Nanotechnology in the marketplace: how the nanotechnology industry views risk

Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Nanotechnology


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.


Nanotechnology industry Commercialization EH&S risk Novelty Regulation Labeling 



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.


  1. 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 BarbaraGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard RH (2006) Research methods in anthropology, 4th edn. AltaMira Press, Oxford, pp 189–193Google Scholar
  3. Charmaz K (2011) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through quantitative analysis. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins H (1981) Stages in the empirical programme of relativism. Soc Stud Sci 11:3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 42:3155–3162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbin J, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qual Sociol 13:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corley EA, Scheufele DA, Hu Q (2009) Of risks and regulations: how leading U.S. nanoscientists form policy stances about nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 11:1573–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunphy-Guzmán KA, Taylor MA, Banfield JF (2006) Environmental risks of nanotechnology: national nanotechnology initiative funding, 2000–2004. Environ Sci Technol 40:1401–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 14:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fairborther A, Fairbrother JR (2009) Are environmental regulations keeping up with innovation? A case study of the nanotechnology industry. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1327–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gieryn T (1983) Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. Am Sociol Rev 48:781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaser B, Strauss A (1967) The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  13. Gruère GP (2011) Labelling nano-enabled consumer products. Nano Today 6:117–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 9:125–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansen SF, Maynard A, Baun A, Tickner JA (2008) Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3:444–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hardman R (2006) A toxicologic review of quantum dots: toxicity depends on physicochemical and environmental factors. Environ Health Perspect 114:165–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 42:640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kraus N, Malmfors T, Slovic P (1992) Intuitive toxicology: expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Risk Anal 12:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lux Research (2007) The nanotech report: investment overview and market research for nanotechnology, 5th edn, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. MacKenzie D (2009) Making things the same: gases, emission rights and the politics of carbon markets. Account Org Soc 34:440–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miyazaki K, Islam N (2007) Nanotechnology systems of innovation—an analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation 27:661–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) (2007) What is nanotechnology? Accessed 5 Feb 2011
  23. NCMS (2009) Study of nanotechnology in the U.S. manufacturing industry. National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  24. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oberdoerster G, Oberdoerster E, Oberdoerster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113:823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ostrowski AD, Martin T, Conti J, Hurt I, Harthorn BH (2009) Nanotoxicology: characterizing the scientific literature, 2000–2007. J Nanopart Res 11:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 4:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Research Lux (2009) The recession’s ripple effect on nanotech. Lux Research, Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Satterfield T, Kandlikar M, Beaudrie C, Conti J, Harthorn BH (2009) Anticipating the perceived risks of nanotechnologies. Nat Nanotechnol 4:752–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Scheufele DA, Corley EA, Dunwoody S, Shih TJ, Hillback E, Guston DH (2007) Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nat Nanotechnol 2:732–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt CW (2009) Nanotechnology-related environment, health, and safety research: examining the national strategy. Environ Health Perspect 117:A158–A161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schummer J (2007) The global institutionalization of nanotechnology research: a bibliometric approach to the assessment of science policy. Scientometrics 70:669–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shapin S, Schaffer S (1985) Leviathan and the air-pump: hobbes, boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Shapira P, Youtie J, Kay L (2011) National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. J Technol Transf 36:587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 15:661–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhao QQ, Boxman A, Chowdhry U (2003) Nanotechnology in the chemical industry—opportunities and challenges. J Nanopart Res 5:567–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin–MadisonSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations