Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:45:40.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nanotechnology

Political Spaces for Nanomaterials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brice Laurent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nanomaterials have been the object of numerous public and private initiatives aiming to manage their risks and maximise their benefits. Proponents of nanotechnology programmes argue that their potential negative impacts need to be dealt with appropriately, and wish to integrate these concerns early in the industrial development of these substances. Science policy programmes do not provide a clear definition of the term “nanomaterials”. Defining nanomaterials, however, has become a central concern. It is called for by manufacturers who wish to sell the “nano” quality of their products as well as by associations who wish to classify products in order to facilitate consumer choice or introduce constraints on production.

This is more than an obscure technical and legal issue for specialists. Indeed, science and technology studies has shown that technical classifications perform social order, and that the creation of new entities destabilises the conduct of democratic life. For instance, Sheila Jasanoff demonstrates that the “ontological uncertainty” of biotechnological objects leads to the construction of different political forms in the United States and Europe. Building a legal and technical framework for biotechnology objects allocates public roles, defines expertise objectivity, and identifies public concerns – in short, it shapes political organisations at the same time as it constructs technological definitions.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 577 - 582
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

1 Bowker, Geoffray and Star, Leigh, Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999)Google Scholar.

2 Jasanoff, Sheila, Designs on Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 The American National Nanotechnology Initiative, the 2004 British Royal Society report, and the O.E.C.D. used the 100nm size limit, as an indication of a size range where new properties may emerge. The 1nm inferior size limit was added by TC229 in order not to limit the scope of the substances qualified as “nano”.

4 Nanotechnologies – Terminology and definitions for nano-objects – Nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate, ISO/TS 27687:2008.

5 Nanotechnologies – Vocabulary – Part 1: Core terms, ISO/TS 80004-1: 2010.

6 Auffan, Mélanie et al., “Towards a definition of inorganic nanoparticles from an environmental, health and safety perspective”, 4 Nature Nanotechnology (2009), pp. 634 et sqq CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

7 Auffan et al., p.641

8 TC229 Business Plan.

9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the regulatory aspects of nanomaterials, SEC(2008) 2036.

10 European Parliament resolution of 24 April 2009 on the regulatory aspects of nanomaterials (2008/2208(INI)).

11 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products, Art. 2, para. k.

12 For a more detailed account of the opposition between the European Commission and the European Parliament, see Bowman, Diana, D’Silva, Joel and Van Calster, Geert, “Defining nanomaterials for the purpose of regulation within the European Union”, 1 European Journal of Risk Regulation (2010), pp. 115 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Joint Research Center, Considerations on a Definition of Nanomaterials for Regulatory Purposes (2010); Scientific Committee for Newly Identified Health Risks, “Opinion on the scientific basis for the definition of the term ‘nanomaterials’” (2010).

14 SCENIHR was more inclusive than JRC in its proposition for the size distribution threshold. It also proposed an iterative approach for the definition of nanomaterial based on different thresholds of size.

15 “[A] specific surface area by volume greater than 60 m2/cm3” is a condition equivalent to a specific surface area greater than that of density 1 spheres of 100 nm diameter.”

16 The European Commission recently published a recommendation related to the definition of nanomaterials, which originated from this consultation. See <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/pdf/commission_recommendation.pdf> (last accessed on 9 November 2011).

17 Nanotechnology Industry Association, “Comments on the SCENIHR Opinion” (2010).

18 EEB position on the Commission proposition, November 2010.

19 This expression is used by Barry, Andrew in “Technological Zones”, 9 European Journal of Social Theory (2006), pp. 239 et sqq CrossRefGoogle Scholar.