Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation

Graeme A. Hodge, Andrew Maynard, Diana Bowman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Nanotechnology has engendered much debate. This article asks how we can best approach nanotechnology regulation and aims to separate out the risk rhetoric from the regulatory realities. It argues that any discussion of nanotechnology regulation requires us to traverse three fundamentally distinct languages: the language of 'nanotechnology' as a public policy phenomenon; the language of 'nanotechnologies' as a set of multiple scientific frontiers; and the language of regulation. These three languages co-exist and have a profound influence in framing policy debates. Nanotechnology needs to be understood as a brand as well as in terms of scientific frontiers. This article suggests that society now confronts a number of pressing regulatory challenges. These include: moving past the language game; filling scientific knowledge gaps; strengthening standards; articulating regulatory gaps; finding the right risk-reward balance; regulating in an optimum manner; and achieving appropriate transparency.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbersct029
Pages (from-to)1-14
Number of pages14
JournalScience and Public Policy
Volume41
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

nanotechnology
rhetoric
regulation
language
knowledge gap
transparency
reward
public policy

Keywords

  • Framing
  • Governance
  • Language
  • Nanotechnology
  • Politics
  • Risk

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Public Administration
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Nanotechnology : Rhetoric, risk and regulation. / Hodge, Graeme A.; Maynard, Andrew; Bowman, Diana.

In: Science and Public Policy, Vol. 41, No. 1, sct029, 02.2014, p. 1-14.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{41d76eea29a84aadbb1eadf3f63680a4,
title = "Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation",
abstract = "Nanotechnology has engendered much debate. This article asks how we can best approach nanotechnology regulation and aims to separate out the risk rhetoric from the regulatory realities. It argues that any discussion of nanotechnology regulation requires us to traverse three fundamentally distinct languages: the language of 'nanotechnology' as a public policy phenomenon; the language of 'nanotechnologies' as a set of multiple scientific frontiers; and the language of regulation. These three languages co-exist and have a profound influence in framing policy debates. Nanotechnology needs to be understood as a brand as well as in terms of scientific frontiers. This article suggests that society now confronts a number of pressing regulatory challenges. These include: moving past the language game; filling scientific knowledge gaps; strengthening standards; articulating regulatory gaps; finding the right risk-reward balance; regulating in an optimum manner; and achieving appropriate transparency.",
keywords = "Framing, Governance, Language, Nanotechnology, Politics, Risk",
author = "Hodge, {Graeme A.} and Andrew Maynard and Diana Bowman",
year = "2014",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1093/scipol/sct029",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "41",
pages = "1--14",
journal = "Science and Public Policy",
issn = "0302-3427",
publisher = "Beech Tree Publishing",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Nanotechnology

T2 - Rhetoric, risk and regulation

AU - Hodge, Graeme A.

AU - Maynard, Andrew

AU - Bowman, Diana

PY - 2014/2

Y1 - 2014/2

N2 - Nanotechnology has engendered much debate. This article asks how we can best approach nanotechnology regulation and aims to separate out the risk rhetoric from the regulatory realities. It argues that any discussion of nanotechnology regulation requires us to traverse three fundamentally distinct languages: the language of 'nanotechnology' as a public policy phenomenon; the language of 'nanotechnologies' as a set of multiple scientific frontiers; and the language of regulation. These three languages co-exist and have a profound influence in framing policy debates. Nanotechnology needs to be understood as a brand as well as in terms of scientific frontiers. This article suggests that society now confronts a number of pressing regulatory challenges. These include: moving past the language game; filling scientific knowledge gaps; strengthening standards; articulating regulatory gaps; finding the right risk-reward balance; regulating in an optimum manner; and achieving appropriate transparency.

AB - Nanotechnology has engendered much debate. This article asks how we can best approach nanotechnology regulation and aims to separate out the risk rhetoric from the regulatory realities. It argues that any discussion of nanotechnology regulation requires us to traverse three fundamentally distinct languages: the language of 'nanotechnology' as a public policy phenomenon; the language of 'nanotechnologies' as a set of multiple scientific frontiers; and the language of regulation. These three languages co-exist and have a profound influence in framing policy debates. Nanotechnology needs to be understood as a brand as well as in terms of scientific frontiers. This article suggests that society now confronts a number of pressing regulatory challenges. These include: moving past the language game; filling scientific knowledge gaps; strengthening standards; articulating regulatory gaps; finding the right risk-reward balance; regulating in an optimum manner; and achieving appropriate transparency.

KW - Framing

KW - Governance

KW - Language

KW - Nanotechnology

KW - Politics

KW - Risk

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84897585678&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84897585678&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/scipol/sct029

DO - 10.1093/scipol/sct029

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84897585678

VL - 41

SP - 1

EP - 14

JO - Science and Public Policy

JF - Science and Public Policy

SN - 0302-3427

IS - 1

M1 - sct029

ER -