Abstract

AbstractRisk analysis (encompassing risk assessment, management, and communication) is touted internationally as the most appropriate approach for governing nanomaterials. In this article, we survey existing criticisms of risk assessment as a basis for regulatory decision making on emerging technologies, particularly highlighting its exclusion of key societal dimensions, its epistemological underdetermination, and its lack of democratic accountability. We then review the specific case of nanomaterials and identify six major barriers to the effective operation of both risk assessment and risk management. These include a lack of: nano‐specific regulatory requirements, shared definitions, validated and accessible methods for safety testing, available scientific knowledge, reliable information on commercial use, and capacity for exposure mitigation. Finding the knowledge, standards, methods, tools, definitions, capacity, and political commitment all insufficient, we argue that risk analysis is a “naked emperor” for nanomaterial governance. We therefore suggest that additional concepts and approaches are essential for nanomaterials policy and regulation.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.