Does nanobiotechnology oversight present a uniquely complex challenge to interagency cooperation?
Source abstract
Abstract
Numerous regulatory and oversight challenges exist in the field of nanobiotechnology. Although these challenges may appear novel and complex, similar issues have plagued environmental regulation since the 1970 s. This article argues that complexity, uncertainty, and regulatory gaps are common problems in environmental regulation, and that the lessons learned and progress made during more than 40 years of environmental regulation can serve as a guidepost for addressing nanobiotechnology regulation and oversight issues.
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 (30)
Show source-provided references
1. Applegate JS (2008) Bridging the data gap: balancing the supply and demand for chemical information. Texas Law Rev 86:1365–1408
2. Camacho AE (2010) Assisted migration: redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale J Regulation 27:171–253
3. Davies LL (2010) Alternative energy and the energy-environment disconnect. Idaho Law Rev 46:473–514
4. Farber, DA (2000) Triangulating the future of reinvention: three emerging models of environmental protection. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2000:61–81
5. Flournoy AC (2000) Restoration Rx: an evaluation and prescription. Arizona Law Rev 42:187–209
6. Guth JH (2008) Law for the ecological age. Vermont J Environ Law 9:431–50310.2307/vermjenvilaw.9.3.431 ↗
7. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, London
8. Kannan PM (2007) The precautionary principle: more than a cameo appearance in united states environmental law? William & Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 31:409–458
9. Karkkainen BC (2001) Information as environmental regulation: tri and performance benchmarking, precursor to a new paradigm? Georgetown Law J 89:257–366
10. Karkkainen BC (2002) Toward a smarter NEPA: monitoring and managing Government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Rev 102:903–96610.2307/1123648 ↗
11. Karkkainen BC (2003) Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: toward a bounded pragmatism. Minnesota Law Rev 87:943–983
12. Karkkainen BC (2004) “New Governance” in legal thought and in the world: some splitting as antidote to overzealous lumping. Minnesota Law Rev 89:471–492
13. Karkkainen BC (2008) Bottlenecks and baselines: tackling information deficits in environmental regulation. Texas Law Rev 86:1409–1446
14. Karn BP, Bergeson LL (2009) Green nanotechnology: straddling promise and uncertainty. Nat Res Env 24:9–16
15. Kimbrell GA (2009) Governance of nanotechnology and nanomaterials: principles, regulation, and renegotiating the social contract. J Law Med Ethics 37:706–73610.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00442.x ↗
16. Lin AC (2007) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environ Law Rev 31:349–414
17. Lin AC (2010) Chemical soup: using public nuisance to compel chemical testing. Notre Dame Law Rev 85:955–1013
18. Lyndon ML (1989) Information economics and chemical toxicity: designing laws to produce and use data. Michigan Law Rev 87:1795–185710.2307/1289204 ↗
19. Mandel G (2008) Nanotechnology governance. Alabama Law Rev 59:1323–1384
20. McGarity TO (1997) The courts and the ossification of rulemaking: a response to professor seidenfeld. Texas Law Rev 75:525–556
21. National Research Council (NRC) (1984) Toxicity testing: strategies to determine needs and priorities. Steering committee on identification of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals for consideration by the national toxicology program, National research council
22. Nelson KC, Andow DA, Banker MJ (2009) Problem formulation and option assessment (PFOA) linking governance and environmental risk assessment for technologies: a methodology for problem analysis of nanotechnologies and genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:732–75510.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00444.x ↗
23. Noble BF (2000) Strengthening EIA through adaptive management: a systems perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:97–11110.1016/S0195-9255(99)00038-4 ↗
24. Ruhl JB (1996) A paradigm for the dynamical law-and-society system: a wake-up call for legal reductionism and the modern administrative state. Duke Law J 45:849–91410.2307/1372975 ↗
25. Ruhl JB (2005) Regulation by adaptive management—is it possible? Minnesota J Law Sci Tech 7:21–49
26. Sachs NM (2009) Jumping the pond: transnational law and the future of chemical regulation. Vanderbilt Law Rev 62:1817–1862
27. Stewart RB (2001) A new generation of environmental regulation? Capital University Law Rev 29:21–143
28. Sunstein CR (2006) Irreversible and catastrophic. Cornell Law Rev 91:841–891
29. Tarlock AD (2010) Environmental law: then and now. Washington Univ J Law 32:1–23
30. Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishing, New York