The significant uncertainties associated\ud with the (eco)toxicological risks of engineered nanomaterials\ud pose challenges to the development of nanoenabled\ud products toward greatest possible societal\ud benefit. This paper argues for the use of risk governance\ud approaches to manage nanotechnology risks and\ud sustainability, and considers the links between these\ud concepts. Further, seven risk assessment and management\ud criteria relevant to risk governance are defined:\ud (a) life cycle thinking, (b) triple bottom line, (c) inclusion\ud of stakeholders, (d) risk management, (e) benefit–\ud risk assessment, (f) consideration of uncertainty, and (g) adaptive response. These criteria are used to\ud compare five well-developed nanotechnology frameworks:\ud International Risk Governance Council framework,\ud Comprehensive Environmental Assessment,\ud Streaming Life Cycle Risk Assessment, Certifiable\ud Nanospecific Risk Management and Monitoring System\ud and LICARA NanoSCAN. A Sustainable Nanotechnology\ud Decision Support System (SUNDS) is\ud proposed to better address current nanotechnology risk\ud assessment and management needs, and makes.\ud Stakeholder needs were solicited for further SUNDS\ud enhancement through a stakeholder workshop that\ud included representatives from regulatory, industry and\ud insurance sectors. Workshop participants expressed\ud the need for the wider adoption of sustainability\ud assessment methods and tools for designing greener\ud nanomaterials

No abstract

No abstract

It has been suggested that an important transition in the long-run trajectory of nanotechnology development is a shift from passive to active nanostructures. Such a shift could present different or increased societal impacts and require new approaches for risk assessment. An active nanostructure “changes or evolves its state during its operation,” according to the National Science Foundation’s (2006) Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems grant solicitation. Active nanostructure examples include nanoelectromechanical systems (NEMS), nanomachines, self-healing materials, targeted drugs and chemicals, energy storage devices, and sensors. This article considers two questions: (a) Is there a “shift” to active nanostructures? (b) How can we characterize the prototypical areas into which active nanostructures may emerge? We build upon the NSF definition of active nanostructures to develop a research publication search strategy, with a particular intent to distinguish between passive and active nanotechnologies. We perform bibliometric analyses and describe the main publication trends from 1995 to 2008. We then describe the prototypes of research that emerge based on reading the abstracts and review papers encountered in our search. Preliminary results suggest that there is a sharp rise in active nanostructures publications in 2006, and this rise is maintained in 2007 and through to early 2008. We present a typology that can be used to describe the kind of active nanostructures that may be commercialized and regulated in the future.

Mental modelling analysis can be a valuable tool in understanding and bridging cognitive values in multi-stakeholders' communities. It is especially true in situation of emerging risks where significant uncertainty and competing objectives could result in significant difference in stakeholder perspective on the use of new materials and technologies. This paper presents a mental modelling study performed among prospective users of an innovative decision support system for safe and sustainable development of nano-enabled products. These users included representatives of industry and regulators, as well as several insurance specialists and researchers. We present methodology and tools for comparing stakeholder views and objectives in the context of developing a decision support system