Environmental Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, Massachusetts 01742, United States.
RTI International, 3040 East Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, United States.
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jan 5;50(1):349-58. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03005. Epub 2015 Dec 16.
Emerging technologies present significant challenges to researchers, decision-makers, industry professionals, and other stakeholder groups due to the lack of quantitative risk, benefit, and cost data associated with their use. Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can support early decisions for emerging technologies when data is too sparse or uncertain for traditional risk assessment. It does this by integrating expert judgment with available quantitative and qualitative inputs across multiple criteria to provide relative technology scores. Here, an MCDA framework provides preliminary insights on the suitability of emerging technologies for environmental remediation by comparing nanotechnology and synthetic biology to conventional remediation methods. Subject matter experts provided judgments regarding the importance of criteria used in the evaluations and scored the technologies with respect to those criteria. The results indicate that synthetic biology may be preferred over nanotechnology and conventional methods for high expected benefits and low deployment costs but that conventional technology may be preferred over emerging technologies for reduced risks and development costs. In the absence of field data regarding the risks, benefits, and costs of emerging technologies, structuring evidence-based expert judgment through a weighted hierarchy of topical questions may be helpful to inform preliminary risk governance and guide emerging technology development and policy.
新兴技术由于缺乏与其使用相关的定量风险、效益和成本数据,给研究人员、决策者、行业专业人士和其他利益相关群体带来了重大挑战。多准则决策分析 (MCDA) 可以在数据过于稀疏或不确定,无法进行传统风险评估时,为新兴技术的早期决策提供支持。它通过将专家判断与可用的定量和定性投入相结合,在多个标准下提供相对技术得分,从而实现这一点。在这里,MCDA 框架通过将纳米技术和合成生物学与传统修复方法进行比较,为新兴技术在环境修复中的适用性提供了初步的见解。主题专家就评估中使用的标准的重要性提供了判断,并根据这些标准对技术进行了评分。结果表明,合成生物学在预期效益高和部署成本低的情况下可能优于纳米技术和传统方法,但在风险和开发成本降低的情况下,传统技术可能优于新兴技术。在缺乏关于新兴技术的风险、效益和成本的现场数据的情况下,通过加权主题问题层次结构构建基于证据的专家判断,可能有助于为初步风险治理提供信息,并指导新兴技术的开发和政策。