Multicriteria mapping of stakeholder preferences in regulating nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
In order to facilitate stakeholder discussions on how to regulate nanotechnology, the opensource program multicriteria mapping (MCM) was used to structure 26 interviews with stakeholders in the USA. MCM offers a systematic part quantitative, part qualitative approach to clarify why some regulatory options (bans, moratoriums, voluntary measures, etc.) were deemed to be acceptable/unacceptable by various stakeholders and which criteria stakeholders used to evaluate the different regulatory options. Adopting an incremental approach and implementing a new regulatory framework was evaluated as the best options whereas a complete ban and no additional regulation of nanotechnology were found to be the least favorable. Criteria applied differed substantially among stakeholders and included social, ethical, regulatory, environmental, and health issues. Opinions on future regulation seem far less polarized than expected and it seems that stakeholders would welcome a combination of voluntary measures, an incremental approach and forming of a new regulatory framework. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11051-010-0006-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Risk Perception and Management · Regulation and Compliance Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (18)
Show source-provided references
1. Davies JC (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Project on emerging nanotechnologies. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
2. U.S. EPA (2007) Nanoscale materials stewardship program and inventory status of nanoscale substances under the toxic substances control act; notice of availability. http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2007/July/Day-12/t13558.htm. Accessed 02 Jun 2009
3. European Commission, Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General (2004) Nanotechnologies: a preliminary risk analysis on the basis of a workshop. European Commission, Brussels
4. FOE (2006) Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients, big risks. Friends of the Earth Report (FoE), May 2006 (co-written by FoE Australia and US). http://nano.foe.org.au/filestore2/download/99/Nano%20cosmetics%20report%20-%20web.pdf. Accessed 21 Sep 2009
5. Greenwood M (2007) Thinking big about things small: creating an effective oversight system for nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC
6. IRGC (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva
7. Kuzma J, Paradise J, Ramachandran G, Kim J-A, Kokotovich G, Wolf SM (2008) An integrated approach to oversight assessment for emerging technologies. Risk Anal 28(5):1197–121910.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01086.x ↗
8. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Kiker G, Seager TP, Bridges T, Gardner KH, Rogers SH, Belluck DA, Meyer A (2006) Multicriteria decision analysis: a comprehensive decision approach for management of contaminated sediments. Risk Anal 26(1):61–7810.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00713.x ↗
9. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Ferguson E, Pleus RC (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 9:543–55410.1007/s11051-007-9211-0 ↗
10. Mayer S, Stirling A (2004) GM crops, for good or bad? Those who choose the questions, determine the answers. EMBO Rep 5(11):1021–102410.1038/sj.embor.7400285 ↗
11. Maynard A, Rejeski D (2009) Too small to overlook. Nat Nanotech 460:174
12. Millstone E, Lobstein T (2007) The PorGrow project: overall cross-national results, comparisons and implications. Obes Rev 8(Suppl. 2):29–3610.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00356.x ↗
13. National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee (2005) Overview document on nanoscale materials. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
14. NIOSH (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
15. Powell M (2007) New risk or old risk? How scientists’ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames. Health Risk Soc 9(2):173–19010.1080/13698570701306872 ↗
16. Stirling A (2005a) Multi-criteria mapping: a detailed interview manual. Version 4.4. May 2005. SPRU: University of Sussex
17. Stirling A (2005b) Multi-criteria mapping: a detailed analysis manual. Manual Version 2.2 2nd December 2005. SPRU: University of Sussex
18. Tervonen T, Figueira J, Steevens J, Kim J, Linkov I (2009) Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials. J Nanopart Res 11:757–76610.1007/s11051-008-9546-1 ↗