The report provides an updated overview of both recent developments and debates regarding risk governance and regulations of nanotechnologies, and research and innovation priorities by European policies (H2020) in addition to the focus on ETPs in Del. 5.1, and supplemented by concrete project examples on European level.
The report explores risk governance and regulatory issues and research and innovation priorities related to nanotechnologies, with a focus on the three pilot sectors of the GoNano project (food, health and energy). For the screening and monitoring, we generally aim for those policy initiatives and debates that are explicitly labelled as “nano” as well as those initiatives that embed “nano” among other (emerging) technologies, such as key enabling technologies in H2020.
The report touches upon risk governance, regulatory issues and debates, by giving an impression of existing regulatory policies and current debates on the governance and regulation of nanotechnologies, both in general in the three selected sectors (EU and national level). This includes recent debates by policy makers and regulators, industrial and research actors, and civil society organizations in the area of risk governance of nanomaterials, in particular concerning updates of REACH. The aim is to capture the main priorities, positions and controversial issues of different R&I players and societal groups.
The deliverable also talks about Research and innovation priorities by providing an overview of strategic and investment priorities of policy (EU Commission) and industry stakeholders (ETPs). The analysis focuses on strategy developments, action plans or roadmaps as well as dedicated funding initiatives and programmes. And lastly, the report aims to provide a structured overview on the main issues of the debate on nanotechnology development, in order to provide useful insights to perform stakeholder engagement in the field.
Please read the full report here: D5.2 – Second briefing report on the nanotechnology RI policy context as input to developing the GoNano white papers
In summary
Starting with desk research on peer-reviewed and grey literature, and online resources (e.g. existing legislation, strategy documents of the European Commission and H2020 documents and calls) combined with input from the experience of GoNano partners. It first summes up the EU policy framework for nanotechnology and touches upon nanotechnology policy frameworks in European countries. next, it adresses nanotechnology risk governance and regulations in the area of healthcare, food and energy. And lastly, it adresses research and innovation priorities on nanotechnologies.
The policy screening presented in this report serves as background information for the three White papers and policy and industry briefs on Responsible Research and Innovation approaches for stakeholder engagement and co-creation on nanotechnologies to be developed in GoNano (Del. 5.3 and 5.4, as well as info box on GoNano process and interrelation of outcomes below). The following synthesis and suggestions are derived from the analysis presented in this report and deliverable 5.1.
Over the past decades, nanotechnologies have transformed from an emerging technology to a key enabling technology. In European policies, they are explicitly supported to improve industrial competitiveness, particularly in the areas of healthcare, energy and environment, manufacturing and electronics and ICT. They are seen as well important to tackle several societal challenges, and in particular secure, clean and efficient energy and transport. Beyond that, nanotechnologies are expected to play an important role in fostering excellent and groundbreaking science (e.g. EC Future Emerging Technologies – FET programme). Two of the areas covered by GoNano, i.e. health and energy, play an important role in the Framework Programme’s support for nanotechnologies. Food is occasionally mentioned but does not appear as a focus sector.
While many nanotechnology products are already developed and partially marketed, other initial promises have proven to be unfulfilled hypes. Many of the envisioned applications have still not left the laboratories or even visioning phase. On the other side, also many of the initial fears have proven to be unwarranted, in particular with regard to public acceptance or the lack thereof. Today, nanotechnologies present a paradigmatic case of the ambivalent character of technologies in the risk society (Beck, 1986): Nanotechnologies are presented as a driver for industrial competitiveness, economic growth and prosperity and, with increasing emphasis, as a potential solution to a wide range of the so-called Grand Challenges, including health, environment and energy issues. Following this framing, the imperative to innovate and market nanotechnologies becomes inevitable. On the other side, nanotechnologies increase uncertainties and risks for societies, ranging from questions of how to define nanotechnology to questions of the impacts of nanotechnologies on humans and the environment. Consequently, the development of nanotechnologies has entailed a range of new institutions (organizations, regulations, standards and rules) that deal with the uncertainties and potential side effects of this technology. As our discussion has demonstrated, many risk and regulatory issues are still unresolved. If nanotech will indeed be the revolution it is claimed to be, then its regulation cannot be business-as-usual.
This also relates to what Swiestra and te Molder (2012) called “hard” and “soft” impacts of nanotechnologies. The defined “hard impacts” as “those impacts that are quantifiable, represent non-controversial values and have a direct causal link to the technology, such as adverse health impacts, pollution, safety or privacy. ‘Soft’ impacts, by contrast, are qualitative in nature, relate to contested values and are ‘mediated’ rather than directly caused by the technology. They typically concern the domain of our daily routines, life style, aspirations, expectations, but also the moral domain of norms, values, virtues and responsibilities” (Swiestra and te Molder, 2012). They suggest that nanotechnology governance should consider both hard and soft impacts. Whereas the first have received ample attention, attention for the soft impacts is much harder to realise.
This ambiguity served as an important issue in the pilot studies. While taking promising sectors and among them, promising research achievements as starting point for the GoNano co-creation process, the challenge of an “in-built tendency towards a technology-fix position, in which nanotechnologies are framed as the (only) solution to a range of problems” remained. However, GoNano aimed to counter such tendencies by explicitly addressing diverse values and needs of citizens (e.g. in the citizen consultations conducted by GoNano).
Please read the full report here: D5.2 – Second briefing report on the nanotechnology RI policy context as input to developing the GoNano white papers