Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T22:41:32.394Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Does the History of Technology Regulation Teach Us about Nano Oversight?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Gary E. Marchant ,
Douglas J. Sylvester  and
Kenneth W. Abbott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nanotechnology is the latest in a growing list of emerging technologies that includes nuclear technologies, genetics, reproductive biology, biotechnology, information technology, robotics, communication technologies, surveillance technologies, synthetic biology, and neuroscience. As was the case for many of the technologies that came before, a key question facing nanotechnology is what type of regulatory oversight is appropriate for this emerging technology. As two of us wrote several years ago, the question facing nanotechnology is not whether it will be regulated, but when and how.

Yet, appropriate regulation of nanotechnology will be challenging. The term “nanotechnology” incorporates a broad, diverse range of materials, technologies, and products, with an even greater spectrum of potential risks and benefits. This technology slashes across the jurisdiction of many existing regulatory statutes and regulatory agencies, and does so across the globe. Nanotechnology is developing at an enormously rapid rate, perhaps surpassing the capability of any potential regulatory framework to keep pace. Finally, the risks of nanotechnology remain largely unknown, both because of the multitude of variations in the technology and because of the limited applicability of traditional toxicological approaches such as structure-activity relationship (SAR) to nanotechnology products.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Winter 2009 , pp. 724 - 731
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wells, H. G., Mind at the End of Its Tether, quoted in Ehrlich, E. and de Bruhl, M., The International Thesaurus of Quotations, 2nd revised ed. (New York: Collins, 1996): at 493.Google Scholar
Marchant, G. E. and Sylvester, D., “Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34, no. 4 (2006): 714–725, at 714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oberdörster, G. et al., “Principles for Characterizing the Potential Human Health Effects from Exposure to Nanomaterials: Elements of a Screening Strategy,” Particle & Fibre Toxicology 2, no. 8 (2005): 1–35, at 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rees, J. V., Hostages of Each Other: The Transformation of Nuclear Safety Since Three Mile Island (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Kasperson, R. E. et al., “The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework,” Risk Analysis 8, no. 2 (2006): 177-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uchtmann, D. L., “StarLink – A Case Study of Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation,” Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 7, no. 1 (2002): 159–211.Google Scholar
Weiss, R. and Nelson, D., “Gene Therapy's Troubling Crossroads: A Death Raises Questions of Ethics, Profit, Science,” Washington Post, December 31, 1999, at A3.Google Scholar
See Jensen, K. K., “BSE in the UK: Why the Risk Communication Strategy Failed,” Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics 17, nos. 4–5 (2004): 405–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slovic, P., “Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy,” Risk Analysis 13, no.6 (2006): 675–682; Bowman, D. M. and Hodge, G. A., “‘Governing’ Nanotechnology without Government?” Science & Public Policy 35, no. 7 (2008): 475-487, at 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macoubrie, J., Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government (Washington, D.C.: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, 2005): at 19.Google Scholar
Sylvester, D. J., Abbott, K. W. and Marchant, G. E., “Not Again! Public Perception, Regulation, and Nanotechnology,” Regulation and Governance (in press, 2009); Bratspies, R., “Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms,” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 16, no. 3 (2007): 393–423, at 395–397.Google Scholar
Heaton, G. R. and Banks, R. D., “Toward a New Generation of Environmental Technology: The Need for Legislative Reform,” Journal of Industrial Ecology 1, no. 2 (1997): 23–32, at 23; Huber, P., “The Old-New Division in Risk Regulation,” Virginia Law Review 69, no. 6 (1983): 1025-1106; Gregory, R., Flynn, J. and Slovic, P., “Technological Stigma,” American Scientist 83, no. 3 (1995): 220-223, at 220-221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union, Council Regulation No. 1830/2003, Concerning the Traceability and Labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms and the Traceability of Food and Feed Products Produced from Genetically Modified Organisms, 2003 O.J. (L 268) 24, 24.Google Scholar
See, e.g., National Research Council, Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2000): at 43 (“There is no strict dichotomy between, or new categories of, the health and environmental risks that might be posed by transgenic and conventional pest-protected plants.”); National Research Council, Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2002): at 49 (reaffirming the finding that “the transgenic process presents no new categories of risk compared to conventional methods of crop improvement”); National Research Council, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004) (“Genetic engineering….poses no unique health risks that cannot also arise from conventional breeding and other genetic alteration methods.”).Google Scholar
European Commission, A Review of Results: EC-Sponsored Research on Safety of Genetically Modified Organisms, Kessler, C. and Economidis, I., eds. (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities L-2985, 2001) available at <http://europa.eu.int/comm.research/quality-of-life/gmo> (last visited March 25, 2009).Google Scholar
Morris, S. H., “EU Biotech Crop Regulations and Environmental Risk: A Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?” Trends in Biotechnology 25, no. 1 (2007): 2–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McHughen, A., Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000): at 62–72.Google Scholar
National Academy of Sciences, Introduction of Recombinant DNA-Engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1987): at 11.Google Scholar
See Morris, , supra note 15, at 5.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F., “Nanotechnology: The Challenge of Regulating Known Unknowns,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34, no. 4 (2006): 704–713; see Bowman, and Hodge, , supra note 8, at 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piller, C., “Science's Tiny, Big Unknown,” Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2006, at 1; Weiss, R., “Nanotech Product Recalled in Germany,” Washington Post, April 6, 2006, at A2.Google Scholar
See Editorial, “Safeguard on Nanotechnology,” Christian Science Monitor, May 20, 2008, at 8.Google Scholar
Marchant, G. E., “Lessons for New Technologies,” Mercatus Center Working Paper 08–26, August 2008, available at <http://my.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/WP0826_RSP_Lessons%20for%20New%20Technologies.pdf> (last visited June 3, 2009) (calling for enshrinement of the principle of non-discrimination in regulatory regimes).+(last+visited+June+3,+2009)+(calling+for+enshrinement+of+the+principle+of+non-discrimination+in+regulatory+regimes).>Google Scholar
Read, R., “Like Products, Health and Environmental Exceptions: The Interpretation of PPMs in Recent WTO Trade Dispute Cases,” Estey Centre Journal of International Law & Trade Policy 5, no. (2004): 123–146.Google Scholar
See generally Kurzweil, R., The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (New York: Viking Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Moses, L. B., “Recurring Dilemmas: The Law's Race to Keep Up with Technological Change,” University of Illinois Law, Technology & Policy 2007, no. 2 (2007): 239–285.Google Scholar
Office of Technology Assessment, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1986): at 3.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W., Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Press, 1995).Google Scholar
McGarity, T. O., “Some Thoughts on Deossifying the Rulemaking Process,” Duke Law Journal 41, no. 6 (1992): 1385–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, e.g., McElfish, J. M. Jr. et al., “Inventing Nonpoint Controls: Methods, Metrics and Results,” Villanova Environmental Law Journal 17, no. 1 (2006): 87–216.Google Scholar
See, e.g., President's Council on Bioethics, Reproduction and Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies, Washington, D.C., 2004, at xvii (“[R]egulatory institutions have not kept pace with our rapid technological advance. Indeed, there is today no public authority responsible for monitoring or overseeing how these [reproductive] technologies make their way from the experimental to the clinical stage, from novel approach to widespread practice. There is no authority, public or private, that monitors how or to what extent these new technologies are being or will be used, or that is responsible for attending to the ways they affect the health and wellbeing of the participants or the character of human reproduction more generally”); Solove, D. J., “Reconstructing Electronic Surveillance Law,” George Washington Law Review 72, no. 6 (2004): 1264-1305, at 1266 (“[E]lectronic surveillance law… has failed to keep pace in adapting to new technologies, and… provides for insufficient judicial and legislative oversight.”); Javitt, G. H., Stanley, E. and Hudson, K., “Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests, Government Oversight, and the First Amendment: What the Government Can (and Can't) Do to Protect the Public's Health,” Oklahoma Law Review 57, no. 2 (2004): 251-302, at 301, at 301 (“Many critics lament both the lack of federal oversight of genetic tests and the increasing efforts by some companies to promote and sell them directly to consumers.”).Google Scholar
See Moses, , supra note 25, at 248.Google Scholar
Rejeski, D., “The Next Small Thing,” The Environmental Forum (March/April 2004): 42–49, at 42, 45.Google Scholar
Marchant, G. E., Sylvester, D. S. and Abbott, K. W., “Risk Management Principles for Nanotechnology,” NanoEthics 2, no. 1 (2008): 43–60, at 50–53; see Bowman, and Hodge, , supra note 8, at 477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testimony of Stephen Harper, Director of EHS Policy, Intel Corp, Prepared Testimony to the Senate European Affairs Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee 9–10, May 11, 2005, available at <http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2005/HarperTestimony050511.pdf> (last visited June 3, 2009).+(last+visited+June+3,+2009).>Google Scholar
Fiorino, D. J., The New Environmental Regulation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006): at 179–186. Under the Dutch covenants program, the government sets broad environmental goals, and then each company negotiates a “covenant” with various regulators and non-governmental organizations that sets forth its environmental obligations. Id., at 181–182. These covenants can be revised and updated more quickly than traditional regulation. Id., at 183.Google Scholar
Black, J., “Forms and Paradoxes of Principles Based Regulation,” Capital Markets Law Journal 3, no. 4 (2008): 425–457. Principle-based regulation is a more decentralized, flexible, and adaptive form of regulation, in which the government promulgates broad principles rather than detailed rules that it requires regulated parties to comply with, and then the regulated entities are responsible for developing their own framework for implementing the governing principles. Id., at 431–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, L. R., Editorial, “Defending Human Dignity,” American Enterprise Institute Newsletter, December 2007, at 53; Editorial, “Beyond the Yuck Factor,” New Scientist 186, no. 2505 (2005): 5; Kulinowski, K., “Nanotechnology: From ‘Wow’ to ‘Yuck’?” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24, no. 1 (2004): 13-20.Google Scholar
European Patent Office, European Patent Convention, pt. II, ch. I, art. 53, available at <http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/E4F8409B2A99862FC125736B00374CEC/$File/EPC_13th_edition.pdf> (last visited June 3, 2009). See Chambers, J., “Patent Eligibility of Biotechnological Inventions in the United States, Europe, and Japan: How Much Patent Policy Is Public Policy?” George Washington International Law Review 34, no. 1 (2002): 223–246, at 233.Google Scholar
Bagley, M. A., “Patent First, Ask Questions Later: Morality and Biotechnology in Patent Law,” William and Mary Law Review 45, no. 2 (2003): 469–547, at 502.Google Scholar
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 317 (1980).Google Scholar
Fox, D., “Safety, Efficacy, and Authenticity: The Gap between Ethics and Law in FDA Decisionmaking,” Michigan State Law Review 2005, no. 4 (2005): 1135–1197, at 1159–1160.Google Scholar
Meghani, Z. and de Melo-Martin, I., “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Evaluation of the Safety of Animal Clones,” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 29, no. 1 (2009): 9–17, at 9; Weiss, R., “FDA Is Set to Approve Milk, Meat from Clones,” Washington Post, October 17, 2006, at A1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Drug Administration, FDA's Response to Public Comment on the Animal Cloning Risk Assessment, Risk Management Plan, and Guidance for Industry (Docket No. 2003N- 0573), January 15, 2009, available at <http://www.fda.gov/cvm/CloningRA_FDAResponse.htm> (last visited March 25, 2009). (last visited March 25, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Food+and+Drug+Administration,+FDA's+Response+to+Public+Comment+on+the+Animal+Cloning+Risk+Assessment,+Risk+Management+Plan,+and+Guidance+for+Industry+(Docket+No.+2003N-+0573),+January+15,+2009,+available+at++(last+visited+March+25,+2009).>Google Scholar
Mellman Group, Memorandum to the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, Recent Findings, November 7, 2005, at 7, available at <http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/News/Press_Releases/Food_and_Biotechnology/PIFB_Public_Sentiment_GM_Foods2005.pdf> (last visited September 3, 2009).+(last+visited+September+3,+2009).>Google Scholar
Frewer, L. et al., “Societal Aspects of Genetically Modified Foods,” Food & Chemical Toxicology 42, no. 7 (2004): 1181–1193, at 1183; de Melo-Martin, I. and Meghani, Z., “Beyond Risk,” EMBO Report 9, no. 4 (2008): 302-306, at 302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. (de Melo-Martin and Meghani), at 302.Google Scholar
See Fox, , supra note 41, at 1179–1189.Google Scholar
45 C.F.R. § 46.111(a)(2) (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, Enhancing the Oversight of Genetic Tests: Recommendations of the SACGT, July 2000, at xi, available at <http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/sacgt/reports/oversight_report.pdf> (last visited September 3, 2009). (last visited September 3, 2009).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Secretary's+Advisory+Committee+on+Genetic+Testing,+Enhancing+the+Oversight+of+Genetic+Tests:+Recommendations+of+the+SACGT,+July+2000,+at+xi,+available+at++(last+visited+September+3,+2009).>Google Scholar
Kokjohn, S., “The Imposition of an Age Restriction on Over-the-Counter Access to Plan B Emergency Contraception: Violating Constitutional Rights to Privacy and Exceeding Statutory Authority,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 9, no. 1 (2008): 369–398.Google Scholar
These advisory committees would differs from the more generic, governmentwide advisory committee such as the President's Council on Bioethics, in that they would focus on ethical concerns about specific regulatory actions by one agency, rather than the broader issues usually not directly tied to a specific regulatory proposal addressed by the Council on Bioethics.Google Scholar
See Busby, H., Hervey, T. and Mohr, A., “Ethical EU Law? The Influence of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies,” European Law Review 33, no. 6 (2008): 803–842.Google Scholar
See Blaustein, S. A., “Splitting Genes: The Future of Genetically Modified Organisms in the Wake of the WTO/Cartagena Standoff,” Pennsylvania State Environmental Law Review 16, no. 2 (2008): 367–401.Google Scholar
See Isasi, R. M. et al., “Legal and Ethical Approaches to Stem Cell and Cloning Research: A Comparative Analysis of Policies in Latin America, Asia, and Africa,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 32, no. 4 (2004): 626–640; Mariani, M., “Stem Cell Legislation: An International and Comparative Discussion,” Journal of Legislation 28, no. 2 (2002): 379-411; Lesko, P. and Buckley, K., “Attack of the Clones…and the Issues of Clones,” Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 3, no. 1 (2002): 1-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S., “The Reinforcement of International Copyright for the Digital Age,” Intellectual Property Journal 16, no. 1 (2002): 93–122; Dalling, B., “Protecting Against International Infringements in the Digital Age Using United States Copyright Law: A Critical Analysis of the Current State of the Law,” Brigham Young University Law Journal 2001, no. 3 (2001): 1279-1311; Bulford, C., “Between East and West: The APEC Privacy Framework and the Balance of International Data Flows,” I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 3, no. 3 (2007-08): 705-722.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, F., “Gene Regime,” Foreign Policy (March/April 2002): 57–63, at 57, 59.Google Scholar
See Marchant, et al., supra note 33, at 58; Abbott, K. W., Marchant, G. E. and Sylvester, D. J., “A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology?” Environmental Law Reporter 38, no. 8 (2008): 10507–10514.Google Scholar
Burke, E., Letter to a Member of the National Assembly, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1791).Google Scholar