Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Regulating nanotechnologies: risk, uncertainty and the global governance gap

By Robert Falkner and Nico Jaspers


This article builds on research for a two-year project on nanotechnology regulation in the US and Europe (2008–09), which was funded by the European Commission. We are grateful to our collaborators in this project, at the London School of Economics, Chatham House, Environmental Law Institute and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and especially Linda Breggin, Jay Pendergrass and Read Porter. We also received helpful suggestions from three anonymous reviewers and would like to thank them for their advice. Any remaining errors are our own. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies are set to transform the global industrial landscape, but the debate on how to regulate environmental, health and safety risks is lagging behind technological innovation. Current regulatory efforts are primarily focused on the national and regional level, while the international dimensions of nanotechnology governance are still poorly understood and rarely feature on the international agenda. However, with the ongoing globalization of nanosciences and the rapid expansion of international trade in nanomaterials, demand for international coordination and harmonization of regulatory approaches is set to increase. Yet, uncertainty about nanotechnology risk poses a profound dilemma for regulators and policy-makers. Uncertainty both creates demand for and stands in the way of greater international cooperation and harmonization of regulatory approaches. This article reviews the emerging debate on nanotechnology risk and regulatory approaches, investigates the current state of international cooperation and outlines the critical contribution that a global governance approach can make to the safe development of nanotechnologie

Topics: GE Environmental Sciences
Publisher: MIT Press
Year: 2012
DOI identifier: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00096
OAI identifier:
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles


  1. (2006). A Framework Convention for Nanotechnology? Environmental Law Reporter doi
  2. (2007). A Small Matter of Regulation: An International Review of Nanotechnology Regulation. doi
  3. (2005). Adjudicating the GM Food Wars: Science, Risk, and Democracy in World Trade Law.
  4. (2008). Carbon Nanotubes Introduced Into the Abdominal Cavity of Mice Show Asbestos-Like Pathogenicity in a Pilot Study. doi
  5. (2008). Commission Recommendation on a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research COM(2008) 424 final.
  6. (2010). Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Draft Recommendation for Second Reading on the Council Position at First Reading for Adopting a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Novel Foods.
  7. (2002). Comparing Precaution in the United States and Europe. doi
  8. (2010). Current Developments/Activities on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials. Tour de Table at the 7th Meeting of the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials. doi
  9. (2002). Dynamics of Regulatory Change: How Globalization Affects National Regulatory Policies.
  10. (2011). Enhancing EPA’s Chemical Management Program. Available at et.pdf, accessed 11
  11. (2008). Environmental Impacts of Nanosilver. An ICON Backgrounder. Available at, accessed 11
  12. (2009). Exposure to Nanoparticles is Related to Pleural Effusion, Pulmonary Fibrosis and Granuloma. doi
  13. (2010). FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to Be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS).
  14. (2008). Final Report, doi
  15. (2003). Genes, Trade, and Regulation: The Seeds of Conflict in Food Biotechnology. doi
  16. (2008). Globalization at the Nano Frontier: The Future of Nanotechnology Policy doi
  17. (2004). Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union. doi
  18. (2008). Induction of Mesothelioma in p53+/− Mouse by Intraperitoneal Application of Multi-Wall Carbon Nanotube. doi
  19. (2006). Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Report.
  20. (2005). Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube Interactions with Human Epidermal Keratinocytes. Toxicology Letters. doi
  21. (2011). Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. Interim Report. Available at, accessed 11
  22. (2006). Nanotechnology and the Need for Risk Governance. doi
  23. (2007). Nanotechnology Risk Governance: Recommendations for a Global, Coordinated Approach to the Governance of Potential Risks.
  24. (2009). Nanotechnology Takes a Deep Breath…and Prepares to Save the World! Cientifica Report.
  25. Nanotechnology White Paper.
  26. (2010). Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer.
  27. (2007). Nanotechnology: Societal Implications II. doi
  28. (2007). Nanotechnology. A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force.
  29. (2007). New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology. doi
  30. (2007). Not That Innocent: A Comparative Analysis of Canadian, European Union and United States Policies on Industrial Chemicals. Environmental Defense Report.
  31. (2007). Opinion of the Scientiac Panel on Food additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food (AFC) on a Request Related to a 14th List of Substances for Food Contact Materials.
  32. (2009). Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology. doi
  33. (2003). Perceptions of Legitimacy and Efficacy doi
  34. Pesticide Registration; Clarification for ion-Generating Equipment. Federal Register 72(183).
  35. (2008). Petition for Rulemaking Requesting EPA Regulate Nano-Silver Products as Pesticides. Available at, accessed 11
  36. (2009). Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the doi
  37. (2008). Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament,
  38. (2007). Risk, Precaution and Science: Towards a More Constructive Policy Debate. doi
  39. Scientiac Opinion of the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Fla- vourings and Processing Aids (CEF).
  40. Scientific Opinion: Inability to Assess the Safety of a Silver Hydrosol Added for Nutritional Purposes as a Source of Silver in Food Supplements and the Bioavailability of Silver from this Source based on the Supporting Dossier.
  41. (2001). Seizing the Future: The South, Sustainable Development and International Trade. doi
  42. (2004). Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.
  43. (2001). Sound Science, Problematic Publics? Contrasting Representations of Risk and Uncertainty. Politeia
  44. (2008). Summary of the Sixth Session of the Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety:
  45. (2006). The Appropriateness of Existing Methodologies to Assess the Potential Risks Associated with Engineered and Adventitious Products of Nanotechnologies.
  46. (2009). The Limits of Regulatory Convergence: Globalization and GMO Politics in the South. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, doi
  47. (2003). The Myth of Science as a “Neutral Arbiter” for Triggering Precautions.
  48. (1998). The Privatization of Global Environmental Governance: doi
  49. (1994). The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disciplines.
  50. (2004). Towards a European Strategy for Nanotechnology.
  51. (2008). Towards Predicting Nano-Biointeractions
  52. Toxic Substances Control Act Inventory Status of Carbon Nanotubes.
  53. (2004). Trade and the Environment in the Global Economy: Contrasting European and American Perspectives. In Green Giants? Environmental Policies of the United States and the European Union, edited by
  54. (2010). Trading Places: The Role of the United States and the European Union doi
  55. (2006). Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology. doi
  56. (2010). Trends in Worldwide Nanotechnology Patent Applications: doi
  57. (2010). Unpackaging Synthetic Biology: Identification of Oversight Policy Problems and Options.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.