IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v41y2014i1p1-14..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation

Author

Listed:
  • Graeme A. Hodge
  • Andrew D. Maynard
  • Diana M. Bowman

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Graeme A. Hodge & Andrew D. Maynard & Diana M. Bowman, 2014. "Nanotechnology: Rhetoric, risk and regulation," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 1-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:1-14.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct029
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeroen van der Heijden, 2021. "Risk as an Approach to Regulatory Governance: An Evidence Synthesis and Research Agenda," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:1:p:1-14.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.