This page has only limited features, please log in for full access.
Nanotechnology is a key enabling technology, which is developing fast and influences many aspects of life. Nanomaterials are already included in a broad range of products and industrial sectors. Nanosafety issues are still a matter of concern for policy makers and stakeholders, but currently, there is no platform where all stakeholders can meet and discuss these issues. A comprehensive overview of all the issues in one single dashboard presenting the output of a decision support system is also lacking. This article outlines a strategy for developing one innovative part of a modular decision support system, designed to support the work of a new Risk Governance Council (RGC) for nanomaterials which will be established through the combined efforts of the GOV4NANO, NANORIGO, and RiskGONE H2020 projects. This new module will consist of guidelines for Ethical Impact Assessment (EIA) for nanomaterials and nanoenabled products. This article offers recommendations for adapting the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) prestandard on Ethical Impact Assessment CWA (CEN Workshop Agreement) 17145‐2:2017 (E), to fit into the more‐encompassing decision support system for risk governance of nanomaterials within the RiskGONE project.
Ineke Malsch; Panagiotis Isigonis; Maria Dusinska; Evert A. Bouman. Embedding Ethical Impact Assessment in Nanosafety Decision Support. Small 2020, 16, 1 .
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Panagiotis Isigonis, Maria Dusinska, Evert A. Bouman. Embedding Ethical Impact Assessment in Nanosafety Decision Support. Small. 2020; 16 (36):1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Panagiotis Isigonis; Maria Dusinska; Evert A. Bouman. 2020. "Embedding Ethical Impact Assessment in Nanosafety Decision Support." Small 16, no. 36: 1.
Nanotechnologies have reached maturity and market penetration that require nano‐specific changes in legislation and harmonization among legislation domains, such as the amendments to REACH for nanomaterials (NMs) which came into force in 2020. Thus, an assessment of the components and regulatory boundaries of NMs risk governance is timely, alongside related methods and tools, as part of the global efforts to optimise nanosafety and integrate it into product design processes, via Safe(r)‐by‐Design (SbD) concepts. This paper provides an overview of the state‐of‐the‐art regarding risk governance of NMs and lays out the theoretical basis for the development and implementation of an effective, trustworthy and transparent risk governance framework for NMs. The proposed framework enables continuous integration of the evolving state of the science, leverages best practice from contiguous disciplines and facilitates responsive re‐thinking of nanosafety governance to meet future needs. To achieve and operationalise such framework, a science‐based Risk Governance Council (RGC) for NMs is being developed. The framework will provide a toolkit for independent NMs' risk governance and integrates needs and views of stakeholders. An extension of this framework to relevant advanced materials and emerging technologies is also envisaged, in view of future foundations of risk research in Europe and globally.
Panagiotis Isigonis; Antreas Afantitis; Dalila Antunes; Alena Bartonova; Ali Beitollahi; Nils Bohmer; Evert Bouman; Qasim Chaudhry; Mihaela Roxana Cimpan; Emil Cimpan; Shareen Doak; Damien Dupin; Doreen Fedrigo; Valérie Fessard; Maciej Gromelski; Arno C. Gutleb; Sabina Halappanavar; Peter Hoet; Nina Jeliazkova; Stéphane Jomini; Sabine Lindner; Igor Linkov; Eleonora Marta Longhin; Iseult Lynch; Ineke Malsch; Antonio Marcomini; Espen Mariussen; Jesus M. De La Fuente; Georgia Melagraki; Finbarr Murphy; Michael Neaves; Rolf Packroff; Stefan Pfuhler; Tomasz Puzyn; Qamar Rahman; Elise Rundén Pran; Elena Semenzin; Tommaso Serchi; Christoph Steinbach; Benjamin Trump; Ivana Vinković Vrček; David Warheit; Mark R. Wiesner; Egon Willighagen; Maria Dusinska. Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials. Small 2020, 16, 1 .
AMA StylePanagiotis Isigonis, Antreas Afantitis, Dalila Antunes, Alena Bartonova, Ali Beitollahi, Nils Bohmer, Evert Bouman, Qasim Chaudhry, Mihaela Roxana Cimpan, Emil Cimpan, Shareen Doak, Damien Dupin, Doreen Fedrigo, Valérie Fessard, Maciej Gromelski, Arno C. Gutleb, Sabina Halappanavar, Peter Hoet, Nina Jeliazkova, Stéphane Jomini, Sabine Lindner, Igor Linkov, Eleonora Marta Longhin, Iseult Lynch, Ineke Malsch, Antonio Marcomini, Espen Mariussen, Jesus M. De La Fuente, Georgia Melagraki, Finbarr Murphy, Michael Neaves, Rolf Packroff, Stefan Pfuhler, Tomasz Puzyn, Qamar Rahman, Elise Rundén Pran, Elena Semenzin, Tommaso Serchi, Christoph Steinbach, Benjamin Trump, Ivana Vinković Vrček, David Warheit, Mark R. Wiesner, Egon Willighagen, Maria Dusinska. Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials. Small. 2020; 16 (36):1.
Chicago/Turabian StylePanagiotis Isigonis; Antreas Afantitis; Dalila Antunes; Alena Bartonova; Ali Beitollahi; Nils Bohmer; Evert Bouman; Qasim Chaudhry; Mihaela Roxana Cimpan; Emil Cimpan; Shareen Doak; Damien Dupin; Doreen Fedrigo; Valérie Fessard; Maciej Gromelski; Arno C. Gutleb; Sabina Halappanavar; Peter Hoet; Nina Jeliazkova; Stéphane Jomini; Sabine Lindner; Igor Linkov; Eleonora Marta Longhin; Iseult Lynch; Ineke Malsch; Antonio Marcomini; Espen Mariussen; Jesus M. De La Fuente; Georgia Melagraki; Finbarr Murphy; Michael Neaves; Rolf Packroff; Stefan Pfuhler; Tomasz Puzyn; Qamar Rahman; Elise Rundén Pran; Elena Semenzin; Tommaso Serchi; Christoph Steinbach; Benjamin Trump; Ivana Vinković Vrček; David Warheit; Mark R. Wiesner; Egon Willighagen; Maria Dusinska. 2020. "Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials." Small 16, no. 36: 1.
Nanomaterials are handled in global value chains for many different products, albeit not always recognisable as nanoproducts. The global market for nanomaterials faces an uncertain future, as the international dialogue on regulating nanomaterials is still ongoing and risk assessment data are being collected. At the same time, regulators and civil society organisations complain about a lack of transparency about the presence of nanomaterials on the market. In the project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu ), a Decision Support System (SUNDS) has been developed, primarily for confidential use by risk and sustainability managers inside a company or consortium. In this article, we formulate a scenario concerning a potential role for an open access decision support system in negotiations on international agreements regulating trade in nanomaterials. The scenario includes design rules for decision support systems as well as procedures for use of such a system in stakeholder dialogue and policy-making on governance of these and other emerging technologies. This article incorporates analysis of results of stakeholder engagement on nanomaterials as well as literature and internet sources suggested by these stakeholders.
Ineke Malsch; Martin Mullins; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini. Decision Support for International Agreements Regulating Nanomaterials. NanoEthics 2018, 12, 39 -54.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Martin Mullins, Elena Semenzin, Alex Zabeo, Danail Hristozov, Antonio Marcomini. Decision Support for International Agreements Regulating Nanomaterials. NanoEthics. 2018; 12 (1):39-54.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Martin Mullins; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini. 2018. "Decision Support for International Agreements Regulating Nanomaterials." NanoEthics 12, no. 1: 39-54.
Mental modelling analysis can be a valuable tool in understanding and bridging cognitive values in multi-stakeholders’ communities. It is especially true in situation of emerging risks where significant uncertainty and competing objectives could result in significant difference in stakeholder perspective on the use of new materials and technologies. This paper presents a mental modelling study performed among prospective users of an innovative decision support system for safe and sustainable development of nano-enabled products. These users included representatives of industry and regulators, as well as several insurance specialists and researchers. We present methodology and tools for comparing stakeholder views and objectives in the context of developing a decision support system.
Ineke Malsch; Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Danail Hristozov; Martin Mullins; Finbarr Murphy; Igor Linkov; Antonio Marcomini. Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system. Environment Systems and Decisions 2017, 1 .
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Vrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Alex Zabeo, Danail Hristozov, Martin Mullins, Finbarr Murphy, Igor Linkov, Antonio Marcomini. Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system. Environment Systems and Decisions. 2017; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Danail Hristozov; Martin Mullins; Finbarr Murphy; Igor Linkov; Antonio Marcomini. 2017. "Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system." Environment Systems and Decisions , no. : 1.
Assessment of the social aspects of sustainability of products is a topic of significant interest to companies, and several methodologies have been proposed in the recent years. The significant environmental health and safety concerns about nano-enabled products calls for the early establishment of a clear benefit-risk framework in order to decide which novel products should be developed further. This paper proposes a method to assess the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle that is (a) quantitative, (b) integrates performance and attitudinal dimensions of social impacts and (c) considers the overall and stakeholder balance of benefits and costs. Social life cycle assessment (s-LCA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are integrated to address this need, and the method is illustrated on a case study of a nano-enabled product. The s-LCA framework comprises 15 indicators to characterize the social context of the product manufacture placed within the classification structure of benefit/cost and worker/community. The methodology includes four steps: (a) normalization of company level data on the social indicator to country level data for the year, (b) nested weighting at stakeholder and indicator level and its integration with normalized scores to create social indicator scores, (c) aggregation of social indicator scores into benefit score, cost score and net benefit scores as per the s-LCA framework and (d) classification of social indicator scores and aggregated scores as low/medium/high based on benchmarks created using employment and value-added proxies. A prospective production scenario involving novel product, a nano-copper oxide (n-CuO)-based paint with biocidal functionality, is assessed with respect to its social impacts. The method was applied to 12 indicators at the company level. Classification of social indicator scores and aggregated scores showed that the n-CuO paint has high net benefits. The framework and method offer a flexible structure that can be revised and extended as more knowledge and data on social impacts of nano-enabled products becomes available. The proposed method is being implemented in the social impact assessment sub-module of the SUN Decision Support (SUNDS) software system. Companies seeking to improve the social footprint of their products can also use the proposed method to consider relevant social impacts to achieve this goal.
Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Peter Saling; Tom Ligthart; Toon Van Harmelen; Ineke Malsch; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini. Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2017, 23, 348 -356.
AMA StyleVrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Alex Zabeo, Peter Saling, Tom Ligthart, Toon Van Harmelen, Ineke Malsch, Danail Hristozov, Antonio Marcomini. Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. 2017; 23 (2):348-356.
Chicago/Turabian StyleVrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Peter Saling; Tom Ligthart; Toon Van Harmelen; Ineke Malsch; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini. 2017. "Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint." The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 23, no. 2: 348-356.
Ineke Malsch; Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik; Martin Himly; Costas Kiparissides; Olga Kammona; Bartłomiej Szafran; Iseult Lynch; Frederick Ntow; Paula Queipo Rodriguez; Moshe Talesnik; David Rosenberg; Albert Duschl. Current Trends in Nanoeducation for Industry and Society. Current Bionanotechnology 2017, 2, 112 -115.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik, Martin Himly, Costas Kiparissides, Olga Kammona, Bartłomiej Szafran, Iseult Lynch, Frederick Ntow, Paula Queipo Rodriguez, Moshe Talesnik, David Rosenberg, Albert Duschl. Current Trends in Nanoeducation for Industry and Society. Current Bionanotechnology. 2017; 2 (2):112-115.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik; Martin Himly; Costas Kiparissides; Olga Kammona; Bartłomiej Szafran; Iseult Lynch; Frederick Ntow; Paula Queipo Rodriguez; Moshe Talesnik; David Rosenberg; Albert Duschl. 2017. "Current Trends in Nanoeducation for Industry and Society." Current Bionanotechnology 2, no. 2: 112-115.
Literature on the risk governance of nanotechnology places significant emphasis on the potential social impacts of nano-enabled products. However, there is limited information on which social impacts are relevant for nano-enabled products, and a methodology to monitor them to support risk governance is lacking. This chapter proposes a quantitative methodology based on Social Life Cycle Assessment (s-LCA) and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to assess the social impacts of nano-enabled products through their life cycle. The s-LCA conceptual scheme (i.e. impacts and indicators for different stakeholders) is developed through an appraisal of literature on social impacts of products and Ethical, Legal and Social Impacts (ELSI) of nanotechnology, which is used to select suitable indicators in statistical databases. Five indicators associated with impacts of nano-enabled products, with two impacts in Worker category (professional training and non-fatal accidents) and three impacts in Community category (education, employment, research and development expenditure), were identified as relevant to compare nano-enabled products with similar functionality or nano-enabled product with their conventional counterpart. The indicators are organized within a conceptual scheme comprising benefits (education, employment and professional training) and costs (research and development expenditure and non-fatal accidents). A quantitative MCDA methodology is proposed and applied to a case study according to benefit-cost conceptual scheme. The gaps to be addressed to expand the future development of methodologies to assess social impacts of nano-enabled products are discussed.
Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Danail Hristozov; Ineke Malsch; Peter Saling; Toon Van Harmelen; Tom Ligthart; Antonio Marcomini. Integrating the Social Impacts into Risk Governance of Nanotechnology. Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2016, 51 -70.
AMA StyleVrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Alex Zabeo, Danail Hristozov, Ineke Malsch, Peter Saling, Toon Van Harmelen, Tom Ligthart, Antonio Marcomini. Integrating the Social Impacts into Risk Governance of Nanotechnology. Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2016; ():51-70.
Chicago/Turabian StyleVrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Alex Zabeo; Danail Hristozov; Ineke Malsch; Peter Saling; Toon Van Harmelen; Tom Ligthart; Antonio Marcomini. 2016. "Integrating the Social Impacts into Risk Governance of Nanotechnology." Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship , no. : 51-70.
Protecting workers, consumers and the environment against uncertain risks of manufactured nanomaterials is a global issue. While risk assessment research and risk governance are already well established in Europe and North America, other regions are lagging behind. In Latin America, Brazil has recently joined the EU project on nanoregulation NANoREG and is investing in several projects in nanotoxicology. The situation in other Latin American countries is much more fragmented. The present chapter gives an overview of the current state of the art and future plans in nanosafety research and governance in Latin America based on a bibliometric study, interviews, workshops and literature review that were part of the EU funded project NMP-DeLA www.nmp-dela.eu.
Ineke Malsch; Martina Lindorfer; Isabella Wagner; Maria Lima-Toivanen. International Cooperation on Nanosafety Between Europe and Latin America. Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2016, 71 -92.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Martina Lindorfer, Isabella Wagner, Maria Lima-Toivanen. International Cooperation on Nanosafety Between Europe and Latin America. Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2016; ():71-92.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Martina Lindorfer; Isabella Wagner; Maria Lima-Toivanen. 2016. "International Cooperation on Nanosafety Between Europe and Latin America." Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship , no. : 71-92.
A recent study on the needs of employers in industry and other sectors for graduate employees who have received education in nanotechnology shows a mismatch between the existing offers at European universities and the real needs of the labour market. In particular, industry expects to hire employees with skills in nanosafety, regulation and environmental impact assessment within 5 years. However, universities appear to have difficulties incorporating these topics into their curricula. Here, results of our study are introduced. Moreover, the outlines of interdisciplinary model curricula spanning the bachelor, master, and Ph.D. levels of academic education that can support efforts to address the mismatch between study contents and skills needed in the nanotechnologies job market and minimise its possible impact, are discussed.
Ineke Malsch; Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik; Albert Duschl; Martin Himly; Thomas Zadrozny; Costas Kiparissides; Olga Kammona; Moshe Talesnik; Yoel Rothschild; David Rosenberg; Bartłomiej Szafran; Paula Queipo Rodriguez; Iseult Lynch. Nanoeducation for Industry and Society. Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2016, 93 -115.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik, Albert Duschl, Martin Himly, Thomas Zadrozny, Costas Kiparissides, Olga Kammona, Moshe Talesnik, Yoel Rothschild, David Rosenberg, Bartłomiej Szafran, Paula Queipo Rodriguez, Iseult Lynch. Nanoeducation for Industry and Society. Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2016; ():93-115.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Dorota Rutkowska-Zbik; Albert Duschl; Martin Himly; Thomas Zadrozny; Costas Kiparissides; Olga Kammona; Moshe Talesnik; Yoel Rothschild; David Rosenberg; Bartłomiej Szafran; Paula Queipo Rodriguez; Iseult Lynch. 2016. "Nanoeducation for Industry and Society." Sustainability in Innovation and Entrepreneurship , no. : 93-115.
The significant uncertainties associated with the (eco)toxicological risks of engineered nanomaterials pose challenges to the development of nano-enabled products toward greatest possible societal benefit. This paper argues for the use of risk governance approaches to manage nanotechnology risks and sustainability, and considers the links between these concepts. Further, seven risk assessment and management criteria relevant to risk governance are defined: (a) life cycle thinking, (b) triple bottom line, (c) inclusion of stakeholders, (d) risk management, (e) benefit–risk assessment, (f) consideration of uncertainty, and (g) adaptive response. These criteria are used to compare five well-developed nanotechnology frameworks: International Risk Governance Council framework, Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, Streaming Life Cycle Risk Assessment, Certifiable Nanospecific Risk Management and Monitoring System and LICARA NanoSCAN. A Sustainable Nanotechnology Decision Support System (SUNDS) is proposed to better address current nanotechnology risk assessment and management needs, and makes. Stakeholder needs were solicited for further SUNDS enhancement through a stakeholder workshop that included representatives from regulatory, industry and insurance sectors. Workshop participants expressed the need for the wider adoption of sustainability assessment methods and tools for designing greener nanomaterials.
Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Danail Hristozov; Alex Zabeo; Ineke Malsch; Eamonn McAlea; Finbarr Murphy; Martin Mullins; Toon Van Harmelen; Tom Ligthart; Igor Linkov; Antonio Marcomini. Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2016, 18, 1 -13.
AMA StyleVrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Danail Hristozov, Alex Zabeo, Ineke Malsch, Eamonn McAlea, Finbarr Murphy, Martin Mullins, Toon Van Harmelen, Tom Ligthart, Igor Linkov, Antonio Marcomini. Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2016; 18 (4):1-13.
Chicago/Turabian StyleVrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Danail Hristozov; Alex Zabeo; Ineke Malsch; Eamonn McAlea; Finbarr Murphy; Martin Mullins; Toon Van Harmelen; Tom Ligthart; Igor Linkov; Antonio Marcomini. 2016. "Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance." Journal of Nanoparticle Research 18, no. 4: 1-13.
All stakeholders agree publicly that innovation and governance of emerging technologies should be done responsibly. However, the international debate on who should do what to contribute to this lofty goal is nowhere near a solution. The starting point of this paper is the issue of how and for which reason to engage stakeholders in addition to governments in the international governance of nanotechnology. This article examines the mainly North-American communitarian criticism of political liberalism and the related (mainly European) concept of subsidiarity in order to shed new light on this discussion. The central research question is: Can a communitarian-subsidiarity perspective on the roles of governments, companies and civil society actors that hold a stake in emerging technologies clarify the grounds on which each actor should be expected to contribute to responsible research and innovation at the international level? After selecting some relevant aspects of a communitarian-subsidiarity model for a dialogue society, an analytical framework is proposed. This framework is then applied to the recent international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnology. The outcomes of the analysis are compared to the OECD planning guide on public engagement and outreach in nanotechnology, and indicators for monitoring progress in responsible global innovation are suggested. The main contribution of the selected communitarian-subsidiarity perspective is that it offers philosophical grounds for a return of citizens to the driving seat in cooperative international responsible innovation.
Ineke Malsch. Communitarian and Subsidiarity Perspectives on Responsible Innovation at a Global Level. NanoEthics 2015, 9, 137 -150.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch. Communitarian and Subsidiarity Perspectives on Responsible Innovation at a Global Level. NanoEthics. 2015; 9 (2):137-150.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch. 2015. "Communitarian and Subsidiarity Perspectives on Responsible Innovation at a Global Level." NanoEthics 9, no. 2: 137-150.
The international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnologies engages a wide range of actors with conflicting as well as common interests. It is also characterised by a lack of evidence-based data on uncertain risks of in particular engineered nanomaterials. The present paper aims at deepening understanding of the collective decision making context at international level using the grounded theory approach as proposed by Glaser and Strauss in “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (1967). This starts by discussing relevant concepts from different fields including sociological and political studies of international relations as well as political philosophy and ethics. This analysis of current trends in international law making is taken as starting point for exploring the role that a software decision support tool could play in multi-stakeholder global governance of nanotechnologies. These theoretical ideas are then compared with the current design of the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) under development in the European project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu). Through constant comparison, the ideas are also compared with requirements of different stakeholders as expressed during a user workshop. This allows for highlighting discussion points for further consideration.
Ineke Malsch; Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini; Martin Mullins; Karena Hester; Eamonn McAlea; Finbarr Murphy; Syed A. M. Tofail. Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2015, 17, 1 -19.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Vrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Danail Hristozov, Antonio Marcomini, Martin Mullins, Karena Hester, Eamonn McAlea, Finbarr Murphy, Syed A. M. Tofail. Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2015; 17 (5):1-19.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini; Martin Mullins; Karena Hester; Eamonn McAlea; Finbarr Murphy; Syed A. M. Tofail. 2015. "Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies." Journal of Nanoparticle Research 17, no. 5: 1-19.
Understanding how stakeholders manage risks associated with nanomaterials is a key input to the design of strategies and tools to achieve safe and sustainable nanomanufacturing. The paper presents some results of a study aiming firstly to inform the development of a software decision support tool. Further, we seek also to understand existing tools used by stakeholders as a source of capabilities and potential adaptation into decision support framework and tools. Central research questions of this study are: How is collective decision-making on risk management and sustainable nanomaterials organised? Which aspects are taken into account in this collective decision-making? And what role can a decision support tool play in such decision-making? The paper analyses 13 responses to a questionnaire survey held among participants in a meeting in October 2013 and a series of 27 semi-structured telephone interviews conducted from January until April 2014 with decision-makers from mainly European industry and regulators involved in risk management and sustainable manufacturing of nanomaterials. Findings from the study on the social organisation of collective decision-making, aspects taken into account in decisions and potential role of decision support tools are presented.
Ineke Malsch; Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini. Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environment Systems and Decisions 2015, 35, 54 -75.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Vrishali Subramanian, Elena Semenzin, Danail Hristozov, Antonio Marcomini. Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology. Environment Systems and Decisions. 2015; 35 (1):54-75.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Vrishali Subramanian; Elena Semenzin; Danail Hristozov; Antonio Marcomini. 2015. "Supporting decision-making for sustainable nanotechnology." Environment Systems and Decisions 35, no. 1: 54-75.
Ineke Malsch. Nano-education from a European perspective: nano-training for non-R&D jobs. Nanotechnology Reviews 2014, 3, 1 .
AMA StyleIneke Malsch. Nano-education from a European perspective: nano-training for non-R&D jobs. Nanotechnology Reviews. 2014; 3 (2):1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch. 2014. "Nano-education from a European perspective: nano-training for non-R&D jobs." Nanotechnology Reviews 3, no. 2: 1.
Ineke Malsch. RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION IN PRACTICE – CONCEPTS AND TOOLS. Philosophia Reformata 2013, 78, 47 -63.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch. RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION IN PRACTICE – CONCEPTS AND TOOLS. Philosophia Reformata. 2013; 78 (1):47-63.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch. 2013. "RESPONSIBLE INNOVATION IN PRACTICE – CONCEPTS AND TOOLS." Philosophia Reformata 78, no. 1: 47-63.
Ineke Malsch; Claude Emond. Capability Approach to Nanotechnology for Sustainable Development. Nanotechnology and Human Health 2013, 313 -348.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Claude Emond. Capability Approach to Nanotechnology for Sustainable Development. Nanotechnology and Human Health. 2013; ():313-348.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Claude Emond. 2013. "Capability Approach to Nanotechnology for Sustainable Development." Nanotechnology and Human Health , no. : 313-348.
Ineke Malsch; Claude Emond. Introduction. Nanotechnology and Human Health 2013, 1 -10.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch, Claude Emond. Introduction. Nanotechnology and Human Health. 2013; ():1-10.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch; Claude Emond. 2013. "Introduction." Nanotechnology and Human Health , no. : 1-10.
This article contributes to the debate on governance of emerging technologies, focusing in particular on the international level and taking into account the fact that these technologies are developed through a common effort of different stakeholders including governments, research communities, industry and civil society actors. These issues are explored from the perspective of communitarian ethical criticism of liberal social contract thinking, in order to enhance visibility of the influence collective non-state actors exercise on the development of these technologies. In particular, the effect of different values in the discussion on emerging technologies on the perceived governance options is explored. A paradigm shift from defensive values such as security, risk and human rights to more optimistic values like peace, justice and integrity of creation is proposed and discussed.
Ineke Malsch. Governing Nanotechnology in a Multi-Stakeholder World. NanoEthics 2012, 7, 161 -172.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch. Governing Nanotechnology in a Multi-Stakeholder World. NanoEthics. 2012; 7 (2):161-172.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch. 2012. "Governing Nanotechnology in a Multi-Stakeholder World." NanoEthics 7, no. 2: 161-172.
Responsible Innovation extends the scope of Responsible Care in Industry to the development of new technologies and products. In the upcoming EU HORIZON 2020 programme, Responsible Research & Innovation is expected to be an integral requirement for all EU funded projects. However, there are as yet few working instruments available for putting Responsible Innovation into practice. The presentation will review recent projects where the concept Responsible Innovation and tools for its implementation have been developed. In particular, results of the Dutch programme "Maatschappelijk Verantwoord Innoveren" of the funding council NWO and EU funded projects ObservatoryNano, NanoCode and EthicSchool will be discussed. The presentation will also cover the strategy for a follow-up project EthicSchool www.ethicschool.nl/english organising workshops and in-company training in Responsible Innovation. EthicSchool is an initiative taken by Malsch TechnoValuation, a consultancy in the area of Technology and Society: www.malsch.demon.nl. EthicSchool builds upon a former European project. This original project was funded by the European Union, contract nr. 036745, 01-09-2007-28-02-2009. Partners in this former project were Malsch TechnoValuation, University of Twente, Radboud University (NL) and TU Darmstadt, Germany.
Ineke Malsch. Responsible Innovation in Practice. Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum 2012, 1 .
AMA StyleIneke Malsch. Responsible Innovation in Practice. Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum. 2012; ():1.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch. 2012. "Responsible Innovation in Practice." Proceedings of The 2nd World Sustainability Forum , no. : 1.
This article analyses current trends in and future expectations of nanotechnology and other key enabling technologies for security as well as dual use nanotechnology from the perspective of the ethical Just War Theory (JWT), interpreted as an instrument to increase the threshold for using armed force for solving conflicts. The aim is to investigate the relevance of the JWT to the ethical governance of research. The analysis gives rise to the following results. From the perspective of the JWT, military research should be evaluated with different criteria than research for civil or civil security applications. From a technological perspective, the boundaries between technologies for civil and military applications are fuzzy. Therefore the JWT offers theoretical grounds for making clear distinctions between research for military, civil security and other applications that are not obvious from a purely technological perspective. Different actors bear responsibility for development of the technology than for resorting to armed force for solving conflicts or for use of weapons and military technologies in combat. Different criteria should be used for moral judgment of decisions made by each type of actor in each context. In addition to evaluation of potential consequences of future use of the weapons or military technologies under development, the JWT also prescribes ethical evaluation of the inherent intent and other foreseeable consequences of the development itself of new military technologies.
Ineke Malsch. The Just War Theory and the Ethical Governance of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics 2012, 19, 461 -486.
AMA StyleIneke Malsch. The Just War Theory and the Ethical Governance of Research. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2012; 19 (2):461-486.
Chicago/Turabian StyleIneke Malsch. 2012. "The Just War Theory and the Ethical Governance of Research." Science and Engineering Ethics 19, no. 2: 461-486.