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 2/2017

28.03.2017 | Original Paper

More than a Decade On: Mapping Today’s Regulatory and Policy Landscapes Following the Publication of Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties

verfasst von: Diana M Bowman

Erschienen in: NanoEthics | Ausgabe 2/2017

Einloggen

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

search-config
loading …

Abstract

It is now more than a decade since the release of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s (RA/RAEng) seminal report on nanosciences and nanotechnologies. The report, for the first time, brought together the spectrum of scientific and societal issues underpinning the emergence of the technology. In articulating 21 recommendations, the RA/RAEng provided the United Kingdom Government—and others—with an agenda on how they could, and should, deal with the disparate aspects of the technology. The report provides a baseline to measure progress against. By focusing on the eight recommendations that dealt specifically with regulation and governance, I reflect on the extent, and nature, of this progress; identify key actors in shaping the evolving governance framework; and, importantly, distinguish areas where progress appears to have lagged.
Vorheriger Artikel Creating Golems: Uses of Golem Stories in the Ethics of Technologies
Nächster Artikel Staff’s Views from One Canadian Organ Procurement Organization on Organ Donation and Organ Transplant Technologies: a Content Analysis

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
The 21 Recommendations were placed into six categories: The industrial application of nanotechnologies (R1–2); Possible adverse health, safety and environmental impacts (R3–7); Regulatory issues (R8–15); Social and ethical issues (R16–17); Stakeholder and public dialog (R18–19) and Ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnologies (R20–21). While distinct for the purposes of the report, many of the recommendations draw from, and build upon, the other multiple domains.
 
2
It should be noted that at the time the UK Government released their response to the RS/RAEng the concept of “Brexit” had not been conceived. As such, the Governance deferred–as and where required–to the overarching legislative regimes established by the European Parliament and Council for member states. At the time of writing (October 2016), it still remains unclear how the Brexit vote will impact on the regulation within the United Kingdom.
 
Literatur
1.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. RS/RAEng, London
2.
Nelson M, Shipbaugh C (1995) The potential of nanotechnology for molecular manufacturing. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica
3.
Seigel RW, Hu E, Roco MC (1998) Nanostructure science and technology—a worldwide study, international technology research institute (WTEC division). National Science and Technology Council, Baltimore
4.
Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council (1999) Nanotechnology—the technology of the twenty-first century: the economic impact of emerging nanometre scale technologies. PMSEIC, Canberra
5.
Paschen H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Grünwald R, Dagmar O, Revermann C (2003) Nanotechnologie. TAB report no. 092. Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag, Berlin
6.
Paschen H, Coenen C, Fleischer T, Grünwald R, Oertel D, Revermann C (2004) Nanotechnologie in Forschung, Entwicklung. Anwendung, Stand und Perspektiven. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
7.
Rogers-Hayden T, Pidgeon N (2007) Moving engagement “upstream”? Nanotechnologies and the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering’s inquiry. Public Underst Sci 16(3):345–364CrossRef
8.
Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) (2010) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham
9.
Maynard AD (2014) A decade of uncertainty. Nat Nanotechnol 9:159–160CrossRef
10.
National Economic Council, Council of Economic Advisers, and Office of Science and Technology Policy (2011) A strategy for American innovation: securing our economic growth and prosperity. The White House, Washington, DC
11.
World Economic Forum (2013) Global agenda council on emerging technologies 2012–2014. WEF, Geneva
12.
HM Government (2005) Response to the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report: ‘nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties’. Department of Trade and Industry, London
13.
Forrest DR (1989) Regulating nanotechnology development. Foresight Institute, Palo Alto
14.
Fiedler F, Reynolds GH (1995) Legal problems of nanotechnology: an overview. S Cal Interdisc LJ 3:593
15.
Reynolds GH (2003) Nanotechnology and regulatory policy: three futures. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 17:179
16.
Roco MC (2004) The US national nanotechnology initiative after 3 years (2001–2003). J Nanopart Res 6(1):1–10CrossRef
17.
Health and Safety Executive (2006) Review of the adequacy of current regulatory regimes to secure effective regulation of nanoparticles created by nanotechnology: the regulations covered by HSE. HM Government, London
18.
Chaudhry Q, Blackburn J, Floyd P, George C, Nwaogu T, Boxall A, Aitken R et al (2006) Final report: a scoping study to identify gaps in environmental regulation for the products and applications of nanotechnologies. Defra Science and Research, York
19.
Food Standards Agency (2006) Report of the FSA regulatory review. HM Government, London
20.
Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2006) The toxicology of nanoparticles used in healthcare products. CHM, London
21.
European Commission (2008) Regulatory aspects of nanotechnologies, [SEC(2008) 2036], 17 June, 2008. EC, Brussels
22.
European Commission (2008) Accompanying document to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee—regulatory aspects of nanomaterials: summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures’ (Commission Staff Working Document No SEC (2008) 2036, 17 June 2008). EC, Brussels
23.
European Commission (2005) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: an action plan for Europe 2005–2009. EC, Brussels
24.
Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Nanotechnology white paper. EPA, Washington, DC
25.
Food and Drug Administration (2007) Nanotechnology: a report of the US Food and Drug Administration nanotechnology task force. FDA, Washington, DC
26.
Ludlow K, Bowman DM, Hodge GA (2007) A review of possible impacts of nanotechnology on Australia’s regulatory framework. Monash University, Melbourne
27.
Gavaghan C, Moore J (2011) A review of the adequacy of New Zealand’s regulatory systems to manage the possible impacts of manufactured nanomaterials. University of Otago, Dunedin
28.
Marchant G, Allenby BR, Herkert JR (eds) (2011) The growing gap between emerging technologies and legal-ethical oversight: the pacing problem. Springer, New York
29.
Marchant GE, Sylvester DJ, Abbott KW (2009) What does the history of technology regulation teach us about nano oversight? J Law Med Ethics 37(4):724–731
30.
Moses LB (2011) Agents of change: how the law copes with technological change. Griffith L Rev 20:763CrossRef
31.
Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment and Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (2005) Joint statement on nanomaterial toxicology. FSA, London
32.
Cañas-Carrell JE, Li S, Parra AM, Shresta B (2014) Metal oxide nanomaterials: health and environmental effects. In: Njuguna J, Pielichowski K, Zhu H (eds) Health and environmental safety of nanomaterials. Polymer nanocomposites and other materials containing nanoparticles. Woodhead Publishing / Elsevier, Sawston, pp 200-221
33.
Ding L, Liu Z, Okweesi Aggrey M, Li C, Chen J, Tong L (2015) Nanotoxicity: the toxicity research progress of metal and metal-containing nanoparticles. Mini Rev Med Chem 15(7):529–542CrossRef
34.
Collier ZA, Kennedy AJ, Poda AR et al (2015) Tiered guidance for risk-informed environmental health and safety testing of nanotechnologies. J Nanopart Res 17(3):1–21CrossRef
35.
Du J, Wang S, You H, Zhao X (2013) Understanding the toxicity of carbon nanotubes in the environment is crucial to the control of nanomaterials in producing and processing and the assessment of health risk for human: a review. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36(2):451–462CrossRef
36.
HM Government (2012) Review of cross-government horizon scanning. Cabinet Office, London
37.
38.
39.
Foresight (2011) Technology and innovation futures. The Government Office for Science, London
40.
Migration and Global Environmental Change (2011) Final project report. The Government Office for Science, London
41.
Foresight (2011) The future of food and farming. The Government Office for Science, London
42.
Foresight (2013) The future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK project report. The Government Office for Science, London
43.
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2006) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. Two year review of progress on Government actions (Joint academies’ response to the Council for Science and Technology’s call for evidence). Royal Society, London
44.
Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (2016) The Oxford handbook of the law and regulation of technology. Oxford Univeristy Press, OxfordCrossRef
45.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (2007) Opinion on safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. SCCP, Brussels
46.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly-Identified Health Risks (2007) The appropriateness of the risk assessment methodology in accordance with the technical guidance documents for new and existing substances for assessing the risks of nanomaterials. SCENIHR, Brussels
47.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2009) Risk assessment of products of nanotechnologies. SCENIHR, Brussels
48.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2010) Opinion on the scientific basis for the definition of the term nanomaterial. SCENIHR, Brussels
49.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2012) Opinion on zinc oxide (nano form). SCCS, Brussels
50.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2015) Opinion on the guidance on the determination of potential health effects of nanomaterials used in medical devices. SCENIHR, Brussels
51.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2014) Opinion on nanosilver: safety, health and environmental effects and role in antimicrobial resistance. SCENIHR, Brussels
52.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Opinion on silica, hydrated silica, and silica surface modified with alkyl silylates (nano form). SCCS, Brussels
53.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2015) Opinion on hydroxyapatite (nano). Brussels, SCCS
54.
BAuA and the German Chemical Industry Association (2007) Guidance for handling and use of nanomaterials at the workplace. BAuA and VCI, Bonn
55.
Joint Research Strategy of the higher federal authorities (2016) Review of the joint research strategy of the higher federal authorities nanomaterials and other advanced materials: application safety and environmental compatibility. BAuA, Berlin
56.
Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2015) Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) code of practice for handling of nanomaterials in laboratories. BAuA, Berlin
57.
Therapeutic Goods Administration (2013) Literature review on the safety of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. Department of Health, Canberra
58.
Safe Work Australia (2012) Safe handing and use of carbon nanotubes. SWA, Canberra
59.
Safe Work Australia (2013) Evaluation of potential safety hazards associated with the use of engineered nanomaterials. SWA, Canberra
60.
Food and Drug Administration (2012) Guidance for industry: safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Washington, DC
61.
Food and Drug Administration (2012) Food and Drug Administration, 2014, guidance for industry: safety of nanomaterials in cosmetic products. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Washington, DC
62.
Food and Drug Administration (2014) Office of the Commissioner, FDA, guidance for industry: considering whether an FDA-regulated product involves the application of nanotechnology. FDA, Washington, DC
63.
Food and Drug Administration (2014) Guidance for industry: assessing the effects of significant manufacturing process changes, including emerging technologies, on the safety and regulatory status of food ingredients and food contact substances, including food ingredients that are color additives. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Washington, DC
64.
Bowman DM, van Calster G (2007) Does REACH go too far? Nat Nanotechnol 2(9):525–526CrossRef
65.
Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) (2010) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety: risks, regulation and management. Elsevier, London
66.
Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) (2014) Nanotechnology risk management: perspectives and progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London
67.
Gergely A (2007) Regulation of nanotechnology—within REACH? Nano Now:44–46
68.
Linkov I, Satterstrom FK, Monica JC Jr, Foss S (2009) Nano risk governance: current developments and future perspectives. Nanotech L & Bus 6:203
69.
Monica JC Jr, van Calster G (2010) A nanotechnology legal framework. In: Hull M, Bowman DM (eds) Nanotechnology risk management: perspectives and progress, 2nd edn. Elsevier, London, pp 97–140
70.
Hankin SM, Peters SAK, Poland CA, Foss Hansen S, Holmqvist J, Ross BL, Varet J, Aitken RJ (2011) Specific advice on fulfilling information requirements for nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 2)—final project report. EC, Brussels
71.
Aitken RA, Bassan A, Friedrichs S, Hankin SM, Hansen SF, Holmqvist J, Peters SAK, Poland CA, Tran CL (2011) Specific advice on exposure assessment and hazard/risk characterisation for nanomaterials under REACH (RIP-oN 3)–Final Project Report. EC, Brussels
72.
73.
Health and Safety Executive (2004) Information note–nanotechnology. Horizons scanning information note no. HSIN1. HSE, Suffolk
74.
Health and Safety Executive (2004) Health effects of particles produced for nanotechnologies. HSE, Suffolk
75.
Heath and Safety Executive (2006) Review of the adequacy of current regulatory regimes to secure effective regulation of nanoparticles created by nanotechnology. HSE, Suffolk
76.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Expert forecast on emerging chemical risks related to occupational safety and health. EASHW, Brussels
77.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Workplace exposure to nanoparticles. EASHW, Brussels
78.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Outlook 1—new and emerging risks in occupational safety and health. EASHW, Brussels
79.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009) Nanomaterials in maintenance work occupational risk and prevention. EASHW, Brussels
80.
Health and Safety Executive (2009) Risk management of carbon nanotubes. HSE, Suffolk
81.
Maynard AD, Kuempel ED (2005) Airborne nanostructured particles and occupational health. J Nanopart Res 7(6): 587–614.
82.
Donaldson K, Aitken R, Tran L, Stone V, Duffin R, Forrest G, Alexander A (2006) Carbon nanotubes: a review of their properties in relation to pulmonary toxicology and workplace safety. Toxicol Sci 92(1):5–22CrossRef
83.
Schulte P, Geraci C, Zumwalde R, Hoover M, Kuempel E (2008) Occupational risk management of engineered nanoparticles. J Occup Environ Hyg 5(4):239–249CrossRef
84.
Savolainen K, Pylkkänen L, Norppa H, Falck G, Lindberg H, Tuomi T, Vippola M et al (2010) Nanotechnologies, engineered nanomaterials and occupational health and safety—a review. Saf Sci 48(8):957–963CrossRef
85.
Gendre L, Blackburn K, Brighton J, Rodriguez VM, Abhyankar H (2015) Nanomaterials life cycle analysis: health and safety practices, standards and regulations—past, present and future perspective. International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Chemistry 5(3):208CrossRef
86.
Ramachandran G (ed) (2016) Assessing nanoparticle risks to human health. William Andrew, Amsterdam
87.
Bergamaschi E, Poland C, Canu IG, Prina-Mello A (2015) The role of biological monitoring in nano-safety. Nano Today 10(3):274–277CrossRef
88.
West GH, Lippy BE, Cooper MR, Marsick D, Burrelli LG, Griffin KN, Segrave AM (2016) Toward responsible development and effective risk management of nano-enabled products in the US construction industry. J Nanopart Res 18(2):1–27CrossRef
89.
Oksel C, Subramanian V, Semenzin E, Ma CY, Hristozov D, Wang XZ, Hunt N et al (2016) Evaluation of existing control measures in reducing health and safety risks of engineered nanomaterials. Environmental Science: Nano 3(4):869–882
90.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009) Approaches to safe nanotechnology. CDC, Washington DC
91.
Safe Work Australia (2010) Engineered nanomaterials: feasibility of establishing exposure standards and using control banding in Australia. SWA, Melbourne
92.
Safe Work Australia (2010) Safe work Australia developing workplace detection and measurement techniques for carbon nanotubes. SWA, Melbourne
93.
Safe Work Australia (2010) Safe work Australia. SWA, Melbourne
94.
Miles J (2010) Nanotechnology captured. In: Hodge GA, Bowman DM, Maynard AD (eds) International handbook on regulating nanotechnologies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, p 83
95.
Murashov V, Howard J (2008) The US must help set international standards for nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 3(11):635–636CrossRef
96.
Leech DP, Scott JT (2016) Nanotechnology documentary standards. J Technol Transf:1–20
97.
Jämting Å, Miles J (2016) Metrology, standards and measurements concerning engineered nanoparticles. Nanotechnol Commercial 287:
98.
The Social and Economic Council (2012) Advisory report: provisional nano reference values for engineered nanomaterials. SER, Amsterdam
99.
van Broekhuizen P, Dorbeck-Jung B (2013) Exposure limit values for nanomaterials—capacity and willingness of users to apply a precautionary approach. J Occup Environ Hyg 10(1):46–45CrossRef
100.
Van Broekhuizen P, Van Veelen WIM, Streekstra WH, Schulte P, Reijnders L (2012) Exposure limits for nanoparticles: report of an international workshop on nano reference values. Ann Occup Hyg 56(5):515–524
101.
Safe Work Australia (2013) Emissions of nanomaterials during machine processes—information sheet. SWA, Melbourne
102.
Safe Work Australia (2013) Safety hazards of engineered nanomaterials—information sheet. SWA, Melbourne
103.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2009) Approaches to safety nanotechnology: managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials. CDC, Washington, DC
104.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2014) Current strategies for engineering controls in nanomaterial production and downstream handling processes. CDC, Washington, DC
105.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (2016) Building a safety program to protect the nanotechnology workforce: a guide for small to medium-sized enterprises. CDC, Washington, DC
106.
Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (2012) Opinion on zinc oxide (nano form). European Commision, Brussels
107.
Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (2007) Modified opinion (after public consultation) on the appropriateness of existing methodologies to assess the potential risks associated with engineered and adventitious products of nanotechnologies. SCENIHR, Brussels
108.
Gergely A, Bowman DM, Chaudhry A (2016) Infinitesimal ingredients: an analysis of the regulatory dimensions of nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials. In: Q Chaudhry, L Castle and R Watkins (eds) Nanotechnologies in food (2nd edition). The Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
109.
Joint Research Center (2014) Considerations on information needs for nanomaterials in consumer products: discussion of a labelling and reporting scheme for nanomaterials in consumer products in the EU. EC, Ispra
110.
111.
112.
Committee on Human Medicines (2006) The toxicology of nanoparticles used in healthcare products. CHM, Brussels
113.
European Medicines Agency (2006) Reflection paper on nanotechnology-based medicinal products for human use. EMA, London
114.
European Medicines Agency (2011) Non-clinical studies for generic nanoparticle iron medicinal products applications. EMA, London
115.
European Medicines Agency (2013) Data requirements for intravenous liposomal products developed with reference to an innovator liposomal product. EMA, London
116.
European Medicines Agency (2013) Surface coatings: general issues for consideration regarding parental administration of coated nanomedicine products. EMA, London
117.
European Medicines Agency (2013) Data requirements for intravenous iron-based nano-colloidal products developed with reference to an innovator medicinal product. EMA, London
118.
European Medicines Agency (2014) Development of block-copoloymer-micelle medicinal products. EMA, London
119.
Therapeutic Goods Administration (2006) Safety of sunscreens containing nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra
120.
Faunce T, Murray K, Nasu H, Bowman D (2008) Sunscreen safety: the precautionary principle, the Australian therapeutic goods administration and nanoparticles in sunscreens. NanoEthics 2(3):231–240CrossRef
121.
Friends of the Earth (2006) Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients, big risks. FoE Nanotechnology Project, Melbourne
122.
Friends of the Earth (2007) Nanotechnology & Sunscreens: a consumer guide for avoiding nano-sunscreens. FoE Nanotechnology Project, Melbourne
123.
Nohynek GJ, Lademann J, Ribaud D, Roberts MS (2007) Grey goo on the skin? Nanotechnology, cosmetic and sunscreen safety. CRC Crit Rev Toxicol 37(3):251–277CrossRef
124.
Monteiro-Riviere NA, Wiench K, Landsiedel R, Schulte S, Inman OA, Riviere JE (2011) Safety evaluation of sunscreen formulations containing titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in UVB sunburned skin: an in vitro and in vivo study. Toxicol Sci 148
125.
Lewicka ZA, Colvin VL (2013) Nanomaterial toxicity, hazards, and safety. In: Vajtai R (ed) Springer handbook of nanomaterials. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1117–1142
126.
Hawke A (2009) Independent review of the environmental and biodiversity conservation act 1999. Commissioned by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra
127.
Kica E, Bowman DM (2012) Regulation by means of standardization: key legitimacy issues of health and safety nanotechnology standards. Jurimetrics 53(1):11–56
128.
Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards (2002) Measurement needs for nano-scale materials and devices, report of VAMAS/CENSTAR workshop, VAMAS bulleting no.25. National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC
129.
130.
Metadaten
Titel
More than a Decade On: Mapping Today’s Regulatory and Policy Landscapes Following the Publication of Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties
verfasst von
Diana M Bowman
Publikationsdatum
28.03.2017
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
NanoEthics / Ausgabe 2/2017
Print ISSN: 1871-4757
Elektronische ISSN: 1871-4765
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-017-0281-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2017

NanoEthics 2/2017 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Creating Golems: Uses of Golem Stories in the Ethics of Technologies

Original Paper

Reflection as a Deliberative and Distributed Practice: Assessing Neuro-Enhancement Technologies via Mutual Learning Exercises (MLEs)

Critical Discussion Notes

Futures Perfect and Visioneering: a Re-Assessment

Editorial

Whose Future is it Anyway?

Book Review

Building Better Humans? Refocusing the Debate on Transhumanism

Original Paper

Staff’s Views from One Canadian Organ Procurement Organization on Organ Donation and Organ Transplant Technologies: a Content Analysis