Abstract
We initiate some comparisons between Japan, Europe and USA on how far there is governmental support for the ethical, legal, social and environmental dimensions of nanotechnology development. It is evident that in the USA and Europe nanotechnology is now firmly embedded in the consideration of ELSI. Yet Japan has not yet adequately recognized the importance of these dimensions. The history of bioethics in Japan is short. In Europe, as early as 2004, a nanotechnology report by the UK's Royal Society referred to the possibility of some nanotubes and fibres having asbestos-like toxicity. The negative history of asbestos in Europe and USA is not yet fully identified as a Japanese problem. Japan is therefore in the process of seeking how best to address societal aspects of nanotechnology. Should the precautionary principle be applied to Japan's nanotechnology initiative as in Europe? Should 5–10% of the government's nanotechnology budget be allocated to ELSI research and measures? We propose that the government and industrial sector in Japan play a much more proactive part in the regional and international growth of research into the wider risk assessment, social, health and environmental context of nanotechnologies, not simply try to borrow lessons from the West at a later date.