Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 1345–1371 | Cite as

Recommendations for oversight of nanobiotechnology: dynamic oversight for complex and convergent technology

  • Gurumurthy Ramachandran
  • Susan M. Wolf
  • Jordan Paradise
  • Jennifer Kuzma
  • Ralph Hall
  • Efrosini Kokkoli
  • Leili Fatehi
Special focus: Governance of Nanobiotechnology

Abstract

Federal oversight of nanobiotechnology in the U.S. has been fragmented and incremental. The prevailing approach has been to use existing laws and other administrative mechanisms for oversight. However, this “stay-the-course” approach will be inadequate for such a complex and convergent technology and may indeed undermine its promise. The technology demands a new, more dynamic approach to oversight. The authors are proposing a new oversight framework with three essential features: (a) the oversight trajectory needs to be able to move dynamically between “soft” and “hard” approaches as information and nano-products evolve; (b) it needs to integrate inputs from all stakeholders, with strong public engagement in decision-making to assure adequate analysis and transparency; and (c) it should include an overarching coordinating entity to assure strong inter-agency coordination and communication that can meet the challenge posed by the convergent nature of nanobiotechnology. The proposed framework arises from a detailed case analysis of several key oversight regimes relevant to nanobiotechnology and is informed by inputs from experts in academia, industry, NGOs, and government.

Keywords

Nanobiotechnology Dynamic oversight Public engagement Oversight framework Governance 

References

  1. 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. 15 U.S.C. § 7501 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. Abbott KW, Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ (2006) A framework convention for nanotechnology? Environ Law Reporter 36:10931–10942Google Scholar
  3. Alexander LT (2009) Stakeholder participation in new governance: lessons from Chicago’s public housing reform experiment. Georgetown J Poverty Law Policy 16:117–185Google Scholar
  4. Beckstrom M (2010) The chemical revolt. Pioneer Press. Feb. 7, 2010Google Scholar
  5. Birnbaum LS (2010) TSCA reform under way in congress. Environ Health Perspect 118:a106–a107. doi:10.1289/ehp.1001917 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2006) Nanotechnology: mapping the wild regulatory frontier. Futures 38(9):1060–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breggin LK, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Environ Law 31:286–329Google Scholar
  8. Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE) (2009) Many experts, many audiences: public engagement with science and informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. http://caise.insci.org/uploads/docs/public_engagement_with_science.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2010
  9. Choi J, Ramachandran G (2009) Review of the OSHA framework for oversight of occupational environments. J Law Med Ethics 37:633–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Choi J, Ramachandran G, Kandlikar M (2009) The impact of toxicity testing costs on nanomaterial regulation. Environ Sci Technol 43:3030–3034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collins FS, Gray GM, Bucher JR (2008) Transforming environmental health protection. Science 319:906–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crutchfield SR, Buzby JC, Roberts T, Ollinger M, Lin CTJ (1997) An economic assessment of food safety regulations: the new approach to meat and poultry inspection. Economic Research Service/USDAGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies JC (2007) EPA and nanotechnology: oversight for the 21st century. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies JC (2009) Oversight of next generation nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Dryzek JS, Tucker A (2008) Deliberative innovation to different effect: consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Admin Rev 68:864–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DuPont, Environmental Defense (2007) Nano-risk framework. DuPont/Environmental Defense, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Engel-Cox JA, Van Houten B, Phelps J, Rose SW (2008) Conceptual model of comprehensive research metrics for improved human health and environment. Environ Health Perspect 116:583–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register 63:26846–26924Google Scholar
  19. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009a) Certain chemical substances; withdrawal of significant new use rules. Federal Register 40:42177–42178Google Scholar
  20. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2009b) Proposed new rules on certain chemical substances. Federal Register 40:6160–6161Google Scholar
  21. ETC Group (2003) No small matter II: the case for a global moratorium. Occasional Paper Series 7(1). ETC Group, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission (2006) EC 1907/2006 REACH: what is reach? http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm. Accessed 29 November 2010
  23. FDA Nanotechnology Task Force (2007) Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906. Pub. L. 3913, 34 Stat. 674Google Scholar
  25. Federal Plant Pest Act. 7 U.S.C §§ 150aa-150jj (1957) as amended 1968, 1981, 1983, 1988, and 1994Google Scholar
  26. Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 15:226–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2009) Chemical regulation: observations on improving the toxic substances control act. GAO-10-292T, Dec. 2, 2009Google Scholar
  28. Greenwood M (2007) Thinking big about things small: creating and effective oversight system for nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2002) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Guston DH, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Guthrie DM (2003) Engaged governance: an institutional approach to government-civil society engagement. http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan013171.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2010
  32. Hamlett P, Cobb MD, Guston DH (2008) National citizens’ technology forum: nanotechnologies and human enhancement. CNS-ASU Report #R08-0003Google Scholar
  33. Hendriks CM, Grin J (2006) Ground reflexive governance in practice and context: some democratic considerations. http://www.sozial-oekologische-forschung.org/_media/Hendriks_Grin.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2010
  34. Holling CS (ed) (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Howard J, Murashov V (2009a) Essential features for proactive risk management. Nat Nanotechnol 4:467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard J, Murashov V (2009b) National nanotechnology partnership to protect workers. J Nanoparticle Res 11:1673–1683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Inside EPA (2009) EPA poised to propose new reporting rules for nanomaterials. Dec. 25, 2009Google Scholar
  38. International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) (2008) Citizen petition for rulemaking to the United States environmental protection agency. International Center for Technology Assessment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), Friends of the Earth (FOE) (2007) Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials. International Center for Technology Assessment, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Kandlikar M, Ramachandran G, Maynard AD, Murdock B, Toscano WA (2007) Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: a case for using expert judgment. J Nanoparticle Res 9:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karkkainen BC (2005) Panarchy and adaptive change: around the loop and back again. Minnesota J Law Sci Technol 7:59–77Google Scholar
  42. Karkkainen BC (2006) Information-forcing environmental regulation. Fla State Univ Law Rev 33:861–902Google Scholar
  43. Keiner S (2008) Room at the bottom? Potential state and local strategies for managing the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechonologies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuzma J (2006) Nanotechnology oversight: just do it. Environ Law Reporter 36:10913–10923Google Scholar
  45. Kuzma J, VerHage P (2006) Nanotechnology in agriculture and food protection. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DC Google Scholar
  46. Kuzma J, Romanchek J, Kokotovich A (2008) Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology. Risk Anal 28:1081–1098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kuzma J, Larson J, Najmaie P (2009) Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: a case study for genetically engineered organisms. J Law Med Ethics 37:546–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kysar DA (2004) Preferences for processes: the process/product distinction and the regulation of consumer choice. Harvard Law Rev 118:525–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Steevens J, Ferguson E, Pleus RC (2007) Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials. J Nanoparticle Res 9:543–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lux Research (2007) The nanotech report, 5th edn. Lux Research Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perception of nanotechnology and trust in government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Macoubrie J (2006) Nanotechnology: public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Understanding Sci 15:221–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mandel GN (2009) Regulating emerging technologies. Law Innovation Technol 1:75–92Google Scholar
  54. Marchant GE, Sylvester D (2006) Transnational models for regulation of nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34:714–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2008) Risk management principles for nanotechnology. Nanoethics 2:43–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maynard AD (2006) Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 51:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meaney ME (2006) Lessons from the sustainability movement: toward an integrative decision-making framework for nanotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):682–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2010) Supplement to the President’s 2011 Budget, Report prepared by National Science and Technology Council Committee of Technology, Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology, February 2010Google Scholar
  59. National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009. S.1482 §§ 6, 8, 11Google Scholar
  60. National Research Council (NRC) (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. National Research Council (NRC) (1996) Understanding risk. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. National Research Council (NRC) (2008) Evaluating research efficiency in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. Neo BS, Chen G (2007) Dynamic governance: embedding culture, capabilities and change in Singapore. World Scientific, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Office of Management, Budget (OMB) (2009) Federal Register 74:8819Google Scholar
  65. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) (1986) Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Federal Register 51:23302–23393Google Scholar
  66. Office of Science, Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (2001) CEQ and OSTP assessment: case studies of environmental regulations for biotechnology. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  67. Office of Science, Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (2008) OSTP 2.0 critical upgrade enhanced capacity for White House science and technology policymaking: recommendations for the next president. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  68. Olsen JP (2004) Citizens, public administration and the search for theoretical foundations. Polit Sci Polit 37:69–79Google Scholar
  69. Paradise J, Wolf SM, Ramachandran G, Kokkoli E, Hall R, Kuzma J (2008) Developing oversight frameworks for nanobiotechnology. Minnesota J Law Sci Technol 9:399–416Google Scholar
  70. Paradise J, Tisdale AW, Hall R, Kokkoli E (2009a) Evaluating oversight of human drugs and medical devices: a case study of the FDA and implications for nanobiotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 37:598–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Paradise J, Wolf SM, Kuzma J, Kuzhabekova A, Tisdale AW, Kokkoli E, Ramachandran G (2009b) Developing U.S. oversight strategies for nanobiotechnology: learning from past oversight experiences. J Law Med Ethics 37:688–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Philbrick M, Barandiaran J (2009) The national citizens’ technology forum: lessons for the future. Sci Public Policy 36:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Powell MC, Kleinman DL (2008) Building citizen capacities for participation in nanotechnology decision-making: the democratic virtues of the consensus conference model. Public Underst Sci 17:329–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) (2007) Nanotechnology and life cycle assessment: A systems approach to nanotechnology and the environment. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  75. Roco MC (2008) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanoparticle Res 10:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2008) Developments in public participation in nanotechnology: towards sustainability. J Cleaner Prod 16:1010–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Scholz JT, Stiftel B (eds) (2005) Adaptive governance and water conflict. Resources for the Future Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Schot J, Rip A (1996) The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc Change 54:251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shatkin J (2008) Nanotechnology health and environmental risks. Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FLCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Shaw SY, Westly EC, Pittet MJ, Subramanian A, Schreiber SL, Weissleder R (2008) Perturbational profiling of nanomaterial biologic activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:7387–7392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Siegrist M (2000) The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on acceptance of gene technology. Risk Anal 20:195–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Siegrist M, Keller C, Kastenholz H, Frey S, Wiek A (2007) Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Anal 27:59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Slovic P (1987) Perceptions of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. States’ Principles on Reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act, December 2, 2009, at http://www.saferchemicals.org/PDF/States%27_TSCA_Principles_TSCA_Reform_Principles_Signatures_FInal.pdf
  85. Subramanian V, Youtie J, Porter AL, Shapira P (2010) Is there a shift to “Active” nanostructures? J Nanoparticle Res 12:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sunstein CR (2005) Group judgments: statistical means, deliberation, and information markets. New York University Law Rev 80:962–1049Google Scholar
  87. Tait J (2009) Upstream engagement and the governance of science: the shadow of the genetically modified crops experience in Europe. EMBO Reports 10:S18–S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tikhomorov A (2005) Engage governance and public policy during transition to a market economy. http://www.engagingcommunities2005.org/abstracts/Tikhomirov-Alexei-final.pdf. Accessed 29 November 2010
  89. USDA-FSIS (1998) Preliminary pathways and data for a risk assessment of E. coli O157:H7 in beef. USDA-FSIS, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  90. Virus-Serum-Toxic Act 1985. 21 U.S.C. §§ 151-159Google Scholar
  91. Voss JP, Kemp R (2005) Reflexive governance for sustainable development: incorporating feedback in social problem solving. Paper for ESEE Conference, June 14–17, 2005 in LisbonGoogle Scholar
  92. Wardak A, Gorman ME, Swami N, Deshpande S (2008) Identification of risks in the life cycle of nanotechnology-based products. J Ind Ecol 12:435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wiener JB (2004) The regulation of technology, and the technology of regulation. Technol Soc 26:483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilsdon J, Willis R (2004) See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  95. Wolf SM, Gupta R, Kohlhepp P (2009a) Gene therapy oversight: lessons for nanobiotechnology. J Law Med Ethics 37:659–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wolf SM, Ramachandran G, Kuzma J, Paradise J (eds) (2009b) Symposium on “Developing Oversight Approaches to Nanobiotechnology: The lessons of history. J Law Med Ethics 37:543–789Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gurumurthy Ramachandran
    • 1
  • Susan M. Wolf
    • 2
  • Jordan Paradise
    • 3
  • Jennifer Kuzma
    • 4
  • Ralph Hall
    • 5
  • Efrosini Kokkoli
    • 6
  • Leili Fatehi
    • 7
  1. 1.Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public HealthUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Consortium on Law and Values in HealthEnvironment & the Life Sciences; Law School; Medical School; Center for Bioethics, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  3. 3.Law SchoolSeton Hall UniversityNewarkUSA
  4. 4.Humphrey Institute of Public AffairsUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  5. 5.Law SchoolUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  6. 6.Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  7. 7.Consortium on Law and Values in HealthEnvironment & the Life Sciences; Law School, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations