Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies

Abstract

The international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnologies engages a wide range of actors with conflicting as well as common interests. It is also characterised by a lack of evidence-based data on uncertain risks of in particular engineered nanomaterials. The present paper aims at deepening understanding of the collective decision making context at international level using the grounded theory approach as proposed by Glaser and Strauss in “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (1967). This starts by discussing relevant concepts from different fields including sociological and political studies of international relations as well as political philosophy and ethics. This analysis of current trends in international law making is taken as starting point for exploring the role that a software decision support tool could play in multi-stakeholder global governance of nanotechnologies. These theoretical ideas are then compared with the current design of the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) under development in the European project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu). Through constant comparison, the ideas are also compared with requirements of different stakeholders as expressed during a user workshop. This allows for highlighting discussion points for further consideration.

Decision Support for International Agreements Regulating Nanomaterials

“…The present article explores the potential secondary uses of the finished tool, and possible requirements for redesigning the tool to make it more useful for supporting international governance of nanomaterials. It builds upon another earlier paper [18], which contained a proposal for wiki-like decision support in a global context, focusing mainly on philosophical and international relations theories. The present article takes the open questions left at the end of that paper as starting point, to include a more detailed analysis where such a decision support tool could be used and what the boundaries could be to its usefulness.…”

“…Could the design be flexible enough to accommodate different emerging legislative frameworks? [18] In the present article, we summarise these four questions into one: What would constitute an appropriate combination of a decision support tool based on SUNDS with democratic stakeholder engagement?…”

“…However, as Malsch et al [18] have argued, the current international policy making circuit, where regulation and risk governance focusing specifically on nanomaterials are discussed, is rather fragmented. In addition, issues related to other nanotechnologies, such as privacy and security issues of nanoelectronics, and biomedical ethical issues related to nanomedicine, are discussed in other forums.…”

“…It has also generated suggestions for version 1.0 of an open access DSS for international dialogue on regulation of nanomaterials (c.f. [18]). This first version could be incorporated in the definition of a common assessment methodology.…”

“…The output of this analysis must be discussed with stakeholders and translated into an advice, which forms the basis of decisionmaking after evaluation by the stakeholders, resulting in feedback which can be the starting point for reiterating the cycle. Embedding the tool in this governance continuum highlights the potential added value as well as its limitations in the light of evidence-based and democratic 15 Deciding who is qualified to be an expert, and on which aspect, is not straightforward, given the current discussion on the formation and roles of epistemic communities in evidence based decision making [18,23,24]. decision-making.…”