Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials.

Engineered nanoscale materials (ENMs) present a difficult challenge for risk assessors and regulators. Continuing uncertainty about the potential risks of ENMs means that expert opinion will play an important role in the design of policies to minimize harmful implications while supporting innovation. This research aims to shed light on the views of 'nano experts' to understand which nanomaterials or applications are regarded as more risky than others, to characterize the differences in risk perceptions between expert groups, and to evaluate the factors that drive these perceptions. Our analysis draws from a web-survey (N = 404) of three groups of US and Canadian experts: nano-scientists and engineers, nano-environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers. Significant differences in risk perceptions were found across expert groups; differences found to be driven by underlying attitudes and perceptions characteristic of each group. Nano-scientists and engineers at the upstream end of the nanomaterial life cycle perceived the lowest levels of risk, while those who are responsible for assessing and regulating risks at the downstream end perceived the greatest risk. Perceived novelty of nanomaterial risks, differing preferences for regulation (i.e. the use of precaution versus voluntary or market-based approaches), and perceptions of the risk of technologies in general predicted variation in experts' judgments of nanotechnology risks. Our findings underscore the importance of involving a diverse selection of experts, particularly those with expertise at different stages along the nanomaterial lifecycle, during policy development

Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies.

The potential and promise of nanotechnologies depends in large part on the ability for regulatory systems to assess and manage their benefits and risks. However, considerable uncertainty persists regarding the health and environmental implications of nanomaterials, hence the capacity for existing regulations to meet this challenge has been widely questioned. Here we draw from a survey (N=254) of US-based nano-scientists and engineers, environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers, to ask whether nano experts regard regulatory agencies as prepared for managing nanomaterial risks. We find that all three expert groups view regulatory agencies as unprepared. The effect is strongest for regulators themselves, and less so for scientists conducting basic, applied, or health and safety work on nanomaterials. Those who see nanotechnology risks as novel, uncertain, and difficult to assess are particularly likely to see agencies as unprepared. Trust in regulatory agencies, views of stakeholder responsibility regarding the management of risks, and socio-political values were also found to be small but significant drivers of perceived agency preparedness. These results underscore the need for new tools and methods to enable the assessment of nanomaterial risks, and to renew confidence in regulatory agencies' ability to oversee their growing use and application in society

Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials.

Engineered nanoscale materials (ENMs) present a difficult challenge for risk assessors and regulators. Continuing uncertainty about the potential risks of ENMs means that expert opinion will play an important role in the design of policies to minimize harmful implications while supporting innovation. This research aims to shed light on the views of 'nano experts' to understand which nanomaterials or applications are regarded as more risky than others, to characterize the differences in risk perceptions between expert groups, and to evaluate the factors that drive these perceptions. Our analysis draws from a web-survey (N = 404) of three groups of US and Canadian experts: nano-scientists and engineers, nano-environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers. Significant differences in risk perceptions were found across expert groups; differences found to be driven by underlying attitudes and perceptions characteristic of each group. Nano-scientists and engineers at the upstream end of the nanomaterial life cycle perceived the lowest levels of risk, while those who are responsible for assessing and regulating risks at the downstream end perceived the greatest risk. Perceived novelty of nanomaterial risks, differing preferences for regulation (i.e. the use of precaution versus voluntary or market-based approaches), and perceptions of the risk of technologies in general predicted variation in experts' judgments of nanotechnology risks. Our findings underscore the importance of involving a diverse selection of experts, particularly those with expertise at different stages along the nanomaterial lifecycle, during policy development

'Agency Preparedness' ratings for NSE, NEHS, and NREG expert groups.

<p>Mean scores for each group are indicated with points on respective color-coded lines capturing 14 different nanotechnology scenarios. The dotted grey line indicates the mid or neutral-point between ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘strongly agree’. Significant differences in means were determined using a one-way ANOVA with Games-Howell post hoc analysis, and are indicated with a, b, and c markings as outlined in the legend.</p

Hierarchical regression with Nano Risk Index as dependent variable.

<p><i>*p<.05.</i></p><p><i>**p<.01.</i></p><p><i>***p<.001.</i></p><p><i>Notes: N = 404. Independent variables were entered in six steps, where I through VI indicate model steps, and cell entries are standardized (β) regression coefficients.</i></p>a<p><i>Paired dummy variables, where ‘NSE’ is coded as DNEHS = 0, DNREG = 0, ‘NEHS’ is coded as DNEHS = 1, DNREG = 0, and ‘NREG’ is coded as DNEHS = 0, DNREG = 1.</i></p>b<p><i>1 = female, 0 = male.</i></p>c<p><i>1 = PhD, 0 = Bachelors/Masters.</i></p>d<p><i>Standardized continuous variable.</i></p>e<p><i>1 = physical sciences, 0 = other, where ‘physical sciences’ includes chemistry, physics, materials science, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering.</i></p>f<p><i>Paired dummy variables, where ‘academic vs government’ is coded as academic  =  0, government = 1, and ‘academic vs other’ is coded as academic = 0, other = 1.</i></p>g–k<p><i>Continuous index variables, described above.</i></p><p>Hierarchical regression with Nano Risk Index as dependent variable.</p

Comparison of perceptions of ‘novelty’ and ‘attitudes towards regulation’ across expert groups: <i>a)</i> Perceptions of the novelty of benefits versus novelty of risks. <i>b)</i> ‘Confidence in Markets and Voluntary Regulation’ versus ‘Preference for Precaution’.

<p>* indicates significant difference in means between ‘novel risks’ and ‘novel benefits’ by paired t-test, where Novel Benefits M = 3.50, SD = 0.58, Novel Risks M = 2.89, SD = 0.65 for NSE group; Novel Benefits M = 3.3, SD = 0.62, Novel Risks M = 3.16, SD = 0.67, for NEHS group; and difference in means for NREG group is not significant.</p