Hansen Steffen Foss
Department of Environmental Engineering, NanoDTU, Technical University of Denmark, Building 113, 2800 Kgs, Lyngby, Denmark.
J Nanopart Res. 2010 Aug;12(6):1959-1970. doi: 10.1007/s11051-010-0006-3. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
In order to facilitate stakeholder discussions on how to regulate nanotechnology, the opensource program multicriteria mapping (MCM) was used to structure 26 interviews with stakeholders in the USA. MCM offers a systematic part quantitative, part qualitative approach to clarify why some regulatory options (bans, moratoriums, voluntary measures, etc.) were deemed to be acceptable/unacceptable by various stakeholders and which criteria stakeholders used to evaluate the different regulatory options. Adopting an incremental approach and implementing a new regulatory framework was evaluated as the best options whereas a complete ban and no additional regulation of nanotechnology were found to be the least favorable. Criteria applied differed substantially among stakeholders and included social, ethical, regulatory, environmental, and health issues. Opinions on future regulation seem far less polarized than expected and it seems that stakeholders would welcome a combination of voluntary measures, an incremental approach and forming of a new regulatory framework. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11051-010-0006-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
为了便于利益相关者讨论如何监管纳米技术，采用了开源程序多标准映射（MCM）来构建对美国26名利益相关者的访谈。MCM提供了一种系统的方法，部分是定量的，部分是定性的，以阐明为何某些监管选项（禁令、暂停、自愿措施等）被不同利益相关者视为可接受/不可接受，以及利益相关者用于评估不同监管选项的标准。采用渐进式方法并实施新的监管框架被评估为最佳选择，而全面禁止和不对纳米技术进行额外监管则被认为是最不利的。利益相关者应用的标准差异很大，包括社会、伦理、监管、环境和健康问题。对未来监管的意见似乎远没有预期的那么两极分化，利益相关者似乎欢迎自愿措施、渐进式方法和形成新监管框架的组合。电子补充材料：本文的在线版本（doi:10.1007/s11051-010-0006-3）包含补充材料，授权用户可以获取。
