Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology

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

Abstract

Risk management of nanotechnology is challenged by the enormous uncertainties about the risks, benefits, properties, and future direction of nanotechnology applications. Because of these uncertainties, traditional risk management principles such as acceptable risk, cost–benefit analysis, and feasibility are unworkable, as is the newest risk management principle, the precautionary principle. Yet, simply waiting for these uncertainties to be resolved before undertaking risk management efforts would not be prudent, in part because of the growing public concerns about nanotechnology driven by risk perception heuristics such as affect and availability. A more reflexive, incremental, and cooperative risk management approach is required, which not only will help manage emerging risks from nanotechnology applications, but will also create a new risk management model for managing future 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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abbot KW, Marchard GE, Sylvester DJ (2006). A framework convention for nanotechnology? Environmental Law Reporter 36:10931–10942

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ackerman BA, Stewart RB (1985) Reforming environmental law. Stanford Law Rev 37:1333–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Austin C. Study shows Americans encouraged by prospects of nanotechnology (July 14, 2004). http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/04_07/211.htm. Cited May 4, 2007

  4. Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  5. Babich A (2003) Too much science in environmental law. Columbia J Environ Law 28:119–184

    Google Scholar 

  6. Baram MS (1984) Alternatives to regulation: managing risks to health, safety, and the environment. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Breggin LK, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Environ Law 31:285–329

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A small matter of regulation: an international review of nanotechnology regulations. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 8:1–36

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38:1060–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Braithwaite V, Levi M (eds) (1998) Trust and governance. New York: Russell Sage

  11. Colvin VL (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol 21:1166–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cross FB (1996) Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Wash Lee Law Rev 53:851–925

    Google Scholar 

  13. Drexler E (1986) Engines of creation. Anchor, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Driesen DD (2005) Distributing the costs of environmental, health, and safety protection: the feasibility principle, cost-benefit analysis, and regulatory reform. Environ Aff 32:1–95

    Google Scholar 

  15. Environmental Defense, American Chemistry Council (2005) Joint statement of principles. Available at www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/4857_ACC-ED_nanotech.pdf

  16. Environmental Defense, DuPont (2007) Nano risk framework. Available at www.nanoriskframework.com

  17. ETC Group (2003) The big down: Atomtech—technologies converging at the nano-scale. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/171/01/thebigdown.pdf. Cited Sept. 29, 2007

  18. Fiedler F, Reynolds G (1994) Legal problems of nanotechnology: an overview. S Cal Interdisc LJ 3:593–629

    Google Scholar 

  19. Florini K, Walsh S, Balbus JM, Denison R (2006) Nanotechnology: getting it right the first time. Nanotechnol Law Bus 3:39–53

    Google Scholar 

  20. Forrest D (1989) Regulating nanotechnology development, Foresight Nanotech Institute, March 23, 1989. http://www.foresight.org/nano/Forrest1989.html. Cited September 29, 2007

  21. Friends of the Earth (Australia) (2007). Who’s afraid of the precautionary principle? http://nano.foe.org.au/node/186. Cited Sept. 29, 2007

  22. Greenwood M (2007) Thinking big about things small: creating an effective oversight system for nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gregory R, Flynn J, Slovic P (1995) Technological stigma. American Scientist 83:220–223

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gwinn MR, Vallyathan V (2006) Nanoparticles: health effects—pros and cons. Environ Health Perspect 114:1818–1825

    Google Scholar 

  25. Holm S, Harris J (1999) Precautionary principle stifles discovery (letter). Nature 400:398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (2006). White paper on nanotechnology risk governance (Geneva, IRGC). http://www.irgc.org/irgc/_b/contentFiles/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version.pdf. Cited September 29, 2007

  27. International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) et al. (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. http://www.icta.org/doc/Principles%20for%20the%20Oversight%20of%20Nanotechnologies%20and%20Nanomaterials_final.pdf. Cited Sept. 29, 2007

  28. Johnson BB (1993) Advancing understanding of knowledge’s role in lay risk perception. Risk Issues Health Saf 4:189–212

    Google Scholar 

  29. Joy B (2000) Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired, August 4, 2000. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html. Cited Sept. 29, 2007

  30. Jukes TH (1986) Frost resistance and Pseudomonas. Nature 319:617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kahan D, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen GL (2007) Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: an experimental investigation. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=968652. Cited May 3, 2007

  32. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (eds) (1985) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  33. Kasperson JX et al (2003) The social amplification of risk: fifteen years of research and theory. In: Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kolata G (2001) Scientists debate what to do when findings aid an enemy. New York Times Sept. 25, 2001:D1

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kuran T, Sunstein CR (1999) Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Rev 51:683–768

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kuzma J (2007) Moving forward responsibly: oversight for the nanotechnology–biology interface. J Nanopart Res 9:165–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lin AC (2007) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environ Law Rev 31:349

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lin-Easton PC (2001) It’s time for environmentalists to think small—real small: a call for the involvement of environmental lawyers in developing precautionary policies for molecular nanotechnology. Georget Int Environ Law Rev 14:106–134

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mandel G (2005) Technology wars: the failure of democratic discourse. Mich Telecommun Law Rev 11:117–190

    Google Scholar 

  40. Marchant GE (2003) From general policy to legal rule: the aspirations and limitations of the precautionary principle. Environ Health Perspect 111:1799–1803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Marchant GE, Mossman KL (2004) Arbitrary and capricious: the precautionary principle in the European Union courts. AEI, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  42. Marchant GE, Sylvester D (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34:714–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Maynard AD (2006a) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  44. Maynard AD (2006b) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444:267–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McCubbin PR (2005) The risk in technology-based standards. Duke Environ Law Policy Forum 16:1–56

    Google Scholar 

  46. Morrissey SR (2007) Understanding nanotechnology. Chemical & Engineering News April 16, 2007:35–37

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nel A, Xia T, Maedler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Oberdörster G et al (2005) Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy. Particle & Fibre Toxicology 2:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Paddock L (2006) Keeping pace with nanotechnology: a proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. Environ Law Report 36:10943–10952

    Google Scholar 

  50. Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. (2006) Report findings. http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/98. Cited May 4, 2007

  51. Phoenix C, Drexler E (2004) Safe exponential manufacturing. Nanotechnology 15:869–872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pidgeon N, Kasperson RE, Slovic P (eds) (2003) The social amplification of risk. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  53. Posner R (2004) Catastrophe. Oxford, University Press

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rachlinski J (2003) The uncertain psychological case for paternalism. Northwest Univ Law Rev 97:1165–1225

    Google Scholar 

  55. Rajeski D (2004) The next small thing. The Environmental Forum, March/April, pp. 42–49

  56. Renn O, Roco MC (2006) Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8:153–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Reynolds GH (2003) Nanotechnology and regulatory policy: three futures. Harv J Law Technol 17:179–209

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sandin P (1999) Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:889–907

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), European Commission (2007) Opinion on the appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_004c.pdf. Cited Sept. 29, 2007

  60. Segal S (2004) Environmental regulation of nanotechnology: avoiding big mistakes for small machines. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1:290–303

    Google Scholar 

  61. Shapiro SA, McGarity TO (1991) Not so paradoxical: the rationale for technology-based regulation. Duke Law J 1991:729–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Sheetz T et al (2005) Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol Soc 27:329–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. London, Earthscan

    Google Scholar 

  64. Slovic P (2004) What’s fear got to do with it? It’s affect we need to worry about. Miss Law Rev 69:971–990

    Google Scholar 

  65. Slovic P, Peters E, Finucane ML, MacGregor DG (2005) Affect, risk, and decisionmaking. Health Psychol 24:S35–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sunstein CR (1991) Administrative substance. Duke Law J 1991:607–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Sunstein CR (2002a) The laws of fear. Harvard Law Rev 115:1119–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Sunstein CR (2002b) Probability neglect: emotions, worst-cases, and law. Yale Law J 112:61–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Sunstein CR (2003a) Beyond the precautionary principle. Univ PA Law Rev 151:1003–1058

    Google Scholar 

  70. Sunstein CR (2003b) Hazardous heuristics. Univ Chicago Law Rev 70:751–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Sunstein CR (2004) Precautions against what? The availability heuristic and cross-cultural risk perception. Alabama Law Rev 57:75–101

    Google Scholar 

  72. Sunstein CR (2006) Irreversible and catastrophic. Cornell Law Rev 91:841–897

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sweet L, Strohm B (2006) Nanotechnology—life-cycle risk management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 12:528–551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Sylvester D, Lohr S (2005) Counting on confidentiality: legal and statistical approaches to federal privacy law after the USA Patriot Act. Wisconsin Law Rev 2005:1036–1138

    Google Scholar 

  75. Thayer AM (2006) Chance of a lifetime. Chem Eng News 1:10–18

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1982) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. In Kahneman et al. (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, pp 3–19

  77. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2007) Science Policy Council, Nanotechnology White Paper, EPA 100/B-07/001. http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/publications/whitepaper12022005.pdf. Cited Sept. 29, 2007

  78. Wagner WE (2000) The triumph of technology-based standards. Univ Ill Law Rev 2000:83–113

    Google Scholar 

  79. Weckert J, Moor J (2006) The precautionary principle in nanotechnology. Int J Appl Philos 20:191–204

    Google Scholar 

  80. Wejnert J (2004) Regulatory mechanisms for molecular nanotechnology. Jurimetrics J 44:323–350

    Google Scholar 

  81. Wexler L (2006) Limiting the precautionary principle: weapons regulation in the face of scientific uncertainty. U.C. Davis Law Rev 39:459–527

    Google Scholar 

  82. Wiedemann PM, Schutz H (2005) The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ Health Perspect 113:402–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wilson RF (2006) Nanotechnology: the challenge of regulating known unknowns. J Law Med Ethics 34:704–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for the Study of Law, Science and Technology, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 877906, Tempe, AZ, 85287-7906, USA

    Gary E. Marchant, Douglas J. Sylvester & Kenneth W. Abbott

Authors
  1. Gary E. Marchant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas J. Sylvester
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kenneth W. Abbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary E. Marchant.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Marchant, G.E., Sylvester, D.J. & Abbott, K.W. Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2, 43–60 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0028-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-008-0028-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation