Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology

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

Abstract

This paper analyzes scholarly papers published from 2003 through 2013 on the general theme of nanotechnology and governance. It considers three general points: (1) the “problem” of nanotechnology; (2) general lessons for governance obtained; and (3) prospects for aligning the US regulatory system to the next generation of complex engineered nano-materials. It argues that engineered nano-materials and products are coming to market within an already mature regulatory framework of decade-old statutes, long-standing bureaucratic rules and routines, narrowly directive judicial decisions, and embedded institutional norms. That extant regulatory regime shapes how policymakers perceive, define, and address the relative benefits and risks of both proximate and yet-to-be idealized nano-materials and applications. The paper concludes that fundamental reforms in the extant regime are unlikely short of a perceived crisis.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A complete list of the articles considered in this analysis is available from the author.

  2. A term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville (1856) in describing the French monarchy.

References

  • Abbott K, Marchant G, Corley E (2012) Soft law oversight mechanisms for nanotechnology. Jurimetrics 52:279–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Baggott R (1998) The BSE crisis. Public health and the ‘risk society’. In: Gray P, ’t Hart P (eds) Public policy disasters in Western Europe. Routledge, London, pp 63–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner F, Jones B (1993) Agendas and instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett M (2004) Does existing law fail to address nanotechnoscience? IEEE Technol Soc Mag 23:28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord R, Fisher A, O’Connor R (1997) Is accurate understanding of global warming necessary to promote willingness to sacrifice? Risk: health. Safety Environ 8:339–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosso C (1987) Pesticides and politics: the life cycle of a public issue. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman D, Hodge G (2009) Counting on codes: an examination of transnational codes as a regulatory governance mechanism for nanotechnologies. Regul Gov 3:145–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breggin L, Carothers L (2006) Governing uncertainty: the nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety challenge. Columbia J Environ Law 31:286–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese C (2010) Engaging business in the regulation of nanotechnology. In: Bosso C (ed) Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese C, Nash J (2001) Regulating from the inside: can environmental management systems achieve policy goals?. RFF Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Crichton M (2003) Prey. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport C (2016) Senate approves update of toxic-chemical regulations. New York Times, June 8, A14

  • Davies JC (2006) Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies JC (2009) Oversight of next generation nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • de Tocqueville A (1856) The Ancien Régime and the French revolution, Penguin Classics (2008), London

  • Denison R (2011) The states were in on chemical policy reform in 2011 chemicals and nano-materials. http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2011/01/19/the-states-were-in-on-chemical-policy-reform-in-2011-30-and-counting. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • Denison R (2016) Historic deal on TSCA reform reached, setting stage for a new law after 40 years of waiting. Chemicals and nano-materials. http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/23/historic-deal-on-tsca-reform-reached-setting-stage-for-a-new-law-after-40-years-of-waiting/. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Life cycle assessment: principles and practice. EPA/600/R-06/060

  • Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General (2011) EPA needs to manage nano-materials risk more effectively. Report #12-P-0162

  • Feynman R (1959) There’s plenty of room at the bottom. Lecture presented at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society, California Institute of Technology, December 29. http://www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman/plenty.html. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • Government Accountability Office (2010) Nanotechnology: nano-materials are widely used in commerce, but EPA faces challenges in regulating risk. Washington, D.C. GAO-10-549

  • Guber D (2003) The grassroots of a green revolution: polling America on the environment. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Guber D, Bosso C (2012) High hopes and bitter disappointment: public discourse and the limits of the environmental movement in climate change politics. In: Vig N, Kraft M (eds) Environmental policy: new directions for the 21st century, 8th edn. CQ Press, Washington, pp 54–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Guston D, Sarewitz D (2002) Real-time technology assessment. Technol Soc 24(1–2):93–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (2010) The regulatory challenges facing nanotechnology. In: Hodge G, Bowman D, Maynard A (eds) The international handbook on regulating nanotechnology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • International Risk Governance Council, Working Group on Nanotechnology (2005) Survey on nanotechnology governance: volume A. The role of government. IRCG, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R (2011) Governing nanobiotechnology: lessons from agricultural biotechnology regulation. J Nanopart Res 13:1467–1476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones CO (1974) Speculative augmentation in federal air and water pollution policy-making. J Polit 35(2):438–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamieniecki S, Kraft M (2008) Foreword to Klyza. C., Sousa, D. American Environmental Policy, 1990–2006: Beyond Gridlock. MIT Press, Cambridge, p ix

    Google Scholar 

  • Kica E, Bowman D (2012) Regulation by means of standardization: key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. Jurimetrics 53:11–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn E (2008) It’s the management, stupid, on the importance of management in complex policy issues. Lemma, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Klyza C, Sousa D (2008) American environmental policy, 1990–2006: beyond gridlock. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S (1983) Genetic alchemy: the social history of the recombinant dna controversy. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupp F, Holliday C (2005) Let’s get nanotech right. Wall Street J June 15:B2

  • Kulinowski K (2004) Nanotechnology: from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’? Bull Sci Technol Soc 24(1):19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuzma J, Priest S (2010) Nanotechnology, risk and oversight: learning lessons from related emerging technologies. Risk Anal 30(11):1688–1698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landy M (2010) EPA and nanotechnology: the need for a grand bargain? In: Bosso C (ed) Governing uncertainty: environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology. Earthscan, London, pp 80–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Landy M, Roberts M, Thomas S (1990) The US EPA: asking the wrong questions. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton L (2008) Chemical law has global impact: EU’s new rules forcing changes by US firms. Washington Post 12:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi M (1997) A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis. In: Lichbach M, Zuckerman A (eds) Comparative politics: rationality, culture, and structure. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lobring K (2006) Nanoscale materials: can (and should) we regulate the next industrial revolution? J Law Technol Policy 2:341

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant G, Wallach W (2015) Coordinating technology governance. Issues Sci Technol 31(4):43–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Marchant G, Sylvester D, Abbott K (2010) A new soft law approach to nanotechnology oversight: a voluntary product certification scheme. UCLA J Environ Law Policy 28:123–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard A (2010) The nanotech gamble: double or nothing? http://2020science.org/2010/04/20/the-nanotech-gamble-double-or-nothing/. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • McKibben B (2004) Enough: staying human in an engineered age. St. Martins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills K, Fleddermann C (2005) Getting the best from nanotechnology: approaching social and ethical implications openly and proactively. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 24(4):18–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Nanotechnology Initiative (2010) Supplement to the president’s FY2011 budget, subcommittee on nanoscale science, engineering, and technology. Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Paddock L (2006) Keeping pace with nanotechnology: a proposal for a new approach to environmental accountability. Environ Law Rep 36:10943–10952

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson P (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 92(4):251–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rejeski D (2011) Any big ideas left? Environ Forum 28(5):36–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P (1988) An advocacy coalition model of policy change. Policy Sci 21:129–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandler R (2009) Nanotechnology: the societal and ethical issues. Project on emerging nanotechnologies #16. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler R, Bosso C (2007) Tiny technologies, enormous implications. Issues Sci Technol 23(4):28–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler R, Kay W (2006) The GM-nanotech (dis)analogy? Bull Sci Technol Soc 26(1):57–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele D, Lewenstein B (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A (2010) The nanotech gamble: bold science, big money, growing risks. Aol News, March 22–26. http://coldtruth.com/previous-investigations/. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • Segal S (2004) Environmental regulation of nanoparticles: avoiding big mistakes for small machines. Nanotechnol Law Bus 1(3):303

    Google Scholar 

  • Selin H (2007) Coalition politics and chemicals management in a regulatory ambitious Europe. Glob Environ Polit 7:63–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkman R (2011) Dismantling an agency isn’t easy. New York Times, August 25. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/08/24/what-if-republicans-closed-the-epa/dismantling-the-epa-would-not-be-easy. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • Taleb N (2007) The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Teague C (2010) Aol News paints a misleading portrait of nanotechnology. April. http://www.merid.org/Content/News_Services/Nanotechnology_and_Development_News/Articles/2010/04/22/Opinion_A_Misleading_Portrait_of_Nanotechnology.aspx. Accessed 8 June 2016

  • Thaler R, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel D (2003) The hare and the tortoise revisited: the new politics of consumer and environmental regulation in Europe. Br J Polit Sci 33:557–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel S, Roberts J (2011) Why the toxic substances control act needs an overhaul, and how to strengthen oversight of chemicals in the interim. Health Aff 30(5):898–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wardak A (2003) Nanotechnology and regulation: a case study using the toxic substances control act. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Wargo J (1998) Our children’s toxic legacy. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Willsdon J, Willis R (2004) See through science: why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson R (2006) Nanotechnology: the challenge of regulating known unknowns. J Law Med Ethics 34(4):704–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Support provided by the National Science Foundation, “Collaborative Research: Workshop on the Anticipatory Governance of Complex Engineered Nanomaterials,” (CBET 1235693), David Guston and Kathleen Eggleson, co-PIs, and, earlier, by a Nanotechnology Interdisciplinary Research Team award, “Nanotechnology in the Public Interest: Regulatory Challenges, Capacity, and Policy Recommendations” (SES #0609078), Christopher Bosso, principal investigator. Thanks to Northeastern University graduate students Claudia Larson, Daniel Henkoff and William Walker for research assistance. The views expressed here are the author’s alone.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA

    Christopher Bosso

Authors
  1. Christopher Bosso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Bosso.

Additional information

Guest Editors: Kathleen Eggleson, David H. Guston

This article is part of the Special Focus on Anticipatory Governance of Next Generation Nanotechnology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bosso, C. Settling into the midstream? Lessons for governance from the decade of nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 18, 163 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3451-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-016-3451-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation