No abstract

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at 'responsible innovation'. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.

The term responsible (research and) innovation has gained increasing EU policy relevance in the last two years, in particular within the European Commission's Science in Society programme, in the context of the Horizon 2020 Strategy. We provide a brief historical overview of the concept, and identify three distinct features that are emerging from associated discourses. The first is an emphasis on the democratic governance of the purposes of research and innovation and their orientation towards the 'right impacts'. The second is responsiveness, emphasising the integration and institutionalisation of established approaches of anticipation, reflection and deliberation in and around research and innovation, influencing the direction of these and associated policy. The third concerns the framing of responsibility itself in the context of research and innovation as collective activities with uncertain and unpredictable consequences. Finally, we reflect on possible motivations for responsible innovation itself.

The emerging literature on the ecotoxicity of nanoparticles and nanomaterials is summarised, then the fundamental physico-chemistry that governs particle behaviour is explained in an ecotoxicological context. Techniques for measuring nanoparticles in various biological and chemical matrices are also outlined. The emerging ecotoxicological literature shows toxic effects on fish and invertebrates, often at low mg l(-1) concentrations of nanoparticles. However, data on bacteria, plants, and terrestrial species are particularly lacking at present. Initial data suggest that at least some manufactured nanoparticles may interact with other contaminants, influencing their ecotoxicity. Particle behaviour is influenced by particle size, shape, surface charge, and the presence of other materials in the environment. Nanoparticles tend to aggregate in hard water and seawater, and are greatly influenced by the specific type of organic matter or other natural particles (colloids) present in freshwater. The state of dispersion will alter ecotoxicity, but many abiotic factors that influence this, such as pH, salinity, and the presence of organic matter remain to be systematically investigated as part of ecotoxicological studies. Concentrations of manufactured nanoparticles have rarely been measured in the environment to date. Various techniques are available to characterise nanoparticles for exposure and dosimetry, although each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages for the ecotoxicologist. We conclude with a consideration of implications for environmental risk assessment of manufactured nanoparticles.

No abstract

This paper introduces a special issue on the ecotoxicology and environmental chemistry of nanoparticles (NPs), and nanomaterials (NMs), in the journal Ecotoxicology. There are many types of NMs and the scientific community is making observations on NP ecotoxicity to inform the wider debate about the risks and benefits of these materials. Natural NPs have existed in the environment since the beginning of Earth's history, and natural sources can be found in volcanic dust, most natural waters, soils and sediments. Natural NPs are generated by a wide variety of geological and biological processes, and while there is evidence that some natural NPs can be toxic, organisms have also evolved in an environment containing natural NPs. There are concerns that natural nano-scale process could be influenced by the presence of pollution. Manufactured NPs show some complex colloid and aggregation chemistry, which is likely to be affected by particle shape, size, surface area and surface charge, as well as the adsorption properties of the material. Abiotic factors such as pH, ionic strength, water hardness and the presence of organic matter will alter aggregation chemistry; and are expected to influence toxicity. The physico-chemistry is essential to understanding of the fate and behaviour of NPs in the environment, as well as uptake and distribution within organisms, and the interactions of NPs with other pollutants. Data on biological effects show that NPs can be toxic to bacteria, algae, invertebrates and fish species, as well as mammals. However, much of the ecotoxicological data is limited to species used in regulatory testing and freshwater organism. Data on bacteria, terrestrial species, marine species and higher plants is particularly lacking. Detailed investigations of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) remain to be performed on species from the major phyla, although there are some data on fish. The environmental risk assessment of NMs could be performed using the existing tiered approach and regulatory framework, but with modifications to methodology including chemical characterisation of the materials being used. There are many challenges ahead, and controversies (e.g., reference substances for ecotoxicology), but knowledge transfer from mammalian toxicology, colloid chemistry, as well as material and geological sciences, will enable ecotoxicology studies to move forward in this new multi-disciplinary field.

No abstract

This paper considers whether current standard ecotoxicity methods are fit for purpose for assessing the hazards of engineered nanoparticles. We conclude that the types of test species and biological endpoints used within standard environmental hazard assessment frameworks are generally appropriate. However, there are areas of considerable uncertainty associated with characterisation of nanoparticle exposure in test systems that apply to all ecotoxicity testing guidelines, except those in which dosing of nanoparticles is oral. These include the way in which the substance is dosed into, and maintained within, the test medium; measurement and characterisation of nanoparticles in the test system; better understanding and reporting of abiotic factors that influence behaviour of nanoparticles in the test medium; and agreement on how dosimetric data should be reported.