Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 153-191

  Renn, O ^a   Roco, M C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

^b NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual framework; Global risk governance; Nanoengineering; Nanoscience; Risk communication; Risk management; Scenarios for nanotechnology development

Indexed keywords

GOVERNMENT DATA PROCESSING; HEALTH CARE; NANOSTRUCTURED MATERIALS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; GLOBAL RISK GOVERNANCE; NANOENGINEERING; NANOSCIENCE; RISK COMMUNICATION; SCENARIOS FOR NANOTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT;

NANOTECHNOLOGY;

EID: 33746908517     PISSN: 13880764     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7     Document Type: Article

References (114)

1. Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC)., 2001. Crops on Trial. London: AEBC.
2. Altmann J., 2006. Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control. ISBN 0-415-37102-3, November 2005, Routledge, London/New York. http://www.cp3.rub.de/bvp/milntpac.html.
3. Amy D.J., 1983. Environmental mediation: an alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sci. 15, 345-365.
4. Applegate J., 1998. Beyond the usual suspects: the use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decision making. Indiana Law J. 73, 903.
5. Armour A. 1995. In: Renn O., T. Webler & P. Wiedemann eds. The citizen's Jury model of public participation Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Springer (formerly Kluwer), Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 175-188.
6. Arnall A., 2003. Future technologies, Today's choices: Nano-technology, artificial intelligence and robotics; a technical, political and institutional map of emerging technologies (report for the Greenpeace Environmental Trust), Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of London.
7. Bainbridge W.S., 2002. Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 4(6), 561-570.
8. Baumgartner W., B. Jäckli, B. Schmithusen & F. Weber, 2003. "Nanotechnologie in der Medizin" Studie des Schweizerischen Zentrums für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, TA 47/2003.
9. Better Regulation Task Force., 2003. Scientific Research: Innovation with Controls. London: Cabinet Office.
10. Boholm A., 1998. Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J. Risk Res. 1(2), 135-163.
11. Burke D., 2003. This will be like no other debate. Times Higher Education Supplement, 21 March 2003.
12. Cobb M.D. & J. Macoubrie, 2004. Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. Springer 6(4), 395-405.
13. Coglianese C. & D. Lazer, 2003. Management-based regulation: prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law Society 37, 691-730.
14. Collaborative Board for Advancing Nanotechnology between NNI and industry (CBAN). 2006. Joint NNI-ChI CBAN and SRC CWG5 Nanotechnology EHS Research Needs Recommendations. Washington, D.C., January 20, 2006, 18 pp.
15. Collins H.M. & R. Evans, 2002. The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 32(2), 235-296.
16. Colvin V.L., 2003. The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat. Biotcchnol. 21(10), 1166-1170.
17. Crichton M. 2002. Prey. London: Harper Collins.
18. Department of Trade and Industry/Office of Science Technology (DTI)., 2002. New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology. London: DTI/OST.
19. Dienel P.C. 1989. In: Vlek C. & G. Cvetkovich eds. Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technological projects Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 133-151.
20. Durant J. & S. Joss, 1995. Public Participation in Science. London: Science Museum.
21. EC., 2004. Converging Technologies - Shaping the Future of European Societies. Bruxelles: Alfred Nordmann - Rapporteur.
22. Environmental Defense, 2005. Getting Nanotechnology Right the First Time, in the National Academy of Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology, summer 2005, pp. 65-71.
23. ETC Group, 2003. The Big Down: From Genomes to atoms. ETC Group.
24. ETC Group, 2005. The Potential Impact of Nanoscale Technologies on Commodity Markets: The Implications for Commodity Dependent Developing Countries, ETC Group - South Center.
25. Fiorino D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 15(2), 226-243.
26. Fogelberg H. & H. Glimell, 2003. Bringing Visibility to the Invisible. STS Research Reports, 6. http://www.sts.gu.se/publications/ STS_report_6.pdf.
27. Funtowicz S. & J. Ravetz, 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7), 739-755.
28. Garud R. & D. Ahlstrom, 1997. Technology assessment: a sociocognitive perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 14, 25-48.
29. Gaskell G., N. Allum, W. Wagner, N. Kronberger, H. Torgersen, J. Hampel & J. Bardes, 2004. GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24(1), 185-194.
30. Goodwin P. & G. Wright, 2004. Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. London: Wiley.
31. Graham J.D. & J.B. Wiener, 1995. Risk vs. Risk. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
32. Goorden L., 2003. Finding a balance between Technological Innovation and Deliberation: Lessons from Belgian Public Forums on Biotechnology, paper prepared for the session New Forms of Citizen Participation in Technology Policy: European perspectives at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, USA, August 28-31, 2003.
33. Gregory R., T. McDaniels & D. Fields, 2001. Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: a new perspective for environmental negotiation. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 20(3), 415-432.
34. Grin J., et al. 1997. Interactive Technology Assessment: een eerste gids voor wie hot wagen wil. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
35. Grin, J. & A. Grunwald, (eds), 1999. Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Berlin: Springer.
36. Grin J., 2004. De politiek van omwenteling met beleid. Rede, vrijdag 16 april 2004, Universiteit Amsterdam.
37. Grove-White R., P. Macnaghten & B. Wynne, 2000. Wising up: The public and new technology. CSEC: Lancaster.
38. Hammond J., R. Keeney & H. Raiffa, 1999. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
39. Hampel J., A. Klinke & O. Renn, 2000. Beyond 'red' hope and 'green' distrust, public perception of genetic engineering in germany. Politeia 16(60), 68-82.
40. Haussen L. & R. van Est, 2004. De dubbele boodschap van nanotechnologie. Een onderzoek naar opkomende publiekspercepties. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
41. Health and Safety Executive (eds.) (HSE: 2004) Health effects of particles produced for nanotechnologies. EH75/6 December 2004, Health and Safety Executive, Great Britain.
42. Hett A. 2004. Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns. Zurich, Switzerland: Risk Perception Series, Swiss Reinsurance Company.
43. Huang Z., H. Chen & M.C. Roco, 2004. Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering in 2003: country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J. Nanopart. Res. 6(4), 325-354.
44. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC)., 2005. White Paper on Risk Governance. Geneva: IRGC.
45. Johansson M., 2003. Plenty of room at the bottom: towards an anthropology of nanoscience. Anthropol. Today 19(6), 3-6.
46. Jopp K. 2003. Nanotechnologie - Aufbruch ins Reich der Zwerge. Wiesbaden: Gabler.
47. Joy B., 2000. Why the future doesn't need us. Wired 8(4), April 2004, pp. 1-11 http://www.wired.com/wired/archivc/8.04/joy.html.
48. Keeney R. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
49. Kom-passion Group - Germany, 2005. http://www.komm-passion.de/index.php? id=648&no_cache=1&sword_list[]=nanotechnologie.
50. Löfstedt R.E., 1997. Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems. Working Paper No. 92, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Stuttgart.
51. Lundgren R.E. 1994. Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Columbus/Ohio: Battelle Press.
52. Lyall C. & J. Tait, 2005. In: Lyall C. & J. Tait eds. Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance New Modes of Governance, Developing an Integrated Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, pp. 1-17.
53. Macoubrie J. 2005. Informed Public Perception on Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. New York: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
54. Maynard A.D. & E.D. Kuempel, 2005. Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6), 587-614.
55. Meridian Institute, 2004. Summary of the International Dialogue for Responsible R&D of Nanotechnology. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. (www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/nano/dialog. htm).
56. Morgan K., 2005. Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal. 25(6), 1621-1635.
57. Morgan M.G. 1990. In: Glickman T.S. & M. Gough eds. Choosing and managing technology-induced risk Readings in Risk. Resources for the Future, Washington, pp. 17-28.
58. Morgan M.G., B. Fischhoff, A. Bostrom & C.J. Atman, 2002. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Boston and New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Morgan M.G. & M. Henrion, 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60. Nano Frontiers, 2006. Frontiers in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Report from workshop held on Feb. 9-10, 2006, sponsored by National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., U.S.
61. National Toxicology Program, 2005. Various documents published on the website: http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm.
62. Nature, 2003. Nanotech is not so scary. Nature 421(6921), 299.
63. Oberdörster G., Z. Sharp, V. Atudorei, A. Elder, R. Gelein & W. Kreyling, 2004. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhal. Toxicol. 16(6-7), 437-445 June 2004.
64. Oberdörster G., E. Oberdörster & J. Oberdörster, 2005. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Perspcct. 113(7), 823-839 July 2005.
65. OECD., 2002. Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management. Paris: OECD.
66. Oliver J., 2003. Charles: 'Grey Goo' Threat to the World, The Mail on Sunday, 27 April, 2003.
67. Perritt H.H., 1986. Negotiated rulemaking in practice. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 5(Spring 1986), 482-495.
68. Porritt J., 2003. Big questions now loom over the world's smallest technologies. And the sooner we get to grips with them, the better it will be for all of us. The Mail on Sunday, 27 April, 2003.
69. Ravetz J., 1999. What is post-normal science?. Futures 31(7), 647-653.
70. Rejeski D., 2005. Keynote speech at the EPA Grantees Conference. Washington, D.C., October 2005.
71. Renn O., 2004a. Perception of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 29(1), 102-114.
72. Renn O. 2004b. In: MacDaniels T.L. & M.J. Small eds. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management Risk Analysis and Society An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 289-366 2004.
73. Rip A., 2002. Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society, expert review for the Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung's Förderinitiatieve, Politik Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as managed by the Berlin- Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Twente University, Enschede.
74. Rip A., 2004a. Constructive Technology Assessment of Nanotechnology, 15 April 2004, University of Twente.
75. Rip A., 2004b. Articulating Images, Attitudes and Views of Nanotechnology: Enactors and comparative Selectors, 14 April 2004, University of Twente.
76. RISKO., 2000. Mitteilungen für Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt: Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken. Bulletin 3, 2-3 June 2000.
77. Robichaud C.O., D. Tanzil, U. Weilenmann & M.R. Wiesner, 2005. Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ. Science Tcchnol. 39(22), 8985-8994.
78. Roco M.C., 2001. International strategy for nanotechnology research. J. Nanopart. Res. 3(5-6), 353-360.
79. Roco M.C., 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5(3-4), 181-189.
80. Roco M.C., 2004a. Nanoscale science and engineering: unifying and transforming tools. AIChE J. 50(5), 890-897.
81. Roco M.C., 2004b. Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology. In: Kam and Zhang eds. Special issue of Environmental Science and Technology, American Chemical Society, http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample. cgi/esthag-a/2005/39/i05/pdf/030105feature_roco.pdf.
82. Roco M.C., 2005a. International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6), 707-712.
83. Roco M.C., 2005b. The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(2-3), 129-143.
84. Roco, M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, NSET Workshop report, March 2001, Virginia; based on National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop in September 2000, Springer (formerly Kluwer): Dordrecht.
85. Roco M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2003. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, NSF-DOC Report, June 2002, Virginia; based on National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop in December 2001, Springer (formerly Kluwer): Dordrecht.
86. Roco, M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2005. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology - Improving Benefits to Humanity (NSET and National Science Foundation) Arlington, Virginia; on the website www.nano.gov (also published by Springer, 2005).
87. Roco M.C. & E. Litten, 2005. Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: (I) The Role of Government. Geneva: IRGC.
88. Roco M.C. & R. Tomellini, (eds.) 2002. Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications, 3rd joint EC-NSF workshop on Nanotechnology, Lecce (Italy), 31 Jan-1 Feb. 2002, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
89. Rowe G. & L.J. Frewer, 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Human Values 25(1), 3-29.
90. Roxburgh C, 2003. Hidden Flaws in Strategy, McKinsey Quarterly No. 2.
91. Siegel R.W., E. Hu & M.C. Roco, (eds.) 1999. Nanostructure Science and Technology, Springer (former Kluwer Academic Publishers): Dordrecht, Netherlands (also available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/).
92. SlovicP. 1992. In: Krimsky S. & D. Golding eds. Perception of risk: reflections on the psychometric paradigm Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport CT, pp. 117-152.
93. Small Times, 2005. Survey of nanotechnology companies and products (personal communication).
94. Spinardi G. & R. Williams, 2005. In: Lyall C. & J. Tait eds. The governance challenge of breakthrough science and technology New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 45-66.
95. Sweeney A.E., S. Seal & P. Vaidyanathan, 2003. The promises and perils of nanoscience and nanotechnology: exploring emerging social and ethical issues. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 23(4), 236-245.
96. Tait J., 2001. More faust than frankenstein: the European debate about risk regulation for genetically modified crops. J. Risk Res. 4(2), 175-189.
97. Tait, J., 2005. Private communication.
98. Tait J. & R. Williams, 1999. Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness. Sci. Public Policy 26(2), 101-112.
99. Tegart G., et al. 2001. Nanotechnology: The technology for the 21st Century. Bangkok, Thailand: APEC, Center for Technology Foresight.
100. Tversky A. & D. Kahneman, 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 453-458.
101. UNIDO, 2005. North-South Dialogue on Nanotechnology: Challenges and Opportunities, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, International Centre for Science and High Technology, Trieste, Italy.
102. Van Asselt M.B.A. 2000. Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk. Dordrecht and Boston: Springer, former Kluwer.
103. Van der Sluijs J.P., J.S. Risbey, P. Kloprogge, J.R. Ravetz, S.O. Funtowicz, S. Corral Quintana, A. Guimaraes Pereira, B. De Marchi, A.C. Petersen, P.M.M Janssen, R. Hoppe & S.W.F. Huijs, 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication, Report No. NWS-E-2003-163, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Utrecht and Bilthovcn.
104. Viscusi W.K., 1994. Risk-risk analysis. J. Risk Uncertainty 8, 5-18.
105. Webler T., D. Levine, H. Rakel & O. Renn, 1991. The group Delphi: a novel attempt at reducing uncertainty. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 39, 253-263.
106. Weil V., 2003. Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proc. IEEE 91, 1976-1979.
107. Wiener J.B., 1998. Managing the Iatrogenic risks of risk management. Risk Health Safety Environ. 9, 39-83.
108. Wildavsky A. 1990. In: Glickman T.S. & M. Gough eds. No risk is the highest risk of all Readings in Risk. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., pp. 120-127.
109. Williams R., 2005. Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures, Innogen working paper No. 39, under consideration for/accepted by Science as Culture.
110. Williams R. & S. Russell, 2002. In: Sørensen K.H. & R. Williams eds. Concepts, spaces and tools for action? Exploring the policy potential of the social shaping perspective Shaping Technology Guiding Policy: Concepts Spaces and Tools. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 133-154.
111. Wilsdon, J. (eds), 2001. Digital futures: living in a networked world. London: Earthscan.
112. Winner L. 1977. Autonomous Technology. Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
113. Wolfson J.R., 2003. Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology: lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies. Biotechnol. Law Rep. 22(4), 376-396.
114. Wynne B. 1984. In: Aurrey J. eds. Public perceptions of risk The Urban Transportation of Irradiated Fuel. Mcmillan, London, pp. 246-259.