This article examines nanotechnology within the context of the public interest. It notes that though nanotechnology research and development investment totalled US$9.6 billion in 2005, the public presently understands neither the implications nor how it might be best governed. The article maps a range of nanotechnology dialogue activities under way within the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and Australia. It explores the various approaches to articulating public interest matters and notes a shift in the way in which these governments, on the whole, appear to be attempting to manage nanotechnology “risks.” It argues that open and transparent policy deliberations and extensive public discourse will be pivotal to protecting the public interest, gaining public trust and acceptance of nanotechnologies. The article concludes that though governing emerging technologies in the public interest is not a new concept, nanotechnology does present additional challenges that must be addressed by the guardians of the public interest.
Adams, M.D. (2002). The precautionary principle and the rhetoric behind it. Journal of Risk Research, 5(4), 301-316.
2.
Aitken, R.J., Creedy, K.S., & Tran, C.L. (2004). Nanoparticles: An occupation hygiene review. Edinburgh, Scotland: Institute of Occupational Medicine for the Health and Safety Executive.
3.
Australian Council of Trade Unions. (2005). Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee: Inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust. Melbourne: Author.
4.
Australian Institute of Occupational Hygenists Inc. (2005). AIOH submission—Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, workplace exposure to toxic dust. Tullamarine, Australia: Author.
5.
Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. (2005 ). Submission from Australian Manufacturing Workers Union—To the Senate Community Affairs Committee: Inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
6.
Balbus, J.M., Denison, R., Florini, K., & Walsh, S. (2005, Summer). Getting nanotechnology right the first time. Issues in Science and Technology, 65-71.
7.
Barbagello, F., & Nelson, J. (2005). Report: UK GM dialogue. Science Communication, 26(3), 318-325.
8.
Bauer, M.W., & Gaskell, G. (2002). Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Bernauer, T. (2002). Agricultural biotechnology: Why do regulations in the European Union, the United States, and Japan differ? Zurich, Switzerland : Centre for International Studies.
BfR (Federal Institute of Risk Assessment). ( 2006a, May 25). Nano particles were not the cause of health problems triggered by sealing sprays! [Press release]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
12.
BfR (Federal Institute of Risk Assessment). ( 2006b, March 31). Exercise caution when using “nano-sealing sprays” containing a propellant [Press release]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
13.
BfR (Federal Institute of Risk Assessment). ( 2006c, April 12). Cause of intoxications with nano spray not yet full elucidated [Press release]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
14.
Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994). The precautionary principle in Germany—enabling government. In T. O'Riordan & J. Cameron (Eds.), Interpreting the precautionary principle (pp. 31-60). London: Earthscan .
15.
Bowman, D., & Hodge, G. (2006). Nanotechnology: Mapping the wild regulatory frontier . Futures, 38, 1060-1073. Calman, K., & Smith, D. (2001). Works in theory but not in practice? The role of the precautionary principle in public health policy. Public Administration, 79(1), 185-204.
16.
Chaudhry, Q., Blackburn, J., Floyd, P., George, C., Nwaogu, T., Boxall, A., et al. (2006). Final report: A scoping study to identify gaps in environmental regulation for the products and applications of nanotechnologies . London: Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.
17.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. (2003, November 19). Nanohouse brings nanotechnology home [Media release]. Available at www.csiro.au/files/mediaRelease/mr2003/Prnanohouse.htm
18.
Cobb, M.D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6(4), 395-405.
19.
Collins, F.S., Morgan, M., & Patrinos, A. (2003). The Human Genome Project: Lessons from large-scale biology. Science, 300, 286-290.
20.
Collins, F.S., Patrinos, A., Jordan, E., Chakravati, A., Gesteland, R., Walter, L., and Members of the DOE and NIH Planning Groups. (1998). New goals for the U.S. Human Genome Project: 1998-2003 . Science, 282, 682-689.
21.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee—Inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust—Terms of reference. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Government. Available at www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/toxic_dust/tor.pdf
22.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2006, May). Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee—Workplace exposure to toxic dust. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Government.
23.
Council for Science and Technology. (2005, March). Policy through dialogue: informing policies based on science and technology. London: Council for Science and Technology.
24.
Davies, J.C. (2006). Managing the effects of nanotechnology. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
25.
Dayton, L. (2006, August 9). Unchecked nano developments a no-no . Australian, p. 34.
26.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. (2006, March). Consultation on a proposed voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. London: Author.
27.
Department of Industry Science and Technology. ( 1995). Annual report 1994-1995. Canberra : Commonwealth of Australia.
28.
Deville, A., & Harding, R. (1997). Analysing the precautionary principle. Sydney, Australia: Federation Press.
29.
Dialogue on nanoparticles. (2005). Project—Dialogue on nanoparticles: Identification and evaluation of the environmental and health hazards posed by nanoparticles. Retrieved August 14, 2006, from www.dialog-nanopartikel.de/projekt.html
30.
Drexler, K., Peterson, C., & Pergamit, G. (1993). Unbounding the future: The nanotechnology revolution . New York: Quill Books.
31.
Economist. (2006, April 12). Has all the magic gone? [Editorial]. Economist, 52.
32.
Environmental Law Institute. (2005). Securing the promise of nanotechnology: Is U.S. environmental law up to the job?Washington, DC: Author.
33.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2005a). Considerations relevant to the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) application to nanoscale materials, docket detail: OPPT-2004-0122. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2005b). Nanoscale materials: Notice of public meeting—docket detail: OPPT-2004-0122 . Washington DC: Author.
35.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2005c). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: External review draft—Nanotechnology white paper. Washington, DC: Author .
36.
Etc Group. (2003). The big down: Atomtech—Technologies converging at the nano-scale. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
37.
Etc Group. (2004). Down on the farm. Ottawa, Canada: Author.
38.
European Commission. (2000). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle, COM. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities .
39.
European Commission. (2004). Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology—Communication from the Commission COM (2004) 338. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
40.
European Commission. (2005). Communication from the Commission to the Council, to the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee—Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
41.
Fisher, E., & Mahajan, R.L. (2006). Contradictory intent? US federal legislation on integrating societal concerns into nanotechnology research and development . Science and Public Policy, 33(1), 5-16.
42.
Food and Drug Administration. (2004, September 30). Vioxx (rofecoxib) questions and answers [Media release] . Washington, DC: Author. Available at www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/vioxx/vioxxQA.htm
43.
Food and Drug Administration. (2006, August 9). FDA news: FDA forms internal nanotechnology task force [Media release: P06-111]. Washington, DC: Author.
44.
Food Productiondaily.com. (2006, June 23). Germany begins risk survey on nanotechnology. Available at: www.foodproductiondaily.com
45.
Friends of the Earth. (2005). Submission from Friends of the Earth Australia—To the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
46.
Gaskell, G., Allansdottir, A., Allum, N., Corchero, C., Fischler, C., Hampel, J., et al. (2006). Europeans and biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and trends [A report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research]. London: European Commission .
47.
GeneEthics Network. (2005). Submission to the Senate References Committee on exposure to toxic dust, including nanoparticles. Carlton, Australia: GeneEthics Network.
48.
Grove-White, R., Kearnes, M., Miller, P., Macnaghten, P., Wilsdon, J., & Wynne, B. (2004). Bio—to—nano? Learning the lessons, interrogating the comparison. London: Lancaster University, Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy .
Hepburn, J. (2006, May 8). Size matters, public opinion doesn't. Canberra Times, p. 12.
51.
HM Government. (2005a, August). The Government's outline programme for public engagement on nanotechnologies (URN 05/2043). London: HM Government in consultation with the Devolved Administrations.
52.
HM Government. (2005b). Policy through dialogue. London: Author .
53.
HM Government. (2005c). Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering Report: Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. London: Author.
54.
Hodge, G.A., & Bowman, D.M. (2004). Governing nanotechnology: Setting the regulatory agenda. Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government , 10(2), 18-33.
55.
Hodge, G., Bowman, D., & Ludlow, K. (in press). Introduction: Big questions for small technologies. In G. Hodge, D. Bowman, & K. Ludlow (Eds.), New global frontiers in regulation: The age of nanotechnology. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
56.
Hodge, G.A., Bowman, D.M., & Binks, P. (2005, October 26-29). Governing the invisible: The new regulatory frontiers of nanotechnology. Paper presented at the Integrated Governance: Linking up Government, Business and Civil Society Conference, Prato, Italy.
57.
House of Lords—Select Committee on Science and Technology. (2000). Science and society, third report . London: House of Lords.
58.
International Council on Nanotechnology. ( 2006a, March 15). ICON funds UCSB survey of nanotechnology best practices [Press release]. Houston, TX: Author. Available at http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/ICON/emplibrary/092-ICON-UCSB%20Press%20Release.pdf
59.
International Council on Nanotechnology. ( 2006b). ICON and UCSB invite participation in documenting current practices for nanomaterial handling. Houston, TX: Author. Available at http://cohesion.rice.edu/CentersAndInst/ICON/emplibrary/Best%20Practices%20Invitation_060806.pdf
60.
Jackson, R., Barbagallo, F., & Haste, H. (2005). Strengths of public dialogue on science-related issues. Critical Review of International Social and PoliticalPhilosophy, 8(3), 349-358.
61.
Katz, E., Lovel, R., Mee, W., & Solomon, F. (2005). Report: Citizens' Panel on Nanotechnology report to participants. Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
62.
Lux Research. (2006). The nanotech report, 4th edition. New York: Author.
63.
MacFarlane, I. (2006, September 12). Report into the technology of the small—Nanotech 06/362 [Media Release]. Canberra, Australia: Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources.
64.
Macnaghten, P., Kearnes, M., & Wynne, B. (2005). Nanotechnology, governance and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication, 27(2), 268-291.
65.
Market Attitudes Research Services. (2004). Short report: Australian community opinion towards nanotechnology and the commercialisation of scientific research. Canberra, Australia: Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.
66.
Mee, W., Lovel, R., Solomon, F., Kearns, A., Cameron, F., & Turney, T. (2004, October). Nanotechnology: The Bendigo Workshop (DMR-2561). Melbourne, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
67.
Meridian Institute. (2006). Projects: Global dialogue on nanotechnology and the poor. Retrieved August 14, 2006, from www.meridian-nano.org
68.
Minerals Council of Australia. (2005). Senate Committee Affairs Reference Committee: Inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust. Canberra, Australia: Author.
69.
Mulgan, R. (2000). Perspectives on the public interest. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 9, 6-12.
70.
Museum of Science. (2005, October 6). Museum of Science receives Nanotechnology grant [Media release]. Boston: Author.
71.
NanoBio-RAISE. (2005). Nanobiotechnology: Responsible action on issues in society and ethics—Objectives. Retrieved August 14, 2006, from www.nanobio-raise.org/groups/editors/menus/main/objectives/view.html
72.
Nanoforum. (2004, December). Outcome of the open consultation on the European strategy for nanotechnology. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
73.
Nanojury gives its verdict. (2005, September 27). Nanotechweb .org. Retrieved August 7, 2006, from http://nanotechweb.org/articles/news/4/9/14/1
74.
Nano Jury. (2005). Nano Jury—Introduction. Available at: www.nanojury.org/
75.
Nanologue. (2005a, September 7). Nanologue—Facilitating dialogue between research, business and society . Paper presented at EuroNanoForum, Edinburgh, Scotland.
76.
Nanologue. (2005b). Nanologue mapping study. Wuppertal, Germany: Wuppertal Institute, EMPA, Forum of the Future and Triple Innova.
Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group. (2005 ). The Nanotechnology Issues Dialogue Group & the Nanotechnology Research Co-ordination Group. London: Office of Science and Technology. Available at www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-in-govt/st_policy_issues/nanotechnology/nano_issues/page20563.html
79.
Nanotechnology Victoria. (2005a). Nanotechnology and the business community: A study of business' understanding of and attitudes towards nanotechnology. Melbourne, Australia: Author.
80.
Nanotechnology Victoria. (2005b). Nanotechnology: National business interviews. Melbourne , Australia: Author.
81.
Nanotechnology Victoria. (2005c). Nanotechnology: A national survey of consumers. Melbourne , Australia: Author.
82.
nanoTruck. (2004, November 24). “nanoTruck” information campaign—The BMBF's big hit is scheduled to tour Germany for another two years [Press release]. Berlin, Germany: Author.
83.
National Nanotechnology Initiative. (2006). About the NNI. Retrieved August 11, 2006, from www.nano.gov.html/about/home_about.htm
84.
National Nanotechnology Strategy Taskforce. ( 2006). Options for a national nanotechnology strategy—Report to Minister Industry, Tourism and Resources. Canberra, Australia: Author.
85.
National Nanotechnology Strategy Taskforce (Australia). (2005). Taskforce established. Canberra , Australia: Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism .
86.
National Science Foundation. (2003, August 25). NSF awards new grants to study societal implications of nanotechnology [Press release]. Washington, DC: Author.
87.
National Industrial Chemical Notification and Assessment Scheme. (2006, September). NICNAS information sheet— Nanomaterials. Canberra: Australian Government.
88.
Nanoscience Interdisciplinary Research Team. ( 2005). USC NIRT annual report 2004-2005. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
89.
Oberdörster, G., Maynard, A., Donaldson, K., Castranova, V., Fitzpatrick, J., Ausman, K., et al. (2005). Review: Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Particle and FibreToxicology, 2(8), 1-35.
90.
Perkel, J. (2002). Nanotech dreams. Scientist, 16(5), 34-36.
91.
Pinson, R. (2004). Is nanotechnology prohibited by the biological and chemical weapons conventions? BerkeleyJournal of International Law, 22(2), 279-309.
92.
Prime Minister's Science Engineering and Innovation Council. (2005). Nanotechnology: Enabling technologies for Australian innovative industries. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
93.
Renn, O., & Roco, M.C. (2006). Nanotechnology and the need for risk governance . Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 8, 153-191.
94.
Roco, M.C. (2003). Nanotechnology: Convergence with modern biology and medicine. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 14, 337-346.
95.
Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2001). Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. New York: Springer.
96.
Rogers-Hayden, T., & Pidgeon, N. (2006). Reflecting upon the UK's Citizens' Jury on Nanotechnologies: NanoJury UK. NanotechnologyLaw and Business, 3(2), 167-178.
97.
Royal Society. (2005). Government commits to regulating nanotechnologies but will it deliver? [Press release] . London: Author. Available at www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=2976
98.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. ( 2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties . London: Author.
99.
Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5(5), 889-907.
100.
Sandler, R., & Kay, W.D. (2006). The GMO-Nanotech (dis)analogy?Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26(1), 57-62.
101.
Sample, I. (2005, September 22). Citizens' jury delivers verdict on safety. Guardian, p. 22.
102.
Scrinis, G. (2004). Mega fears over something nano. Age, 13.
103.
Sheetz, T., Vidal, J., Pearson, T.D., & Lozano, K. (2005). Nanotechnology: Awareness and societal concerns . Technology in Society, 27, 329-345.
104.
Stilgoe, J. (2006). NanoDialouges—Update. London: Nanotechnology Engagement Group and Demos.
105.
Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., von Bergmann-Winberg, M.-L., Bridgman, E., Durant, J., Einsiedel, E., et al. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies: Twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In M. W. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy (pp. 21-94). London : Cambridge University Press.
106.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. (2003, April 9). The societal implications of nanotechnology . Washington, DC: House of Representatives .
107.
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. (2005, November 17). Environmental and safety impacts of nanotechnology: What research is needed? (24—462PS, Serial No. 109-34). Washington, DC: House of Representatives .
108.
Vogel, D. (2001a). The new politics of risk regulation in Europe . Berkeley: University of California Press.
109.
Vogel, D. (2001b). Ships passing in the night: The changing politics of risk regulation in Europe and the United States. San Domenico di Fiesole, Italy: European University Institute.
110.
Vogel, D. (2004a). The politics of risk regulation in Europe and the United States. In H. Somsen, T. Etty, J. Scott, & L. Krämer (Eds.), Yearbook of European environmental law: Vol. 3 (pp. 43-56). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
111.
Vogel, D. (2004b). The new politics of risk regulation in Europe and the US. In M. Levin & M. Shapiro (Eds.), Trans-Atlantic policymaking in an age of austerity (pp. 77-202). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
112.
Von Bubnoff, A. (2006, April 14). Magic nano shows industry need for standard terminology. Small Times. Available at www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=270588&p=109
113.
Weiss, R. (2006, April 14). Nanotech product recalled in Germany . Washingtonpost.com, p. A02.
114.
West, M. (2005, October 31). Insurer warns of toxic dust liability . The Australia, p. 33.
115.
Wood, S., Jones, R., & Geldart, A. (2003). The social and economic challenges of nanotechnology . London: Economic and Social Research Council.
116.
Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (2006a). Project on emerging nanotechnologies: Mission . Retrieved August 14, 2006, from www.nanotechproject.org
117.
Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. (2006b). Report findings based on a national survey of adults. Washington, DC: Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. for Woodrow Wilson Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies .
