Tag Archives: Braithwaite

Incremental regulation and nanotechnology

Leave a reply

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.

Inspiration for a new approach to risk regulation for nanotechnology

Leave a reply

I’m getting into the home stretch now regarding the ‘Risk Management Principle for Nanotechnology’ article. After dealing with the ‘classic’ risk principles and the newer precautionary principles, the authors (Marchant, Sylvester, and Abbott) unveil a theory for their proposed ‘new principles’. The theory is based on work by I. Ayres and J. Braithwaite on something they call, ‘Responsive Regulation’. Briefly, they suggest avoiding the regulation/deregulation debate in favour of a flexible regulatory approach where a range of strategies are employed.

With this tool kit [range of strategies] in hand, regulators can play a tit-for-tat strategy: they allow firms to self-regulate so long as the firms reciprocate with responsible action; if instead some firms act opportunistically, regulators respond to the defectors with appropriate penalties and more stringent regulation. p. 52 (Nanoethics, 2008, vol. 2 pp. 43-60

There are some difficulties associated with this approach but that is being saved for my next posting in this series.

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies has two events coming up. ‘Synthetic Biology: Is Ethics a Showstopper?’ on Thursday, January 8, 2009 from 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm (EST). For information on location (you have to RSVP) or how to attend via webcast (no RSVP required), check here. The other event is called, ‘Nanotech and Your Daily Vitamins; Barriers to Effective FDA Regulation of Nanotechnology-Based Dietary Supplements’ and will be held on Thursday, January 15 (?) from 9:30 am – 10:30 am (EST). The date listed on their website and in their invitation is January 14, which is incorrect. I imagine they’ll correct either the date or date soon. For more details about the event itself, the physical location (If you’re planning to go, please RSVP), or the webcast directions (RSVP) not required) please check here.