How decision analysis can further nanoinformatics

Summary The increase in nanomaterial research has resulted in increased nanomaterial data. The next challenge is to meaningfully integrate and interpret these data for better and more efficient decisions. Due to the complex nature of nanomaterials, rapid changes in technology, and disunified testing and data publishing strategies, information regarding material properties is often illusive, uncertain, and/or of varying quality, which limits the ability of researchers and regulatory agencies to process and use the data. The vision of nanoinformatics is to address this problem by identifying the information necessary to support specific decisions (a top-down approach) and collecting and visualizing these relevant data (a bottom-up approach). Current nanoinformatics efforts, however, have yet to efficiently focus data acquisition efforts on the research most relevant for bridging specific nanomaterial data gaps. Collecting unnecessary data and visualizing irrelevant information are expensive activities that overwhelm decision makers. We propose that the decision analytic techniques of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA), value of information (VOI), weight of evidence (WOE), and portfolio decision analysis (PDA) can bridge the gap from current data collection and visualization efforts to present information relevant to specific decision needs. Decision analytic and Bayesian models could be a natural extension of mechanistic and statistical models for nanoinformatics practitioners to master in solving complex nanotechnology challenges.

[1]  I. Linkov,et al.  Risk-based classification system of nanomaterials , 2009 .

[2]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  Communicating Analytic Results: A Tutorial for Decision Consultants , 2012, Decis. Anal..

[3]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Review of decision analytic tools for sustainable nanotechnology , 2015, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[4]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[5]  Igor Linkov,et al.  A decision-directed approach for prioritizing research into the impact of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. , 2011, Nature nanotechnology.

[6]  Igor Linkov,et al.  From "Weight of Evidence" to Quantitative Data Integration using Multicriteria Decision Analysis and Bayesian Methods , 2015, ALTEX.

[7]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .

[8]  Zachary A. Collier,et al.  Risk-based standards: integrating top–down and bottom–up approaches , 2014, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[9]  S. Hora Advances in Decision Analysis: Eliciting Probabilities from Experts , 2007 .

[10]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Applied Statistical Decision Theory. , 1961 .

[11]  P. Swuste,et al.  Evaluating the Control Banding Nanotool: a qualitative risk assessment method for controlling nanoparticle exposures , 2009 .

[12]  Gregory S. Parnell,et al.  Handbook of Decision Analysis: Parnell/Handbook of Decision Analysis , 2013 .

[13]  Scott Barclay,et al.  Handbook for Decision Analysis , 1977 .

[14]  Howard Raiffa,et al.  Applied Statistical Decision Theory. , 1961 .

[15]  H. Raiffa,et al.  Applied Statistical Decision Theory. , 1961 .

[16]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  Advances in decision analysis : from foundations to applications , 2007 .

[17]  Derk H Brouwer,et al.  Control banding approaches for nanomaterials. , 2012, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[18]  Igor Linkov,et al.  A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials , 2014, Nanotoxicology.

[19]  이수정 해외산업간호정보 - 미국 산업안전보건연구원(National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) 소개 , 2009 .

[20]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Engaging stakeholders in nano-EHS risk governance , 2015, Environment Systems and Decisions.

[21]  Jeffrey M. Keisler,et al.  Portfolio decision analysis : improved methods for resource allocation , 2011 .