Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: Core challenges of an integrative approach

International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 484-507

  Renn, Ortwin ^a   Grobe, Antje ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STUTTGART   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84870975318     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (66)

1. BASF (2009), Code of Conduct Nanotechnology, Ludwigshafen, Germany: BASF.
2. Bowman, D.M. and G.A. Hodge (2009), 'Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies', Regulation & Governance, 3(2), 145-64.
3. COmparative Challenge of NANOmaterials (2007), 'CONANO Endbericht - a stakeholder dialogue project - Vergleichende Nutzen-Risiko-Analysen von abbaubaren und nicht abbaubaren Nano-Delivery-Systemen sowie konventionellen Mikro-Delivery-Systemen in pharmazeutischen und kosmetischen Anwendungen', accessed 10 June 2009 at http://www.ecology.at/files/berichte/E11.565.pdf.
4. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2008), The UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials: Seventh Quarterly Report, London: Defra.
5. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (2008), Australian Community Attitudes Held About Nanotechnology - Trends 2005 to 2008, Canberra: Market Attitude Research Services.
6. Environmental Defense (EDF) and DuPont (2007), NanoRisk Framework, Washington, DC: EDF and DuPont.
7. ETC Group (2005), Down on the Farm: The Impact of Nano-scale Technologies on Food and Agriculture, Ottawa: ETC Group.
8. European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardization and European Consumers' Organization (2009), Nanotechnology: Small is Beautiful, But is it Safe?, Brussels: ANEC and BEUC.
9. European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) (2008), Enabling Responsible Innovations of Nanotechnologies - Stakeholder Engagement Workshop, Brussels: Cefic.
10. European Commission (2006), Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends, accessed 12 May 2009 at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_244b_en.pdf.
11. European Commission (2007), First Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue, Brussels: DG Sanco.
12. European Commission (2008a), Commission Recommendation on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research, accessed 10 June 2009 at http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nanocode-rec_pe0894c_en.pdf.
13. European Commission (2008b), 2nd Annual Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue Workshop, Brussels: DG Sanco.
14. European Commission (2009), Follow-up to the 2nd Nanotechnology Safety for Success Dialogue: Top Ten Actions To Launch by Eastern 2009, Brussels: DG Sanco.
15. European Cosmetics Association (2009), 'Nanotechnology', accessed 10 June 2009 at www.colipa.eu/nanotechnology.html?sid=49&smid=115.
16. European Parliament (2009a), Report on Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials (2008/2208(INI)), Brussels: Commission Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Commission.
17. European Parliament (2009b), European Parliament Legislative Resolution of 24 March 2009 on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Cosmetic Products (Recast) (COM(2008)0049 - C6-0053/2008 - 2008/0035(COD)), Brussels: EP.
18. European Parliament (2009c), Press release on food safety, 'Novel foods. MEPs set new Rules', 25 March, accessed 15 June 2009 at www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/067-52498-082-03-13-911-20090324IPR52497-23-03-2009-2009-false/default_en.htm.
19. Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (2008), 'Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Representative survey and basic morphological-psychological study', accessed 16 June 2009 at www.bfr.bund.de/cm/290/public_perceptions_about_nanotechnology.pdf.
20. Federal Office for Public Health (2008), Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials, accessed 18 June 2009 at www.bag.admin.ch/themen/chemikalien/00228/00510/05626/index.html?lang=en.
21. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2007), Nanotechnology. A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC: FDA.
22. Friends of the Earth (FoE) (2006), Nanomaterials, Sunscreens and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks, Melbourne, VIC: FoEAustralia and FoEUnited States.
23. Friends of the Earth (2008), Out of the Laboratory and On to Our Plates: Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture, Melbourne, VIC: FoEA, FoEE and FoEUS.
24. Friends of the Earth Australia (2009), Nano and Biocidal Silver - Extreme Germ Killers Present A Growing Threat to Public Health, Melbourne, VIC: FoEA.
25. Gergely, A., Q. Chaudhry and D.M. Bowman (2010), 'Regulatory perspectives on nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 321-41.
26. German Chemical Industry Association (2007), 'Stakeholder dialog on industrial health and safety', 19 April, Frankfurt am Main, accessed 10 June 2009 at www.vci.de/template_downloads/tmp_VCIInternet/121338WS_Nano_Arbeitssicherhiet_II_2007_englisch.pdf?DokNr=121338&p=101.
27. German Chemical Industry Association (2008), 'Nanomaterials: communication of information along the industry supply chain. Stakeholder dialog', March 5, Frankfurt am Main, accessed 10 June 2009 at www.vci.de/template_downloads/tmp_VCIInternet/122769Nanoworkshop_industry_supply.pdf?DokNr=122769&p=101.
28. German Chemical Industry Association and the German Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2007), 'Responsible production and use of nanomaterials', accessed 12 June 2009 at www.vci.de/template_downloads/tmp_VCIInternet/122306Nano_Responsible_Production.pdf?DokNr=122306&p=101.
29. German NanoKommission (2009), Responsible Use of Nanotechnologies, Report and Recommendations of the German Federal Government's NanoKommission for 2008, accessed 12 June at www.bmu.de/english/nanotechnology/nanodialog/doc/37402.php.
30. Grobe, A., C. Schneider, M. Rekic and V. Schetula (2008): Nanotechnologien: Was Verbraucher wissen wollen, Studie im Auftrag des Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverbandes e.V., accessed 12 June 2009 at www.vzbv.de/mediapics/studie_nanotechnologien_vzbv.pdf.
31. Hart, P.D. (2007), Awareness Of And Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology And Synthetic Biology - A Report Of Findings, Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
32. Hodge, G.A., D.M. Bowman and A.D. Maynard (2010), 'Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 3-24.
33. Hoeck J., H. Hofmann, H. Krug et al. (2008), Precautionary Matrix for Synthetic Nanomaterials, Berne: Federal Office for Public Health and the Federal Office for the Environment.
34. International Organization for Standardization (2008), TC229 ISO/TS 27687: Nanotechnologies - Terminology and Definitions for Nano-objects - Nanoparticle, Nanofibre and Nanoplate, accessed 12 May 2009 at www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=381983&published=on.
35. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2005), Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. Geneva: IRGC.
36. International Risk Governance Council (2006), Nanotechnology - Risk Governance, Geneva: IRGC.
37. International Risk Governance Council (2008), Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics, Geneva: IRGC.
38. International Risk Governance Council (2009), Appropriate Risk Governance Strategies for Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics, Geneva: IRGC.
39. Kahan, D.M., P. Slovic, D. Braman, J. Gastil and G. Cohen (2007), Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values, Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
40. Kates, R.W., C. Hohenemser and J. Kasperson (1985), Perilous Progress: Managing the Hazards of Technology, Boulder, CO: Westminster Press.
41. L'Oreal (2008), Sustainability Report 2008, Paris: L'Oreal.
42. Macoubrie, J. (2005), Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government, Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
43. Meier, J. (2009), 'Warten auf den Störfall', Die, 25 June, accessed 26 June 2009 at http://www.zeit.de/2009/27/N-Nano.
44. Meili, C. and M. Widmer (2010), 'Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 446-61.
45. Miles, J. (2010), 'Nanotechnology captured', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 83-106.
46. Miller, G. and G. Scrinis (2010), 'The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the 'benefits versus risks' framing of nanotech innovation', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 409-45.
47. NanoObservatory (2009), Societal Issues, accessed 15 May 2009 at http://www.observatorynano.eu/project/catalogue/4/.
48. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (2009), Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology, Managing the Health and Safety Concerns Associated with Engineered Nanomaterials, NIOSH publication no. 2009-125, Washington, DC: NIOSH.
49. National Research Council of the National Academies (2008), Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2002), Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management, Paris: OECD
51. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2003), Emerging Systemic Risks: Final Report to the OECD Futures Project, Paris: OECD
52. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009), Preliminary Analysis of Exposure Measurement and Exposure Mitigation in Occupational Settings: Manufactured Nanomaterials, Paris: OECD.
53. Renn, O. (2008), Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainties in a Complex World, London: Earthscan.
54. Responsible Care (2006), 'Responsible-Care Bericht 2006', accessed 12 June 2009 at www.responsible-care.de/Default2.asp?cmd=get_dwnld&docnr=119560&file=VCI%5F06%5FRC%5FBericht%5FWEB%2Epdf.
55. Responsible NanoCode (2008), 'Responsible NanoCode - update May 2008', accessed 12 June 2009 at www.responsiblenanocode.org/documents/TheResponsibleNanoCodeUpdateAnnoucement.pdf.
56. Scheufele, D.A., E.A. Corley, T-J. Shih, K.E. Dalrymple and S.S. Ho (2008), 'Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States', Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 91-4.
57. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2009), Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnologies, Brussels: EC.
58. Sekiya, M. (2008), 'Bridging the gap between nanotechnology R&D', paper presented at the NSTI Conference, 1-5 June, Boston.
59. Sekiya, M., S. Ishizu and M. Ata (2007), 'Nanotechnology and society. Our approach', paper presented to the 3rd International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health, 1 September, Taipei.
60. Stern, P.C. and V. Fineberg (1996), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Risk Characterization, National Academy Press.
61. Strange, T. and A. Bayley (2008), Sustainable Development: Linking Economy, Society, Environment, Paris: OECD.
62. van Calster, G. and D.M. Bowman (2010), 'A good foundation? Regulatory oversight of nanotechnologies using cosmetics as a case study', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 268-90.
63. Watzlawick, P., J. Beavin-Bavelas and D. Jackson (1967), Pragmatics of Human Communication - A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes, New York: W.W. Norton.
64. Which? (2008), Research Highlights Nano Regulation Gaps, London: Which?
65. Widmer, M. and C. Meili (2010), 'Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemicals legislation in the EU and US', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 238-67.
66. Williams, D. (2010), 'The scientific basis for regulating nanotechnologies', in Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard (eds), International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 107-23.