I think today will be the end of this series. So, for the last time, the article is ‘Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology’ by Gary E. Marchant, Douglas J. Sylvester, and Kenneth W. Abbott in Nanoethics, 2008, vol. 2, pp. 43-60.

The authors contend that the regulatory model proposed by Ayers and Braithwaite (discussed in yesterday’s post) is not sufficiently flexible to accommodate nanotechnology as their model assumes

“a fully developed regulatory system that can effectively manage a particular set of risks. …  advanced nations with  highly developed legal systems in which legislatures and agencies can create, communicate, and utilize a range of regulatory options. … high levels of information and understanding on the part of regulators. p. 52

In turn, the authors are proposing a refinement of the Ayers/Braithwaite model, ‘Incremental Regulation’, which they describe by using an example from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

The EPA Nanomaterials Stewardship Program reflects precisely the approach we espouse here: begin with information gathering and assessment, encourage experiments with self-regulation and multi-stakeholder norms, move gradually to greater governmental involvement to standardize, scale up and supervise voluntary programs, perform all the steps with high levels of transparency and participation, and over time build up a regulatory end state that retains the best of these voluntary mechanisms … along with formal regulation …, as required. p. 57

Seems more like a plea to ‘go slow’ rather than rush to regulating before you understand the implications. The approach seems reasonable enough. Of course, implementing these ideas always provides a stumbling block. I’ve worked in enough jobs where I’ve had to invoke policy in situations that the policy makers never envisioned due to the fact [1] they had no practical experience and [2] it’s impossible to create policies that cover every single contingency. That’s kind of a big problem with nanotechnology, none of us has much practical experience with it and I think the question that hasn’t been addressed is whether or not we are willing to take chances. Then we need to figure out what kind, how long, and who will be taking the chances? More soon.