Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology

NanoEthics

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 149-162

  Kuzma, Jennifer ^a   Besley, John C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Agricultural biotechnology; Nanotechnology; Regulation; Risk

Indexed keywords

EID: 53149122089     PISSN: 18714757     EISSN: 18714765     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11569-008-0035-x     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp 267-299
2. Ag BiotechBuzz (2002a) Journal and Mexican government disagree over corn contamination. Volume 2, Issue 4. April 30. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/display.php3?StoryID=55
3. AgBiotech Buzz (2002b) Of famine and food aid: GM food internationally global GM volume 2, issue 9, spotlight, October 2. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/buzz/print.php3?StoryID=77
4. APHA (2002) Preserving right-to-know information and encouraging hazard reduction to reduce the risk of exposure to toxic substances. APHA, Washington, DC (November 13). Policy number 2002-2003. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.apha.org/legislative/policy/policysearch/ index.cfm?fuseaction=view&id=279
5. Beauchamp TL, Walters L (1999) Ethical theory and bioethics. In: Beauchamp T, Walters L (eds) Contemporary issues in bioethics. 5th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, pp 1-32
6. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
7. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. JAMA 289:454-465
8. Besley JC, McComas KA (2005) Framing justice: Using the concept of procedural justice to advance political communication research. Commun Theory 15(4):414-436
9. Besley JC, McComas KA, Waks L (2006) Media use and the perceived justice of local science authorities. Journal Mass Commun Q 83(4):801-818
10. Bohannon J (2002) Zambia rejects GM corn on scientists' advice. Science 298:1153-1154
11. Bozeman B, Sarewitz D (2005) Public values and public failure in U.S. Science policy. Sci Public Policy 32(2):119-136
12. Burkhardt J (2001) The GMO debates: Taking ethics seriously. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.farmfoundation.org/2001NPPEC/burkhardt.pdf
13. CNS-ASU (2005) RTTA program 3: Deliberation and participation. Retrieved December 31, 2007 from http://cns.asu.edu/program/rtta3.htm
14. CNS-UCSB (2007) Education and public engagement. Retrieved January 3, 2007 from http://www.cns.ucsb.edu/education-public-engagement/
15. Cho M, Bero L (1996) The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 124:495-489
16. Cobb MD, Macoubrie J (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks benefits and trust. J Nanopart Res 6:395-405
17. Colquitt JA (2001) On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol 86(3):386-400
18. Colquitt JA, Shaw JC (2005) How should organizational justice be measured? In: Greenberg J, Colquitt JA (eds) Handbook of Organizational Justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 113-152
19. Colquitt JA, Greenberg J, Zapata-Phelan CP (2005) What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In: Greenberg J, Colquitt JA (eds) Handbook of organizational justice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 3-58
20. Davies C (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. PEN 2, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from project on emerging nanotechnologies website: www.nanotechproejct.org
21. Davies C (2007) EPA and nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st century. PEN 9, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from project on emerging nanotechnologies website: www.nanotechproejct.org
22. Ebbesen M, Andersen S, Besenbacher F (2006) Ethics in nanotechnology: starting from scratch? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(6):451-462
23. Einsiedel EF, Goldenberg L (2006) Dwarfing the social? Nanotechnology lessons from the biotechnology front. In: Hunt G, Mehta M (eds) Nanotechnology: Risk, ethics, and law. Earthscan, London, UK, pp 213-221
24. EPA (1983) Guidelines for performing regulatory impact analysis, EPA-230-01-84-003. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
25. EPA (2007) Nanoscale materials stewardship program and inventory status of nanoscale substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act; notice of availability. Fed Regist 72(133):38083-38085 July
26. EOP (1993) Executive office of the president: Regulatory review and planning, executive order 12866. Federal Register 58(190):51735-51744 October
27. FDA (1995) U. S. food and drug administration center for food safety and applied nutrition CFSAN handout: 1995 FDA'S policy for foods developed by biotechnology. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/ ~lrd/biopolcy.html
28. FDA (2007) Nanotechnology: A report of the U.S. food and drug administration nanotechnology task force, July 25, 2007. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/ report2007.pdf
29. Gastil J, Levine P (eds) (2005) The deliberative democracy handbook: strategies for effective engagement in the twenty-first century. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
30. Greenberg J (1993) The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: Cropanzano R (ed) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 79-103
31. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93-109
32. Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why deliberative democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
33. Hart PD (2006) Attitudes toward nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington DC (September). Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.nanotechproject.org
34. ICTA (2007) International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) (2007). Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. August 5, 2007. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.icta.org/doc//Principles%20for%20the%20Oversight%20of %20Nanotechnologies%20and%20Nanomaterials_final.pdf
35. James C (2007) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2006. ISAAA Brief 35-2006
36. Joss S, Belluci S (eds) (2002) Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. Athenaeum, Gateshead, UK
37. Kaiser J (2007) Stung by controversy, biomedical groups urge consistent guidelines. Science 317:441
38. Khushf G (2004) The ethics of nanotechnology: Vision and values for a new generation of science and engineering. In: Emerging technologies and ethical issues in engineering: Papers from a workshop, October 14-15, 2003. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 29-56
39. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G (1998) Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: A pilot study. Psychother Psychosom 67:194-201
40. Kuzma J (2006) Nanotechnology oversight: Just do it. Environ Law Rep 36:10913-10923
41. Kuzma J (2007) Moving forward responsibility: Oversight for the nanotechnology biology interface. J Nanopart Res 9:65-182
42. Kuzma J, Romanchek J, Kokotovich A (2007) Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case studies approach. Risk Analysis (in press)
43. Lane N, Kalil T (2005) The national nanotechnology initiative: Present at the creation. Issues Sci Technol 21(4):51-52 Summer
44. Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies - examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240-267
45. Lewenstein B (2005) What counts as a ësocial and ethical issue' in nanotechnology? HYLE 11(1):5-18
46. Losey JE, Rayor LS, Carter ME (1999) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214
47. Macnaghten P, Kearnes MB, Wynne B (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences? Sci Commun 27(2):268-291
48. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. Projects on emerging nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=166192&fuseaction= topics.event_summary&event_id=143410, September
49. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Underst Sci 15:221-241
50. Mann C (2002a) Has GM corn 'invaded' Mexico? Science 295:1617-1618
51. Mann C (2002b) Transgene data deemed unconvincing. Science 296:236-237
52. Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: A research strategy for addressing risk. Project on emerging nanotechnologies: Washington DC. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.nanotechproject.org
53. McComas KA, Trumbo CW, Besley JC (2007) Public meetings about suspected cancer clusters: The impact of voice, interactional justice, and risk perception on attendees' attitudes in six communities. J Health Commun 12:527-549
54. Miller HI, Conko G (2001) Precaution without principle. Nat Biotechnol 19:302-303
55. Miller HI (2002) Nescience, not science, from the academy. Scientist 16(19):12-14
56. Morgan G, Henrion M (1990) The nature and sources of uncertainty. In: Morgan G, Henrion M (eds) Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 16-46
57. Michigan State University (MSU) (2005) First international IFAS conference on nanotechnology. What can nano learn from bio? Lessons from the debate over agrifood biotechnology and GMOs, October 26-27, 2005, at Michigan State University (USA). Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.ifas.msu.edu/nanoconference.htm
58. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2007) What is nanotechnology? Retrieved on June 5, 2007, from http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/ whatIsNano.html
59. Nelson R, Weiss R (1999) Hasty decisions in the race to a cure?: Gene therapy study proceeded despite safety, ethics concerns," Washington Post, November 21, p A1
60. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk. National Academy, Washington, DC
61. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Genetically modified pest-protected plants: Science and regulation. National Academy, Washington, D.C.
62. National Research Council (NRC) (2002) Environmental effects of transgenic plants. National research council. National Academy, Washington, D.C.
63. OMBWatch (2007) Assistance for 10.219: Biotechnology risk assessment research, (FY 2000-2006) Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?&cfda_program_num= 10.219&sortby=u&datype=T&reptype=a&database= faads&detail=2
64. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (2000) Food and agricultural biotechnology initiatives: Strengthening science-based regulation. May 3, 2000. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/0058.html
65. Pidgeon N (2006) Opportunities and uncertainties - the British nanotechnologies report and the case for upstream societal dialogue. Conference-paper: VALDOR. Stockholm, Sweeden. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.congrex.com/valdor2006/papers/53_Pidgeon.pdf
66. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB) (2002) Three years later: Lessons learned from the monarch butterfly controversy. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/ monarch.pdf
67. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB) (2003a) Have genes, will travel. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/ issuebriefs/geneflow.pdf
68. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB) (2003b) University-industry relationship: Framing the issues for academic research in agricultural biotechnology. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/research/UIR.pdf
69. Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology (PIFB) (2005) An examination of the trade issues surrounding genetically modified food. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/useu.pdf
70. Press E, Washburn J (2000) The kept university. Atl Mon 285:39-54
71. Quist D, Chapela I (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414:541-543
72. Rendtorff JD, Kemp P (2000) Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw, vol i-ii. Institut Borja di bioática and Centre for Ethics and Law, Barcelona and Copenhagen
73. Rendtorff JD (2002) Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability-towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw. Med Health Care Philos 5:235-244
74. Rodenmeyer M (2002) Corn fight: Science suffers when the debate gets personal. San Francisco Chronicle, Tuesday, April 30
75. Rowe G, Frewer LJ (2004) Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Sci Technol Human Values 29(4):512-557
76. Rollin B (1986) The Frankenstein thing. In: Evans JW, Hollaender A (eds) Genetic engineering of animals: An agricultural perspective. Plenum, New York, pp 285-298
77. The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society, London July
78. Science (2003) On campus. Science 302:2065
79. Sears MK, Hellmich RL, Stanley-Horn DE, Oberhauser KS, Pleasants JM, Mattila HR, Siegfriedi BD, Dively GP (2001) Impact of Bt corn pollen on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. PNAS 98:11937-11942
80. Shrader-Frechete K (2007) Nanotoxicology and ethical considerations for informed consent. Nanoethics 1:47-56
81. Singer P, Daar AS (2000) Avoiding frankendrugs. Nat Biotechnol 18:1225
82. Singer PA, Salamanca-Buentello F, Daar AS (2005) Harnessing nanotechnology to improve global equity. Issues in Science and Technology 21(4):57-64 Summer
83. Skokstad E (2005) Embattled Berkeley ecologist wins tenure. Science 308:1239
84. SourceWatch (2007) Government-industry revolving door. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title= Government-industry_revolving_door
85. Stitch S (1978) The recombinant DNA debate. Philos Public Aff 7:187-205
86. Taylor MR (2003) Rethinking U.S. leadership in food biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 21:852-854
87. Taylor M, Tick JS (2003) Post-market oversight of biotech foods. Pew initiative on food and biotechnology. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.pewagbiotech.org
88. Taylor MR (2006) Regulating the products of nanotechnology: Does FDA have the tools it needs? Project on emerging nanotechnologies. Washington, DC: PEN 5. Retrieved August 7, 2007 from http://www.nanotechproject.org
89. Thompson P (2007) Food biotechnology in ethical perspective, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands
90. Toumey C (2006) Science and democracy. Nature Nanotechnol 1:6-7
91. Tyler TR, Boeckmann RJ, Smith HJ, Huo YJ (1997) Social justice in a diverse society. Westview, Boulder, CO
92. USDA (2007) Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/
93. Valent F, Little DA, Bertollini R, Nemer LE, Barbanc G, Tamburlini G (2004) Burden of disease attributable to selected environmental factors and injury among children and adolescents in Europe. Lancet 363:2032-2039
94. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See-through science. Demos, London Retrieved August 8, 2007 from www.demos.co.uk