Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance

  • Perspectives
  • Published:
Journal of Nanoparticle Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

After identifying the main characteristics and prospects of nanotechnology as an emerging technology, the paper presents the general risks associated with nanotechnology applications and the deficits of the risk governance process today, concluding with recommendations to governments, industry, international organizations and other stakeholders. The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) has identified a governance gap between the requirements pertaining to the nano- rather than the micro-/macro- technologies. The novel attributes of nanotechnology demand different routes for risk-benefit assessment and risk management, and at present, nanotechnology innovation proceeds ahead of the policy and regulatory environment. In the shorter term, the governance gap is significant for those passive nanostructures that are currently in production and have high exposure rates; and is especially significant for the several ‘active’ nanoscale structures and nanosystems that we can expect to be on the market in the near future. Active nanoscale structures and nanosystems have the potential to affect not only human health and the environment but also aspects of social lifestyle, human identity and cultural values. The main recommendations of the report deal with selected higher risk nanotechnology applications, short- and long-term issues, and global models for nanotechnology governance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission (AEBC) (2001). Crops on Trial. AEBC, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Altmann J., 2006. Military Nanotechnology: Potential Applications and Preventive Arms Control. ISBN 0-415-37102-3, November 2005, Routledge, London/New York. http://www.ep3.rub.de/bvp/milntpac.html.

  • Amy D.J. (1983). Environmental mediation: an alternative approach to policy stalemates. Policy Sci. 15: 345–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Applegate J. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: the use of citizens advisory boards in environmental decision making. Indiana Law J. 73: 903

    Google Scholar 

  • Armour A. (1995). The citizen‘s Jury model of public participation. In: Renn O., Webler T. and Wiedemann P. (eds), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating New Models for Environmental Discourse. Springer (formerly Kluwer), Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 175–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnall A., 2003. Future technologies, Today’s choices: Nanotechnology, artificial intelligence and robotics; a technical, political and institutional map of emerging technologies (report for the Greenpeace Environmental Trust), Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of London.

  • Bainbridge W.S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology, J. Nanopart. Res. 4(6): 561–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner W., B. Jäckli, B. Schmithüsen & F. Weber, 2003. “Nanotechnologie in der Medizin” Studie des Schweizerischen Zentrums für Technologiefolgen-Abschätzung, TA 47/2003

  • Better Regulation Task Force (2003). Scientific Research: Innovation with Controls. London, Cabinet Office

    Google Scholar 

  • Boholm A. (1998). Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research. J. Risk Res. 1(2): 135–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke D., 2003. This will be like no other debate. Times Higher Education Supplement, 21 March 2003

  • Cobb M.D. and Macoubrie J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. Springer 6(4): 395–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese C. and Lazer D. (2003). Management-based regulation: prescribing private management to achieve public goals. Law Society 37: 691–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collaborative Board for Advancing Nanotechnology between NNI and industry (CBAN). 2006. Joint NNI-ChI CBAN and SRC CWG5 Nanotechnology EHS Research Needs Recommendations. Washington, D.C., January 20, 2006, 18 pp

  • Collins H.M. and Evans R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc. Stud. Sci. 32(2): 235–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colvin V.L. (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat. Biotechnol. 21(10): 1166–1170

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Crichton M. (2002). Prey. London, Harper Collins

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry/Office of Science Technology (DTI: 2002). New Dimensions for Manufacturing: A UK Strategy for Nanotechnology. London, DTI/OST

    Google Scholar 

  • Dienel P.C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: citizen reports on technological projects. In: Vlek C. and Cvetkovich G. (eds), Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects. Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston, pp. 133–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Durant J. and Joss S. (1995) Public Participation in Science. Science Museum, London

    Google Scholar 

  • EC (2004). Converging Technologies – Shaping the Future of European Societies. Alfred Nordmann – Rapporteur, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Defense, 2005. Getting Nanotechnology Right the First Time, in the National Academy of Sciences. Issues in Science and Technology, summer 2005, pp. 65–71.

  • ETC Group, 2003. The Big Down: From Genomes to atoms. ETC Group

  • ETC Group, 2005. The Potential Impact of Nanoscale Technologies on Commodity Markets: The Implications for Commodity Dependent Developing Countries, ETC Group – South Center.

  • Fiorino D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Human Values 15(2): 226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fogelberg H. & H. Glimell, 2003. Bringing Visibility to the Invisible. STS Research Reports, 6. http://www.sts.gu.se/publications/STS_report_6.pdf.

  • Funtowicz S. and Ravetz J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7): 739–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garud R., Ahlstrom D. (1997). Technology assessment: a socio-cognitive perspective. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 14: 25–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell G., Allum N., Wagner W., Kronberger N., Torgersen H., Hampel J. and Bardes J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis 24(1): 185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P. and Wright G. (2004). Decision Analysis for Management Judgement. Wiley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham J.D. and Wiener J.B. (1995). Risk vs. Risk. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Goorden L., 2003. Finding a balance between Technological Innovation and Deliberation: Lessons from Belgian Public Forums on Biotechnology, paper prepared for the session New Forms of Citizen Participation in Technology Policy: European perspectives at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, USA, August 28–31, 2003.

  • Gregory R., McDaniels T., Fields D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: a new perspective for environmental negotiation. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 20(3): 415–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grin J. et al. (1997). Interactive Technology Assessment: een eerste gids voor wie het wagen wil. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin J. and Grunwald A. (eds) (1999). Vision Assessment: Shaping Technology in 21st Century Society. Towards a Repertoire for Technology Assessment. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Grin J., 2004. De politiek van omwenteling met beleid. Rede, vrijdag 16 april 2004, Universiteit Amsterdam.

  • Grove-White R., Macnaghten P. and Wynne B. (2000). Wising up: The public and new technology. CSEC, Lancaster

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond J., Keeney R. and Raiffa H. (1999). Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better Decisions. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampel J., Klinke A. and Renn O. (2000). Beyond ‘red’ hope and ‘green’ distrust, public perception of genetic engineering in germany. Politeia 16(60): 68–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanssen L. and van Est R. (2004). De dubbele boodschap van nanotechnologie. Een onderzoek naar opkomende publiekspercepties. Rathenau Instituut, Den Haag

    Google Scholar 

  • Health and Safety Executive (eds.) (HSE: 2004) Health effects of particles produced for nanotechnologies. EH75/6 December 2004, Health and Safety Executive, Great Britain

  • Hett A. (2004) Nanotechnology: Small matter, many unknowns. Risk Perception Series, Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang Z., Chen H., Roco M.C. (2004). Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering in 2003: country, institution and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. J. Nanopart. Res. 6(4): 325–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Risk Governance Council (IRGC: 2005). White Paper on Risk Governance. IRGC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson M. (2003). Plenty of room at the bottom: towards an anthropology of nanoscience. Anthropol. Today 19(6): 3–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jopp K. (2003). Nanotechnologie – Aufbruch ins Reich der Zwerge. Gabler, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Joy B., 2000. Why the future doesn’t need us. Wired 8(4), April 2004, pp. 1–11 http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R. (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kom-passion Group – Germany, 2005. http://www.komm- passion.de/index.php?id=648&no_cache=1&sword_list[]= nanotechnologie

  • Löfstedt R.E., 1997. Risk Evaluation in the United Kingdom: Legal Requirements, Conceptual Foundations, and Practical Experiences with Special Emphasis on Energy Systems. Working Paper No. 92, Akademie für Technikfolgenabschätzung, Stuttgart

  • Lundgren R.E. (1994). Risk Communication: A Handbook for Communicating Environmental, Safety, and Health Risks. Battelle Press, Columbus/Ohio

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyall C. and Tait J. (2005). Shifting policy debates and the implications for governance. In: Lyall C. and Tait J. (eds), New Modes of Governance, Developing an Integrated Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot, pp. 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Macoubrie J. (2005). Informed Public Perception on Nanotechnology and Trust in Government. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard A.D. and Kuempel E.D. (2005). Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6): 587–614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meridian Institute, 2004. Summary of the International Dialogue for Responsible R&D of Nanotechnology. Sponsored by the National Science Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia, USA. (www.nsf.gov/home/crssprgm/nano/dialog.htm)

  • Morgan K.(2005). Development of a preliminary framework for informing the risk analysis and risk management of nanoparticles. Risk Anal. 25(6): 1621–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan M.G. (1990). Choosing and Managing Technology-Induced Risk. In: Glickman T.S. and Gough M. (eds), Readings in Risk. Resources for the Future, Washington, pp. 17–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan M.G., Fischhoff B., Bostrom A. and Atman C.J. (2002). Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge University Press, Boston and New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan M.G. and Henrion M. (1990). Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nano Frontiers, 2006. Frontiers in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology. Report from workshop held on Feb. 9–10, 2006, sponsored by National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation and Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington, D.C., U.S

  • National Toxicology Program, 2005. Various documents published on the website: http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm.

  • Nature, 2003. Nanotech is not so scary. Nature 421(6921), 299

  • Oberdörster G., Sharp Z., Atudorei V., Elder A., Gelein R., Kreyling W. (2004). Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhal. Toxicol. 16(6–7), June 2004: 437–445

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2002). Guidance Document on Risk Communication for Chemical Risk Management. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver J., 2003. Charles: ‘Grey Goo’ Threat to the World, The Mail on Sunday, 27 April, 2003

  • Perritt H.H. (1986). Negotiated rulemaking in practice. J. Policy Anal. Manage. 5 (Spring 1986): 482–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porritt J., 2003. Big questions now loom over the world’s smallest technologies. And the sooner we get to grips with them, the better it will be for all of us. The Mail on Sunday, 27 April, 2003

  • Ravetz J. (1999). What is Post-Normal Science?. Futures 31(7): 647–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejeski D., 2005. Keynote speech at the EPA Grantees Conference. Washington, D.C., October 2005.

  • Renn O. (2004a). Perception of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance 29(1): 102–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn O. (2004b). The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: participation and discourse in risk management. In: MacDaniels T.L. and Small M.J. (eds), Risk Analysis and Society An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004, pp. 289–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip A., 2002. Co-evolution of Science, Technology and Society, expert review for the Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung’s Förderinitiatieve, Politik Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, as managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Twente University, Enschede.

  • Rip A., 2004a. Constructive Technology Assessment of Nanotechnology, 15 April 2004, University of Twente

  • Rip A., 2004b. Articulating Images, Attitudes and Views of Nanotechnology: Enactors and comparative Selectors, 14 April 2004, University of Twente

  • RISKO (2000). Mitteilungen für Kommission für Risikobewertung des Kantons Basel-Stadt: Seit 10 Jahren beurteilt die RISKO die Tragbarkeit von Risiken. Bulletin 3, June 2000 : 2–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Robichaud C.O., Tanzil D., Weilenmann U. And Wiesner M.R. (2005). Relative risk analysis of several manufactured nanomaterials: an insurance industry context. Environ. Science Technol. 39(22): 8985–8994

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C. (2001). International strategy for nanotechnology research. J. Nanopart. Res. 3(5–6): 353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C. (2003). Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanopart. Res. 5(3–4): 181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C. (2004a). Nanoscale Science and Engineering: Unifying and Transforming Tools. AIChE J. 50(5): 890–897

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C., 2004b. Environmentally responsible development of nanotechnology. In: Karn and Zhang eds. Special issue of Environmental Science and Technology, American Chemical␣Society. http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag-a/2005/39/i05/pdf/030105feature_roco.pdf.

  • Roco M.C. (2005a). International perspective on government nanotechnology funding in 2005. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(6): 707–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C. (2005b). The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. J. Nanopart. Res. 7(2–3): 129–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roco, M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2001. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, NSET Workshop report, March 2001, Virginia; based on National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop in September 2000, Springer (formerly Kluwer): Dordrecht.

  • Roco M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2003. Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance, NSF-DOC Report, June 2002, Virginia; based on National Science Foundation (NSF) workshop in December 2001, Springer (formerly Kluwer): Dordrecht

  • Roco, M.C. & W.S. Bainbridge, (eds.) 2005. Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology – Improving Benefits to Humanity (NSET and National Science Foundation) Arlington, Virginia; on the website www.nano.gov (also published by Springer, 2005).

  • Roco M.C. and Litten E. (2005). Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: (I) The Role of Government. IRGC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco M.C. & R. Tomellini, (eds.) 2002. Nanotechnology: Revolutionary Opportunities and Societal Implications, 3rd joint EC-NSF workshop on Nanotechnology, Lecce (Italy), 31 Jan–1 Feb. 2002, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

  • Rowe G., Frewer L.J. (2000). Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Human Values 25(1): 3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roxburgh C., 2003. Hidden Flaws in Strategy, McKinsey Quarterly No. 2.

  • Siegel R.W., E. Hu & M.C. Roco, (eds.) 1999. Nanostructure Science and Technology, Springer (former Kluwer Academic Publishers): Dordrecht, Netherlands (also available at http://www.wtec.org/loyola/nano/).

  • Slovic P. (1992). Perception of Risk: Reflections on the Psychometric Paradigm. In: Krimsky S., Golding D. (eds) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, Westport CT, pp. 117–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Small Times, 2005. Survey of nanotechnology companies and products (personal communication)

  • Spinardi G. and Williams R. (2005). The governance challenge of breakthrough science and technology. In: Lyall C. and Tait J. (eds), New Modes of Governance: Developing an Integrated Policy Approach to Science, Technology, Risk and the Environment. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 45–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney A.E., Seal S. and Vaidyanathan P. (2003). The promises and perils of nanoscience and nanotechnology: exploring emerging social and ethical issues. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 23(4): 236–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait J. (2001). More faust than frankenstein: the European debate about risk regulation for genetically modified crops. J. Risk Res. 4(2): 175–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tait, J., 2005. Private communication

  • Tait J. and Williams R. (1999). Policy approaches to research and development: foresight, framework and competitiveness. Sci. Public Policy 26(2): 101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tegart G. et al. (2001). Nanotechnology: The technology for the 21st Century. APEC, Center for Technology Foresight, Bangkok, Thailand

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A. and Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453–458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • UNIDO, 2005. North–South Dialogue on Nanotechnology: Challenges and Opportunities, United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, International Centre for Science and High Technology, Trieste, Italy.

  • Van Asselt M.B.A. (2000). Perspectives on Uncertainty and Risk. Springer, former Kluwer, Dordrecht and Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Sluijs J.P., J.S. Risbey, P. Kloprogge, J.R. Ravetz, S.O. Funtowicz, S. Corral Quintana, A. Guimaraes Pereira, B. De Marchi, A.C. Petersen, P.H.M. Janssen, R. Hoppe & S.W.F. Huijs, 2003. RIVM/MNP Guidance for Uncertainty Assessment and Communication, Report No. NWS-E-2003-163, Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation and Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Utrecht and Bilthoven

  • Viscusi W.K. (1994). Risk–risk analysis. J. Risk Uncertainty 8: 5–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webler T., Levine D., Rakel H., Renn O. (1991). The group Delphi: a novel attempt at reducing uncertainty. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 39: 253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weil V. (2003). Zeroing in on ethical issues in nanotechnology. Proc. IEEE 91: 1976–1979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener J.B. (1998). Managing the Iatrogenic risks of risk management. Risk Health Safety Environ. 9: 39–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A. (1990) No risk is the highest risk of all. In: Glickman T.S. and Gough M. (eds), Readings in Risk. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., pp. 120–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams R., 2005. Compressed Foresight and Narrative Bias: Pitfalls in Assessing High Technology Futures, Innogen working paper No. 39, under consideration for/accepted by Science as Culture.

  • Williams R. and Russell S. (2002). Concepts, spaces and tools for action? Exploring the policy potential of the social shaping perspective. In: Sørensen K.H. and Williams R. (eds), Shaping Technology Guiding Policy: Concepts Spaces and Tools. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 133–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilsdon J. (eds) (2001). Digital futures: living in a networked world. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Winner L. (1977). Autonomous Technology. Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press, Cambridge MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson J.R. (2003). Social and ethical issues in nanotechnology: lessons from biotechnology and other high technologies. Biotechnol. Law Rep. 22(4): 376–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne B. (1984). Public perceptions of risk. In: Aurrey J. (eds), The Urban Transportation of Irradiated Fuel. Mcmillan, London, pp. 246–259

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The report was prepared for IRGC and the opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their organisations. The reviews provided by Dr. Gerd Bachmann (VDI, Germany), Dr. Michael Garner (Intel), Tim Mealey (Meridian Institute, U.S.), Dr.␣David Rejeski (WWSC, U.S.) and Prof. Joyce Tait (U.K.) are acknowledged and their input is included in the document.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Sociology, University of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany

    O. Renn

  2. National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22230, USA

    M. C. Roco

Authors
  1. O. Renn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. C. Roco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Renn, O., Roco, M.C. Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance. J Nanopart Res 8, 153–191 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation