Search

Synthetic biology is an emerging technology with potential benefits to various fields, yet also contains potential risks to human and environmental health. The field remains in an emerging state with limited quantitative guidance and a small but growing population of international researchers that conduct work within this field. Given the uncertain nature of this technology, an adaptive and anticipatory governance framework may be necessary to balance the potential benefits that may accrue from the technology's continued research alongside a desire to reduce or eliminate potential risks that may arise. However, such developments must account for the unique political and institutional factors that form a government's risk culture - something that can facilitate or impede the development of adaptive synthetic biology governance moving forward. The TAPIC framework helps illustrate those factors that are essential to develop good governance for emerging technologies like synthetic biology. Specifically, an application of TAPIC to synthetic biology governance indicates that the factors of accountability, participation, and integrity must be bolstered to improve technology governance in governments like with the United States, European Union, and Singapore., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

"Modest doubt is call'd the beacon of the wise."—William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida. Although the character Hector warns his fellow Trojans with this line not to engage in war against the Greeks, Shakespeare's works are replete with characters who do not incorporate modest doubt, or any consideration of uncertainty, in their risk decisions. Perhaps Shakespeare was simply a keen observer of human nature. Although risk science has developed tremendously over the last five decades (and scientific inquiry over five centuries), the human mind still frequently defaults to conviction about certain beliefs, absent sufficient scientific evidence—which has effects not just on individual lives, but on policy decisions that affect many. This perspective provides background on the Shakespearean quote in its literary and historical context. Then, as this quote is the theme of the 2023 Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, we describe how "modest doubt"—incorporating the notion of uncertainty into risk analysis for individual and policy decisions—is still the "beacon of the wise" today. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the use of manufactured nanomaterials continues to grow internationally, policymakers, regulators, and key stakeholders in industry need to foster governance for such materials and their resulting products. Various stakeholders in government and industry have traditionally employed risk assessment quantifying material hazard, exposure, and effects assessments based upon available measurable data to derive safe exposure limits and acceptable environmental releases. This approach forms the foundation of risk-based governance. However, where manufactured nanomaterials do not have robust quantitative data to populate models for evaluation of hazard, exposure and effects, an alternative set of tools is needed for nanomaterial governance. One option is governance using holistic, multi-criteria approaches, which comparatively review risks, benefits, and other implications of nano-enabled products against conventional alternatives. Such multi-criteria approaches are in line with recent calls for research by the European Commission, and are increasingly discussed in scholarly literature. Based upon the needs and legal/regulatory requirements of a given stakeholder, risk-based or multi-criteria tools can help inform nanomaterial assessment and decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the need of a formal risk assessment system for defense acquisition programs by the U.S. Department of Defense to ensure success of cost, schedule and performance objectives at every stage of program lifecycle. It informs that the system collects, integrates and evaluates heterogeneous and uncertain data for concerning the prospective risks associated with the development and production of new technologies.

• Technology development is an inherently uncertain and risky enterprise and safety-by-design is required. • Safety-by-design is connected with nanotechnology risk governance challenges. • Safety by Design is mathematically framed as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) problem. • Addressing nanotechnology governance gap can help technology risk governance. Developments in nanotechnology oblige technology regulators and other stakeholders to manage unfamiliar and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. When technological achievement stretches the limits of understanding of risk and safety, the desire to ensure protection can produce unnecessarily prohibitive and costly regulatory policy. This lack of knowledge, referred within this paper as 'governance gaps,' requires safety-by-design to overcome lingering governance challenges. However, the fundamentals of safety-by-design are not developed. We propose translating the methodological framing of safety-by-design and related nanotechnology risk governance into a mathematical framing of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to illustrate how safety-by-design might be operationalized. This framing provides a more thorough understanding of technology governance gaps and can help focusing technology development on implementable and safe alternatives. Ultimately, addressing each governance gap can help technology development and technology risk governance keep pace with one another, thereby allowing innovation to flourish while protecting society from undue risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]