Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology

Abstract

Like all technologies, nanotechnology will inevitably present risks, whether they result from unintentional effects of otherwise beneficial applications, or from the malevolent misuse of technology. Increasingly, risks from new and emerging technologies are being regulated at the international level, although governments and private experts are only beginning to consider the appropriate international responses to nanotechnology. In this paper, we explore both the potential risks posed by nanotechnology and potential regulatory frameworks that law may impose. In so doing, we also explore the various rationales for international regulation including the potential for cross-boundary harms, sharing of regulatory expertise and resources, controlling protectionism and trade conflicts, avoiding a "race to the bottom" in which governments seek economic advantage through lax regulation, and limiting the "nano divide" between North and South. Finally, we examine some models for international regulation and offer tentative thoughts on the prospects for each.

Nanotechnology, Society, and Environment

“…Most recently, some attention has come from regulatory analysts and technology policy scholars on the question of how existing systems of regulation ought to be modified to address that have already arisen or seem likely to arise soon (Davies 2005;Wardak and Regeski 2003;Wardak and Gorman 2006;Marchant and Sylvester 2006). Nearly all such analyses assume that all that is needed for nanotechnology will be incremental modifications to existing regulatory systems, including possibly even some modifications to deregulate commercialization.…”

“…For example, most of those who write on the subject assume that the most appropriate locus for nanotechnology regulation and governance is, and will continue to be, at the national level, yet a strong case can be made that for a technology with such transboundary risks and benefits, much of its regulation must inevitably have a transnational component, or even be predominantly transnational (Marchant and Sylvester, 2006) It is not clear that current national regulatory systems can ever be adapted adequately to address the most important of the environmental and social issues likely to posed by a set of technologies with such potentially revolutionary characteristics. Even if current policy systems can be sufficiently adapted, nanotechnology, like other emergent technologies such as genetic engineering, raises troubling questions about what might constitute appropriate democratic 'engagement' and control-questions that are even more troubling when considered in a transnational context (Baber and Bartlett 2009).…”

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

“…EC, 2007a;EC, 2008a;EC, 2008c;EC, 2011) and scholarly debates (e.g. Abbott and Snidal, 2009;Abbott et al 2010;Bowman and Hodge, 2009;Bowman, 2014;Blind and Gauch, 2009;Falkner and Jaspers, 2012;Miles, 2007;Meili and Widmer, 2010;Marchant and Sylvester, 2006).…”

“…Even though these are only few examples and preliminary studies on specific types of nanomaterials, they serve, as Hansen et al (2013) argue, as early warnings about the hazardous potential of MNs. These issues have promoted various government funded research programs, commentators, industry and activist groups to engage in many debates about the effectiveness of current regulatory frameworks to regulate nanotechnologies and manage their potential risks (Chaudhry et al 2006;Marchant et al 2006;Ludlow et al 2007;Maynard et al 2011;Monica et al 2014).…”

“…Furthermore, TGAs are often expected to foster cooperation amongst a wide range of actors across borders, share regulatory and scientific expertise, and coordinate their approaches for addressing technological and regulatory uncertainties and challenges (Abott et al 2010(Abott et al & 2012. In other words, as Marchant and Sylvester (2006) frame it: "transnational regulation not only provides an opportunity to cabin potential risks, it also promises to speed research, share regulatory expertise and resources, and avoid potential "nano divide" in which more advanced nations widen their existing technological and regulatory advantage over more impoverished nations" (p.717). Certainly, TGAs do not guarantee these results, as their ability to reach their fullest potential depends on how they overcome and/or manage with the challenges that are mentioned in below.…”