Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology

Abstract

Understanding how stakeholders manage risks associated with nanomaterials is a key input to the design of strategies and tools to achieve safe and sustainable nanomanufacturing. The paper presents some results of a study aiming firstly to inform the development of a software decision support tool. Further, we seek also to understand existing tools used by stakeholders as a source of capabilities and potential adaptation into decision support framework and tools. Central research questions of this study are: How is collective decision-making on risk management and sustainable nanomaterials organised? Which aspects are taken into account in this collective decision-making? And what role can a decision support tool play in such decision-making? The paper analyses 13 responses to a questionnaire survey held among participants in a meeting in October 2013 and a series of 27 semistructured telephone interviews conducted from January until April 2014 with decision-makers from mainly European industry and regulators involved in risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials. Findings from the study on the social organisation of collective decision-making, aspects taken into account in decisions and potential role of decision support tools are presented.

Decision Support for International Agreements Regulating Nanomaterials

“…This paper analyses suggestions made at a workshop in Edinburgh on 6 October 2016, which have not been discussed in earlier publications. There are similarities with a series of three papers analysing results of surveys, interviews and another user workshop from a mental modelling perspective [15][16][17]. The focus of those papers was on industrial and regulatory user contexts of the SUNDS tool while this was still in development.…”

“…The downsides are that not all countries where nanomaterials are manufactured or used are OECD members or observers, and that in practice, stakeholder engagement remains mainly limited to industry (represented by BIAC) 16 and (in the case of nanomaterials to a lesser extent) trade unions (represented by TUAC). 17 The impact of binding OECD Council Decisions would be easier to assess as part of an SIA, while less countries would be affected than by SAICM recommendations.…”

Managing Risk in Nanotechnology

“…By now they have not applied for accreditation due to its high costs and because their clients have not demanded it. In addition to these specialised centres, individual researchers in other universities and research centres are also working on nanotoxicology projects (Malsch et al, 2015 ). The ethical, legal and societal aspects of nanotechnology are investigated at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the Sciences and Humanities (CEIICH) at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).…”

“…The programme aims at social development of medicine with a dedication to ethics and benefi t sharing (Malsch et al, 2015 ).…”

Nanoeducation for Industry and Society

“…It includes managers and employees of companies and research organisations where nanomaterials and nanotechnologies are handled, and also government offi cials involved in regulating these materials and their applications, and promoting innovation (Malsch, Subramanian, Semenzin, Hristozov, & Marcomini, 2015 ), as well as those involved in transporting of nanomaterials and nano-containing products, in remediation of contaminated sites, etc. The dialogue on risk governance and regulation engages an even more heterogeneous community including politicians, civil society organisations, industrial representatives, media and the general public (Malsch, 2013 ).…”