Scientists versus Regulators: Precaution, Novelty & Regulatory Oversight as Predictors of Perceived Risks of Engineered Nanomaterials

Novelty & Regulatory Oversight as Predictors of Perceived Risks of Engineered Nanomaterials. PLoS ONE 9(9): e106365. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106365 Scientists versus Regulators: Precaution, Novelty & Regulatory Oversight as Predictors of Perceived Risks of Engineered Nanomaterials Christian E. H. Beaudrie 0 Terre Satterfield 0 Milind Kandlikar 0 Barbara H. Harthorn 0 Igor Linkov, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, United States of America 0 1 Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada , 2 Compass Resource Management Ltd , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada , 3 Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia , Vancouver, British Columbia , Canada , 4 National Science Foundation (NSF) Centre for Nanotechnology in Society, University of California Santa Barbara , Santa Barbara, California , United States of America 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. - Data Availability: The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Funding: This work was supported by Coop. Agreement DBI-0830117 from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the University of California Center for Environmental Implications of Nano-Technology; and by Coop. Agreements SES 0531184 and SES 0938099 from the NSF to the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California Santa Barbara. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF or the EPA. This work has not been subjected to EPA review and no official endorsement should be inferred. The authors also thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for their generous support through an Alexander Graham Bell Canada Graduate Scholarship (CGS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Rapid advances in promising new nanotechnologies have been accompanied by mounting concerns over their human health and environmental risks concerns that are exacerbated by the uncertainties inherent in this still-emerging domain [1]. Despite growing support for environment, health, and safety (EHS) research [2], decision makers in industry and government are in the very early stages of understanding and managing potential risks. Primary to regulatory conundrums is the question of whether and by whom nanotechnologies are seen as novel and as posing new kinds of risk, and whether current regulatory approaches are suitable for managing these risks [3,4]. Some have argued that risks from engineered nanoscale technologies are not novel [5]; whereas policy analysts have found gaps in existing regulations and have identified numerous challenges for risk assessment. These include a high degree of scientific uncertainty, a paucity of nanomaterial risk data, and a lack of nano-specific risk assessment tools [1,4,6,7]. The result is that regulatory agencies may be ill prepared for assessing and managing risks from emerging nanotechnologies [8]. Given these challenges, expert opinion will play an important role in the formulation of policies and programs to address nanomaterial risks [9]. Among those well situated to consider questions of risk and regulation are experts within the sector, including basic scientists and engineers, risk assessors and toxicologists, and those responsible for regulation of nanomaterials and products. Little is known, however, about how these different groups of experts view nanomaterial risks, and what drives those differences. This study examines experts views of the risks posed by nanotechnologies, the approaches to regulation that experts deem most suitable, whether perceptions of nanomaterials as novel influence their perceptions of risk, and how their perceptions vary given the particular class of expertise to which study participants belong. Risk and Regulation Experts perceptions of risk have been studied in a number of domains, including genetically modified organisms [10,11], chemicals and toxics [1215], and ecological risks [16,17]. This earlier work generally finds disciplinary field (e.g., physical versus biological sciences) [11,14], institutional affiliation (e.g., university versus industry scientists) [13,18], demographic position (e.g., gender, age, etc.) [11,13,18,19], and/or social-political values (e.g., social or economic conservatism) [14,20,21] to be strongly predictive of perceived risk (regardless of the technological domain examined). In the nanotechnology case, a few recent studies have begun to identify factors underpinning risk judgments among nanoscientists. Besley et al. found that experts perceived different oversight needs and support as a function of their reported disciplinary field [22]. Similarly, Ho et al. found gender and trust (in scientists and/or government) to be predictive of perceived risk [23], while Siegrist et al. found trust to be a significant driver of ri (...truncated)