Engaging stakeholders in nano-EHS risk governance

We report on an unusually frank and wide-ranging discussion concerning nano-manufacturing environmental health and safety, between industry and government representatives, insurers and litigators, and experts in life cycle and risk analysis, held at the Boston meeting of the Sustainable Nanotechnology Organization in November 2014. By transitioning from a standard conference panel presentation with audience Q&A to a forum in which each of the two dozen stakeholders in the room was invited to briefly identify themselves and share their expertise and concerns, key understandings emerged along with more nuanced thinking about a broader range of factors influencing industry decision-making and investment, public perception, and government regulation. Industry representatives and advisors who had initially arrived at the session in “observer mode” spoke frankly about the dilemmas of pursuing innovative nanotechnologies with real potential for societal benefit in a climate of regulatory and legal uncertainty. This was a “conversation that has never happened before,” noted one experienced participant, and it left many others hopeful that future stakeholder forums could accelerate the quest to achieve reasonable frameworks for safe governance of emerging technologies.

[1]  Steven K. Gibb Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. , 2008, Reproductive toxicology.

[2]  Timothy M Persons,et al.  Nanomanufacturing: Emergence and Implications for U.S. Competitiveness, the Environment, and Human Health , 2014 .

[3]  Anders Baun,et al.  Redefining risk research priorities for nanomaterials , 2009, Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology.

[4]  Rajive Dhingra,et al.  Sustainable Nanotechnology: Through Green Methods and Life-Cycle Thinking , 2010 .

[5]  C. Coglianese Engaging Business in the Regulation of Nanotechnology , 2010 .

[6]  J. Bailar,et al.  Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy , 2010, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[7]  Mirko Miseljic,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a literature review of assessment status , 2014, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[8]  T. Seager,et al.  Coupling multi-criteria decision analysis, life-cycle assessment, and risk assessment for emerging threats. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Igor Linkov,et al.  Illustrating anticipatory life cycle assessment for emerging photovoltaic technologies. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[10]  C. Bosso Governing uncertainty : environmental regulation in the age of nanotechnology , 2010 .

[11]  Mark A. J. Huijbregts,et al.  USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment , 2008 .

[12]  Troy R. Hawkins,et al.  Hybrid Framework for Managing Uncertainty in Life Cycle Inventories , 2009 .

[13]  Witold-Roger Poganietz,et al.  Towards a framework for life cycle thinking in the assessment of nanotechnology , 2008 .

[14]  Laura. Hodson,et al.  Protecting the nanotechnology workforce : NIOSH nanotechnology research and guidance strategic plan, 2013–2016 , 2013 .

[15]  R. E. Lee,et al.  Chemical alternatives assessment: enabling substitution to safer chemicals. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.