Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nanotechnology in the marketplace: how the nanotechnology industry views risk

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite uncertainty about the potential human health and environmental risks of nanotechnology, major stakeholders such as regulatory agencies and the nanotechnology industry are already negotiating the emerging regulatory framework for nanotechnology. Because of a relative lack of nano-specific regulations, the future of nanotechnology development will depend greatly on the views held by the nanotechnology industry. This study fills the research gap in understanding how the nanotechnology industry perceives the risks of nanotechnology. This is the first interview-based study of the nanotechnology industry in the United States. Semi-structured, open-ended phone interviews were conducted with 17 individuals involved in the commercialization of nanotechnology in the United States. Results indicate that while the industry acknowledges uncertainty about the potential risks of nanotechnology and takes significant precaution in ensuring the safety of their products, they do not see nanotechnology as novel or risky. They do not believe that uncertainty over risk ought to delay the further development of nanotechnology. The industry sees itself as the primary agent in ensuring consumer safety and believes that consumers are adequately protected. They are also largely benefit-centric and view product labeling as inefficacious.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baumgartner L, Carr B, Fish A, Meyerhofer J (2010) Current practices and perceived risks for environmental, health, safety and product stewardship in the nanomaterials industry. Masters Thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara

  • Bernard RH (2006) Research methods in anthropology, 4th edn. AltaMira Press, Oxford, pp 189–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz K (2011) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through quantitative analysis. Sage Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins H (1981) Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Soc Stud Sci 11:3–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti JA, Killpack K, Gerritzen G, Huang L, Mircheva M, Delmas M, Harthorn BH, Appelbaum RP, Holden PA (2008) Health and safety practices in the nanomaterials workplace: results from an international survey. Environ Sci Technol 42:3155–3162

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13:3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunphy-Guzmán KA, Taylor MA, Banfield JF (2006) Environmental risks of nanotechnology: national nanotechnology initiative funding, 2000–2004. Environ Sci Technol 40:1401–1407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeman CD, Baumgartner L, Carr BM, Fish AM, Meyerhofer JD, Satterfield TA, Holden PA, Harthorn BH (2012) Governance implications of nanomaterials companies’ inconsistent risk perceptions and safety practices. J Nanopart Res 14:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairborther A, Fairbrother JR (2009) Are environmental regulations keeping up with innovation? A case study of the nanotechnology industry. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1327–1330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn T (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruère GP (2011) Labelling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6:117–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handy RD, Shaw BJ (2007) Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health Risk Soc 9:125–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen SF, Maynard A, Baun A, Tickner JA (2008) Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3:444–447

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hardman R (2006) A toxicologic review of quantum dots: toxicity depends on physicochemical and environmental factors. Environ Health Perspect 114:165–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helland A, Scheringer M, Siegrist M, Kastenholz HG, Wiek A, Scholz RW (2008) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a survey of industrial approaches. Environ Sci Technol 42:640–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lux Research (2007) The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th edn, New York

  • MacKenzie D (2009) Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Account Org Soc 34:440–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyazaki K, Islam N (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27:661–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2007) What is nanotechnology? http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html. Accessed 5 Feb 2011

  • NCMS (2009) Study of nanotechnology in the U.S. manufacturing industry. National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdoerster G, Oberdoerster E, Oberdoerster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrowski AD, Martin T, Conti J, Hurt I, Harthorn BH (2009) Nanotoxicology: characterizing the scientific literature, 2000–2007. J Nanopart Res 11:251–257

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pidgeon N, Harthorn BH, Bryant K, Rodgers-Hayden T (2009) Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nat Nanotechnol 4:95–98

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Research Lux (2009) The recession’s ripple effect on nanotech. Lux Research, Inc., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risks of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt CW (2009) Nanotechnology-related environment, health, and safety research: examining the national strategy. Environ Health Perspect 117:A158–A161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2007) The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70:669–692

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin S, Schaffer S (1985) Leviathan and the air-pump: hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira P, Youtie J, Kay L (2011) National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. J Technol Transf 36:587–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P, Malmfors T, Krewski D, Mertz CK, Neil N, Bartlett S (1995) Intuitive toxicology II. Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Anal 15:661–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao QQ, Boxman A, Chowdhry U (2003) Nanotechnology in the chemical industry—opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 5:567–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my thanks to all those individuals who made this research possible. My ability to do this research has only been possible because of the support and guidance of my mentor, Professor Joseph Conti. I have learned much about the situation surrounding nanotechnology from him, as well as about what it means to be an academic. This research was made possible by a generous grant from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1600 Golden Gate Ave., Apt. #34, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA

    Sean Becker

Authors
  1. Sean Becker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sean Becker.

Additional information

Special Issue Editors: Paolo Milani, Mary F.E. Ebeling

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Nanotechnology

Appendix

Appendix

Interview protocol

  1. 1.

    There has been much research on public risk perceptions on the emerging field of nanotechnology. So one of the things I would like to understand in my research here is how industry thinks about the potential risks of nano.

  2. 2.

    Is nanotechnology fundamentally new, novel and/or unique?

    1. a.

      To what degree are nanomaterials fundamentally different from their macro counterparts (ex. silver vs. nano scale silver?)?

    2. b.

      How do you define nanotechnology?

      1. i.

        How do you distinguish between nano and non-nano products?

  3. 3.

    Do you believe that enough is known about the safety of nanotechnology for it to be entering the marketplace at the rate that it is?

    1. a.

      If no, then what is it that still needs to be understood?

    2. b.

      How do companies, or your company in specific, come to a decision to commercialize nano products under conditions of scientific uncertainty? Is there a process whereby risks are somehow assessed?

      1. i.

        To what degree do companies act autonomously in making this decision?

  4. 4.

    Do you believe that nanotechnology is a relatively risky technology? Why?

    1. a.

      What sort of risks rise to the top in your opinion?

    2. b.

      Do you think that the nano products you produce have any risks associated with them?

    3. c.

      Are workers or consumers more at risk for potential negative side effects of interacting with nanomaterials?

    4. d.

      Does the novelty of nanotechnology alone make it risky? (See RISK question 2)?

    5. e.

      Are certain types of nanomaterials riskier than others?

    6. f.

      Are certain applications of nanotechnology riskier than others?

    7. g.

      Are certain types of exposure to nanomaterials (exposure scenarios) riskier than others?

    8. h.

      Is production volume a relevant factor for assessing the risk of nanotechnology?

    9. i.

      Are there are other risks, social risks? For example, some suggest that the benefits of nanotechnology may only be of benefit for those that can afford nano products.

  5. 5.

    Do the potential benefits of nanotechnology for society outweigh the technology’s potential risks? Why? (Reference REGULATION question 8).

  6. 6.

    Based on your experience, do people in the nanotechnology industry view nanotech as more or less risky than the general public? What causes this?

    1. a.

      What are your opinions on how the public views risks?

    2. b.

      How does the public perceive the safety of nanotechnology?

    3. c.

      Is the public overly concerned with the risks of nanotechnology?

  7. 7.

    There has been much debate over whether or not products containing nanotechnology should be labeled as such. What is your opinion on this issue?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Becker, S. Nanotechnology in the marketplace: how the nanotechnology industry views risk. J Nanopart Res 15, 1426 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1426-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-013-1426-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation