Advertisement

NanoEthics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 169–186 | Cite as

More than a Decade On: Mapping Today’s Regulatory and Policy Landscapes Following the Publication of Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties

  • Diana M Bowman
Original Paper

Abstract

It is now more than a decade since the release of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s (RA/RAEng) seminal report on nanosciences and nanotechnologies. The report, for the first time, brought together the spectrum of scientific and societal issues underpinning the emergence of the technology. In articulating 21 recommendations, the RA/RAEng provided the United Kingdom Government—and others—with an agenda on how they could, and should, deal with the disparate aspects of the technology. The report provides a baseline to measure progress against. By focusing on the eight recommendations that dealt specifically with regulation and governance, I reflect on the extent, and nature, of this progress; identify key actors in shaping the evolving governance framework; and, importantly, distinguish areas where progress appears to have lagged.

Keywords

Governance Health and safety International activities Nanotechnologies Regulation Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering United Kingdom 

References

  1. 1.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS/RAEng, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nelson M, Shipbaugh C (1995) The potential of nanotechnology for molecular manufacturing. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Seigel RW, Hu E, Roco MC (1998) Nanostructure science and technology—a worldwide study, international technology research institute (WTEC division). National Science and Technology Council, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (1999) Nanotechnology—the technology of the twenty-first century: the economic impact of emerging nanometre scale technologies. PMSEIC, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paschen H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Grünwald R, Dagmar O, Revermann C (2003) Nanotechnologie. TAB report no. 092. Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paschen H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Grünwald R, Oertel D, Revermann C (2004) Nanotechnologie in Forschung, Entwicklung. Anwendung, Stand und Perspektiven. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16(3):345–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) (2010) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maynard AD (2014) A decade of uncertainty. Nat Nanotechnol 9:159–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and Office of Science and Technology Policy (2011) A strategy for American innovation: securing our economic growth and prosperity. The White House, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    World Economic Forum (2013) Global agenda council on emerging technologies 2012–2014. WEF, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    HM Government (2005) Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report: ‘nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties’. Department of Trade and Industry, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Forrest DR (1989) Regulating nanotechnology development. Foresight Institute, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fiedler F, Reynolds GH (1995) Legal problems of nanotechnology: an overview. S Cal Interdisc LJ 3:593Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reynolds GH (2003) Nanotechnology and regulatory policy: three futures. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 17:179Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roco MC (2004) The US national nanotechnology initiative after 3 years (2001–2003). J Nanopart Res 6(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Health and Safety Executive (2006) Review of the adequacy of current regulatory regimes to secure effective regulation of nanoparticles created by nanotechnology: the regulations covered by HSE. HM Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chaudhry Q, Blackburn J, Floyd P, George C, Nwaogu T, Boxall A, Aitken R et al (2006) Final report: a scoping study to identify gaps in environmental regulation for the products and applications of nanotechnologies. Defra Science and Research, YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Food Standards Agency (2006) Report of the FSA regulatory review. HM Government, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2006) The toxicology of nanoparticles used in healthcare products. CHM, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    European Commission (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanotechnologies, [SEC(2008) 2036], 17 June, 2008. EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    European Commission (2008) Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee—regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures’ (Commission Staff Working Document No SEC (2008) 2036, 17 June 2008). EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Commission (2005) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009. EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Nanotechnology white paper. EPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Food and Drug Administration (2007) Nanotechnology: a report of the US Food and Drug Administration nanotechnology task force. FDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ludlow K, Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory framework. Monash University, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gavaghan C, Moore J (2011) A review of the adequacy of New Zealand’s regulatory systems to manage the possible impacts of manufactured nanomaterials. University of Otago, DunedinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marchant G, Allenby BR, Herkert JR (eds) (2011) The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: the pacing problem. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2009) What does the history of technology regulation teach us about nano oversight? J Law Med Ethics 37(4):724–731Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moses LB (2011) Agents of change: how the law copes with technological change. Griffith L Rev 20:763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2005) Joint statement on nanomaterial toxicology. FSA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cañas-Carrell JE, Li S, Parra AM, Shresta B (2014) Metal oxide nanomaterials: health and environmental effects. In: Njuguna J, Pielichowski K, Zhu H (eds) Health and environmental safety of nanomaterials. Polymer nanocomposites and other materials containing nanoparticles. Woodhead Publishing / Elsevier, Sawston, pp 200-221Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ding L, Liu Z, Okweesi Aggrey M, Li C, Chen J, Tong L (2015) Nanotoxicity: the toxicity research progress of metal and metal-containing nanoparticles. Mini Rev Med Chem 15(7):529–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Collier ZA, Kennedy AJ, Poda AR et al (2015) Tiered guidance for risk-informed environmental health and safety testing of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17(3):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Du J, Wang S, You H, Zhao X (2013) Understanding the toxicity of carbon nanotubes in the environment is crucial to the control of nanomaterials in producing and processing and the assessment of health risk for human: a review. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36(2):451–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    HM Government (2012) Review of cross-government horizon scanning. Cabinet Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
  39. 39.
    Foresight (2011) Technology and innovation futures. The Government Office for Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011) Final project report. The Government Office for Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Foresight (2011) The future of food and farming. The Government Office for Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Foresight (2013) The future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK project report. The Government Office for Science, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2006) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Two year review of progress on Government actions (Joint academies’ response to the Council for Science and Technology’s call for evidence). Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (2016) The Oxford handbook of the law and regulation of technology. Oxford Univeristy Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (2007) Opinion on safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. SCCP, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (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. SCENIHR, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2009) Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. SCENIHR, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2010) Opinion on the scientific basis for the definition of the term nanomaterial. SCENIHR, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2012) Opinion on zinc oxide (nano form). SCCS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2015) Opinion on the guidance on the determination of potential health effects of nanomaterials used in medical devices. SCENIHR, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2014) Opinion on nanosilver: safety, health and environmental effects and role in antimicrobial resistance. SCENIHR, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Opinion on silica, hydrated silica, and silica surface modified with alkyl silylates (nano form). SCCS, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Opinion on hydroxyapatite (nano). Brussels, SCCSGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    BAuA and the German Chemical Industry Association (2007) Guidance for handling and use of nanomaterials at the workplace. BAuA and VCI, BonnGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Joint Research Strategy of the higher federal authorities (2016) Review of the joint research strategy of the higher federal authorities nanomaterials and other advanced materials: application safety and environmental compatibility. BAuA, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2015) Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) code of practice for handling of nanomaterials in laboratories. BAuA, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration (2013) Literature review on the safety of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. Department of Health, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Safe Work Australia (2012) Safe handing and use of carbon nanotubes. SWA, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Safe Work Australia (2013) Evaluation of potential safety hazards associated with the use of engineered nanomaterials. SWA, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Food and Drug Administration (2012) Guidance for industry: safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Food and Drug Administration (2012) Food and Drug Administration, 2014, guidance for industry: safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Food and Drug Administration (2014) Office of the Commissioner, FDA, guidance for industry: considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology. FDA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Food and Drug Administration (2014) Guidance for industry: assessing the effects of significant manufacturing process changes, including emerging technologies, on the safety and regulatory status of food ingredients and food contact substances, including food ingredients that are color additives. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bowman DM, van Calster G (2007) Does REACH go too far? Nat Nanotechnol 2(9):525–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) (2010) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety: risks, regulation and management. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) (2014) Nanotechnology risk management: perspectives and progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Gergely A (2007) Regulation of nanotechnology—within REACH? Nano Now:44–46Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Monica JC Jr, Foss S (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotech L & Bus 6:203Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Monica JC Jr, van Calster G (2010) A nanotechnology legal framework. In: Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology risk management: perspectives and progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London, pp 97–140Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hankin SM, Peters SAK, Poland CA, Foss Hansen S, Holmqvist J, Ross BL, Varet J, Aitken RJ (2011) Specific advice on fulfilling information requirements for nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 2)—final project report. EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Aitken RA, Bassan A, Friedrichs S, Hankin SM, Hansen SF, Holmqvist J, Peters SAK, Poland CA, Tran CL (2011) Specific advice on exposure assessment and hazard/risk characterisation for nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 3)–Final Project Report. EC, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 29, Wednesday 12 February 2014. Page 8273–8293. See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02-12/pdf/2014-03079.pdf
  73. 73.
    Health and Safety Executive (2004) Information note–nanotechnology. Horizons scanning information note no. HSIN1. HSE, SuffolkGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Health and Safety Executive (2004) Health effects of particles produced for nanotechnologies. HSE, SuffolkGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Heath and Safety Executive (2006) Review of the adequacy of current regulatory regimes to secure effective regulation of nanoparticles created by nanotechnology. HSE, SuffolkGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Expert forecast on emerging chemical risks related to occupational safety and health. EASHW, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Workplace exposure to nanoparticles. EASHW, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Outlook 1—new and emerging risks in occupational safety and health. EASHW, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Nanomaterials in maintenance work occupational risk and prevention. EASHW, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Health and Safety Executive (2009) Risk management of carbon nanotubes. HSE, SuffolkGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Maynard AD, Kuempel ED (2005) Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J Nanopart Res 7(6): 587–614.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Donaldson K, Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V, Duffin R, Forrest G, Alexander A (2006) Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicol Sci 92(1):5–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Schulte P, Geraci C, Zumwalde R, Hoover M, Kuempel E (2008) Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 5(4):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Savolainen K, Pylkkänen L, Norppa H, Falck G, Lindberg H, Tuomi T, Vippola M et al (2010) Nanotechnologies, engineered nanomaterials and occupational health and safety—a review. Saf Sci 48(8):957–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Gendre L, Blackburn K, Brighton J, Rodriguez VM, Abhyankar H (2015) Nanomaterials life cycle analysis: health and safety practices, standards and regulations—past, present and future perspective. International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry 5(3):208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Ramachandran G (ed) (2016) Assessing nanoparticle risks to human health. William Andrew, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Bergamaschi E, Poland C, Canu IG, Prina-Mello A (2015) The role of biological monitoring in nano-safety. Nano Today 10(3):274–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    West GH, Lippy BE, Cooper MR, Marsick D, Burrelli LG, Griffin KN, Segrave AM (2016) Toward responsible development and effective risk management of nano-enabled products in the US construction industry. J Nanopart Res 18(2):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Oksel C, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Ma CY, Hristozov D, Wang XZ, Hunt N et al (2016) Evaluation of existing control measures in reducing health and safety risks of engineered nanomaterials. Environmental Science: Nano 3(4):869–882Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology. CDC, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Safe Work Australia (2010) Engineered nanomaterials: feasibility of establishing exposure standards and using control banding in Australia. SWA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Safe Work Australia (2010) Safe work Australia developing workplace detection and measurement techniques for carbon nanotubes. SWA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Safe Work Australia (2010) Safe work Australia. SWA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Miles J (2010) Nanotechnology captured. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 83Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Murashov V, Howard J (2008) The US must help set international standards for nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3(11):635–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Leech DP, Scott JT (2016) Nanotechnology documentary standards. J Technol Transf:1–20Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Jämting Å, Miles J (2016) Metrology, standards and measurements concerning engineered nanoparticles. Nanotechnol Commercial 287:Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    The Social and Economic Council (2012) Advisory report: provisional nano reference values for engineered nanomaterials. SER, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    van Broekhuizen P, Dorbeck-Jung B (2013) Exposure limit values for nanomaterials—capacity and willingness of users to apply a precautionary approach. J Occup Environ Hyg 10(1):46–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Van Broekhuizen P, Van Veelen WIM, Streekstra WH, Schulte P, Reijnders L (2012) Exposure limits for nanoparticles: report of an international workshop on nano reference values. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):515–524Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Safe Work Australia (2013) Emissions of nanomaterials during machine processes—information sheet. SWA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Safe Work Australia (2013) Safety hazards of engineered nanomaterials—information sheet. SWA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009) Approaches to safety nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. CDC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2014) Current strategies for engineering controls in nanomaterial production and downstream handling processes. CDC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2016) Building a safety program to protect the nanotechnology workforce: a guide for small to medium-sized enterprises. CDC, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2012) Opinion on zinc oxide (nano form). European Commision, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2007) Modified opinion (after public consultation) on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. SCENIHR, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Gergely A, Bowman DM, Chaudhry A (2016) Infinitesimal ingredients: an analysis of the regulatory dimensions of nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials. In: Q Chaudhry, L Castle and R Watkins (eds) Nanotechnologies in food (2nd edition). The Royal Society of Chemistry, London.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Joint Research Center (2014) Considerations on information needs for nanomaterials in consumer products: discussion of a labelling and reporting scheme for nanomaterials in consumer products in the EU. EC, IspraGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    New Zealand Environmental Protection Agency (undated), Cosmetic products regulation updated. Available at: http://www.epa.govt.nz/news/erma-media-releases/Pages/Cosmetic-Products-regulations-updated.aspx
  111. 111.
    Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (2013) How we regulate nanotechnology. Available at: http://nanotech.law.asu.edu/Documents/2009/07/Michael%20Vincent%20MHRA%20(2008),%20How%20we%20regulate%20nanotechnology_183_4942.pdf
  112. 112.
    Committee on Human Medicines (2006) The toxicology of nanoparticles used in healthcare products. CHM, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    European Medicines Agency (2006) Reflection paper on nanotechnology-based medicinal products for human use. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    European Medicines Agency (2011) Non-clinical studies for generic nanoparticle iron medicinal products applications. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    European Medicines Agency (2013) Data requirements for intravenous liposomal products developed with reference to an innovator liposomal product. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    European Medicines Agency (2013) Surface coatings: general issues for consideration regarding parental administration of coated nanomedicine products. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    European Medicines Agency (2013) Data requirements for intravenous iron-based nano-colloidal products developed with reference to an innovator medicinal product. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    European Medicines Agency (2014) Development of block-copoloymer-micelle medicinal products. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Therapeutic Goods Administration (2006) Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Department of Health and Ageing, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Faunce T, Murray K, Nasu H, Bowman D (2008) Sunscreen safety: the precautionary principle, the Australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens. NanoEthics 2(3):231–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Friends of the Earth (2006) Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients, big risks. FoE Nanotechnology Project, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Friends of the Earth (2007) Nanotechnology & Sunscreens: a consumer guide for avoiding nano-sunscreens. FoE Nanotechnology Project, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Nohynek GJ, Lademann J, Ribaud D, Roberts MS (2007) Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol 37(3):251–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Monteiro-Riviere NA, Wiench K, Landsiedel R, Schulte S, Inman OA, Riviere JE (2011) Safety evaluation of sunscreen formulations containing titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in UVB sunburned skin: an in vitro and in vivo study. Toxicol Sci 148Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Lewicka ZA, Colvin VL (2013) Nanomaterial toxicity, hazards, and safety. In: Vajtai R (ed) Springer handbook of nanomaterials. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1117–1142Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Hawke A (2009) Independent review of the environmental and biodiversity conservation act 1999. Commissioned by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Kica E, Bowman DM (2012) Regulation by means of standardization: key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. Jurimetrics 53(1):11–56Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (2002) Measurement needs for nano-scale materials and devices, report of VAMAS/CENSTAR workshop, VAMAS bulleting no.25. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    International Organization for Standardization (2005) Central Secretariat, Proposal for a New Field of Technical Activity. Available at: http://www.lawbc.com/other_pdfs/ANSI-NSP%20SC%20049-2005%20BSI%20Proposal.pdf (12 September 2016)
  130. 130.
    International Organization for Standardization (2012016O/TC 229 – About. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=381983 (18 September 2016)

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law and the School for the Future of Innovation in SocietyArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations