One of the most perplexing problems in risk analysis is why some relatively minor risks or risk events, as assessed by technical experts, often elicit strong public concerns and result in substantial impacts upon society and economy. This article sets forth a conceptual framework that seeks to link systematically the technical assessment of risk with psychological, sociological, and cultural perspectives of risk perception and risk-related behavior. The main thesis is that hazards interact with psychological, social, institutional, and cultural processes in ways that may amplify or attenuate public responses to the risk or risk event. A structural description of the social amplification of risk is now possible. Amplification occurs at two stages: in the transfer of information about the risk, and in the response mechanisms of society. Signals about risk are processed by individual and social amplification stations, including the scientist who communicates the risk assessment, the news media, cultural groups, interpersonal networks, and others. Key steps of amplifications can be identified at each stage. The amplified risk leads to behavioral responses, which, in turn, result in secondary impacts. Models are presented that portray the elements and linkages in the proposed conceptual framework.

No abstract

No abstract

After identifying the main characteristics and prospects of nanotechnology as an emerging technology, the paper presents the general risks associated with nanotechnology applications and the deficits of the risk governance process today, concluding with recommendations to governments, industry and other stakeholders. The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) has identified a governance gap between the requirements pertaining to the nano-rather than the micro-/macro-technologies. The novel attributes of nanotechnology demand different routes for risk-benefit assessment and risk management, and at present, nanotechnology innovation proceeds ahead of the policy and regulatory environment. In the shorter term, the governance gap is significant for those passive nanostructures that are currently in production and have high exposure rates; and is especially significant for the several 'active' nanoscale structures and nanosystems that we can expect to be on the market in the near future. Active nanoscale structures and nanosystems have the potential to affect not only human health and the environment but also aspects of social lifestyle, human identity and cultural values. The main recommendations of the report deal with selected higher risk nanotechnology applications, shortand long-term issues, and global models for nanotechnology governance. Keywords: nanoscience, nanoengineering, global risk governance, risk communication, risk management, scenarios for nanotechnology development BACKGROUND Defining NanotechnologyNanotechnology is still in an early phase of development, and is sometimes compared in the literature to information technology in the 1960's and biotechnology in the 1980's. Nanotechnology refers to the development and application of materials, devices and systems with fundamentally new properties and functions because of their structures in the range of about 1 to 100 nanometres (Siegel et al., 1999). It involves the manipulation and/or creation of material structures at the nanoscale, in the atomic, molecular and supramolecular realm. At the nanoscale, the characteristics of matter can be significantly changed, particularly under 10-20 nm, because of properties such as the dominance of quantum effects, confinement effects, molecular recognition, and an increase in relative surface area. Downsized material structures of the same chemical elements change their mechanical, optical, magnetic and electronic properties, as well as chemical reactivity leading to surprising and unpredicted, or unpredictable, effects. In essence, nanodevices exist in a unique realm, where the properties of matter are governed by a complex combination of classic physics and quantum mechanics. At the nanometre scale manufacturing capabilities (including by self assembly, templating, stamping, and fragmentation) are broad and can lead to numerous efficient outcomes.Nanoscience is the result of interdisciplinary cooperation between physics, chemistry, biotechnology, material sciences and engineering toward studying a...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

How can and should risk managers collect public preferences, integrate public input into the management process, and assign the appropriate roles to technical experts, stakeholders, and members of the public? Which concerns are legitimate for being used in decisions that may determine the life or death of many people? There are no simple answers to these questions. This paper discusses the potential and requirements for an analytic-deliberative decision making process in the field of risk management. It articulates the requirements for integrating analytic reasoning with deliberation and interpretation. As a result of these requirements a model of participation is developed that attempts to meet two major objectives: first, to enhance the competence in the decision making process and, second, to assign a fair share of the responsibility of managing risks to those who are or will be affected by the potential consequences. The model, named cooperative discourse, consists of three major steps: elicitation of values and criteria (stakeholder groups); provision of performance profiles for each policy option (experts); and evaluation and design of policies by randomly selected citizens. The paper provides some empirical evidence about the application of this method from experiences in three different countries. The case studies show that analytical thinking and deliberative exchange of arguments cannot be separated but should be'integrated in the decision making process. At the same time, the sequential involvement of stakeholders, experts, and the general public proved to be a productive way of ensuring competence, fairness, and efficiency.