Skip to main content

Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation

NanoEthics volume 1, pages 105–122 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

In continuing news, there is a growing debate on whether current laws and regulations, both in the US and abroad, need to be strengthened as they relate to nanotechnology. On one side, experts argue that nanomaterials, which are making their way into the marketplace today, are possibly harmful to consumers and the environment, so stronger and new laws are needed to ensure they are safe. On the other side, different experts argue that more regulation will slow down the pace of business and innovation in nanotechnology, or that self-regulation is the answer, or other opposing positions. This paper will draw out the core issues behind the debate and explain that there is more at stake than merely environmental, health and safety (EHS) worries or business interests, as it first appears. We will also suggest an alternative solution to stricter laws, since stricter laws would face formidable practical challenges, even if they are warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (Canada)

References

  1. Davies JC (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. A report published by Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, January

  2. In this paper, we will use “laws” and “regulations” interchangeably for the sake of simplicity, though we recognize a distinction between the two, which is not material to this discussion

  3. For instance: Jasanoff S (2005) Designs on nature: science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press, Princeton

  4. Oberdörster E (2004) Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in the brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environ Health Perspect 12(10):1058–1062, July

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Merkle R (1997) It’s a small, small, small, small world. MIT Technology Review 25, Feb/March

  6. Colvin V, Wiesner M (2002) Environmental implications of nanotechnology: progress in developing fundamental science as a basis for assessment, a keynote presentation delivered at the U.S. E.P.A.’s “Nanotechnology and the Environment: Applications and Implications STAR Review Progress Workshop” in Arlington, VA, August 28

  7. Gibbs L, Tang M (2004) Nanotechnology: safety and risk management overview. NNIN Nanotechnology Safety Workshop at Georgia Institute of Technology, December 2

  8. Ibid.

  9. Ibid.

  10. For instance: David Berube, “Regulating Nanoscience: A Proposal and a Response to J. Clarence Davies”, Nanotechnology Law & Business, December 2006, vol. 3, issue 4: 485–506.

  11. For instance: Australian Green Party, “Call for moratorium on nanotechnology, Australian Associated Press article dated March 17, 2007; Friends of the Earth (FOE), “Nano-ingredients Pose Big Risks in Beauty Products: Friends of the Earth report highlights unregulated risks of nanoparticles in cosmetics and sunscreens”, press release dated May 16, 2006; and ETC Group, “No Small Matter II: The Case for a Global Moratorium”, report dated April 2003.

  12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA seeking PFOA reductions”, January 25, 2006 press release.

  13. Ibid.

  14. Brian Ross/ABC News, “Government moves to curb use of chemical in teflon”, January 25, 2006.

  15. For instance: Ashok Agarwal, et al., “Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study”, 62nd Annual Meeting of American Society of Reproductive Medicine, October 23, 2006.

  16. Reuters News, “Testing cell phone radiation on human skin”, March 3, 2006.

  17. For various formulations, see for instance: Wecker J, Moor J (2006) The precautionary principle in nanotechnology. Int J Appl Philos 20(2): 191–204, Fall

    Google Scholar 

  18. Brian Ross, ibid.

  19. U.S. National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network website, accessed on June 6, 2006: http://www.nnin.org/nnin_what.html.

  20. Friedlander SK, Pui DYH (2003) Emerging issues in nanoparticle aerosol science and technology. A report published by U.S. National Science Foundation, November

  21. Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science 311(5761): 622–627, February

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Sunstein CR. Cost–benefit analysis and the environment. Ethics 115(2): 351–385

  23. National nanotechnology initiative: leading to the next industrial revolution. A report published by US National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology, February 2000

  24. Macoubrie J (2005) Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government. A report published by Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September

  25. For instance: Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651), chapter 14, section 8; and many other subsequent political scientists.

  26. For a more complete discussion of the Precautionary Principle, see Weckert and Moor, ibid.

  27. Witteveen WJ (2005) A self-regulation paradox: notes towards the social logic of regulation. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 9(1), January

  28. Ibid.

  29. Ibid.

  30. Axelrod R. (1984) The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  31. “Where has my money gone? Government nanotechnology funding and the $18 billion pair of pants”, a report published by Cientifica, January 2006.

  32. Leif Wenar, “Rights”, The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Winter 2005 edition, Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

  33. Ibid.

  34. Ibid.

  35. Ibid.

  36. Research assistance for this section provided by Tihamer Toth-Fejel, M.S.E.E., General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems.

  37. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. A report published by the US National Science Foundation 3, March

  38. Uldrich J (2006) Nanotech of the north. The motley fool, March 26

  39. Baum R (2003) Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against ‘molecular assemblers’. Chem Eng News 81(48): 37–42, December 1

    Google Scholar 

  40. Davies JC (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. A report published by Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 10, January

  41. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar AS, Singer PA (2003) ‘Mind the gap’: science and ethics in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14(3): R9–R13, March

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Nanoethics Group, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, CA, USA

    Patrick Lin

Authors
  1. Patrick Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, P. Nanotechnology Bound: Evaluating the Case for More Regulation. Nanoethics 1, 105–122 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0012-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0012-9

Keywords

  • Nanotechnology
  • Regulation
  • Environmental worries
  • Health and safety worries
  • Law
  • Ethics