Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper analyzes scholarly papers published from 2003 through 2013 on the general theme of nanotechnology and governance. It considers three general points: (1) the “problem” of nanotechnology; (2) general lessons for governance obtained; and (3) prospects for aligning the US regulatory system to the next generation of complex engineered nano-materials. It argues that engineered nano-materials and products are coming to market within an already mature regulatory framework of decade-old statutes, long-standing bureaucratic rules and routines, narrowly directive judicial decisions, and embedded institutional norms. That extant regulatory regime shapes how policymakers perceive, define, and address the relative benefits and risks of both proximate and yet-to-be idealized nano-materials and applications. The paper concludes that fundamental reforms in the extant regime are unlikely short of a perceived crisis.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Innovation Policy and R&D
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (69)
Show source-provided references
1. Abbott K, Marchant G, Corley E (2012) Soft law oversight mechanisms for nanotechnology. Jurimetrics 52:279–312
2. Baggott R (1998) The BSE crisis. Public health and the ‘risk society’. In: Gray P, ’t Hart P (eds) Public policy disasters in Western Europe. Routledge, London, pp 63–80
3. Baumgartner F, Jones B (1993) Agendas and instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
4. Bennett M (2004) Does existing law fail to address nanotechnoscience? IEEE Technol Soc Mag 23:2810.1109/MTAS.2004.1371636 ↗
5. Bord R, Fisher A, O’Connor R (1997) Is accurate understanding of global warming necessary to promote willingness to sacrifice? Risk: health. Safety Environ 8:339–349
6. Bosso C (1987) Pesticides and politics: the life cycle of a public issue. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh10.2307/jj.5973233 ↗
7. Bowman D, Hodge G (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–16410.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01046.x ↗
8. Breggin L, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Environ Law 31:286–329
9. Coglianese C (2010) Engaging business in the regulation of nanotechnology. In: Bosso C (ed) Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology. Earthscan, London
10. Coglianese C, Nash J (2001) Regulating from the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals?. RFF Press, Washington
11. Crichton M (2003) Prey. Harper Collins, New York
12. Davenport C (2016) Senate approves update of toxic-chemical regulations. New York Times, June 8, A14
13. Davies JC (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington
14. Davies JC (2009) Oversight of next generation nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington
15. de Tocqueville A (1856) The Ancien Régime and the French revolution, Penguin Classics (2008), London
16. Denison R (2011) The states were in on chemical policy reform in 2011 chemicals and nano-materials. http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2011/01/19/the-states-were-in-on-chemical-policy-reform-in-2011-30-and-counting . Accessed 8 June 2016
17. Denison R (2016) Historic deal on TSCA reform reached, setting stage for a new law after 40 years of waiting. Chemicals and nano-materials. http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/23/historic-deal-on-tsca-reform-reached-setting-stage-for-a-new-law-after-40-years-of-waiting/ . Accessed 8 June 2016
18. Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. EPA/600/R-06/060
19. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General (2011) EPA needs to manage nano-materials risk more effectively. Report #12-P-0162
20. Feynman R (1959) There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society, California Institute of Technology, December 29. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html . Accessed 8 June 2016
21. Government Accountability Office (2010) Nanotechnology: nano-materials are widely used in commerce, but EPA faces challenges in regulating risk. Washington, D.C. GAO-10-549
22. Guber D (2003) The grassroots of a green revolution: polling America on the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge
23. Guber D, Bosso C (2012) High hopes and bitter disappointment: public discourse and the limits of the environmental movement in climate change politics. In: Vig N, Kraft M (eds) Environmental policy: new directions for the 21st century, 8th edn. CQ Press, Washington, pp 54–82
24. Guston D, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–10910.1016/S0160-791X(01)00047-1 ↗
25. Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (2010) The regulatory challenges facing nanotechnology. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (eds) The international handbook on regulating nanotechnology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham10.4337/9781849808125 ↗
26. International Risk Governance Council, Working Group on Nanotechnology (2005) Survey on nanotechnology governance: volume A. The role of government. IRCG, Geneva
27. Johnson R (2011) Governing nanobiotechnology: lessons from agricultural biotechnology regulation. J Nanopart Res 13:1467–147610.1007/s11051-011-0252-z ↗
28. Jones CO (1974) Speculative augmentation in federal air and water pollution policy-making. J Polit 35(2):438–46410.2307/2129477 ↗
29. Kamieniecki S, Kraft M (2008) Foreword to Klyza. C., Sousa, D. American Environmental Policy, 1990–2006: Beyond Gridlock. MIT Press, Cambridge, p ix
30. Kica E, Bowman D (2012) Regulation by means of standardization: key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. Jurimetrics 53:11–56
31. Klijn E (2008) It’s the management, stupid, on the importance of management in complex policy issues. Lemma, The Hague
32. Klyza C, Sousa D (2008) American environmental policy, 1990–2006: beyond gridlock. MIT Press, Cambridge
33. Krimsky S (1983) Genetic alchemy: the social history of the recombinant dna controversy. MIT Press, Cambridge
34. Krupp F, Holliday C (2005) Let’s get nanotech right. Wall Street J June 15:B2
35. Kulinowski K (2004) Nanotechnology: from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24(1):1910.1177/0270467604263112 ↗
36. Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Viking, New York
37. Kuzma J, Priest S (2010) Nanotechnology, risk and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30(11):1688–169810.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01471.x ↗
38. Landy M (2010) EPA and nanotechnology: the need for a grand bargain? In: Bosso C (ed) Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology. Earthscan, London, pp 80–104
39. Landy M, Roberts M, Thomas S (1990) The US EPA: asking the wrong questions. Oxford University Press, New York
40. Layton L (2008) Chemical law has global impact: EU’s new rules forcing changes by US firms. Washington Post 12:1
41. Levi M (1997) A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In: Lichbach M, Zuckerman A (eds) Comparative politics: rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge University Press, New York
42. Lobring K (2006) Nanoscale materials: can (and should) we regulate the next industrial revolution? J Law Technol Policy 2:341
43. Marchant G, Wallach W (2015) Coordinating technology governance. Issues Sci Technol 31(4):43–50
44. Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott K (2010) A new soft law approach to nanotechnology oversight: a voluntary product certification scheme. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 28:123–15210.5070/L5281019949 ↗
45. Maynard A (2010) The nanotech gamble: double or nothing? http://2020science.org/2010/04/20/the-nanotech-gamble-double-or-nothing/ . Accessed 8 June 2016
46. McKibben B (2004) Enough: staying human in an engineered age. St. Martins, New York
47. Mills K, Fleddermann C (2005) Getting the best from nanotechnology: approaching social and ethical implications openly and proactively. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):18–2610.1109/MTAS.2005.1563498 ↗
48. National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) Supplement to the president’s FY2011 budget, subcommittee on nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Washington
49. Paddock L (2006) Keeping pace with nanotechnology: a proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. Environ Law Rep 36:10943–10952
50. Pierson P (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 92(4):251–26710.2307/2586011 ↗
51. Rejeski D (2011) Any big ideas left? Environ Forum 28(5):36–43
52. Sabatier P (1988) An advocacy coalition model of policy change. Policy Sci 21:129–16810.1007/BF00136406 ↗
53. Sandler R (2009) Nanotechnology: the societal and ethical issues. Project on emerging nanotechnologies #16. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington
54. Sandler R, Bosso C (2007) Tiny technologies, enormous implications. Issues Sci Technol 23(4):28–30
55. Sandler R, Kay W (2006) The GM-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–6210.1177/0270467605284348 ↗
56. Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–66710.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 ↗
57. Schneider A (2010) The nanotech gamble: bold science, big money, growing risks. Aol News, March 22–26. http://coldtruth.com/previous-investigations/ . Accessed 8 June 2016
58. Segal S (2004) Environmental regulation of nanoparticles: avoiding big mistakes for small machines. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(3):303
59. Selin H (2007) Coalition politics and chemicals management in a regulatory ambitious Europe. Glob Environ Polit 7:63–9310.1162/glep.2007.7.3.63 ↗
60. Shenkman R (2011) Dismantling an agency isn’t easy. New York Times, August 25. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/24/what-if-republicans-closed-the-epa/dismantling-the-epa-would-not-be-easy . Accessed 8 June 2016
61. Taleb N (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York
62. Teague C (2010) Aol News paints a misleading portrait of nanotechnology. April. http://www.merid.org/Content/News_Services/Nanotechnology_and_Development_News/Articles/2010/04/22/Opinion_A_Misleading_Portrait_of_Nanotechnology.aspx . Accessed 8 June 2016
63. Thaler R, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven
64. Vogel D (2003) The hare and the tortoise revisited: the new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. Br J Polit Sci 33:557–58010.1017/S0007123403000255 ↗
65. Vogel S, Roberts J (2011) Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim. Health Aff 30(5):898–90510.1377/hlthaff.2011.0211 ↗
66. Wardak A (2003) Nanotechnology and regulation: a case study using the toxic substances control act. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington
67. Wargo J (1998) Our children’s toxic legacy. Yale University Press, New Haven
68. Willsdon J, Willis R (2004) See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London
69. Wilson R (2006) Nanotechnology: the challenge of regulating known unknowns. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):704–71310.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00090.x ↗