Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Regulating Emerging and Future Technologies in the Present

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. Regulation (EC) No 1169/2011.

  4. See Affiliation 2.

References

  1. Abbott K, Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ (2006) A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology? Environ Law Rep 36:10931–10942

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Google Scholar 

  3. Australian Office of Nanotechnology (2009) National Nanotechnology Strategy Annual Report 2008–09. Department of Innovation, Canberra

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett Moses L (2007) Recurring Dilemmas: The Law’s Race to Keep Up with Technological Change. U. ILL. JL TECH 2:239–285

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bowman DM, Van Calster G (2007) Has REACH Gone Too Far? Nat Nanotechnol 2(9):525–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brownsword R (2008) Rights, regulation and the technological revolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaudhry Q, Castle L, Watkins R (2010) Nanotechnologies in food. Royal Society of Chemistry, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee to Consider the Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Arising from In Vitro Fertilization (1982) Interim Report. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  12. ETC Group (2003) No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium Size Matters! ETC. Group, Ottawa

  13. ETC Group (2003) The Big Down-Atomtech: Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. ETC. Group, Ottawa

  14. 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

  15. European Commission (2008) Nanomaterials in REACH. Brussels, EC

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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)

  17. Falkner R, Breggin L, Jaspers N, Pendergrass J, Porter R (2009) Regulating nanomaterials: a transatlantic agenda. London School of Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Google Scholar 

  19. Falkner R, Jaspers N (2012) Regulating nanotechnologies: risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap. Glob Environ Polit 12(1):30–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hodge GA, Maynard AD, Bowman DM (2014) Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation. Sci Public Policy 41(1):1–15

  24. Jasanoff S (2011) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton, University Press

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lee R, Stokes E (2009) Twenty-first Century Novel: Regulating Nanotechnologies. J Environ Law 21(3):469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ludlow K (2004) Cultivating Chaos: State Responses to Releases of Genetically Modified Organisms’. Deakin Law Rev 9(1):1–40

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ludlow K, Bowman DM, Kirk D (2009) Hitting the mark or falling short with nanotechnology regulation? Trends Biotechnol 27(11):615–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mandel GN (2007) Nanotechnology governance. Ala L Rev 59(5):1323–1384

    Google Scholar 

  31. Mandel GN (2009) Regulating emerging technologies. Law Innov Technol 1(1):75–92

    Google Scholar 

  32. Mandel GN, Marchant GE (2014) The Living Regulatory Challenges of Synthetic Biology. Iowa Law Rev 100:155–200

    Google Scholar 

  33. Marchant GE, Abbott K, Allenby B (eds) (2013) Innovative Governance Models for Emerging Technologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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

  35. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. 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

    Google Scholar 

  37. Montfort, JP, Indirli G, Georgieva D, Carrega CM (2010), Nanomaterials under REACH: Legal Aspects. Eur J Risk Reg 1:51–58

  38. 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

  39. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2012) Emerging biotechnologies: technology, choice and the public good. Nuffield Council, London

    Google Scholar 

  40. Renn O (2006) White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach. IRGC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  41. Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineers (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS-RAE, London

    Google Scholar 

  42. Stokes E (2012) Nanotechnology and the Products of Inherited Regulation. J Law Soc 39(1):92–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Stokes E, Bowman DM (2012) Regulatory Inheritance and Emerging: Technologies: The Case of Nanotechnologies and Synthetic Biology. Eur J Risk Regul 2:235–241

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Faculty of Law, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, Vic, 3800, Australia

    Karinne Ludlow

  2. Risk Science Center and Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Diana M. Bowman

  3. The University of Michigan Law School, 625 South State Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Jake Gatof

  4. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Michael G. Bennett

Authors
  1. Karinne Ludlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana M. Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jake Gatof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael G. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana M. Bowman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0223-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation