Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework

Rye Senjen; Steffen Foss Hansen

doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005

Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework
[Vers un référentiel pour évaluer le « nano-risque »]

Rye Senjen ¹ ; Steffen Foss Hansen ²

¹ School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
² DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-Building 113, Kgs. Lyngby, DK-2800, Denmark

Comptes Rendus. Physique, Volume 12 (2011) no. 7, pp. 637-647.

Résumé
Abstract

Cet article est une discussion sur des concepts habituellement utilisés dans le cadre du risque chimique, lorsquʼil sʼagit dʼévaluer les risques liés aux nanotechnologies, que nous appellerons, nanorisques. Le nanorisque peut être défini suivant des perspectives variées depuis celle, restreinte, du risque éco-toxicologique à celle plus large de lʼimpact sociétal ou culturel, voire sous lʼangle plus philosophique du questionnement de la pertinence du besoin en technologies de la société. Nous résumerons les limitations des évaluations du type « risque chimique » et de celles dʼautres schémas de gouvernance des risques récemment proposés en relation avec les nanotechnologies ou les nanomatériaux, en particulier leur incapacité à prendre en compte le risque « sociétal » (propriété de technologies, vie privée, sécurité, « fracture nano »,² convergence nano-bio, etc.) et le risque « métaphysique » (notamment lʼavis du profane sur ces risques). Finalement, nous définirons les principes fondamentaux et les critères sur lesquels un cadre prenant en compte lʼensemble de ces questions devrait être fondé.

Compléments :
Des compléments sont fournis pour cet article dans le fichier séparé :

mmc1.pdf

The article discusses, in the context of nanotechnology, whether current concepts of chemical risk assessment can be used to assess nanorisk. Nanorisk can be defined from the narrow (eco)toxicological perspective to the broader sense to include societal/cultural impacts or even to the fundamental philosophical level, i.e. questioning societies need for the technology. We outline here the limitations of chemical risk assessment and other recent proposed risk governance paradigms in relation to nanotechnology and nanomaterials, including its inability to include societal risks (ownership, privacy, security, nanodivide,¹ convergence of nano-, bio-, etc.) and metaphysical risk (including the lay persons perspective on the risks of nanotechnology). Finally, we outline the fundamental principles and criteria that an alternative comprehensive framework should be based on.

Supplementary Materials:
Supplementary material for this article is supplied as a separate file:

mmc1.pdf

Publié le : 2011-09-01

DOI : 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005

Keywords: Nanotechnology, Nanomaterials, Risk appraisal framework, Types of knowledge, Types of risk, Metaphysical risk
Mot clés : Nanotechnologie, Nanomatériaux, Cadre dʼévaluation des risques, Types de connaissance, Types de risque, Risque métaphysique

Affiliations des auteurs :

Rye Senjen ¹ ; Steffen Foss Hansen ²

¹ School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
² DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark, DTU-Building 113, Kgs. Lyngby, DK-2800, Denmark

@article{CRPHYS_2011__12_7_637_0,
     author = {Rye Senjen and Steffen Foss Hansen},
     title = {Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework},
     journal = {Comptes Rendus. Physique},
     pages = {637--647},
     publisher = {Elsevier},
     volume = {12},
     number = {7},
     year = {2011},
     doi = {10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005},
     language = {en},
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Rye Senjen
AU  - Steffen Foss Hansen
TI  - Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework
JO  - Comptes Rendus. Physique
PY  - 2011
SP  - 637
EP  - 647
VL  - 12
IS  - 7
PB  - Elsevier
DO  - 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005
LA  - en
ID  - CRPHYS_2011__12_7_637_0
ER  -

%0 Journal Article
%A Rye Senjen
%A Steffen Foss Hansen
%T Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework
%J Comptes Rendus. Physique
%D 2011
%P 637-647
%V 12
%N 7
%I Elsevier
%R 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005
%G en
%F CRPHYS_2011__12_7_637_0

Rye Senjen; Steffen Foss Hansen. Towards a nanorisk appraisal framework. Comptes Rendus. Physique, Volume 12 (2011) no. 7, pp. 637-647. doi : 10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005. https://comptes-rendus.academie-sciences.fr/physique/articles/10.1016/j.crhy.2011.06.005/

Bibliographie
Cité par

[1] R.P. Feynman, Thereʼs plenty of room at the bottom – transcript of talk, 1959.

[2] N. Taniguchi On the basic concept of ‘Nano-Technology’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Precision Engineering, Part II, Japan Society of Precision Engineering, Tokyo, 1974

[3] H.W. Kroto; J.R. Heath; S.C. OʼBrien; R.F. Curl; R.E. Smalley C60: Buckminsterfullerene, Nature (1985), pp. 162-163

[4] S. Iijima Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon, Nature Biotechnology (1991), pp. 56-58

[5] G. Binnig; H. Rohrer; C. Gerber; E. Weibel Surface studies by scanning tunnelling microscopy, Physical Review Letters (1982), pp. 57-61

[6] A. McWilliams, Nanotechnology: A realistic market assessment, BCC Research, 2010.

[7] M. Berger, Debunking the trillion dollar nanotechnology market size hype, Nanowerk, 2007.

[8] M.C. Roco The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Volume 7 (2005), pp. 129-143

[9] RS/RAE Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, Royal Society & Royal Academy of Engineering, London, 2004

[10] UK Government, UK nanotechnologies strategy: small technologies, great opportunities, 2010.

[11] D. Fedrigo, R. Senjen, Shaping innovation: policy approaches on innovation governance the case of nanotechnology, Nanotechnologies in the 21st century, Brussels, 2010.

[12] ETC, The big down: Atomtech – Technologies converging at the nano-scale, 2003, available at: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/171/01/thebigdown.pdf, accessed 6th October 2010.

[13] J. Macoubrie Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, 2005

[14] Q. Chaudhry, J. Blackburn, P. Floyd, C. George, T. Nwaogu, A. Boxall, R. Aitken, Final Report: A scoping study to identify gaps in environmental regulation for the products and applications of nanotechnologies, Defra, London, 2006.

[15] K. Gavelin, R. Wilson, R. Donaldson, Democratic technologies? The final report of the Nanotechnology Engagement Group (NEG), Involve, London, 2007.

[16] SwissRe, Nanotechnology: small matter, many unknowns, Zurich, 2004, available at: http://www.swissre.com, accessed 6th October 2010.

[17] C.A. Poland; R. Duffin; I. Kinloch; A. Maynard; W.A. Wallace; A. Seaton et al. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 3 (2008), pp. 423-428

[18] K. Donaldson, F.A. Murphy, R. Duffin, C.A. Poland, Asbestos, carbon nanotubes and the pleural mesothelium: a review of the hypothesis regarding the role of long fibre retention in the parietal pleura, inflammation and mesothelioma, Particle and Fibre, Toxicology (2010), 7:5 available at: http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/7/1/5, accessed 6th October 2010.

[19] M. Powell New risk or old risk? How scientistsʼ standpoints shape their nanotechnology risk frames, Health, Risk & Society, Volume 9 (2007), pp. 173-190

[20] K. Kjølberg; G.C. Delgado-Ramos; F. Wickson; R. Strand Models of governance for converging technologies, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Volume 20 (2008), pp. 83-97

[21] A. Mnyusiwalla; A.S. Daar; P.A. Singer Mind the gap: science and ethics in nanotechnology, Nanotechnology (2003), pp. 9-13

[22] K. Kulinowski Nanotechnology: from ‘wow’ to ‘yuck’, Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society (2004), pp. 13-20

[23] S. Wood; A. Geldart; R. Jones Crystallising the Nanotechnology Debate, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Volume 20 (2008), pp. 13-27

[24] R. Sandler; W.D. Kay The GMO-Nanotech (dis)analogy, Bulletin of Science Technology and Society, Volume 26 (2006), pp. 57-62

[25] O. Renn Concepts of risk: an interdisciplinary review – Part 1: disciplinary concepts, GAIA, Volume 17 (2008), pp. 50-66

[26] F. Wickson; F. Gillund; A.I. Myhr Treating nanoparticles with precaution: recognising qualitative uncertainty in scientific risk assessment (K. Kjølberg; F. Wickson, eds.), Nano Meets Macro – Social Perspectives on Nanoscale Sciences and Technologies, Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore, 2010, pp. 445-472

[27] Meridian Institute, Nanotechnology and the poor: opportunities and risks – closing the gaps within and between sectors of society, 2005.

[28] E. Court; A.S. Daar; E. Martin; T. Acharya; P.A. Singer Will Prince Charles et al. diminish the opportunities of developing countries in nanotechnology?, 2004 http://www.nanotechweb.org

[29] ETC, The little big down: a small introduction to nano-scale technologies, available at: http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/104/01/littlebigdown.pdf, accessed 6th Oct 2010.

[30] B. Park; K. Donaldson; R. Duffin; L. Tran; F. Kelly; I. Mudway; J.-P. Morin; R. Guest; P. Jenkinson; Z. Samaras; M. Giannouli; H. Kouridis; P. Martin Hazard and risk assessment of a nanoparticulate cerium oxide-based Diesel fuel additive – A case study, Inhalation Toxicology, Volume 20 (2008), pp. 547-566

[31] N.C. Mueller; B. Nowack Exposure modelling of engineered nanoparticles in the environment, Environmental Science Technology, Volume 42 (2008), pp. 4447-4453

[32] European Commission JRC, Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for existing substances, Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market, Part I. EUR 20418 EN/1. European Communities, 2003.

[33] S.F. Hansen, Regulation and risk assessment of nanomaterials – too little, too late?, Department of Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, 2009.

[34] G. Oberdorster; E. Oberdorster; J. Oberdorster Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles, Environmental Health Perspectives (2005), pp. 823-839

[35] S.F. Hansen; B.H. Larsen; S.I. Olsen; A. Baun Categorisation framework to aid hazard identification of nanomaterials, Nanotoxicology, Volume 1 (2007), pp. 243-250

[36] I. Beck-Speier; N. Dayal; E. Karg; K.L. Maier; C. Roth; A. Ziesenis; J. Heyder Agglomerates of ultrafine particles of elemental carbon and TiO₂ induce generation of lipid mediators in alveolar macrophages, Environmental Health Perspectives (2001), pp. 613-618

[37] C.C. Berry; S. Wells; S. Charles; G. Aitchison; A.S.G. Curtis Cell response to dextran-derivatised iron oxide nanoparticles post internalisation, Biomaterials, Volume 25 (2004), pp. 5405-5413

[38] M.D. Cheng Effects of nanophase materials ( $⩽ 20 nm$ ) on biological responses, Journal of Environmental Science and Health A, Volume 39 (2004), pp. 2691-2705

[39] P.R. Lockman; J.M. Koziara; R.J. Mumper; D.D. Allen Nanoparticle surface charges alter blood–brain barrier integrity and permeability, Journal of Drug Targeting (2004), pp. 635-641

[40] S.S. Nigavekar; L.Y. Sung; M. Llanes; A. El-Jawahri; T.S. Lawrence; C.W. Becker; L. Balogh; M.K. Khan H-3 dendrimer nanoparticle organ/tumour distribution, Pharmaceutical Research (2004), pp. 476-483

[41] C.M. Sayes; J.D. Fortner; W. Guo; D. Lyon; A.M. Boyd; K.D. Ausman; Y.J. Tao; B. Sitharaman; L.J. Wilson; J.B. Hughes; J.L. West; V.L. Colvin The differential cytotoxicity of water-soluble fullerenes, Nano Letters, Volume 4 (2004), pp. 1881-1887

[42] C. Baker; A. Pradhan; L. Pakstis; D.J. Pochan; S.I. Shah Synthesis and antibacterial properties of silver nanoparticles, Journal of Nanoscience Nanotechnology (2005), pp. 244-249

[43] F.J. Martin; K. Melnik; T. West; J. Shapiro; M. Cohen; A.A. Boiarski; M. Ferrari Acute toxicity of intravenously administered microfabricated silicon dioxide drug delivery particles in mice, Drugs Research Development (2005), pp. 71-81

[44] J.D. Fortner; D.Y. Lyon; C.M. Sayes; A.M. Boyd; J.C. Falkner; E.M. Hotze; L.B. Alemany; Y.J. Tao; W. Guo; K.D. Ausman; V.L. Colvin; J.B. Hughes C-60 in water: Nanocrystal formation and microbial response, Environmental Science Technology, Volume 39 (2005), pp. 4307-4316

[45] T. Brunner; P. Piusmanser; P. Spohn; R. Grass; L. Limbach; A. Bruinink; W. Stark In vitro cytotoxicity of oxide nanoparticles: Comparison to asbestos, silica, and the effect of particle solubility, Environmental Science Technolology, Volume 40 (2006), pp. 4374-4381

[46] CCA, Small is different: A science perspective on the regulatory challenges of the nanoscale, The Council of Canadian Academies, Ottawa, 2008.

[47] M.C. Powell; M.P.A. Griffin; S. Tai Bottom-up risk regulation? How nanotechnology risk knowledge gaps challenge federal and state environmental agencies, Environmental Management (2008), pp. 426-443

[48] D.B. Resnik; S.S. Tinkle Ethical issues in clinical trials involving nanomedicine, Contemporary Clinical Trials, Volume 28 (2007), pp. 433-441

[49] K.D. Grieger; S.F. Hansen; A. Baun The known unknowns of nanomaterials: Describing and characterising uncertainty within environmental, health and safety risks, Nanotoxicology, Volume 3 (2009), pp. 222-233

[50] S. Brown The new deficit model, Nature Nanotechnology, Volume 4 (2009), pp. 609-612

[51] M. Kearnes, P. Macnaghten, J. Wilsdon, Governing at the nanoscale, Demos, 2006, available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/governingatthenanoscale.

[52] K.S. Shrader-Frechette Practical ecology and foundations for environmental ethics, Journal of Philosophy, Volume 92 (1995), pp. 621-635

[53] K.S. Shrader-Frechette Burying Uncertainty, University of California Press, London, 1993

[54] S.O. Hansson Philosophical perspectives on risk, Techné, Volume 8 (2004), pp. 10-33

[55] R. Sclove, Reinventing technology assessment – a 21st century model, Science and Technology Innovation Program, Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, Washington, DC, 2010.

[56] J.-P. Dupuy; A. Grinbaum Living with uncertainty: toward the ongoing normative assessment of nanotechnology, Techné, Volume 8 (2004), pp. 4-25

[57] B. Wynne Uncertainty and environmental learning, Global Environmental Change, Volume 2 (1992), pp. 112-127

[58] P. Slovic Facts versus fears: Understanding perceived risk (D. Kahneman; P. Slovic; A. Tversky, eds.), Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 463-489

[59] P. Slovic Beyond numbers: A broader perspective on risk perception and risk communication (D.G. Mayo; R.D. Hollander, eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 48-65

[60] O. Renn, White paper on risk governance: towards and integrative approach, White paper No. 1, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva, 2005.

[61] W.E. Bijker; I.D. de Beaufort; A. van den Berg; P.J.A. Borm; W.J.G. Oyen; G.T. Robillard et al. A response to ‘Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance’, O. Renn & M.C. Roco, 2006. J. Nanoparticle Research 8 (2): 153–191, Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Volume 9 (2007), pp. 1217-1220

[62] K. Kjølberg; G.C. Delgado-Ramos; F. Wickson; R. Strand Models of governance for converging technologies, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Volume 20 (2008), pp. 83-97

[63] O. Renn, M. Roco, White paper on nanotechnology risk governance, White paper No. 2, International Risk Governance Council, Geneva, 2006.

[64] J.-P. Dupuy Some pitfalls in the philosophical foundations of nanoethics, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Volume 32 (2007), pp. 237-261

[65] A. Ferrari Is it all about human nature? Ethical challenges of converging technologies beyond a polarised debate innovation, The European Journal of Social Science Research, Volume 21 (2008), pp. 1-24

[66] A. Nordman Enhancing material nature (K. Kjølberg; F. Wickson, eds.), Nano Meets Macro – Social Perspectives on Nanoscale Sciences and Technologies, Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore, 2010, pp. 283-303

[67] B. Flyvbjerg Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How it Can Succeed Again, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001

[68] L. Frewer; A. Fisher Nanotechnology in foods: Understanding public response to its risks and benefits (K. Kjølberg; F. Wickson, eds.), Nano Meets Marco – Social Perspectives on Nanoscale Sciences and Technology, Pan Stanford Publishing, Singapore, 2010, pp. 225-243

[69] K.S. Shrader-Frechette Scientific method, anti-foundationalism and public decision making, Health, Safety and Environment, Volume 1 (1990), pp. 23-41

[70] K.S. Shrader-Frechette Risk and Rationality, University of California Press Ltd., Berkeley, 1991

[71] R.E. Kasperson; J.X. Kasperson Hidden hazards in acceptable evidence (D.G. Mayo; R.D. Hollander, eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991, pp. 9-28

[72] H.P. Peters Mass media as an information channel and public arena, Risk Health Safety Environment (1994), pp. 241-250

[73] D. Kahneman; A. Tversky Subjective probability: a judgement of representativeness (D. Kahneman; P. Slovic; A. Tversky, eds.), Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982, pp. 32-47

[74] V.T. Covello; P.M. Sandman; P. Slovic Guidelines for communicating information about chemical risks effectively and responsibly (D.G. Mayo; R.D. Hollander, eds.), Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1991, pp. 66-90

[75] J.A. Tickner Childrenʼs environmental health: A case study in implementing the precautionary principle, International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (2000), pp. 281-288

[76] S.A. Feenstra Consumer acceptance of irradiated foods (S. Thorne, ed.), Food Irradiation, Elsevier Applied Science, 1991, pp. 97-128

[77] S. Yearley Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge: two analytical approaches and a case study, Public Understanding of Science, Volume 9 (2000), pp. 105-122

[78] L. Laurent; J.-C. Petit Nanosciences and its convergence with other technologies – new golden age or apocalypse?, Hyle, Volume 11 (2005), pp. 45-76

[79] S. Davies, P. Macnaghten, M. Kearnes, Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for public policy (Part 1 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology), Durham University, Durham, 2009.

[80] A. Ferrari, A. Nordmann, Reconfiguring responsibility: Lessons for nanoethics (Part 2 of the report on Deepening Debate on Nanotechnology), Durham University, Durham, 2009.

[81] A. Stirling, From precaution to robustness: in governance of technological vulnerability, in: The Vulnerability of Technological Cultures: New Directions in Research and Governance (workshop), Maastricht, Netherlands, 2008.

[82] A. Stirling, On science and precaution in the management of technological risk, European Commission – JRC Institute Prospective Technology, Brussels, 1999.

[83] J. Lemons; K.S. Shrader-Frechette; C. Cranor The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and type I and type II errors, Foundations of Science, Volume 2 (1997), pp. 207-236

[84] D. Ozonoff; L.I. Boden Truth and consequences: Health agency responses to environmental health problems, Science, Technology and Human Values (1987), pp. 70-77

Cité par Sources :

Commentaires - Politique