Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies

Exploring the Impact of Tensions in Stakeholder Norms on Designing for Value Change: The Case of Biosafety in Industrial Biotechnology

Synthetic biologists design and engineer organisms for a better and more sustainable future. While the manifold prospects are encouraging, concerns about the uncertain risks of genome editing affect public opinion as well as local regulations. As a consequence, biosafety and associated concepts, such as the Safe-by-design framework and genetic safeguard technologies, have gained notoriety and occupy a central position in the conversation about genetically modified organisms. Yet, as regulatory interest and academic research in genetic safeguard technologies advance, the implementation in industrial biotechnology, a sector that is already employing engineered microorganisms, lags behind. The main goal of this work is to explore the utilization of genetic safeguard technologies for designing biosafety in industrial biotechnology. Based on our results, we posit that biosafety is a case of a changing value, by means of further specification of how to realize biosafety. Our investigation is inspired by the Value Sensitive Design framework, to investigate scientific and technological choices in their appropriate social context. Our findings discuss stakeholder norms for biosafety, reasonings about genetic safeguards, and how these impact the practice of designing for biosafety. We show that tensions between stakeholders occur at the level of norms, and that prior stakeholder alignment is crucial for value specification to happen in practice. Finally, we elaborate in different reasonings about genetic safeguards for biosafety and conclude that, in absence of a common multi-stakeholder effort, the differences in informal biosafety norms and the disparity in biosafety thinking could end up leading to design requirements for compliance instead of for safety.

The Promise of Emergent Nanobiotechnologies for In Vivo Applications and Implications for Safety and Security

Nanotechnology, the multidisciplinary field based on the exploitation of the unique physicochemical properties of nanoparticles (NPs) and nanoscale materials, has opened a new realm of possibilities for biological research and biomedical applications. The development and deployment of mRNA-NP vaccines for COVID-19, for example, may revolutionize vaccines and therapeutics. However, regulatory and ethical frameworks that protect the health and safety of the global community and environment are lagging, particularly for nanotechnology geared toward biological applications (ie, bionanotechnology). In this article, while not comprehensive, we attempt to illustrate the breadth and promise of bionanotechnology developments, and how they may present future safety and security challenges. Specifically, we address current advancements to streamline the development of engineered NPs for in vivo applications and provide discussion on nano–bio interactions, NP in vivo delivery, nanoenhancement of human performance, nanomedicine, and the impacts of NPs on human health and the environment.

(Re)Conceptualizing decision-making tools in a risk governance framework for emerging technologies-the case of nanomaterials

The utility of decision-making tools for the risk governance of nanotechnology is at the core of this paper. Those working in nanotechnology risk management have been prolific in creating such tools, many derived from European FP7 and H2020-funded projects. What is less clear is how such tools might assist the overarching ambition of creating a fair system of risk governance. In this paper, we reflect upon the role that tools might and should play in any system of risk governance. With many tools designed for the risk governance of this emerging technology falling into disuse, this paper provides an overview of extant tools and addresses their potential shortcomings. We also posit the need for a data readiness tool. With the EUs NMP13 family of research consortia about to report to the Commission on ways forward in terms of risk governance of this domain, this is a timely intervention on an important element of any risk governance system.

Responsible Learning About Risks Arising from Emerging Biotechnologies

Genetic engineering techniques (e.g., CRISPR-Cas) have led to an increase in biotechnological developments, possibly leading to uncertain risks. The European Union aims to anticipate these by embedding the Precautionary Principle in its regulation for risk management. This principle revolves around taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty and provides guidelines to take precautionary measures when dealing with important values such as health or environmental safety. However, when dealing with 'new' technologies, it can be hard for risk managers to estimate the societal or environmental consequences of a biotechnology that might arise once introduced or embedded in society due to that these sometimes do not comply with the established norms within risk assessment. When there is insufficient knowledge, stakeholders active in early developmental stages (e.g., researchers) could provide necessary knowledge by conducting research specifically devoted to what these unknown risks could entail. In theory, the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach could enable such a controlled learning environment to gradually identify what these uncertain risks are, to which we refer as responsible learning. In this paper, we argue that three conditions need to be present to enable such an environment: (1) regulatory flexibility, (2) co-responsibility between researchers and regulators, and (3) openness towards all stakeholders. If one of these conditions would not be present, the SbD approach cannot be implemented to its fullest potential, thereby limiting an environment for responsible learning and possibly leaving current policy behind to anticipate uncertain risks.

Risk Governance of Emerging Technologies Demonstrated in Terms of its Applicability to Nanomaterials

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.

Interventions to help coral reefs under global change-A complex decision challenge

Climate change is impacting coral reefs now. Recent pan-tropical bleaching events driven by unprecedented global heat waves have shifted the playing field for coral reef management and policy. While best-practice conventional management remains essential, it may no longer be enough to sustain coral reefs under continued climate change. Nor will climate change mitigation be sufficient on its own. Committed warming and projected reef decline means solutions must involve a portfolio of mitigation, best-practice conventional management and coordinated restoration and adaptation measures involving new and perhaps radical interventions, including local and regional cooling and shading, assisted coral evolution, assisted gene flow, and measures to support and enhance coral recruitment. We propose that proactive research and development to expand the reef management toolbox fast but safely, combined with expedient trialling of promising interventions is now urgently needed, whatever emissions trajectory the world follows. We discuss the challenges and opportunities of embracing new interventions in a race against time, including their risks and uncertainties. Ultimately, solutions to the climate challenge for coral reefs will require consideration of what society wants, what can be achieved technically and economically, and what opportunities we have for action in a rapidly closing window. Finding solutions that work for coral reefs and people will require exceptional levels of coordination of science, management and policy, and open engagement with society. It will also require compromise, because reefs will change under climate change despite our best interventions. We argue that being clear about society's priorities, and understanding both the opportunities and risks that come with an expanded toolset, can help us make the most of a challenging situation. We offer a conceptual model to help reef managers frame decision problems and objectives, and to guide effective strategy choices in the face of complexity and uncertainty.

Safe-by-Design: Stakeholders' Perceptions and Expectations of How to Deal with Uncertain Risks of Emerging Biotechnologies in the Netherlands

Advanced gene editing techniques such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat (CRISPR)/Cas have increased the pace of developments in the field of industrial biotechnology. Such techniques imply new possibilities when working with living organisms, possibly leading to uncertain risks. In the Netherlands, current policy fails to address these uncertain risks because risk classification is determined process-wise (i.e., genetically modified organism [GMO] and non-GMO), there is a strong focus on quantifiable risks, and the linearity within current governance (science-policy-society) hinders iterative communication between stakeholders, leaving limited room to anticipate uncertainties at an early stage of development. A suggested concept to overcome these shortcomings is the Safe-by-Design (SbD) approach, which, theoretically, allows stakeholders to iteratively incorporate safety measures throughout a technology's development process, creating a dynamic environment for the anticipation of uncertain risks. Although this concept originates from chemical engineering and is already widely applied in nanotechnology, for the field of biotechnology, there is no agreed upon definition yet. To explore the possibilities of SbD for future governance of biotechnology, we should gain insight in how various stakeholders perceive notions of risk, safety, and inherent safety, and what this implies for the applicability of SbD for risk governance concerning industrial biotechnology. Our empirical research reveals three main themes: (1) diverging expectations with regard to safety and risks, and to establish an acceptable level of risk; (2) different applications of SbD and inherent safety, namely, product- and process-wise; and (3) unclarity in allocating responsibilities to stakeholders in the development process of a biotechnology and within society.

Workshop Report: Governance of Emerging Nanotechnology Risks in the Semiconductor Industry

Assessment of risk in the field of nanotechnology requires an integrated multidisciplinary approach due to the complex and cross-disciplinary framework for materials and activities at the nanoscale. The present paper summarizes the workshop "Governance of emerging nano-risk in the semiconductor industry" held on April 26, 2018 in Brussels, Belgium. The event targeted representatives of stakeholder communities involved in the risk assessment and governance of the engineered nanomaterials. Nanoelectronics was selected as an impactful use case for risk assessment approaches and comparison to bottom-up nanofabrication. The workshop outlined key data gaps impeding successful assessment of risks associated with nanoparticle use in the industry, using the semiconductor industry as an example. The workshop outlined mitigation strategies informing future regulatory decisions and identified some directions for future efforts.

Building biosecurity for synthetic biology

The fast-paced field of synthetic biology is fundamentally changing the global biosecurity framework. Current biosecurity regulations and strategies are based on previous governance paradigms for pathogen-oriented security, recombinant DNA research, and broader concerns related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many scholarly discussions and biosecurity practitioners are therefore concerned that synthetic biology outpaces established biosafety and biosecurity measures to prevent deliberate and malicious or inadvertent and accidental misuse of synthetic biology's processes or products. This commentary proposes three strategies to improve biosecurity: Security must be treated as an investment in the future applicability of the technology; social scientists and policy makers should be engaged early in technology development and forecasting; and coordination among global stakeholders is necessary to ensure acceptable levels of risk.

Risk Perceptions and Safety Cultures in the Handling of Nanomaterials in Academia and Industry

OBJECTIVES

Work and research with nanomaterials (NMs) has primarily focused on innovation, toxicity, governance, safety management tools, and public perceptions. The aim of this study was to identify academia and industry occupational safety and health (OSH) managers' perceptions and handling of NMs, in relation to safety culture.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were carried out with OSH managers at six academic institutions and six industrial companies. The interview statements were coded into five topics regarding NMs: risk comprehension, information gathering, actions, communication, and compliance. The statements were then coded according to a five-step safety culture maturity model reflecting increasing occupational safety maturity from passive, to reactive, active, proactive, and exemplary occupational safety.

RESULTS

The safety culture maturity of the academic institutions were primarily active and proactive, whereas the industry group were primarily active and reactive. None of the statements were rated as exemplary, with the majority reflecting an active safety culture. The topics varied from a passive approach of having no focus on NMs and regarding risks as a part of the job, to applying proactive measures in the design, production, application, and waste management phases. Communication and introduction to OSH issues regarding NMs as well as compliance provided challenges in both academia and industry, given the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity of students/staff and employees. Workplace leaders played a crucial role in establishing a legitimate approach to working safely with NMs, however, the currently available OSH information for NMs were described as insufficient, impractical, and inaccessible. There was an embedded problem in solely relying on safety data sheets, which were often not nanospecific, as this may have led to underprotection.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for more structured, up-to-date, easily accessible, and user-friendly tools and information regarding toxicity and threshold limit values, relevant OSH promotion information, legislation, and other rules. The study underscores the need for politicians and engineers to collaborate with communication experts and both natural and social scientists in effectively framing information on NMs. Such a collaboration should allow for flexible deployment of multilevel and integrated safety culture initiatives to support sustainable nanotechnology and operational excellence.

AMICAI: A Method Based on Risk Analysis to Integrate Responsible Research and Innovation into the Work of Research and Innovation Practitioners

The integration of ethics into the day-to-day work of research and innovation (R&I) is an important but difficult challenge. However, with the Aachen method for identification, classification and risk analysis of innovation-based problems (AMICAI) an approach from an engineering perspective is presented that enables the integration of ethical, legal and social implications into the day-to-day work of R&I practitioners. AMICAI appears in particular capable of providing a procedural guidance for R&I practitioners based on a method established in engineering science, breaking down the object of consideration into partial aspects and prioritizing the innovation-based problems in dependence of potential risk. This enables the user to apply AMICAI continuously during all stages of the research and development (R&D) process and to analyze and choose between certain sociotechnical alternatives. In this way, problems that affect ethical, legal, and social aspects can be understood, reflected and considered in the mostly technically focused R&D process. The paper gives a general guidance about AMICAI by describing principles and assumptions, providing the steps of analysis and application aids, giving an example application, explaining the necessary adjustments of AMICAI compared to the methodical basis of failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis and discussing the advantages and limits. AMICAI's simple applications can stimulate interdisciplinary cooperation in the R&D process and be a starting point for the development of an "open RRI risk analysis platform" allowing society to evaluate innovation-based problems.

A Definition and Categorization System for Advanced Materials: The Foundation for Risk-Informed Environmental Health and Safety Testing

Novel materials with unique or enhanced properties relative to conventional materials are being developed at an increasing rate. These materials are often referred to as advanced materials (AdMs) and they enable technological innovations that can benefit society. Despite their benefits, however, the unique characteristics of many AdMs, including many nanomaterials, are poorly understood and may pose environmental safety and occupational health (ESOH) risks that are not readily determined by traditional risk assessment methods. To assess these risks while keeping up with the pace of development, technology developers and risk assessors frequently employ risk-screening methods that depend on a clear definition for the materials that are to be assessed (e.g., engineered nanomaterial) as well as a method for binning materials into categories for ESOH risk prioritization. The term advanced material lacks a consensus definition and associated categorization or grouping system for risk screening. In this study, we aim to establish a practitioner-driven definition for AdMs and a practitioner-validated framework for categorizing AdMs into conceptual groupings based on material characteristics. Results from multiple workshops and interviews with practitioners provide consistent differentiation between AdMs and conventional materials, offer functional nomenclature for application science, and provide utility for future ESOH risk assessment prioritization. The definition and categorization framework established here serve as a first step in determining if and when there is a need for specific ESOH and regulatory screening for an AdM as well as the type and extent of risk-related information that should be collected or generated for AdMs and AdM-enabled technologies.

Risk Governance of Nanomaterials: Review of Criteria and Tools for Risk Communication, Evaluation, and Mitigation

Nanotechnologies have been increasingly used in industrial applications and consumer products across several sectors, including construction, transportation, energy, and healthcare. The widespread application of these technologies has raised concerns regarding their environmental, health, societal, and economic impacts. This has led to the investment of enormous resources in Europe and beyond into the development of tools to facilitate the risk assessment and management of nanomaterials, and to inform more robust risk governance process. In this context, several risk governance frameworks have been developed. In our study, we present and review those, and identify a set of criteria and tools for risk evaluation, mitigation, and communication, the implementation of which can inform better risk management decision-making by various stakeholders from e.g., industry, regulators, and the civil society. Based on our analysis, we recommend specific methods from decision science and information technologies that can improve the existing risk governance tools so that they can communicate, evaluate, and mitigate risks more transparently, taking stakeholder perspectives and expert opinion into account, and considering all relevant criteria in establishing the risk-benefit balance of these emerging technologies to enable more robust decisions about the governance of their risks.

Gene drives as a new quality in GMO releases-a comparative technology characterization

Compared to previous releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which were primarily plants, gene drives represent a paradigm shift in the handling of GMOs: Current regulation of the release of GMOs assumes that for specific periods of time a certain amount of GMOs will be released in a particular region. However, now a type of genetic technology arises whose innermost principle lies in exceeding these limits-the transformation or even eradication of wild populations. The invasive character of gene drives demands a thorough analysis of their functionalities, reliability and potential impact. But such investigations are hindered by the fact that an experimental field test would hardly be reversible. Therefore, an appropriate prospective assessment is of utmost importance for an estimation of the risk potential associated with the application of gene drives. This work is meant to support the inevitable characterization of gene drives by a comparative approach of prospective technology assessment with a focus on potential sources of risk. Therein, the hazard and exposure potential as well as uncertainties with regard to the performance of synthetic gene drives are addressed. Moreover, a quantitative analysis of their invasiveness should enable a differentiated evaluation of their power to transform wild populations.

Co-evolution of physical and social sciences in synthetic biology

Emerging technologies research often covers various perspectives in disciplines and research areas ranging from hard sciences, engineering, policymaking, and sociology. However, the interrelationship between these different disciplinary domains, particularly the physical and social sciences, often occurs many years after a technology has matured and moved towards commercialization. Synthetic biology may serve an exception to this idea, where, since 2000, the physical and the social sciences communities have increasingly framed their research in response to various perspectives in biological engineering, risk assessment needs, governance challenges, and the social implications that the technology may incur. This paper reviews a broad collection of synthetic biology literature from 2000-2016, and demonstrates how the co-development of physical and social science communities has grown throughout synthetic biology's earliest stages of development. Further, this paper indicates that future co-development of synthetic biology scholarship will assist with significant challenges of the technology's risk assessment, governance, and public engagement needs, where an interdisciplinary approach is necessary to foster sustainable, risk-informed, and societally beneficial technological advances moving forward.

An inventory of ready-to-use and publicly available tools for the safety assessment of nanomaterials

Legislation addressing environmental, health and safety aspects of nanomaterials in consumer products and ensuring their safe use is being continuously updated in the European Union and globally. This leads to a growing need for tools to implement this developing legislation. A freely accessible inventory of ready-to-use and publicly available tools that together cover the tasks within a nanomaterial safety assessment process was built in the presented work. This inventory is a unique metadata set in Excel® format: the 'NANoREG Toolbox', which assembles information needed for selecting and accessing instruments that meet specific goals. The recorded tools are categorised according to their purpose, type and regulatory status. The Toolbox covers an unprecedented and broad range of over 500 current tools, developed in Europe and beyond. While NANoREG focussed on safety assessment under the EU Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), the instruments in the Toolbox are relevant and useful for nanomaterial safety assessments worldwide.

A critical juncture for synthetic biology: Lessons from nanotechnology could inform public discourse and further development of synthetic biology

Since its start, synthetic biology has been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate by the public and social scientists. To avoid public resistance and overreaching regulation, the field could learn from how actors in nanotechnology engaged in debate.