NanoEthics, 2008

NanoEthics, 2007

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.

Futures, 2006

This paper examines the phenomena of nanotechnology and takes some tentative steps towards defining new regulatory frontiers within which this technology may operate. While nanotechnology has attracted much attention with respect to its scientific and business potential, debate on associated ethical, policy, regulatory and legal aspects has been limited. This paper builds on the conceptual frameworks of Ayres and Braithwaite [Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992] and Grabosky [Discussion paper: Inside the pyramid: towards a conceptual framework for the analysis of regulatory systems, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 25 (1997) 195-201], in order to address the regulatory challenges posed by the novel properties and products emerging from nanotechnology. The paper considers the current regulatory frameworks that impact upon nanotechnology in Australia, and concludes that there is an emerging regulatory gap between the exciting commercial advances being made in this sector and the community's expectations for regulatory safeguards and protections. The paper also concludes that, unlike earlier technologies, there is now a unique opportunity to carefully consider the benefits as well as the impacts of nanotechnology before it arrives. This will require clearer articulation of policy, regulatory and legal frontiers crucial to the emerging nano-age.

Trends in Biotechnology, 2009

Regulation of all new technology ebbs and flows between periods of under-and over-regulation, often dependant on the viewpoint of the observer and the underlying objectives of the particular regulation. As illustrated by genetic modification (GM) applications, defining what constitutes appropriate regulation for a rapidly evolving technology can be difficult. Drawing upon the lessons of GM, we argue that nanotechnology will go through similar periods of inappropriate regulation. As with GM, future regulatory responses to nanotechnology will be shaped by perceptions of risk and willingness to accept varying levels of risk. With varying responses between jurisdictions appearing inevitable, we argue that the timing and type of regulation adopted for nanotechnology, and its appropriateness, will be crucial to its commercial success.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative has committed substantial funding to nanoscale research and development across a wide array of potential applications. These efforts are expected to bear fruit fairly soon, yet the path from the development to widespread production and use is strewn with a number of potentially considerable legal, regulatory, and societal obstacles. This paper examines several aspects of one of these issues: government capacity.

International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies, 2010

NanoEthics, 2017

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 BA slow sort of country!^said the Red Queen. BNow, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!-Lewis Carroll, Alice through the Looking Glass.

The debate concerning the regulation of nanomaterials (hereinafter, ‘NMs’ or ‘NM’) has been focused on whether NMs could harm the environment and human health, much along the lines of the biotechnology debate of the 1990s and early 2000s , yet concerted regulation in this area is lacking. As NMs are arguably only recently gaining public prominence, and the regulation of them is still in its infancy, this article examines some of the issues faced by regulators, offers insights into potential methods for regulation and critiques the current state of international, European and national laws and policies. A key issue in the regulation of nanotechnologies is that the deliberate exploitation of properties at nanoscale is central to their application and may cause NMs to exhibit very different properties from their conventional bulk substances. Benefits of this technology could include: vast product, industrial and technological applications, wealth generation, job creation and societal advances . On the converse, risks associated with this technology could include potential serious risks to human health and environment as NMs may be discharged directly into rivers or the atmosphere by industry or escape when products are used or disposed of in the environment. The fate and effects of NMs and their toxicological impacts on human health and the environment are still not fully understood.

Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 2009

Nanotechnology is the latest in a growing list of emerging technologies that includes nuclear technologies, genetics, reproductive biology, biotechnology, information technology, robotics, communication technologies, surveillance technologies, synthetic biology, and neuroscience. As was the case for many of the technologies that came before, a key question facing nanotechnology is what type of regulatory oversight is appropriate for this emerging technology. As two of us wrote several years ago, the question facing nanotechnology is not whether it will be regulated, but when and how.Yet, appropriate regulation of nanotechnology will be challenging. The term “nanotechnology” incorporates a broad, diverse range of materials, technologies, and products, with an even greater spectrum of potential risks and benefits. This technology slashes across the jurisdiction of many existing regulatory statutes and regulatory agencies, and does so across the globe. Nanotechnology is developing at a...

This report is an initial exploration into the question: -How have Canada and other jurisdictions reacted to the recent emergence of nanotechnology-based products in the marketplace (and what is the current state of affairs)?‖ undertaken from the perspective of regulatory governance.