Nanotechnology: promoting innovation through analysis and governance

While risk assessment has been a primary mechanism for assessing how to protect human and environmental health from engineered materials, data gaps and general inexperience with nanomaterials have resulted in its limitations to taking up this emerging technology. The difficulty in assessing the largely uncharacterized risks that nanomaterials pose can potentially stall the emergence of otherwise high-performing materials out of consideration of those risks (Matus et al. 2011). As nanotechnology continues to outpace regulation, researchers seek unconventional tools to guide the deployment of nano-enabled materials, so that the great promises of the novel materials can be realized in a responsible manner (Linkov et al. 2009). Despite the challenge of developing regulations to rein in the emergence of nanotechnology, the industry is uniquely positioned to explicitly minimize the overall risks and externalities of their technologies during the material and product design phase. Unlike traditional materials and technologies, in which risk is inherent to their material properties and cannot be significantly changed by technological processes, nanomaterials are engineered. The material design phase is a unique leverage point in creating green nanomaterials; those material characteristics that lead to potential environmental and health risks can be changed up front instead of mitigated at some later time. For the nanotechnology community, this could effectively mean a new approach, from ‘‘What harm might this designed material cause?’’ to ‘‘How can we adjust the design of this ’material to minimize the harm it will cause?’’ This shift could help operationalize the underutilized guidance offered by green chemistry and green engineering principles (Anastas and Warner 1998; Anastas and Zimmerman 2003). Shifting away from material functionality as the sole design goal, however, requires the ability to make choices in a much more complex decision space. Decisions based on the full life-cycle risks of nano-enabled products must incorporate cost, exposure, safety, persistence, and mobility as well as qualitative information such as stakeholder input and value judgments. For this Special Issue of ESD, we invited research papers that respond to the urgent need for a proactive approach to nanomaterial risk management, including weighing the benefits and risks of new nanotechnologies. A common theme of the papers in this issue is the need to understanding the risks and impacts of nanomaterials and nanoproducts in order to realize their numerous and enormous benefits. Many authors posit that we can overcome the data gaps that impede traditional assessment of risk by using expert judgment in its place, but most of them point out that expert judgment may be a major source of uncertainties. The tool proposed by Grieger et al. (2015) offers ways to communicate uncertainties stemming from expert elicitation, making it suitable for screening-level risk investigations. It compares the risks of nanomaterials based on both quantitative and qualitative information and can also help prioritize future investigations. This tool fits in the risk screening framework for nanomaterials proposed by I. Linkov (&) US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Concord, MA, USA e-mail: Igor.Linkov@usace.army.mil