, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 1217-1220

A response to ‘Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance’, O. Renn & M.C. Roco, 2006. J. Nanoparticle Research 8(2): 153–191

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access
This is an excerpt from the content

In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Renn and Roco wrote a thorough analysis of the future of nanotechnology and the concomitant process of risk governance (Renn and Roco 2006a). Their view was based on the first white paper on risk governance of the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) (Renn 2005) and also published as the second IRGC white paper (Renn and Roco 2006b). Approximately at the same time, the Health Council of the Netherlands published an advisory report on the health significance of nanotechnologies based on our work in an ad hoc committee (Health Council of the Netherlands 2006). In the final chapter of this report, we argued in favour of the establishment of sound procedures for democratic, scientifically informed, control and decision-making and independently proposed that the risk governance framework of the IRGC (Renn 2005) may serve this purpose. In this letter, we draw a comparison between the results of both efforts to use the I

Bijker and Van Dijk were chairman and scientific secretary, respectively, of the Committee on Nanotechnologies and Health of the Health Council of the Netherlands. The other authors were members of the committee.