'Governing' nanotechnology without government?

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 475-487

  Bowman, Diana M ^a   Hodge, Graeme A ^a  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMERCIALIZATION; INNOVATION; MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PRIVATE SECTOR; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE; STATE-BUSINESS RELATIONS; THEORETICAL STUDY;

EID: 53149121395     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234208X329121     Document Type: Article

References (113)

1. Aalders, M and T Wilthagen 1997. Moving beyond command-and-control: reflexivity in the regulation of occupational safety and health and the environment. Law & Policy, 19(4), 415-443.
2. Adams, M D 2002. The precautionary principle and the rhetoric behind it. Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), 301-316.
3. Agres, T 2003. Nanotech ethics debated. The Scientist, December 08. Available at last accessed on 26 July 2007.
4. Aitken, R J, K S Creedy and C L Tran 2004. Nanoparticles: An Occupation Hygiene Review, Edinburgh: Institute of Occupational Medicine for the Health and Safety Executive.
5. Altairnano 2007. The Value of EH&S in Nanotechnology Businesses, Reno, NV: Altairnano. Available at , last accessed 28 June 2007.
6. Arrison, S 2006. Nanotechnology needs nano-scale regulation. TechNewsWorld. Available at , last accessed 4 January 2007.
7. Associated Press 2006a. City of Berkeley wants to monitor nanotechnology. Los Angeles Times, 12 December, p. B1.
8. Associated Press 2006b. Berkeley first city in nation to regulate nanotechnology. Mercury News, 13 December.
9. Associated Press 2006c. Berkeley to be first city to regulate nanotechnology. Los Angeles Times, 12 December.
10. Associated Press 2006d. Regulating nano. Technology Review - An MIT Enterprise, 11 January. Available at , last accessed 2 January 2007.
11. Australian Nano Business Forum and Nanotechnology Victoria. 2007. Response to Du Pont-Environmental Defence Nano Risk Framework, Melbourne: ANBF and NanoVic.
12. Ayres, I and J Braithwaite 1992. Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate, New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Balbus, J M, K Florini, R Denison and S Walsh 2006. Getting it right the first time - Developing nanotechnology while protecting workers, public health and the environment. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1076, 331-342.
14. Baldwin, R and M Cave 1999. Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15. Baram, M 1982. Alternatives to Regulation: Managing Risks to Health, Safety and the Environment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
16. BASF 2004a. Code of Conduct for Nanotechnology, Ludwigshafen: BASF.
17. BASF 2004b. Guide to Safe Manufacture and for Activities Involving Nanoparticles at Workplaces in BASF AG, Ludwigshafen: BASF.
18. BASF 2004c. BASF's Comments to the Nanoforum Online Questionnaire on the European Commission's Communication 'Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology'. Ludwigshafen: BASF.
19. BASF 2004d. BASF's Response to the Nanoforum Online Questionnaire on the European Commission's Communication 'Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology'. Ludwigshafen: BASF.
20. BASF 2006a. Facts and Figures 2006 - BASF Group. Ludwigshafen: BASF.
21. BASF 2006b. In Dialogue: Nanotechnology at BASF. Ludwigshafen: BASF.
22. BASF 2006c. Media Release - First BASF Plastic with Ecoefficiency Label: BASF's New PBT with TÜV-certified Ecoefficiency, 16 January. Ludwigshafen: BASF.
23. Bauer, M W and G Gaskell eds. 2002. Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Berkeley City Council 2006. Agenda - Berkeley City Council Meeting, 5 December, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley City Council.
25. BfR 2006a. Press Release: Nano Particles were not the Cause of Health Problems Triggered by Sealing Sprays! 25 May, Berlin: BfR.
26. BfR 2006b. Press Release: Exercise Caution when using 'Nanosealing Sprays' containing a Propellant, 31 March, Berlin: BfR.
27. Boehmer-Christiansen, S 1994. The precautionary principle in Germany - enabling government. In T O'Riordan and J Cameron eds., Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan, pp. 31-60.
28. Bowman, D and G Hodge 2007a. A small matter of regulation: An international review of nanotechnology regulation. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 8, 1-32.
29. Bowman, D and G Hodge 2007b. Nanotechnology products in Australia: chemicals, cosmetics and regulatory character. In Graeme Hodge, Diana Bowman, and Karinne Ludlow eds., New Global Regulatory Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 239-264.
30. Braithwaite, J 1982. Enforced self-regulation: A new strategy for corporate crime control. Michigan Law Review, 80(7), 1466-1507.
31. Braithwaite, J 1993. Responsive regulation for Australia. In P N Grabosky and J Braithwaite eds., Business Regulation and Australia's Future. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, pp. 81-96.
32. Calman, K and D Smith 2001. Works in theory but not in practice? The role of the precautionary principle in public health policy. Public Administration, 79(1), 185-204.
33. Chaudhry, Q, J Blackburn, P Floyd, C George, T Nwaogu, A Boxall and R Aitken 2006. Final Report: A Scoping Study to Identify Gaps in Environmental Regulation for the Products and Applications of Nanotechnologies. London: Defra.
34. Civil Society-Labor Coalition 2007. An Open Letter to the International Nanotechnology Community At Large - Civil Society-Labor Coalition Rejects Fundamentally Flawed DuPont-ED Proposed Framework. Available at , last accessed 2 May 2007.
35. Davies, J C 2006. Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology. Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
36. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2006a. UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. London: Defra.
37. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2006b. Consultation on a Proposed Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. London: Defra.
38. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2006c. Consultation on a Proposed Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials - Consultation Questions. London: Defra.
39. DelVecchio, R 2006. Berkeley considering need for nano safety. San Francisco Chronicle, 24 November, p. AI.
40. Deville, A and R Harding 1997. Analysing the Precautionary Principle. Sydney: The Federation Press.
41. DuPont 2005. Press Release - DuPont, Environmental Defense Create Framework for Nanotechnology, 12 October. Delaware: DuPont.
42. DuPont 2006a. Sustainable Growth Through Science - 2005 Annual Review. Delaware: DuPont.
43. DuPont 2006b. 2005 DuPont Data Book. Delaware: DuPont.
44. DuPont 2006c. Position Statement - DuPont NanoScale Science & Engineering (NS&E), September. Available at , last accessed 30 November 2006.
45. Economist 2006. Has all the magic gone? The Economist, 12 April, p. 52.
46. Eisner, M A 2004. Corporate environmentalism, regulatory reform, and industry self-regulation: Toward genuine regulatory reinvention in the United States. Governance, 17(2), 145-167.
47. Environmental Defense 2002. News Release - Partnership for Climate Action Companies Demonstrate Value of Greenhouse Gas Trades, 1 November. Washington DC: ED.
48. Environmental Defense 2005. Letter of Understanding - DuPont-Environmental Defense Framework for Responsible Nanotechnology Standards. Washington DC: ED and DuPont.
49. Environmental Defense 2007. Press Release: Environmental Defense Response to Coalition's Open Letter on the Nano Risk Framework, 13 April. Washington DC: ED.
50. Environmental Protection Agency 2006a. EPA Invites Public Participation in Development of Nanotechnology Stewardship Program, 18 October. Washington DC: EPA.
51. Environmental Protection Agency 2006b. OPPTS Letter Inviting Stakeholder Participation. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 18 October. Washington DC: EPA.
52. Environmental Protection Agency 2008. Notice: Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Federal Register 73(18, January 28): 4861-4866.
53. ETC Group 2002. No Small Matter! Nanotech Particles Penetrate Living Cells and Accumulate in Animal Organs - Communiqué Issue No. 76. Ottawa: ETC Group.
54. ETC Group 2003. No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium Size Matters! Ottawa: ETC Group.
55. ETC Group 2004. Nanotech News in Living Colour: An Update on White Papers, Red Flags, Green Goo, Grey Goo (and Red Herrings) - Communiqué Issue No. 85. Ottawa: ETC Group.
56. European Commission 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM(2000). Brussels: EC.
57. European Commission 2007. Towards a Code of Conduct for Responsible nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research - Consultation Paper. Brussels: EC.
58. European Commission 2008. European Commission adopts Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research, IP/08/193, 8 February. Brussels: EC.
59. Fortune 2006. Global Fortune 500, 24 July. Available at , last accessed 30 December 2006.
60. Freiberg A 2006. The tools of government. Paper presented to the Australasian Compliance Institute, Melbourne, April.
61. Friedrichs S 2007. Deciphering nanotechnology codes, Nanotechnology Now, 7 August. Available at , last accessed 16 September 2007.
62. Friends of the Earth 2006. An Analysis by Friends of the Earth of the National Nanotechnology Strategy TaskforceReport: 'Options or a National Nanotechnology Strategy'. Melbourne: Friends of the Earth Australia Nanotechnology Project.
63. Friends of the Earth 2008. Out of the Laboratory and on To Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture, Melbourne: FoE Australia, Europe and US.
64. Fretwell Wilson, R 2006. Nanotechnology: The challenge of regulating known unknowns. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(4), 704-713.
65. Gaskell, G, A Allansdottir, N Allum, C Corchero and C Fischler, 2006. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends. London: Report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research. Brussels: EC.
66. Grabosky, P N 1995. Using non-governmental resources to foster regulatory compliance. Governance, 8(4), 527-550.
67. Grabosky, P N T997. Discussion paper: Inside the pyramid: towards a conceptual framework for the analysis of regulatory systems. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25, 195-201.
68. Gunningham, N 2002. Beyond compliance: Next generation environmental regulations. Paper presented to the Current Issues in Regulation: Enforcement and Compliance Conference, 2 September, Melbourne.
69. Gunningham, N and J Rees 1997. Industry self-regulation: An institutional perspective. Law & Policy, 19(4), 363-414.
70. Gunningham, N and D Sinclair 1999. Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law & Policy, 21(1), 49-76.
71. Hart Research 2007. Awareness Of and Attitudes Towards Nanotechnology and Federal Regulatory Agencies: A Report of Findings Based on a National Survey Among Adults. Washington DC: Hart Research on behalf of Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
72. Hood, C and M Lodge 2005. Palovian innovation, pet solutions, and economizing on rationality? politicians and dangerous dogs'. In Julia Black, Martin Lodge and Mark Thatcher eds., Regulatory Innovation: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 138-155.
73. Hull M 2007. An innovative framework for comprehensive management of nanotechnology EHS risks: Luna Innovations' 'Nanosafe' program. Paper presented at Regulations for Nanotechnology in Consumer Products Conference, Washington DC, 8-9 February.
74. Innovation Society and TÜV SÜD 2007. CENARIOS - Managing Nano Risks: World's First Certifiable Risk Management and Monitoring System for Nanotechnologies. St Gallen: Innovation Society and TÜV SÜD.
75. International Organization for Standardization 2005a. New ISO Committee will Develop Standards for Nanotechnologies, 19 December. Available at , last accessed 2 January 2007.
76. International Organization for Standardization 2005b. TC 229 Nanotechnologies. Available at last accessed 14 December 2006.
77. Kimbrell, G A 2006. Nanomaterial consumer products and FDA regulation: regulatory challenges and necessary amendments. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 3(3), 329-338.
78. Krupp, F and C Holliday 2005. Let's get nanotech right. Wall Street Journal, 14 June, p. B2.
79. Levi-Faur, D and H Comaneshter 2007. The risks of regulation and the regulation of risks: Politics and policy at the frontier of knowledge. In Graeme Hodge, Diana Bowman, and Karinne Ludlow eds., New Global Regulatory Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
80. Marchant, G E and D J Sylvester 2006. Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(4), 714-725.
81. Monica, J C, M E Heintz and P T Lewis 2007. The perils of pre-emptive regulation. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 68-70.
82. Moran, A 1995. Tools of environmental policy: Market instruments versus command-and-control. In R Eckersley ed. Markets, the State and the Environment: Towards Integration. South Melbourne: Macmillan Education.
83. Nanotechnology Industries Association. 2007. Feedback from NIA, 30 March. London: NIA. Available at , last accessed 15 September 2007.
84. Nanotechnology Victoria. 2007. NanoVic - Safe Practices. Available at , last accessed 15 September 2007.
85. Noah, L 2006. Managing biotechnology's [r]evolution: Has guarded enthusiasm become begin neglect? Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, 11(4), 1-63.
86. NanoSafe2 2005. NanoSafe2 - About Us. Available at , last accessed 16 January 2007.
87. National Research Council 2001. Global Networks and Local Vales - A Comparative Look at Germany and the United States. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
88. Oberdörster, G, A Maynard, K Donaldson, V Castranova, J Fitzpatrick et al. 2005. Review: Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Particle and Fibre Toxicology, 2(8), 1-35.
89. Partnership for Climate Action 2002. The Partnership for Climate Action - Common Elements Among Advanced Greenhouse Gas Management Programs. New York: PCA.
90. Qyantek. 2005. Nanoparticle Safety Labels, Melbourne: Qyantek. Available at , last accessed 15 September 2007.
91. Renn, O and M C Roco 2006. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 153-191.
92. Responsible NanoCode 2007. Terms of Reference, London. Available at: , last accessed 8 November 2007.
93. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering 2004. Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London: RS-RAE.
94. Sandin, P 1999. Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5(5), 889-907.
95. Segal, S 2004. Environmental regulation of nanotechnology: Avoiding big mistakes for small machines. Nanotechnology Law & Business, 1(3), 290-303.
96. Silva-Chavez, G 2003. Private sector is taking the lead: The Partnership for Climate action (PCA), paper presented at the BRT GHG Management Workshop, 25 February, Washington DC.
97. Sinclair, D 1997. Self-regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law & Policy, 19(4), 529-559.
98. Small Times 2007. Innovation Society and TÜV SÜD develop 'world's first' certifiable nanosafety label, Small Times, 27 February. Available at http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/ article_display.cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=Envir&ARTICLE_ID= 285764&p=109>, last accessed 16 September 2007.
99. Smith, S and H B Vos 1997. Evaluating Economic Instruments for Environmental Policy. Paris: OECD.
100. Stuart C 2005. Making labor safety a priority and a profit. [i Small Times i], November/December, pp. 32-33.
101. Taylor M R 2006. Regulating the Products of Nanotechnology: Does FDA Have the Tools It Needs? Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
102. Teubner, G 1992. Reflexief Recht: De Kracht van Niet-Statelijk Recht. In N J H Hulls and H D Stout eds., Reflecties op Reflexief Recht. Zwolle: W E J Tjeenk.
103. Utting, P 2005. Rethinking Business Regulation - From Self-Regulation to Social Control. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development.
104. Vogel, D 2004a. The politics of risk regulation in Europe and the United States. In H Somsen, T Etty, J Scott and L Kramer eds., Yearbook of European Environmental Law, vol. 3, pp. 43-56.
105. Vogel, D 2004b. The new politics of risk regulation in Europe and the US. In Martin Levin and Martin Shapiro eds., Trans-Atlantic Policymaking in an Age of Austerity. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
106. Vogel, D 2006a. The Private Regulation of Global Corporate Conduct, in Centre for Responsible Business Working Paper Series. Berkeley: Department of Political Science, University of California.
107. Vogel, D 2006b. The Role of Civil Regulation in Global Economic Governance. Oxford: Global Economic Governance Programme. Oxford University.
108. Von Bubnoff, A 2006. Magic Nano shows industry need for standard terminology. Small Times, 14 April.
109. Wardark, A 2003. Nanotechnology & Regulation: A Case Study using the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Washington DC: Foresight Institute and Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.
110. Webb, K and A Morrison 1996. The legal aspects of voluntary codes. Paper presented at the Exploring Voluntary Codes in the Marketplace Symposium, 12-13 September, Ottawa.
111. Weiss, R 2006. Nanotech product recalled in Germany. Washingtonpost.com, 14 April, p. A02.
112. Wolinksky, H 2006. Nanoregulation. European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 7(9), 858-861.
113. Woodrow Wilson 2006, Report Findings Based on A National Survey of Adults. Washington DC: Peter D Hart Research Associates, Inc for Woodrow Wilson.