Risk management and regulation in an emerging technology

Nanotechnology Risk, Ethics and Law

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 140-153

  Clift, Roland ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SURREY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250352948     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781849772051     Document Type: Chapter

References (35)

1. Bainbridge, W. S. (2002) ‘Public attitudes toward nanotechnology’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol 4, pp561–570
2. Baumann, H. and Tillmann, A.-M. (2004) The Hitch-hiker’s Guide to LCA, Lund, Sweden, Studentlitteratur
3. Brook, R. D., Franklin, B., et al (2004) ‘Air pollution and cardiovascular disease’, Circulation, vol 109, pp2655–2671
4. Castell, A., Clift, R. and France, C. (2004) ‘Extended producer responsibility in the European Union – a horse or camel?’ Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol 8, pp4–7
5. CEC (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: ‘Integrated Product Policy: building an environmental life-cycle thinking’, Commission of the European Communities COM(2003) 302 final, Brussels, Belgium
6. DEFRA (2005) Characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles: A First govt research report. HM Government, London, http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nanotech/nrcg/pdf/nanoparticles-riskreport.pdf
7. ETC (2003) ‘No small matter II: the case for a global moratorium – size matters!’ Occasional Paper Series volume 7(1)
8. European Commission (2001) White Paper: Strategy for a future chemicals policy, COM (2001) 88 final
9. European Commission (2004a) Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology, Communication of the European Commission COM (2004) 338
10. European Commission (2004b) Nanotechnologies: a preliminary risk analysis on the basis of a preliminary workshop organized in Brussels on 1–2 March by the Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General of the European Commission, europa.eu.int/comm./health/ph_risk/documents/ev_20040301_en.pdf
11. Feynman, R. (1959) There’s plenty of room at the bottom, www.its.caltech.edu/_feynman/plenty.html
12. Greenpeace (2004) Nanotechnology, www.greenpeace-org.uk
13. HM Government (2005) Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy Report: ‘Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties’ DTI/Pub 7708/ Ik/02/05/NP, URN 05/823
14. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2004) Fifth Report, Session 2003–04, Too little too late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology, HC 650, London, The Stationery Office
15. Mayer, S. (2002) ‘From genetic modification to nanotechnology: the dangers of ‘sound science”, pp1–15 in Gilliland, T. (ed) Science: Can We Trust The Experts?, London, Hodder and Stoughton
16. NSF (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology, eds Roco, M. C. and Bainbridge, W., Dordrecht, Kluwer
17. NSF (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance, eds Roco, M. C. and Bainbridge, W., Dordrecht, Kluwer
18. Oberdörster, E. (2004) ‘Manufactured nanomaterials (fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass’, Environmental Health Perspectives, vol 112, pp1058–1062
19. O’Neill, O. (2002) A Question of Trust, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
20. Perdan, S. (2004) ‘Introduction to sustainable development’, in Azapagic, A., Perdan, S. and Clift, R. (eds) Sustainable development in practice – case studies for engineers and scientists, Chichester, John Wiley and Sons, pp3–28
21. Phoenix, C. and Drexler, E. (2004) ‘Safe exponential manufacturing’, Nanotechnology, vol 15, pp869–872
22. RCEP (1998) Setting Environmental Standards, 21st Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London, The Stationery Office
23. RCEP (2003) Chemicals in products – safeguarding the environment and human health, 24th Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London, The Stationery Office
24. RCEP (2005) Pesticides and bystander exposure, Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, London, The Stationery Office
25. Roco, M. C. (2004) ‘The US national nanotechnology initiative after 3 years (2001– 2003)’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol 6, pp1–10
26. Royal Academy of Engineering (2002) The Societal Aspects of Risk, London, Royal Academy of Engineering
27. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, London, The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering
28. Taniguchi, N. (1974) ’On the Basic Concept of Nano-Technology’, Proc. Intl. Conf. Prod. Eng. Tokyo, Part II, Tokyo, Japan Society of Precision Engineering.
29. UN (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, U.N.Doc/CONF151/5/Rev.1
30. Whatmore, R. W. (2001) ‘Nanotechnology: big prospects for small engineering’, Ingeria, no. 9, pp28–34
31. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004) See-through Science: Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream, London, Demos
32. Wood, S., Jones, R. and Geldart, A. (2003) Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology, Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon
33. Worth, A. and Balls, M. (2002) Alternative (non-animal) Methods for Chemical Testing: Current Status and Future Prospects, ECVAM
34. Zhang, W. (2003) ‘Nanoscale iron particles for environmental remediation: an overview’, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol 5, pp323–332.
35. Zhao, X., Xiao, B. et al (2004) ‘Hysteretic adsorption and desorption of hydrogen by nanoporous metal-organic frameworks’, Sciencexpress, 14 October