Risk analysis and technology assessment in support of technology development: Putting responsible innovation in practice in a case study for nanotechnology

Governments invest in "key enabling technologies," such as nanotechnology, to solve societal challenges and boost the economy. At the same time, governmental agencies demand risk reduction to prohibit any often unknown adverse effects, and industrial parties demand smart approaches to reduce uncertainties. Responsible research and innovation (RRI) is therefore a central theme in policy making. Risk analysis and technology assessment, together referred to as "RATA," can provide a basis to assess human, environmental, and societal risks of new technological developments during the various stages of technological development. This assessment can help both governmental authorities and innovative industry to move forward in a sustainable manner. Here we describe the developed procedures and products and our experiences to bring RATA in practice within a large Dutch nanotechnology consortium. This is an example of how to put responsible innovation in practice as an integrated part of a research program, how to increase awareness of RATA, and how to help technology developers perform and use RATA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:9-16. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

[1]  S. Kežić,et al.  Progress and future of in vitro models to study translocation of nanoparticles , 2015, Archives of Toxicology.

[2]  Dik van de Meent,et al.  Cellular uptake of nanoparticles as determined by particle properties, experimental conditions, and cell type , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[3]  Behnam Taebi,et al.  Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[4]  Dirk Stemerding,et al.  Governing synthetic biology for global health through responsible research and innovation , 2013, Systems and Synthetic Biology.

[5]  R. V. Schomberg.  Prospects for Technology Assessment in a Framework of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2011 .

[6]  Erik Fisher,et al.  Higher-level responsiveness? Socio-technical integration within US and UK nanotechnology research priority setting , 2015 .

[7]  Hans Bouwmeester,et al.  Translocation of positively and negatively charged polystyrene nanoparticles in an in vitro placental model. , 2015, Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA.

[8]  Arnout R. H. Fischer,et al.  Affect and Cognition in Attitude Formation toward Familiar and Unfamiliar Attitude Objects , 2015, PloS one.

[9]  C. A. Palavicino.  Mindful anticipation: a practice approach to the study of expectations in emerging technologies , 2016 .

[10]  L. Krabbenborg.  The potential of national public engagement exercises: Evaluating the case of the recent Dutch Societal Dialogue on Nanotechnology , 2012 .

[11]  Annemarie P van Wezel,et al.  Analysis of (functionalized) fullerenes in water samples by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry. , 2013, Analytical chemistry.

[12]  L. Frewer,et al.  RISK PERCEPTION, SOCIAL TRUST, AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING : IMPLICATIONS FOR EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES , 1999 .

[13]  Wouter Fransman,et al.  Occupational Exposure to Nano-Objects and Their Agglomerates and Aggregates Across Various Life Cycle Stages; A Broad-Scale Exposure Study. , 2015, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[14]  Verena Carolin Stimberg,et al.  Microfluidic platform for bilayer experimentation: from a research tool towards drug screening , 2014 .

[15]  Robert G. Cooper,et al.  Perspective: The Stage‐Gate® Idea‐to‐Launch Process—Update, What's New, and NexGen Systems* , 2008 .

[16]  Benoit Weil,et al.  Waiting games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[17]  Andrew D Maynard,et al.  Why we need risk innovation. , 2015, Nature nanotechnology.

[18]  Dik van de Meent,et al.  Multimedia Modeling of Engineered Nanoparticles with SimpleBox4nano: Model Definition and Evaluation , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Philip J. Vergragt,et al.  Traditional and Modern Technology Assessment: Toward a Toolkit , 1998 .

[20]  A. Fischer,et al.  Ethics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnology: a Comparison of Expert and Consumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal Acceptance , 2015, NanoEthics.

[21]  Hedwig M Braakhuis,et al.  Simple in vitro models can predict pulmonary toxicity of silver nanoparticles , 2016, Nanotoxicology.

[22]  Ben A. Wender,et al.  Coordinating modeling and experimental research of engineered nanomaterials to improve life cycle assessment studies , 2015 .

[23]  Annemarie P van Wezel,et al.  Is there evidence for man-made nanoparticles in the Dutch environment? , 2017, The Science of the total environment.

[24]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: A review , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[25]  Arnim von Gleich,et al.  A suggested three-tiered approach to assessing the implications of nanotechnology and influencing its development , 2008 .

[26]  Arie Rip,et al.  The past and future of RRI , 2014, Life sciences, society and policy.

[27]  Alexander Peine,et al.  Articulation of Sustainability in Nanotechnology: Funnels of Articulation , 2013 .

[28]  Alexis Laurent,et al.  Analysis of current research addressing complementary use of life-cycle assessment and risk assessment for engineered nanomaterials: have lessons been learned from previous experience with chemicals? , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[29]  Torsten Fleischer,et al.  Making nanotechnology developments sustainable. A role for technology assessment , 2008 .

[30]  Lotte Krabbenborg.  Creating Inquiry Between Technology Developers and Civil Society Actors: Learning from Experiences Around Nanotechnology , 2016, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[31]  E. Forsberg,et al.  Integrated assessment of emerging science and technologies as creating learning processes among assessment communities , 2016, Life sciences, society and policy.

[32]  Andrzej K. Koźmiński,et al.  The Entrepreneurial State , 2013 .

[33]  Bernadette Bensaude Vincent,et al.  The politics of buzzwords at the interface of technoscience, market and society: The case of ‘public engagement in science’ , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[34]  D van de Meent,et al.  Guidance for the prognostic risk assessment of nanomaterials in aquatic ecosystems. , 2015, The Science of the total environment.

[35]  Kornelia Konrad,et al.  Context Matters: Promises and Concerns Regarding Nanotechnologies for Water and Food Applications , 2013 .

[36]  Sagar Kamarthi,et al.  Review of Research Trends and Methods in Nano Environmental, Health, and Safety Risk Analysis , 2016, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[37]  Lada Timotijevic,et al.  The framing of innovation among European research funding actors: Assessing the potential for ‘responsible research and innovation’ in the food and health domain , 2016 .

[38]  Eefje Cuppen,et al.  How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands , 2015 .

[39]  M. Eckelman,et al.  Integrating life cycle assessment into managing potential EHS risks of engineered nanomaterials: reviewing progress to date , 2015, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[40]  Kate Millar,et al.  A Mobilising Concept? Unpacking Academic Representations of Responsible Research and Innovation , 2016, Science and Engineering Ethics.

[41]  G.F.B. Hulshof.  Topochip: technology for instructing cell fate and morphology via designed surface topography , 2016 .

[42]  Hans Bouwmeester,et al.  Exploring the development of a decision support system (DSS) to prioritize engineered nanoparticles for risk assessment , 2013, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[43]  George Biskos,et al.  A Cost-Effective Electrostatic Precipitator for Aerosol Nanoparticle Segregation , 2015 .

[44]  Kornelia Konrad,et al.  Practicing responsible innovation in NanoNextNL , 2015 .

[45]  Jesús Alquézar Sabadie,et al.  Technological innovation, human capital and social change for sustainability. Lessons learnt from the industrial technologies theme of the EU's Research Framework Programme. , 2014, The Science of the total environment.

[46]  P. Grandjean,et al.  Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation , 2013 .

[47]  Jason Chilvers,et al.  Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments , 2006 .

[48]  Harmen Klaas Peter Mulder,et al.  Size-selective analyte detection in an integrated optical Young interferometer biosensor , 2016 .

[49]  Arie Rip,et al.  Dual dynamics of promises, and waiting games around emerging nanotechnologies , 2012, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[50]  H. van Lente.  The Societal Incubator as a Solution to Waiting Games in Emerging Technologies , 2015 .

[51]  H. van Lente,et al.  Practices of Innovation and Responsibility: Insights from Methods, Governance and Action , 2015 .

[52]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[53]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance , 2016, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[54]  Theo Vermeire,et al.  Risk assessment of chemicals : an introduction , 2007 .

[55]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society , 2012, Emerging Technologies: Ethics, Law and Governance.

[56]  Frank Vanclay,et al.  Technology Assessment in Social Context: The case for a new framework for assessing and shaping technological developments , 2010 .

[57]  E R Cornelissen,et al.  Removal of aqueous nC60 fullerene from water by low pressure membrane filtration. , 2016, Water research.

[58]  Albert A Koelmans,et al.  Rapid settling of nanoparticles due to heteroaggregation with suspended sediment , 2014, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[59]  Hans Bouwmeester,et al.  In vitro gastrointestinal digestion increases the translocation of polystyrene nanoparticles in an in vitro intestinal co-culture model , 2015, Nanotoxicology.

[60]  D van de Meent,et al.  Heteroaggregation and sedimentation rates for nanomaterials in natural waters. , 2014, Water research.