Regulating Nanotechnologies: Risk, Uncertainty and the Global Governance Gap

Abstract

Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are set to transform the global industrial landscape, but the debate on how to regulate environmental, health and safety risks is lagging behind technological innovation. Current regulatory efforts are primarily * This article builds on research for a two-year project on nanotechnology regulation in the US and Europe (2008-09), which was funded by the European Commission. We are grateful to our collaborators in this project, at the London School of Economics, Chatham House, Environmental Law Institute and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and especially Linda Breggin, Jay Pendergrass and Read Porter. We also received helpful suggestions from three anonymous reviewers and would like to thank them for their advice. Any remaining errors are our own.2 focused on the national and regional level, while the international dimensions of nanotechnology governance are still poorly understood and rarely feature on the international agenda. With the ongoing globalization of nanosciences and the rapid expansion of international trade in nanomaterials, however, demand for international coordination and harmonization of regulatory approaches is set to increase. However, uncertainty about nanotechnology risk poses a profound dilemma for regulators and policy-makers. Uncertainty both creates demand for and stands in the way of greater international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory approaches. This paper reviews the emerging debate on nanotechnology risk and regulatory approaches, investigates the current state of international cooperation and outlines the critical contribution that a global governance approach can make to the safe development of nanotechnologies.

(Q)SAR modelling of nanomaterial toxicity: A critical review

“…Moreover, recent studies have revealed that the distinctive characteristics of ENMs not only make them superior to traditional bulk materials but also affect their potential toxicity (Arora, Rajwade, & Paknikar, 2012) and present a challenge for the existing regulatory system (Falkner & Jaspers, 2012). There is now a growing body of literature on the potential undesirable effects caused by the exposure to different types of ENMs (Horie & Fujita, 2011;Jeng & Swanson, 2006;Karlsson, Gustafsson, Cronholm, & Möller, 2009;Magrez, et al, 2006).…”

The legitimacy of transnational private governance arrangements related to nanotechnologies: the case of international organization for standardization

“…Due to their general flexibility and expert-driven quality these outcomes are considered among many researchers/commentators, to be highly important on filling the current scientific and regulatory gaps, as well as ensuring knowledge diffusion and access of new technologies to global markets (Forsberg, 2010;Quack, 2010;EC, 2008c (Bowman, 2014: 325). OECD/WPMN does not have regulatory authority (nor does it aim to), rather it serves as a center for international collaboration and policy dialogue, by promoting "international cooperation in human health and environmental safety-related aspects of [MNs], to assist in the development of rigorous safety evaluation of nanomaterials" (OECD, 2008: 3), and building "communities of practice that promote information sharing and harmonization" (Abbott et al 2012: 291;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012). To achieve these aims OECD/WPMN has created eight projects, amongst which are also projects related to the safety testing and assessment of a set of MNs and the creation of a database on MNs to inform and analyse EHS activities (OECD, 2012a).…”

“…nanomaterial safety) and have led to a range of specific projects, workshops or dialogues. (Breggin et al 2009;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012).…”

“…Furthermore, the global significance of issues accompanying nanotechnologies (e.g. scientific, regulatory and socio -environmental), the evolvement of the new generations of nanomaterials, the rapid pace of the commercialization of nano-enabled products, as well as the potential of MNs to cross national boundaries are amongst the key factors which pose further challenges for these arrangements to deal with nanotechnologies (Abbott et al 2010;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012). In this regard, Abbott et al (2010: 528) indicate that the regulation of nanotechnologies may come to "present a new paradigm for regulation in the twenty-first century -regulation that is proactive, global and capable of adapting to rapidly changing conditions".…”

“…In this regard, Abbott et al (2010: 528) indicate that the regulation of nanotechnologies may come to "present a new paradigm for regulation in the twenty-first century -regulation that is proactive, global and capable of adapting to rapidly changing conditions". Therefore, many scholars have been arguing that a transnational approach to addressing scientific uncertainties, knowledge gaps but also the regulatory challenges posed by nanotechnologies, may be more promising (Abbott et al 2010;Breggin et al 2009;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012).…”