MORE news...

Feedback from national conferences

There were a number of common themes and a number of new ideas and intelligence that emerged from the six national workshops. There was general agreement that the proposed model provided a useful heuristic overview of the challenges facing societies wishing to balance the undoubted benefits of nanotechnologies with the perceived but sometimes unquantifiable risks associated with increased use of synthetic nanomaterials in a globalised world. Different regions and countries will have to adapt the model to suit their own cultures and legal and regulatory traditions. The FramingNano governance model however prompts many of the essential questions concerning definitions, priorities, standards, metrics, methodologies, etc.

View FramingNano Executive Summary

International level governance

It became clear through both the preparation of the FramingNano report as well as the national debates that there is no dominant accepted international system of governing nanomaterials and nanotechnology. Useful work is proceeding, notably via OECD, UNITAR and a variety of other international fora, but it is unlikely that there is sufficient international political will or momentum that will result in a ‘top-down’ set of rules emerging in the next five years. The more likely evolution will be that an international system of governance will only emerge via a ‘bottom-up’ accumulation of national and regional governance of which the EU is a leading candidate.

New Ideas

Education: There is widespread acceptance and agreement that part of the solution to better governance will come through improved education, few teachers or academics practising today have studied nanotechnologies in any depth. One pilot programme that seems worth monitoring is the Swiss Nano-cube.

Whole life analysis: while many NGO and civil society organisations express concerns concerning basic research, manufacturing and the use of synthetic nanomaterials, there has been less emphasis on the final safe disposal of nanomaterials or items containing nanoparticles. Attention was drawn to the principles and regulations that are emerging via the UNITAR’s regional committee in Africa, where safe disposal has now become a major concern: see UNITAR & OECD collaborate on Nano

Precautionary matrix: while the precautionary principle is already well-established in EU laws and regulations, the concept of a precautionary matrix is being actively explored in Switzerland and may well be worthy of further study elsewhere: More Information

Cost of governance: while primarily a government level responsibility, with different countries having different traditions; this may also be an area worth further study and monitoring particularly in relation to the costs of governance vs. the costs of not having a system of governance in place.

Supporting tools for the EC Code of Conduct on nanotechnology research: the EC has published a Code of Conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research and most recently has agreed to fund a further project within the Science and Society programme entitle NanoCode which will examine ways of raising awareness and supporting the EC Code of Conduct. Codes of conduct offer a fast and relatively efficient way of monitoring developments as a complement to formal regulations or before formal regulations are developed. Further information on the new NanoCode project will be included in the No.8 issue of this Newsletter together with links to the project website and sources of further information.