Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology Assessment Beyond Toxicology – The Case of Nanomaterials

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 13))

Abstract

The chapter of Fleischer, Jahnel and Seitz points out that the current concept of toxicological risk assessment in the field of nanotechnology (in particular that referred to manufactured particulate nanomaterials (MPNs)), which is based on conventional expert-based chemical risk assessment procedure, is too narrow. We analyse various proposals, such as the recent ones made by the International Risk Governance Council based on the considerations of societal impacts and needs, which recommends the inclusion of concern assessment in the process (concerns of the general public and the stakeholders). After having discussed the methodological challenges of a broadening of the concept of risk assessment, they discuss the results from the Eurobarometer 2010 as well as from particular public engagement exercises and focus groups. In the paper the authors call for a wider concept, developing further the idea of concern assessment: this approach should allow for a plurality in perspective, actors and different kinds of knowledge adequately considering societal impacts for understanding risk in a broader sense than experts.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aschberger, K., C. Micheletti, B. Sokull-Klüttgen, and F.M. Christensen. 2011. Analysis of currently available data for characterising the risk of engineered nanomaterials to the environment and human health – Lessons learned from four case studies. Environment International 37(6): 1143–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berube, D.M., C.L. Cummings, J.H. Frith, A.R. Binder, and R. Oldendick. 2011. Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 13(8): 3089–3099.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonazzi, M. 2010. ANNEX – Communicating nanotechnology – Why, to whom, saying what and how? An action-packed roadmap towards a brand new dialogue. European Commission, Unit ‘Nano- and Converging Sciences and Technologies’. http://cordis.europa.eu/nanotechnology/src/publication_events.htm.

  • British Market Research Bureau (BMRB). 2004. Nanotechnology: Views of the general public. Quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study. BMRB Social Research 2004. London: The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Nanotechnology Working Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR). 2008. Wahrnehmung der Nanotechnologie in der Bevölkerung. Repräsentativerhebung und morphologisch-psychologische Grundlagenstudie. BfR-Wissenschaft 05/2008. Berlin: BfR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burello, E., and A.P. Worth. 2011. QSAR modeling of nanomaterials. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews. Nanomedicine and Nanobiotechnology 3(3): 298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, S.R. 2011. How we talk when we talk about nano: The future in laypeople’s talk. Futures 43(3): 317–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decker, M., and M. Ladikas (eds.). 2004. Bridges between science, society and policy. Technology assessment – Methods and impacts. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engineered Nanoparticles: Review of Health and Environmental Safety (ENRHES). 2010. Project report. http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report133.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.

  • Environmental Defense, DuPont. 2007. Nano risk framework. http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/6496_Nano%20Risk%20Framework.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.

  • Eurobarometer. 2010. Eurobarometer wave 73.1. Special Eurobarometer 341. Biotechnology. Bruxelles: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, T., and C. Quendt. 2007. ‘Unsichtbar und unendlich’. Bürgerperspektiven auf Nanopartikel. Ergebnisse zweier Fokusgruppen-Veranstaltungen in Karlsruhe. Wissenschaftliche Berichte FZKA 7337. Karlsruhe: Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, T., J. Jahnel, and S.B. Seitz. 2012a. NanoSafety – Risk governance of manufactured nanoparticles (Final report). Brussels: European Parliament, STOA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, T., J. Haslinger, J. Jahnel, and S.B. Seitz. 2012b. Focus group discussions inform concern assessment and support scientific policy advice for the risk governance of nanomaterials. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 10: 79–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss Hansen, S., B.H. Larsen, S.I. Olsen, and A. Baun. 2007. Categorisation framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 1(3): 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, G., S. Stares, A. Allansdottir, N. Allum, P. Castro, Y. Esmer, and et al. 2010. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? A report to the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavelin, K., R. Wilson, and R. Doubleday. 2007. Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG). Involve: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, T.B., F.M. Menn, J.T. Fleming, J. Wilgus, R.N. Compton, and G.S. Sayler. 2007. Attributing effects of aqueous C60 nano-aggregates to tetrahydrofuran decomposition products in larval zebrafish by assessment of gene expression. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(7): 1059–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hullmann, A. 2008. European activities in the field of ethical, legal and social aspects (ELSA) and governance of nanotechnology. European Commission. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/elsa_governance_nano.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2012.

  • International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2005. White paper no. 1 on risk governance: Towards an integrative approach. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). 2006. White paper no. 2 on nanotechnology risk governance. Geneva: International Risk Governance Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krug, H.F., and P. Wick. 2011. Nanotoxicology: An interdisciplinary challenge. Angewandte Chemie International Edition 50(6): 1260–1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach, R.K., R. Boyd, T. Burke, H.-U. Danzebrink, K. Dirscherl, T. Dziomba, M. Gee, L. Koenders, V. Morazzani, A. Pidduck, et al. 2011. The European nanometrology landscape. Nanotechnology 22(6): 062001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, B.J., S.A. Love, K.L. Braun, and C.L. Haynes. 2009. Analytical methods to assess nanoparticle toxicity. Analyst 134(3): 425–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard, A.D., R.J. Aitken, T. Butz, V. Colvin, K. Donaldson, G. Oberdörster, M.A. Philbert, J. Ryan, A. Seaton, and V. Stone. 2006. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444(7117): 267–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. 2005. Applied linguistics and institutions of opinion. Applied Linguistics 26(4): 527–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G. 2010a. Safety assessment for nanotechnology and nanomedicine: Concepts of nanotoxicology. Journal of Internal Medicine 267(1): 89–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G. 2010b. Concepts of nanotoxicology. NanoAgri 2010 conference. http://www.nanoagri2010.com/fao_mini_papers_extra_files.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2012.

  • Oberdörster, G., E. Oberdörster, and J. Oberdörster. 2005. Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7): 823–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ObservatoryNano. 2012 Annual report 4 on ethical and societal aspects. In Communicating nanoethics, ed. I. Malsch, A. Grinbaum, V. Bontems, and A.M.F. Anderson. Maerz 2012. Brussels: EU.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Environment Directorate. 2003. Description of selected key generic terms used in chemical/hazard assessment, OECD series on testing and assessment number 44. ENV/JM/MONO(2003)15. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Puzyn, T., B. Rasulev, A. Gajewicz, X. Hu, T.P. Dasari, A. Michalkova, et al. 2011. Using nano-QSAR to predict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Nature Nanotechnology 6(3): 175–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. 2008. White paper on risk governance: Toward an integrative framework. In Global risk governance: Concept and practice using the IRGC framework, ed. O. Renn and K. Walker, 3–73. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., and A. Grobe. 2010. Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: core challenges of an integrative approach. In International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies, ed. G.A. Hodge, D.M. Bowman, and A.D. Maynard, 484–507. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O., and K. Walker. 2008. Lessons learned: A re-assessment of the IRGC framework on risk governance. In Global risk governance: Concept and practice using the IRGC framework, ed. O. Renn and K. Walker, 331–360. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Risk Commission. 2003. Ad hoc Commission on ‘Revision of risk analysis procedures and structures as well as of standard setting in the field of environmental health in the Federal Republic of Germany’ final report. Berlin: Risk Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocks, S., S. Pollard, R. Dorey, L. Levy, P. Harrison, and R. Handy. 2008. Comparison of RA approaches for manufactured nanomaterials. London: Defra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). 2007. 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. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). 2009. Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senjen, R., and S.F. Hansen. 2011. Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework. Comptes Rendus Physique 12(7): 637–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiede, K., A.B. Boxall, S.P. Tear, J. Lewis, H. David, and M. Hassellov. 2008. Detection and characterisation of engineered nanoparticles in food and the environment. Food Additives and Contaminants: Part A, Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure and Risk Assessment 25(7): 795–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, T., N. Li, and A.E. Nel. 2009. Potential health impact of nanoparticles. Annual Review of Public Health 30: 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xia, X.R., N.A. Monteiro-Riviere, and J.E. Riviere. 2010. An index for characterisation of nanomaterials in biological systems. Nature Nanotechnology 5(9): 671–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Torsten Fleischer, Jutta Jahnel & Stefanie B. Seitz

Authors
  1. Torsten Fleischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jutta Jahnel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefanie B. Seitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Torsten Fleischer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Environmental, Ethical, Legal and Social Decisions on Emerging Technologies (CIGA), University of Padova, Rovigo, Italy

    Simone Arnaldi

  2. Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS)/Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany

    Arianna Ferrari

  3. Department of Philosophy, Sociology Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Paolo Magaudda

  4. Department of Philosophy, Sociology Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Francesca Marin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fleischer, T., Jahnel, J., Seitz, S.B. (2014). Technology Assessment Beyond Toxicology – The Case of Nanomaterials. In: Arnaldi, S., Ferrari, A., Magaudda, P., Marin, F. (eds) Responsibility in Nanotechnology Development. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9103-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation