowledges uncertainty about the potential risks of nanotechnology and takes significant precaution in ensuring the safety of their products, they do not see nanotechnology as novel or risky. They do not believe that uncertainty over risk ought to delay the further development of nanotechnology. The industry sees itself as the primary agent in ensuring consumer safety and believes that consumers are adequately protected. They are also largely benefit-centric and view product labeling as inefficacious.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications · Nanotechnology research and applications

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (36)

Show source-provided references
1. Baumgartner L, Carr B, Fish A, Meyerhofer J (2010) Current practices and perceived risks for environmental, health, safety and product stewardship in the nanomaterials industry. Masters Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara
2. Bernard RH (2006) Research methods in anthropology, 4th edn. AltaMira Press, Oxford, pp 189–193
3. Charmaz K (2011) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through quantitative analysis. Sage Publications, London
4. Collins H (1981) Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Soc Stud Sci 11:3–1010.1177/030631278101100101 ↗
5. Conti JA, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Harthorn BH, Appelbaum RP, Holden PA (2008) Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:3155–316210.1021/es702158q ↗
6. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13:3–2110.1007/BF00988593 ↗
7. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573–158510.1007/s11051-009-9671-5 ↗
8. Dunphy-Guzmán KA, Taylor MA, Banfield JF (2006) Environmental risks of nanotechnology: national nanotechnology initiative funding, 2000–2004. Environ Sci Technol 40:1401–140710.1021/es0515708 ↗
9. Engeman CD, Baumgartner L, Carr BM, Fish AM, Meyerhofer JD, Satterfield TA, Holden PA, Harthorn BH (2012) Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. J Nanopart Res 14:1–1210.1007/s11051-012-0749-0 ↗
10. Fairborther A, Fairbrother JR (2009) Are environmental regulations keeping up with innovation? A case study of the nanotechnology industry. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1327–133010.1016/j.ecoenv.2009.04.003 ↗
11. Gieryn T (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–79510.2307/2095325 ↗
12. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago
13. Gruère GP (2011) Labelling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6:117–12110.1016/j.nantod.2011.02.005 ↗
14. Handy RD, Shaw BJ (2007) Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 9:125–14410.1080/13698570701306807 ↗
15. Hansen SF, Maynard A, Baun A, Tickner JA (2008) Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3:444–44710.1038/nnano.2008.198 ↗
16. Hardman R (2006) A toxicologic review of quantum dots: toxicity depends on physicochemical and environmental factors. Environ Health Perspect 114:165–17210.1289/ehp.8284 ↗
17. Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M, Kastenholz HG, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2008) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol 42:640–64610.1021/es062807i ↗
18. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–23210.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb00669.x ↗
19. Lux Research (2007) The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th edn, New York
20. MacKenzie D (2009) Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Account Org Soc 34:440–45510.1016/j.aos.2008.02.004 ↗
21. Miyazaki K, Islam N (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27:661–67510.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.009 ↗
22. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2007) What is nanotechnology? http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html . Accessed 5 Feb 2011
23. NCMS (2009) Study of nanotechnology in the U.S. manufacturing industry. National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor
24. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–62710.1126/science.1114397 ↗
25. Oberdoerster G, Oberdoerster E, Oberdoerster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–83910.1289/ehp.7339 ↗
26. Ostrowski AD, Martin T, Conti J, Hurt I, Harthorn BH (2009) Nanotoxicology: characterizing the scientific literature, 2000–2007. J Nanopart Res 11:251–25710.1007/s11051-008-9579-5 ↗
27. Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rodgers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–9810.1038/nnano.2008.362 ↗
28. Research Lux (2009) The recession’s ripple effect on nanotech. Lux Research, Inc., Boston
29. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risks of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–75810.1038/nnano.2009.265 ↗
30. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–73410.1038/nnano.2007.392 ↗
31. Schmidt CW (2009) Nanotechnology-related environment, health, and safety research: examining the national strategy. Environ Health Perspect 117:A158–A16110.1289/ehp.117-a158 ↗
32. Schummer J (2007) The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70:669–69210.1007/s11192-007-0307-1 ↗
33. Shapin S, Schaffer S (1985) Leviathan and the air-pump: hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press, Princeton
34. Shapira P, Youtie J, Kay L (2011) National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. J Technol Transf 36:587–60410.1007/s10961-011-9212-0 ↗
35. Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S (1995) Intuitive toxicology II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal 15:661–67510.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x ↗
36. Zhao QQ, Boxman A, Chowdhry U (2003) Nanotechnology in the chemical industry—opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 5:567–57210.1023/B:NANO.0000006151.03088.cb ↗