Abstract
Scientific knowledge and technological expertise continue to evolve rapidly. Such innovation gives rise to new benefits as well as risks, at an ever-increasing pace. Within this context, regulatory regimes must function in order to address policymakers’ objectives. Innovation, though, can challenge the functioning and effectiveness of regulatory regimes. Questions over fit, effectiveness, and capacity of these regimes to ensure the safe entry of such technologies, and their products, onto the market will be asked in parallel to their development. With this in mind, this article examines the strengths and weaknesses of current regulatory frameworks, including those designed for biotechnology, cosmetics, novel organisms, and foods, in order to inform and help shape Australia’s regulatory landscape around innovation. By focusing on Australia, the article illustrates the need to assess future changes to regulatory frameworks using a careful balancing of key factors. These include, for example, horizon scanning and monitoring, availability of appropriate data, existing health, safety, environmental, ethical, and social risks and impacts, and regulatory capacity. The article argues that rather than using one of these factors in isolation, a careful assessment of where each factor stands can lead regulators to an approach that properly manages the potential risks of emerging technologies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This article is drawn from a larger research report funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. This section of the article draws from the more comprehensive case studies that were presented in that final report. Due to space limitation, it is not possible to include all of the descriptive material in this article.
Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (NZ), and The Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2006 (CPGS) (HSNO Approval No. HSR002552) (NZ).
Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011.
See Affiliation 2.
References
Abbott K, Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ (2006) A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology? Environ Law Rep 36:10931–10942
Abbott K, Sylvester DJ, Marchant GE (2010) Transnational Regulation of Nanotechnology: Reality or Romanticism? In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 525–544
Australian Office of Nanotechnology (2009) National Nanotechnology Strategy Annual Report 2008–09. Department of Innovation, Canberra
Bennett Moses L (2007) Recurring Dilemmas: The Law’s Race to Keep Up with Technological Change. U. ILL. JL TECH 2:239–285
Bowman DM (2014) The Hare and the Tortoise: An Australian Perspective on Regulating New Technologies and their Products and Processes. In: Marchant G, Abbott K, Allenby B (eds) Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 155–175
Bowman DM, Ludlow K (2013) Assessing the impact of a ‘for government’ review on the nanotechnology regulatory landscape. Monash Law J 38(3):168–212
Bowman DM, Van Calster G (2007) Has REACH Gone Too Far? Nat Nanotechnol 2(9):525–526
Brownsword R (2008) Rights, regulation and the technological revolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (2010) Nanotechnologies in food. Royal Society of Chemistry, London
Chaudhry Q, Gergely A, Bowman DM (2012) Regulatory frameworks for food nanotechnologies. In: Huang Q (ed) Nanotechnology in the food, beverage and neutraceutical industries. Woodhealth Publishing, Oxford, pp 82–98
Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilization (1982) Interim Report. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne
ETC Group (2003) No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium Size Matters! ETC. Group, Ottawa
ETC Group (2003) The Big Down-Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. ETC. Group, Ottawa
ETC Group (2004) Nanotech News in Living Colour: An Update on White Papers, Red Flags, Green Goo, Grey Goo (and Red Herrings). ETC. Group, Ottawa
European Commission (2008) Nanomaterials in REACH. Brussels, EC
European Commission (2015), Public Health - Scientific Committees, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/policy/index_en.htm (last updated 3 February, 2015)
Falkner R, Breggin L, Jaspers N, Pendergrass J, Porter R (2009) Regulating nanomaterials: a transatlantic agenda. London School of Economics, London
Falkner R, Breggin L, Jaspers N, Pendergrass J, Porter R (2009) Consumer Labelling of Nanomaterials in the EU and US: Convergence or Divergence? London School of Economics, London
Falkner R, Jaspers N (2012) Regulating nanotechnologies: risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Glob Environ Polit 12(1):30–55
Fleurke F, Somsen H (2011) Precautionary regulation of chemical risk: how REACH confronts the regulatory challenges of scale, uncertainty, complexity and innovation. Common Mark Law Rev 48:357–393
Foss Hansen S, Maynard AD, Baun A, Tickner JA, Bowman DM (2013) Nanotechnology – early lessons from early warnings. In: The European Environment Agency (ed) Late Lessons from Early Warnings 2 - In Praise of Dissent. European Commission, Brussels, pp 562–591
Foss Hansen S, Maynard AD, Baun A, Tickner JA, Bowman DM (2014) What are the warning signs that we should be looking for? In: Matt H, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology Risk Management: Perspectives and Progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London, pp 9–24
Hodge GA, Maynard AD, Bowman DM (2014) Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation. Sci Public Policy 41(1):1–15
Jasanoff S (2011) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, University Press
Kennedy AJ, Diamond S, Stanley JK, Coleman J, Steevens JA, Chappell MA, Laird J, Bednar A (2014) Nanomaterials Exotoxicology: A Case Study with Nanosilver. In: Matt H, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology Risk Management: Perspectives and Progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London, pp 117–151
Lee R, Stokes E (2009) Twenty-first Century Novel: Regulating Nanotechnologies. J Environ Law 21(3):469–482
Ludlow K (2004) Cultivating Chaos: State Responses to Releases of Genetically Modified Organisms’. Deakin Law Rev 9(1):1–40
Ludlow K, Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) Final Report: Review of Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia’s Regulatory Frameworks. Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Monash University, Melbourne
Ludlow K, Bowman DM, Kirk D (2009) Hitting the mark or falling short with nanotechnology regulation? Trends Biotechnol 27(11):615–620
Mandel GN (2007) Nanotechnology governance. Ala L Rev 59(5):1323–1384
Mandel GN (2009) Regulating emerging technologies. Law Innov Technol 1(1):75–92
Mandel GN, Marchant GE (2014) The Living Regulatory Challenges of Synthetic Biology. Iowa Law Rev 100:155–200
Marchant GE, Abbott K, Allenby B (eds) (2013) Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Marchant GE, Allenby BR, Herkert JR (eds) (2011) The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: The pacing problem, Vol. 7. Springer Science and Business Media, New York
Marchant GE, Wallach W (2013) Governing the Governance of Emerging Technologies. In: Gary M, Kenneth A, Braden A (eds) Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Monica J, Van Claster G, Patsa A (2014) A Nanotechnology Legal Framework. In: Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology Risk Management: Perspectives and Progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London, pp 265–311
Montfort, JP, Indirli G, Georgieva D, Carrega CM (2010), Nanomaterials under REACH: Legal Aspects. Eur J Risk Reg 1:51–58
National Institute of Health (2013), NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules. available at: http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/biosafety/nih-guidelines
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012) Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good. Nuffield Council, London
Renn O (2006) White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. IRGC, Geneva
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS-RAE, London
Stokes E (2012) Nanotechnology and the Products of Inherited Regulation. J Law Soc 39(1):92–112
Stokes E, Bowman DM (2012) Regulatory Inheritance and Emerging: Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnologies and Synthetic Biology. Eur J Risk Regul 2:235–241
Acknowledgments
This article is drawn from a project funded by the Australian Government’s Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Department in relation to the report from which this article is drawn.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ludlow, K., Bowman, D.M., Gatof, J. et al. Regulating Emerging and Future Technologies in the Present. Nanoethics 9, 151–163 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0223-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0223-4