Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:16:48.855Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Engagement and Nanotechnology in Australia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

SALLY DALTON-BROWN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Upstream engagement is commonly regarded as necessary for the smooth implementation of new technologies, particularly when there is an impact on health. Is the healthcare context in Australia geared toward such public engagement? There are established engagement practices for issues of healthcare resourcing, for example; however, the situation becomes more complex with the introduction of a new technology such as nanomedicine.

Keywords

nanotechnologypublic engagement in sciencenanotechnology regulation
Type
Departments and Columns
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 518 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Notes

1. Cormick, C. Ten big questions on public engagement on science and technology: Observations from a rocky boat in the upstream and downstream of engagement. International Journal of Deliberative Mechanisms in Science 2012;1(1):35–50, at 35.Google Scholar

2. Nowotny, H, Scott, P, Gibbons, M. Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity; 2001.Google Scholar

3. Duckett S. Consumer and community engagement in primary health networks. Health Voices—Journal of the Consumers Health Forum of Australia 2015;16(14); available at http://grattan.edu.au/news/consumer-and-community-engagement-in-primary-health-networks/ (last accessed 9 Dec 2015).

4. Consumers Health Forum of Australia (CHF). Submission on the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care Consumer Engagement Strategy; 2008 Oct; available at https://www.chf.org.au/pdfs/sub/sub-491-s-and-q-health-care-consumer-engagement.pdf (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

5. See Australian Government. UNSW’s Australian Centre for Nanomedicine launch; available at http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2011/07/unsws-australian-centre-for-nanomedicine-launch/.

6. McKibben, B. Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. New York: Henry Holt; 2003;Google Scholar see also McLurcan, D. Nanotechnology and Global Equality. London: CRC Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Falkner R, Breggin L, Jaspers N, Pendergrass J, Porter R. Regulating nanomaterials: A transatlantic agenda; 2009; available at http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25424/1/Regulating_nanomaterials_a_transatlantic_agenda%28LSERO%29.pdf (last accessed 30 Nov 2015).

8. For details on the GHS, see Sigma-Aldrich. Globally Harmonized System (GHS); available at http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/safety-center/globally-harmonized.html (last accessed 7 Dec 2015).

9. Renn O, Rocco M. White paper on nanotechnology risk governance. International Risk Governance Council (IRGC); 2009; available at http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf (last accessed 30 Nov 2015); see also Hunt G. Nanotechnologies and society in Europe. In: Hunt G, Mehta M, eds. Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan; 2008:92–104 (last accessed 30 Nov, 2015).

10. This law is regulation number 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the council of November 30, 2009, on cosmetic products; it will require label notification of “the presence of substances in the form of nanomaterials.” See Mildau G, Huber B. The new EC cosmetics regulation 1223/2009—contents and first explanations. SOFW Journal 2010;3; available at http://ikw.org/fileadmin/content/downloads/Sch%C3%B6nheitspflege/SP_Kosmetikrichtlinie-en.pdf (last accessed 30 Nov 2015).

11. See European Commission. REACH: Introduction; available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_en.htm (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

12. See Kappelle L. Australian nanotechnology is revolutionary. Sydney Morning Herald 2013 Jan 5; available at http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/australian-nanotechnology-is-revolutionary-20130105-2c9or.html (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

13. Bowman DA, Hodge GA, Ludlow K. A Review of Possible Impacts of Nanotechnology on Australia’s Regulatory Framework: Final Report; 2007 Sept; available at http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/IndustrySectors/nanotechnology/Publications/Documents/MonashReport2007.pdf (last accessed 6 Apr 2016). See also Bowman, DM, Hodge, GA. Governing nanotechnology: More than a small matter? NanoEthics 2007;1(3):239–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bowman, DM, Hodge, GA. Nanotechnology “down under”: Getting on top of regulatory matters. Nanotechnology Law and Business Journal 2007;4(2):223–33.Google Scholar

14. NICNAS. Guidance on New Chemical Requirements for Notification of Industrial Nanomaterials; 2010; available at http://www.nicnas.gov.au/regulation-and-compliance/nicnas-handbook/handbook-appendixes/guidance-and-requirements-for-notification-of-new-chemicals-that-are-industrial-nanomaterials/guidance-on-providing-additional-data-requirements (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

15. Faunce T. Contemporary and future challenges for Australian nanoregulation; available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1570547 (last accessed 2 Dec 2015).

16. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Nanotechnologies for Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines: Regulatory Considerations—Final Report; 2015 July; available at http://apvma.gov.au/node/15631 (last accessed 7 Dec 2015).

17. See Gascoigne, T, Cronin, K, National nanotechnology research strategy 2012; available at https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/reports-and-plans/2015/nanotech-research-strategy.pdf (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

18. Katz E, Solomon F, Mee W, Lovel R. Evolving scientific research governance in australia: A case study of engaging interested publics in nanotechnology research. Public Understanding of Science 2009;18(5):531–45; available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662507082016 (last accessed 25 Nov 2015).

19. Kyle, R, Dodds, S. Avoiding empty rhetoric: Engaging publics in debates about nanotechnologies. Science and Engineering Ethics 2008;15(1):81–96, at 89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

20. Marks, NJ, Russell, W. Public engagement in biosciences and biotechnologies: Reflections on the role of sociology and STS. Journal of Sociology 2015;51(1):97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Lyons, K, Whelan, J. Community engagement to facilitate, legitimize and accelerate the advancement of nanotechnologies in Australia. Nanoethics 2010;1(4):53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See Craig Cormick’s analysis of this article in Cormick, C. The challenges of community engagement. Nanoethics 2010;4(3):229–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. This observation comes from a rather nonneutral post on the Friends of the Earth website by Kristen Lyons and James Whelan; see Lyons K, Whelan J. Australia’s nanotechnology public engagement ineffective and biased. Friends of the Earth Australia; available at http://www.foe.org.au/australias-nanotechnology-public-engagement-ineffective-and-biased (last accessed 8 Dec 2015).

23. Cormick, C. Why do we need to know what the public thinks about nanotechnology? Nanoethics 2009;3(2):167–73, at 170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

24. Capon A, Gillespie J, Rolfe M, Smith W. Perceptions of risk from nanotechnologies and trust in stakeholders: A cross sectional study of public, academic, government and business attitudes. BMC Public Health 2015;15:424. See also Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Nanotechnology and informed choice; available at http://www.industry.gov.au/industry/IndustrySectors/nanotechnology/Publications/Community-Engagement/Pages/NanotechnologyInformedChoice.aspx (last accessed 8 Dec 2015).

25. See note 1, Cormick 2012.

26. See National Nanotechnology Initiative. Public engagement through nano.gov webinar; 2012 Sept 20; available at http://www.nano.gov/node/873 and http://www.nano.gov/node/873#sthash.0EFgkYEa.dpuf (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

27. See Gillard, A, Russell, W. Evaluation of Nanotechnology and informed choice project, available at http://www.industry.gov.au/search/results.aspx?k=nanochoice%20report (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

28. Lyon, K, Whelan, J. Can government fulfil its commitment to engage the public about nanotechnology? Social Alternatives 2013;32(3):51–57, at 55.Google Scholar

29. See Inspiring Australia. Inspiring Australia strategy: A national strategy for engaging with the sciences; available at http://inspiringaustralia.net.au/about-us/inspiring-australia-strategy (last accessed 6 Apr 2016).

30. See National Innovation and Science Agenda. Inspiring a nation of scientists; available at http://www.innovation.gov.au/page/inspiring-nation-scientists (last accessed 10 Dec 2015).