Looking back to the future of regulating new technologies: The cases of nanotechnologies and synthetic biology

European Journal of Risk Regulation

Volumn 3, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 235-241

  Stokes, Elen ^a,b   Bowman, Diana M ^c,d  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889666429     PISSN: 1867299X     EISSN: 21908249     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1867299X00002105     Document Type: Note

References (31)

1. Elen Stokes, "Nanotechnology and the Products of Inherited Regulation", 39(1) Journal of Law & Society (2012), pp. 92-112.
2. European Parliament Debate No. 4, Thursday, 28 September 2006, MEP Hiltrud Breyer.
3. Clarence J. Davies, Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology (Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2006).
4. Mike Taylor, Regulating the Products of Nanotechnology: Does FDA Have the Tools It Needs? (Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2006).
5. Lori Frater, Elen Stokes, Robert Lee, Taiwo Oriola, An Overview of the Framework of Current Regulation affecting the Development and Marketing of Nanomaterials: A Report for the DTI (London: DTI, 2006).
6. Karinne Ludlow, Diana M. Bowman and Graeme A. Hodge, A Review of the Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia's Regulatory Framework (Melbourne: Monash University, 2007).
7. European Commission, Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials (Brussels: European Commission, 2008).
8. NICNAS, Guidance on new chemical requirements for notification of industrial nanomaterials (Canberra: Australian Government, 2010).
9. Diana Bowman, Geert van Calster and SteffiFriedrichs, "Nanomaterials and Regulation of Cosmetics", 5(2) Nature Nanotechnology (2010), p. 92 et sqq.
10. Christoph Meili and Markus Widmer, "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: Edward Elgar, 2010), pp. 446-461.
11. European Commission, "Recommendation on the Definition of Nanomaterial", 2011/696/EU, 2011 OJ L275/38.
12. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on Cosmetic Products 2009 OJ L342/59.
13. Elizabeth Fisher, "Transparency and Administrative Law: A Critical Evaluation", 63(1) Current Legal Problems (2010), pp. 272-314.
14. Sheila Jasanoff, "Transparency in Public Science: Purposes, Reasons, Limits", 69 Law and Contemporary Problems (2006), pp. 21-45.
15. Elen Stokes, "You Are What You Eat: Market Citizens and the Right to Know About Nano Foods", 2(2) Journal of Human Rights and the Environment (2011), pp. 178-200.
16. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issue, New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies (Washington, DC: PCSBI, 2010), at p. 2.
17. Luis Serrano, "Synthetic Biology: Promises and Challenges", 3 Molecular Systems Biology (2008), p. 158 et sqq.
18. Jane Calvert and Paul Martin, "The Role of Social Scientists in Synthetic Biology", 10 Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, EMBO reports (2009), pp. 201-204.
19. Denise Caruso, Synthetic Biology: An Overview and Recommendations for Anticipating and Addressing Emerging Risks (Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, 2008).
20. Daniel G. Gibson, John I. Glass, Carole Lartiguue, et al. "Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome", 329 Science (2010), pp. 52-56.
21. Editorial, "Synthetic Cell Created in a Laboratory", 375(5) The Lancet (2010), at p. 1940.
22. Elizabeth Pennisi, "Synthetic Genome Brings New Life to Bacterium", 328 Science (2010), pp. 958-959.
23. Letter from President Barack Obama to Dr. Amy Gutmann, Chair, Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, 20 May 2010, available on the Internet at (last accessed on 15 April 2012).
24. Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, "U.S. Panel Weighs Guidelines for Synthetic Biology", 329 Science (2010), pp. 264-265.
25. OECD/Royal Society, Symposium on Opportunities and Challenges in the Emerging Field of Synthetic Biology: A Synthesis Report (OECD, Royal Society, 2010) at page 32.
26. Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), Synthetic Biology: Scope, Applications and Implications (London: RAEng, 2009) at page 48.
27. Lloyd's, Synthetic Biology: Influencing Development (London: Lloyd's, 2009), at page 4.
28. Gabrielle N. Samuel, Michael J. Selgelid and Ian Kerridge, "Managing the Unimaginable: Regulatory Reponses to the Challenges Posed by Synthetic Biology and Synthetic Genomics", 19(1) European Molecular Biology Organization Reports (2009), pp. 7-11.
29. Arjun Bhutkar, "Synthetic Biology: Navigating the Challenges Ahead", 8(2) Journal of Biolaw & Business (2005), pp. 19-29.
30. Maria Lee, "Risk and Beyond: EU Regulation of Nanotechnology", 35(6) European Law Review (2010), pp. 799-821.
31. Diana M. Bowman, "Governing Nanotechnologies: Weaving New Regulatory Webs or Patching Up the Old?", 2(2) NanoEthics (2008), pp. 179-182.