CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

Stone, Vicki, Führ, Martin, Feindt, Peter H., Bouwmeester, Hans, Linkov, Igor, Sabella, Stefania, Murphy, Finbarr, Bizer, Kilian, Tran, Lang, Ågerstrand, Marlene, Fito, Carlos, Andersen, Torben, Anderson, Diana, Bergamaschi, Enrico, Cherrie, John W., Cowan, Sue, Dalemcourt, Jean‐Francois, Faure, Michael, Gabbert, Silke, Gajewicz, Agnieszka, Fernandes, Teresa F., Hristozov, Danail, Johnston, Helinor J., Lansdown, Terry C., Linder, Stefan, Marvin, Hans J. P., Mullins, Martin, Purnhagen, Kai, Puzyn, Tomasz, Sanchez Jimenez, Araceli, Scott‐Fordsmand, Janeck J., Streftaris, George, van Tongeren, Martie, Voelcker, Nicolas H., Voyiatzis, George, Yannopoulos, Spyros N., Poortvliet, P. Marijn·2018·Risk Analysis
DOI 10.1111/risa.12954
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk‐based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano‐specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/risa.12954

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. Linkov I, 2009, Nano risk governance: Current developments and future perspectives, Nanotechnology Law & Business, 6, 203
  2. 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2140 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/1467-9299.00334 · DOI
  4. 10.1007/s11569-015-0235-0 · DOI
  5. 10.1257/aer.100.3.641 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.001 · DOI
  7. Palma‐Oliveira JM, 2017, Community‐driven hypothesis testing: A solution for the tragedy of the anticommons, Risk Analysis
  8. 10.1017/S1867299X00004761 · DOI
  9. der Meulen B, 2014, Governing Nano Foods: Principles‐Based Responsive Regulation
  10. 10.1021/es3003266 · DOI
  11. 10.1021/acs.est.6b02550 · DOI
  12. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee Second Regulatory Review on Nanomaterials COM/2012/0572 final.
  13. Commission Recommendation 2011/696/EU of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial, OJ L, 275, 38
  14. 10.1002/anie.201403367 · DOI
  15. Bawa R., 2016, Handbook of Clinical Nanomedicine: Law, Business, Regulation, Safety, and Risk, 339
  16. Miettinen M., 2016, Comparison of the Approaches to Regulate Environmental, Health, and Safety Risks of Nanomaterials in the Chemicals, Food, and Pesticides/Biocides Sectors in the EU and the US
  17. 10.1007/s11051-006-9092-7 · DOI
  18. 10.1021/acs.est.7b01604 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/nnano.2017.152 · DOI
  20. 10.1186/1743-8977-11-9 · DOI
  21. TrumpBD.Synthetic biology regulation and governance: Lessons from TAPIC for the United States European Union and Singapore. Health Policy 2017;121:1139–1146. · DOI
  22. Trump B, 2017, A decision analytic model to guide early stage government regulatory action: Applications for synthetic biology, Regulation & Governance
  23. 10.1007/978-1-4020-6102-8 · DOI
  24. EFSA, 2010, Opinion on the Potential Risks Arising from Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies on Food and Feed Safety
  25. 10.1016/j.envint.2016.07.016 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.10.035 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.03.007 · DOI
  28. 10.1021/acsnano.5b00941 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.nantod.2014.07.001 · DOI
  30. 10.3109/17435390.2012.750695 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.nantod.2012.10.002 · DOI
  32. 10.3109/17435390.2012.760013 · DOI
  33. 10.3109/17435390.2016.1144827 · DOI
  34. 10.1021/es503861x · DOI
  35. 10.1038/nnano.2011.10 · DOI
  36. 10.1088/0957-4484/26/1/015701 · DOI
  37. 10.1007/s11673-009-9142-9 · DOI
  38. 10.1080/13669877.2014.889200 · DOI
  39. 10.1038/nnano.2009.205 · DOI
  40. 10.1038/nnano.2013.53 · DOI
  41. 10.1038/nnano.2017.162 · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01738.x · DOI
  43. 10.1038/nnano.2007.392 · DOI
  44. Thaler RH, 2013, Choice architecture, The behavioral foundations of public policy, 428, 10.2307/j.ctv550cbm.31 · DOI
  45. 10.1021/acs.est.5b03005 · DOI
  46. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.10.003 · DOI
  47. 10.1111/risa.12470 · DOI
  48. 10.1111/risa.12683 · DOI
  49. 10.1111/risa.12543 · DOI
  50. Blaunstein R, 2014, Nanotechnology risk management: An insurance industry perspective. Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety, Risks, Regulation, and Management, 247

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Stone, V., Führ, M., Feindt, P. H., Bouwmeester, H., Linkov, I., Sabella, S., Murphy, F., Bizer, K., Tran, L., Ågerstrand, M., Fito, C., Andersen, T., Anderson, D., Bergamaschi, E., Cherrie, J. W., Cowan, S., Dalemcourt, J., Faure, M., Gabbert, S., Gajewicz, A., Fernandes, T. F., Hristozov, D., Johnston, H. J., Lansdown, T. C., Linder, S., Marvin, H. J. P., Mullins, M., Purnhagen, K., Puzyn, T., Sanchez Jimenez, A., Scott‐Fordsmand, J. J., Streftaris, G., van Tongeren, M., Voelcker, N. H., Voyiatzis, G., Yannopoulos, S. N., & Poortvliet, P. M.
Venue
Risk Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-12-14
Volume
38
Issue
7
Pages
1321-1331
ISSN
  • 0272-4332
  • 1539-6924
DOI
10.1111/risa.12954
Cited by
39
References
0
Language
en
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review