Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff

Ludlow, Karinne

doi:10.1007/s11569-008-0037-8

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 This includes legislation implemented by a number of agencies, including the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS) and Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) [30]. Interpretations of the effectiveness of these regulations are mixed.…”

Section: Nanotechnologies Concerns and Calls For Nano-regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community Engagement to Facilitate, Legitimize and Accelerate the Advancement of Nanotechnologies in Australia

Lyons

Whelan

2009

Nanoethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are increasing calls internationally for the development of regulation and policies related to the rapidly growing nanotechnologies sector. As part of the process of policy formation, it is widely accepted that deliberative community engagement processes should be included, enabling publics to have a say about nanotechnologies, expressing their hopes and fears, issues and concerns, and that these will be considered as part of the policy process. The Australian Federal and State governments have demonstrated a commitment to these ideals, undertaking a number of public engagement activities in recent years. However, despite promises that these community engagement activities will enable policy makers to identify complex and contested community attitudes, and that these will be included as part of the policy making process, a closer look at Australia's engagement activities reveals something quite different. Through an analysis of a number of Australia's nano-engagement activities, this paper demonstrates the limits of public engagement related to the development of nanotechnology related policies and regulation in Australia. Our analysis reveals the extent to which industry interests have captured policy makers and regulators, dissenting voices have been excluded from engagement processes, and engagement processes have not connected with actual policy making activities. Reflecting on these limits, this paper concludes with recommendations for improving public engagement processes related to nanotechnologies in Australia.

show abstract

Section: Nanotechnologies Concerns and Calls For Nano-regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%