Abstract
Numerous regulatory and oversight challenges exist in the field of nanobiotechnology. Although these challenges may appear novel and complex, similar issues have plagued environmental regulation since the 1970 s. This article argues that complexity, uncertainty, and regulatory gaps are common problems in environmental regulation, and that the lessons learned and progress made during more than 40 years of environmental regulation can serve as a guidepost for addressing nanobiotechnology regulation and oversight issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Applegate JS (2008) Bridging the data gap: balancing the supply and demand for chemical information. Texas Law Rev 86:1365–1408
Camacho AE (2010) Assisted migration: redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale J Regulation 27:171–253
Davies LL (2010) Alternative energy and the energy-environment disconnect. Idaho Law Rev 46:473–514
Farber, DA (2000) Triangulating the future of reinvention: three emerging models of environmental protection. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2000:61–81
Flournoy AC (2000) Restoration Rx: an evaluation and prescription. Arizona Law Rev 42:187–209
Guth JH (2008) Law for the ecological age. Vermont J Environ Law 9:431–503
Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons, London
Kannan PM (2007) The precautionary principle: more than a cameo appearance in united states environmental law? William & Mary Environ Law Policy Rev 31:409–458
Karkkainen BC (2001) Information as environmental regulation: tri and performance benchmarking, precursor to a new paradigm? Georgetown Law J 89:257–366
Karkkainen BC (2002) Toward a smarter NEPA: monitoring and managing Government’s environmental performance. Columbia Law Rev 102:903–966
Karkkainen BC (2003) Adaptive ecosystem management and regulatory penalty defaults: toward a bounded pragmatism. Minnesota Law Rev 87:943–983
Karkkainen BC (2004) “New Governance” in legal thought and in the world: some splitting as antidote to overzealous lumping. Minnesota Law Rev 89:471–492
Karkkainen BC (2008) Bottlenecks and baselines: tackling information deficits in environmental regulation. Texas Law Rev 86:1409–1446
Karn BP, Bergeson LL (2009) Green nanotechnology: straddling promise and uncertainty. Nat Res Env 24:9–16
Kimbrell GA (2009) Governance of nanotechnology and nanomaterials: principles, regulation, and renegotiating the social contract. J Law Med Ethics 37:706–736
Lin AC (2007) Size matters: regulating nanotechnology. Harvard Environ Law Rev 31:349–414
Lin AC (2010) Chemical soup: using public nuisance to compel chemical testing. Notre Dame Law Rev 85:955–1013
Lyndon ML (1989) Information economics and chemical toxicity: designing laws to produce and use data. Michigan Law Rev 87:1795–1857
Mandel G (2008) Nanotechnology governance. Alabama Law Rev 59:1323–1384
McGarity TO (1997) The courts and the ossification of rulemaking: a response to professor seidenfeld. Texas Law Rev 75:525–556
National Research Council (NRC) (1984) Toxicity testing: strategies to determine needs and priorities. Steering committee on identification of toxic and potentially toxic chemicals for consideration by the national toxicology program, National research council
Nelson KC, Andow DA, Banker MJ (2009) Problem formulation and option assessment (PFOA) linking governance and environmental risk assessment for technologies: a methodology for problem analysis of nanotechnologies and genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:732–755
Noble BF (2000) Strengthening EIA through adaptive management: a systems perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:97–111
Ruhl JB (1996) A paradigm for the dynamical law-and-society system: a wake-up call for legal reductionism and the modern administrative state. Duke Law J 45:849–914
Ruhl JB (2005) Regulation by adaptive management—is it possible? Minnesota J Law Sci Tech 7:21–49
Sachs NM (2009) Jumping the pond: transnational law and the future of chemical regulation. Vanderbilt Law Rev 62:1817–1862
Stewart RB (2001) A new generation of environmental regulation? Capital University Law Rev 29:21–143
Sunstein CR (2006) Irreversible and catastrophic. Cornell Law Rev 91:841–891
Tarlock AD (2010) Environmental law: then and now. Washington Univ J Law 32:1–23
Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. Macmillan Publishing, New York
Acknowledgments
Preparation of this article was supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant #0608791, “NIRT: Evaluating Oversight Models for Active Nanostructures and Nanosystems: Learning from Past Technologies in a Societal Context” (Principal Investigator: S. M. Wolf; Co-PIs: E. Kokkoli, J. Kuzma, J. Paradise, and G. Ramachandran). The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karkkainen, B.C. Does nanobiotechnology oversight present a uniquely complex challenge to interagency cooperation?. J Nanopart Res 13, 1419–1425 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0228-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-011-0228-z