Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
NanoEthics
Erschienen in: NanoEthics 3/2015

01.12.2015 | Original Paper

Risk Calculation as Experience and Action—Assessing and Managing the Risks and Opportunities of Nanomaterials

verfasst von: Christian Büscher

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Discussions about the appropriate way of assessing and managing new or emerging technologies—like nanomaterials—expose the problematic relationship between scientific knowledge production and regulatory decision-making. On one hand, there is a strong demand for scientific expertise to support decisions, especially by analyzing risks and hazards when uncertainties are prevalent and society’s stakes are high. On the other hand, science is criticized for its authoritative claim to objectivity and for keeping the inherent uncertainty, ambiguity, and selectivity of scientific observation latent. Requests for more transparency in science can lead to revealing, to risk managers and the public, the indeterminacy in knowledge production processes. This has consequences for the prevalence of scientific knowledge in decision-making, because it increases uncertainty on both sides of the breach between science and decisions: scientists lose confidence regarding the scientifically tested knowledge which they pass on, and risk managers lose confidence regarding their decisions based on this knowledge. Nonetheless, the concept of “probabilistic risk assessment” remains an important heuristic for dealing with potential future events. This paper addresses questions of the function of scientific risk assessment in organized risk management. The main argument in this paper is that knowledge alone no longer functions as a mechanism for absorbing uncertainty. Accordingly, the interaction between science and decisions must enable a temporarily stable commitment to manage new threats like products and applications coming from the field of nanoscience and nanomaterials.
Vorheriger Artikel Conceptual Questions and Challenges Associated with the Traditional Risk Assessment Paradigm for Nanomaterials
Nächster Artikel DPSIR and Stakeholder Analysis of the Use of Nanosilver

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Luhmann used this expression in a similar fashion with regard to the mass media: “Whatever we know about our society, or indeed about the world in which we live, we know through the mass media (…) we know so much about the mass media that we are not able to trust these sources” [2, p. 1].
 
2
One example can be found in the NRC report [3]; another example (for an excessively complicated model) can be found in the International Risk Governance Council report [10]. For an overview, see Jahnel [11] in this special section.
 
3
The concept of “truth” refers to the theory of “symbolically generalized communication media,” elaborated by Luhmann [12]. This concept cannot be laid out in detail in this paper, so the discussion is limited to the distinct modes of attribution. The specific function, differentiation, and self-validation of the symbolically generalized communication media of truth is discussed in “Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft” [The Science of Society] [13]. Unfortunately, the book has not been translated yet.
 
4
Other experts concur in this evaluation [17, 18].
 
5
One of the most prominent attempts was conducted by Chauncey Starr [21].
 
6
See, for example, Zwick and Renn [28]. Following this fashion of more information, the findings of risk perception research have, above all, been incorporated into the disciplines of natural science in hazard research [29], e.g., in many of the contributions in this anthology [30].
 
7
Theories on risk, consequently, develop concepts or analyze heuristics which enable the reduction of complexity of future events, i.e., the limitation of expectable events. Considering different disciplines and fields of application, we can identify various approaches to deal with the problem of risk: probabilistic measurements, deterministic methods, and psycho-metric research on individual risk perception. For an overview, see [38].
 
8
See Hansen and Baun [42] in this special section.
 
9
Pielke’s statement [35, p. 64] that good decisions reduce uncertainty is tautological: The condition for certainty is the absence of unknown (and possibly negative) consequences; yet such absence simultaneously relieves from the necessity to make a precarious decision in the first place.
 
10
The mark consists of a vertical line that separates two sides and a horizontal line that points to one side and not the other [48].
 
11
For example, the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, where neutrino research is conducted while the particle detector is buried in Antarctic ice. Statements about findings are communicated in statistical terms. The crucial distinction in the cited research is the observation of ‘extraterrestrial’ events, as opposed to events of atmospheric origin [55].
 
12
Thus, the observation creates the object observed. Comparable statements are also made in physics (indeterminacy principle) and mathematics (observer theory [56]).
 
13
As a result of the scientification of politics, the latter cannot be conducted on ideological grounds alone. Scientific advice serves the purpose of displaying actionability within politics, but with reference to reasoning from outside of politics [60, p. 258].
 
14
The precautionary principle is a striking example of problems with operationalizing hypothetic knowledge for legal action: “The [European] Court of Justice and Court of First Instance, as well as the EFTA Courts, reply to this [speculative health risks] is that a preventative measure cannot properly be based on a purely hypothetical consideration of the risk, founded on mere conjecture that has not been scientifically verified. It follows that there must exist a threshold of scientific plausibility” [67].
 
15
Examples of other social systems are science, economy, and law.
 
16
A topic which cannot be discussed in depth in this paper.
 
17
That is true in qualitative and quantitative regard: to regulate earlier and more often, because of the precautionary principle, and to act on the basis of fragile knowledge: “where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, protective measures may be taken without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks become fully apparent” [67, p. 142].
 
18
For a thorough discussion, see Jahnel [11] in this special section.
 
19
Our translation of “Unsicherheitsabsorption ist ein Entscheidungsprozess.”
 
Literatur
1.
2.
Luhmann N (2000) The reality of the mass media. Stanford University Press, Stanford
3.
NRC (2009) Science and decisions. Advancing risk assessment. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C
4.
Jahnel J (2015) Addressing the challenges to the risk assessment of nanomaterials. In: Dolez PI (ed) Nanoengineering: Global approaches to health and safety issues. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Boston and Heidelberg, pp 485–521
5.
6.
Wynne B (2001) Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci Cult 10:445–481CrossRef
7.
Jasanoff S (2003) Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–244CrossRef
8.
SCHER, SCENIHR, SCCS (2013) Making risk assessment more relevant for risk management. scientific committee on consumer safety; scientific committee on health and environmental risks; scientific committee on emerging and newly identified health risks. European Commission, Brussels
9.
10.
IRCG (2006) White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. International Risk Governance Council, Geneva
11.
Jahnel J (2015) Conceptual questions and challenges associated with the traditional risk assessment paradigm for nanomaterials. NanoEthics 9(3). doi:10.​1007/​s11569-015-0235-0
12.
Luhmann N (2012) Theory of society - volume 1. Stanford University Press, Stanford
13.
Luhmann N (1994) Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft, 2nd edn. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main
14.
Fleischer T, Jahnel J, Seitz S (2012) NanoSafety. Risk governance of manufactured nanoparticles. STOA, Brussels
15.
16.
Rocks S, Pollard S, Dorey R et al (2008) Comparison of risk assessment approaches for manufactured nanomaterials. Defra, London
17.
18.
SCENIHR (2007) Opinion on the appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance docum ents for new and existing substances for assessing the risk of nanomaterials. European Commission, Brussels
19.
Robinson LA, Levy DI (2011) The [r]evolving relationship between risk assessment and risk management. Risk Anal 31:1334–1344
20.
OECD (2003) Descriptions of selected key generic terms used in chemical hazard/risk assessment. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris
21.
Starr C (1969) Social benefit versus technological risk. What is our society willing to pay for safety? Science 165:1232–1238CrossRef
22.
Kahneman D, Tversky A (1982) Subjective probability - a judgement of representativeness. In: Kahneman D (ed) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 32–47
23.
Jungermann H, Slovic P (1993) Die Psychologie der Kognition und Evaluation von Risiko. In: Bechmann G (ed) Risiko und Gesellschaft. Grundlagen und Ergebnisse interdisziplinärer Risikoforschung. Westdt Verl, Opladen, pp 167–207
24.
25.
Rowe WD (1977) An anatomy of risk. Wiley, New York
26.
Renn O (2008) Concepts of risk: an interdisciplinary review - part 2: integrative approaches. GAIA 17:196–204
27.
28.
Zwick MM, Renn O (2008) Risikokonzepte jenseits von Eintrittswahrscheinlichkeit und Schadenserwartung. In: Felgentreff C, Glade T (eds) Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Spektrum, Berlin, pp 77–97
29.
Merz B, Emmermann R (2006) Zum Umgang mit Naturgefahren in Deutschland: Vom Reagieren zum Risikomanagement. GAIA 15:265–274
30.
Felgentreff C, Glade T (2008) Naturrisiken und Sozialkatastrophen. Spektrum, Berlin et al.
31.
Wynne B (1995) Technology assessment and reflexive learning: Observations from the risk field. In: Rip A, Misa TJ, Schot J (eds) Managing technology in society: The approach of constructive technology assessment. Pinter Publishers, London, pp 19–36
32.
Wynne B (1996) May the sheep safely graze? - A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash S, Szerszynski B, Wynne B (eds) Risk, environment and modernity: Towards a new ecology. SAGE, London, Thousands Oaks and New Delhi, pp 44–83
33.
Wynne B (2005) Risk as globalizing “democratic” discourse? Framing subjects and citizens. In: Leach M, Scoones I, Wynne B (eds) Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books, London, pp 66–82
34.
Luhmann N (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford
35.
Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
36.
Japp KP (1992) Selbstverstärkungseffekte riskanter Entscheidungen. Zur Unterscheidung von Rationalität und Risiko. ZfS 21:31–48
37.
Luhmann N (2005) Risk - a sociological theory. Aldine Transactions, New Brunswick (USA)
38.
39.
40.
March JG (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. Maxwell Macmillan International, New York
41.
Luhmann N (1993) Die Paradoxie der Form. In: Baecker D (ed) Kalkül der Form. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, pp 197–212
42.
Hansen SF, Baun A (2015) DPSIR- and stakeholder analysis of the use of nanosilver. NanoEthics 9(2)
43.
MacCrimmon KR, Wehrung DA, Stanbury WT (1986) Taking risks: the management of uncertainty. Free Press, New York
44.
45.
Brunsson N (2000) The irrational organization: irrationality as a basis for organizational action and change, 2nd edn. Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad Bjørke, Bergen
46.
Brunsson N (2007) The consequences of decision-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford
47.
March JG, Simon H (1993) Organizations, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge
48.
Spencer-Brown G (1997) Laws of Form. Gesetze der Form. Bohmeier, Lübeck
49.
Merton RK (1973) The normative structure of science. In: Storer NW (ed) The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 267–278
50.
51.
52.
Parsons T, Platt GM (1973) The American university. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
53.
54.
55.
56.
Spencer-Brown G (1996) Wahrscheinlichkeit und Wissenschaft. Carl-Auer-Systeme, Heidelberg
57.
58.
von Weizsäcker CF (1985) Aufbau der Physik. Carl Hanser Verlag, München
59.
Lindley DV (2000) The philosophy of statistics. J R Stat Soc Ser Stat 49:293CrossRef
60.
Kusche I (2008) Politikberatung und die Herstellung von Entscheidungssicherheit im politischen System. VS Verl. für Sozialwiss, Wiesbaden
61.
Klaine SJ, Koelmans AA, Horne N et al (2012) Paradigms to assess the environmental impact of manufactured nanomaterials. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:3–14. doi:10.​1002/​etc.​733 CrossRef
62.
JRC (2011) REACH implementation project: substance identification of nano materials (RIP - oN 1) - Advisory report. European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection
63.
Renn O, Grobe A (2010) Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: Core challanges of an integrative approach. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/ University of Michigan, USA, pp 484–507
64.
65.
Meili C, Widmer M (2010) Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: The difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/ University of Michigan, USA, pp 446–461
66.
67.
68.
Widmer M, Meili C (2010) Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemical legislation in the EU and US. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/ University of Michigan, USA, pp 239–267
69.
Japp KP (2000) Distinguishing non-knowledge. Can J Sociol 25:225–238CrossRef
70.
Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (2010) Introduction: The regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK/ University of Michigan, USA, pp 3–24
71.
72.
73.
Luhmann N (2010) Politische Soziologie. Suhrkamp, Berlin
74.
Millstone E (2010) The evolution of risk assessment paradigms: in theory and in practice. Sussex, England
75.
Codex Alimentarius Commission (2007) Codex alimentarius. World Health Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
76.
Luhmann N (2000) Organisation und Entscheidung. Westdt Verl, Opladen
Metadaten
Titel
Risk Calculation as Experience and Action—Assessing and Managing the Risks and Opportunities of Nanomaterials
verfasst von
Christian Büscher
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-015-0237-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

NanoEthics 3/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Introduction

Crossing the Line – “Science” and “Decisions” Facing Emerging Technologies

Original Paper

Human, Non-Human, and Beyond: Cochlear Implants in Socio-Technological Environments

Original Paper

Anchoring European Governance: Two Versions of Responsible Research and Innovation and EU Fundamental Rights as ‘Normative Anchor Points’

Original Paper

Logic of Choice or Logic of Care? Uncertainty, Technological Mediation and Responsible Innovation

Original Paper

Analyses of Acceptability Judgments Made Toward the Use of Nanocarrier-Based Targeted Drug Delivery: Interviews with Researchers and Research Trainees in the Field of New Technologies

Editorial

S.NET and NanoEthics: A Pair of Siblings

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise