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

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 732-748

  Nelson, Kristen C ^a   Andow, David A ^b   Banker, Michael J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CONFERENCE PAPER; ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MANAGEMENT; METHODOLOGY; NANOTECHNOLOGY; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRANSGENIC ORGANISM; UNITED STATES;

ECOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMANS; NANOTECHNOLOGY; ORGANISMS, GENETICALLY MODIFIED; POLICY MAKING; RISK ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 76149109778     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00444.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (80)

1. M. Wiesner et al., "Assessing the Risk of Manufactured Nano-materials Environmental Science and Technology 40, no. 14 (2006 4336 4345 D. Andow and A. Hilbeck, "Science-Based Risk Assessment for Non-Target Effects of Transgenic Crops," BioScience 54, no. 7 (2004): 637-649.
2. Convention on Biological Diversity, "Frequently Asked Questions on the Biosafety Protocol available at http://www.bio-div.org/biosafety/faqs.shtml? area=biotechnology&faq=2 last visited September 11, 2009); Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2000; A. Munson, "Genetically Manipulated Organisms: International Policy-Making and Implications," International Affairs 69, no. 3 (1993): 497-517.
3. See Wiesner et al., supra note 1; S. J. Klaine et al., "Nanomaterials in the Environment: Behavior, Fate, Bioavailability and Effects," Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27, no. 9 (2008): 1825-1851.
4. A point-source pollutant is one that is released into the environment at a particular place and time, such as factory and sewage effluents.
5. National Research Council (NRC), Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process (Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press, 1983).
6. G. W. Suter, II., Ecological Risk Assessment, 2nd ed. (Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, 2007).
7. U.S. Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Framework for Environmental Health Risk Management, Final Report, vol. 1 (1997 available through http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1997/risk-rpt/ pdf/EPAJAN.pdf last visited September 11, 2009).
8. National Research Council (NRC), Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants (Washington, D.C. : National Academy Press, 2002).
9. See Andow and Hilbeck, supra note 1
10. J. Cairns, Jr., and D. I. Mount, "Aquatic Toxicology: Part 2 of a Four-Part Series," Environmental Science and Technology 24, no. 2 (1990): 154-161
11. N. Elmegaard and A. Jagers, Safety Factors in Pesticide Risk Assessment, Differences in Species and Acute-Chronic Relations, Silkeborg, Denmark, National Environmental Research Institute, NERI Technical Report 325 (2000)
12. V. E. Forbes and T. L. Forbes, Ecotoæicology in Theory and Practice (London: Chapman & Hall, 1994)
13. V. E. Forbes and P. Calow, "Extrapolation in Ecological Risk Assessment: Balancing Pragmatism and Precaution in Chemical Controls Legislation," BioScience 52, no. 3 (2002): 249-257
14. J. D. Stark, J. E. Banks, and R. Vargas, "How Risky Is Risk Assessment: The Role that Life History Strategies Play in Susceptibility of Species to Stress," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, no. 3 (2004): 732-736; see Suter, supra note 6.
15. R. Hill, "Conceptualizing Risk Assessment Methodology for Genetically Modified Organisms Environmental Biosafety Research 4, no. 2 (2005 67 70.
16. L. Levidow, "Democratizing Technology - Or Technologizing Democracy? Regulating Agricultural Biotechnology in Europe Technology in Society 20, no. 2 (1998 211 226)
17. B. Wynne, "Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science and Policy in the Preventative Paradigm," Global Environmental Change 2, no. 2 (1992): 111-127.
18. L. Levidow, S. Carr, and D. Wield, "Genetically Modified Crops in the European Union: Regulatory Conflicts as Precautionary Opportunities Journal of Risk Research 3, no. 3 (2000 109 208)
19. A. Stirling, "Opening Up or Closing Down: Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology," in M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, eds., Science, Citizenship and Globalisation (London: Zed Books, 2005): at 218-231.
20. L. Susskind, P. F. Levy, and J. Thomas-Larmer, Negotiating Environmental Agreements: How to Avoid Escalating Confrontation, Needless Costs, And Unnecessary Litigation (Washington, D.C. : Island Press, 2000).
21. Id.
22. V. Wagner et al., "The Emerging Nanomedicine Landscape Nature Biotechnology 24, no. 10 (2006 1211 1217)
23. G. Oberdorster, E. Oberdorster, and J. Oberdorster, "Nanotoxicology; An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studying of Ultrafine Particles," Environmental Health Perspectives 113, no. 7 (2005): 823-839.
24. Id. (Wagner et al).
25. A. D. Maynard, "Nanotechnology: The Next Big Thing or Much Ado About Nothing?" Annals of Occupational Hygiene 51, no. 1 (2007 1 12)
26. J. Kuzma and P. VerHage, Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food Production: Anticipated Applications, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., September 2006.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment EPA/630/R-925/002F, 1998, available at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=12460 last visited September 11, 2009); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program," available at http://www.epa.gov/EPA-TOX/2008/January/Day-28/ t1411.htm last visited September 11, 2009).
28. L. Walters, "The Oversight of Human Gene Transfer Research Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10, no. 2 (2000 171 174)
29. D. T. Zallen, "US Gene Therapy in Crisis," Genetics & Society 16, no. 6 (2000): 272-275
30. K. W. Abbott, G. E. Marchant, and D. J. Sylvester, "A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology?" Environmental Law Reporter 36 (2006): 10931-10942.
31. J. M. Tiedje, R. K. Colwell, Y. L. Grossman, R. E. Hodson, R. E. Lenski, R. M. Mack, and P. J. Regal, "The Planned Introduction of Genetically Engineered Organisms: Ecological Considerations and Recommendations Ecology 70, no. 2 (1989 298 315).
32. G. N. W. Thitai, J. Mbaratha-Rurigi, O. Gakuru, and P. Amuyunzu, Kenya Biosafety Framework, UNEP/GEF Pilot Biosafety Enabling Activity Project, National Council for Science and Technology, Nairobi, Kenya, 1999.
33. P. L. Traynor, R. J. Fredrick, and M. Koch, "Biosafety and Risk Assessment in Agricultural Biotechnology: A Workbook for Technical Training,) The Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project, Institute of International Agriculture, Michigan State University, Lansing, MI, 2002.
34. B. Skorupinski, "Debating Risks and Hazards: About Deliberation and Deliberate Release in B. Breckling and R. Verhoeven, eds., Risk Hazard Damage: Specification of Criteria to Assess Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Organisms, Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, vol. 1 (Bonn, Germany : Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, 2004).
35. H. I. Miller, "A Need to Reinvent Biotechnology Regulation at the EPA Science 266, no. 5192 (1994 1815 1818 M. A. McLean, R. J. Frederick, P. L. Traynor, J. I. Cohen, and J. A. Komen, A Conceptual Framework for Implementing Biosafety: Linking Policy, Capacity and Regulation. International Service for National Agricultural Research Briefing Paper 47 (New York: ISNAR, 2002).
36. Modified for nanotechnology, based on the PFOA methodology presented in K. C. Nelson and M. J. Banker, "Problem Formulation and Option Assessment Handbook: Science-Guided Multi-Stakeholder Deliberation in Ecological Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Organisms, GMO-ERA Project, 2007, and applied to Bt corn in Kenya, Bt cotton in Brazil and Vietnam, and genetically engineered fish in multiple countries. The methodology was refined over time through workshops with scientists, managers, and government decision makers. See K. C. Nelson, G. Kibata, L. Muhammad, J. O. Okuro, F. Muyekho, M. Odindo, A. Ely, and J. Waquil, "Problem Formulation and Options Assessment (PFOA) for Genetically Modified Organisms: The Kenya Case Study," in A. Hilbeck and D. A. Andow, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Vol. 1: A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya (Walling-ford, UK: CABI Publishing, 2004): at 57-82
37. D. M. F. Capalbo, M. F. Simon, R. O. Nodari, S. Valle, R. F. dos Santos, L. Coradin, J. de O. Duarte, J. E. Miranda, E. P. F. Dias, L. Q. Quyen, E. Underwood, and K. C. Nelson, "Consideration of Problem Formulation and Option Assessment for Bt Cotton In Brazil," in A. Hilbeck, D. A. Andow, and E. M. G. Fontes, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Vol. 2: Methodologies for Assessing Bt Cotton in Brazil (Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 2006): at 67-92
38. K. C. Nelson, Z. Basiao, A. Cooper, M. Dey, M. L. Hernandez, S. Kunawasen, S. Li, D. Fonticiella, B. D. Ratner, M. I. Toledo, and W. Leelapatra, "Problem Formulation and Options Assessment (PFOA): Science-Guided Deliberation in Ecological Risk Assessment of Transgenic Fish," in A. Kapuscinski, S. Li, K. Hayes, and G. Dana, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Methodologies for Transgenic Fish (London: CABI Publications, 2007): at 29-60
39. V. U. Nguyen, V. C. Phan, V. B. Nguyen, H. T. Nhan, L. Q. Quyen, N. X. Hong, L. M. Sat, A. Wals, D. M. F. Capalbo, and K. C. Nelson, "Consideration of Problem Formulation and Option Assessment (PFOA) for Environmental Risk Assessment: Bt cotton in Vietnam," in D. Andow, A. Hilbeck, and N. V. Tuat, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Challenges and Opportunities with Bt Cotton in Viet Nam (London: CABI Publications, 2008): at 64-78.
40. Id. (Nelson and Banker).
41. The GMO ERA Project is an initiative driven by public sector scientists, which responded to the expressed need for ERA methodologies better suited for genetically modified organisms. The project worked to develop comprehensive, transparent, scientific methodologies and processes for testing, monitoring, and regulating transgenic genetically modified organisms. Information about the project is available at http://www.gmoera.umn.edu last visited September 11, 2009).
42. See Nelson and Banker, supra note 25.
43. J. Paradise, S. M. Wolf, J. Kuzma, A. Kuzhabekova, E. Kokolli, and G. Ramachandran, "Developing U.S. Oversight Strategies for Nanobiotechnology: Learning from Past Oversight Experiences Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009 688 705).
44. J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, G. Ramachandran, J. Kim, A. Kokotovich, and S. M. Wolf, "An Integrated Approach to Oversight Assessment for Emerging Technologies Risk Analysis 28, no. 5 (2008 1179 1195)
45. M. Harsh, "Formal and Informal Governance of Agricultural Biotechnology in Kenya: Participation and Accountability in Controversy Surrounding the Draft Biosafety Bill," Journal of International Development 17, no. 5 (2005): 661-667; see Levidow, et al., supra note 12.
46. National Research Council (NRC), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington, D.C. : National Academies Press, 1996).
47. T. J. Mills, T. M. Quigley, and F. J. Everest, "Science-Based Natural Resource Management Decisions: What Are They?" Renewable Resources Journal 19, no. 2 (2001 10 15.
48. See Hill, supra note 10.
49. See Skorupinski, supra note 23; A. Irwin, "Constructing the Scientific Citizen: Science and Democracy in the Biosciences," Public Understanding of Science 10, no. 1 (2001): 1-18. International Risk Governance Council, Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach, White Paper No. 1, Geneva, 2005.
50. E. M. Hallerman and A. R. Kapuscinski, "Incorporating Risk Assessment and Risk Management into Public Policies on Genetically Modified Finfish And Shellfish Aquaculture 137, no. 1 (1995 9 17.
51. S. Priest, "The North American Opinion Climate for Nanotechnology and Its Products: Opportunities and Challenges Journal of Nanoparticle Research 8, no. 5 (2006 563 568.
52. A. D. Maynard, "Nanotechnology: Managing the Risks Nano Today 1 (2006 22 33)
53. A. D. Maynard, R. J. Aitken, T. Butz, V. Colvin, K. Donaldson, G. Oberdorster, M. A. Philbert, J. Ryan, A. Seaton, V. Stone, S. S. Tinkle, L. Tran, N. J. Walker, and D. B. Warheit, "Safe Handling of Nanotechnology," Nature 444, no. 16 (2006): 267-269
54. A. D. Maynard, "Nanotechnology: The Next Big Thing or Much Ado About Nothing?" Annals of Occupational Hygiene 51, no. 1 (2007): 1-12.
55. J. Forester, The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (Cambridge : MIT Press, 1999).
56. Id.
57. L. Susskind, P. F. Levy and J. Thomas-Larmer, Negotiating Environmental Agreements: How to Avoid Escalating Confrontation, Needless Costs, and Unnecessary Litigation (Washington, D.C. : Island Press, 2000).
58. A. Stirling, "Opening Up or Closing Down: Analysis, Participation and Power in the Social Appraisal of Technology in M. Leach, I. Scoones, and B. Wynne, eds., Science, Citizenship and Globalisation (London : Zed Books, 2005 at 218-231.
59. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Plants: Challenges and Approaches, EFSA Scientific Colloquium Summary Report 8Parma, Italy, 2008.
60. National Research Council (NRC), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Washington, D.C. : National Academies Press, 1996).
61. A. Sagar, A. Daemmrich, and M. Ashiya, "The Tragedy of the Commoners: Biotechnology and Its Publics Nature Biotechnology 18, no. 1 (2000 2 4.
62. See J. Kuzma, P. Najmaie, and J. Larson, "Evaluating Oversight Systems for Emerging Technologies: A Case Study of Genetically Engineered Organisms Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009 546 586)
63. J. Paradise et al., "Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices: A Case Study of the FDA and Implications for Nanobiotechnology," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 688-705
64. J. Young Choi and G. Ramachandran, "Review of the OSHA Framework for Oversight of Occupational Environments," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 633-650; and
65. S. M. Wolf, R. Gupta, and P. Kohlhepp, "Gene Therapy Oversight: Lessons for Nanobiotechnology," Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 659-684.
66. L. B. Bingham, T. Nabatchi, and R. O'Leary, "The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government Public Administration Review 65, no. 5 (2005 547 558)
67. M. Hemmati, Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond the Deadlock and Conflict (London: Earthscan Publications Inc., 2002).
68. See supra note 44.
69. See Susskind et al., supra note 13.
70. Id.
71. L. B. Bingham, T. Nabatchi, and R. O'Leary, "The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government Public Administration Review 65, no. 5 (2005 547 558.
72. M. O'Brien, Making Better Environmental Decisions: An Alternative to Risk Assessment, 3rd ed. (Cambridge : MIT Press, 2000).
73. J. M. Wondolleck and S. L. Yaffee, Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management (Washington, D.C. : Island Press, 2000).
74. Id.
75. D. Glover, J. Keeley, R. McGee, P. Newell, P. Da Costa, A. R. Ortega, M. Loureiro, and L. L. Lin, Public Participation in National Biosafety Frameworks: A Report for UNEP-GEF and DFID, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, U.K., 2003.
76. See Bingham et al., supra note 49.
77. UNEP-GEF, Report of the Subregional Workshops for Asian Countries on: Risk Assessment and Management and Public Awareness and Participation, UNEP-GEF Project on Development of National Biosafety Frameworks, Asian Countries Subregional Workshop, January 21-24, 2003, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit, Geneva, 2003; UNEP-GEF, Sub-Regional Workshop for Latin American Countries on: Development of a Regulatory Regime and Administrative Systems, UNEP-GEF Project on Development of National Biosafety Frameworks, Latin American Sub-Regional Workshop on Development of a Regulatory Regime and Administrative Systems, November 25-28, 2003, Santiago, Chile, UNEP-GEF Biosafety Unit, Geneva, 2003.
78. J. Macoubrie, Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., 2005.
79. See Nelson and Banker, supra note 25.
80. A. Hilbeck and D. A. Andow, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Vol. 1: A Case Study of Bt Maize in Kenya (Wallingford, U.K. : CABI Publishing, 2004 A. Hilbeck, D. A. Andow, and E. M. G. Fontes, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Vol. 2: Methodologies for Assessing Bt Cotton in Brazil (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, 2006); D. A. Andow, N. V. Tuat, and A. Hilbeck, eds., Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms, Vol. 4: Challenges and Opportunities with Bt Cotton in Vietnam (Wallingford, U.K.: CABI Publishing, 2008).