European Union
International Standa...
NGOs
United Nations
Afghanistan
Aland Islands
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Anguilla
Antarctica
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Botswana
Bouvet Island
Brazil
British Indian Ocean...
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burma (Myanmar)
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde Islands
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Christmas Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Colombia
Comoros
Congo (Brazzaville)
Congo, Democratic Re...
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern Terr...
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guernsey
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Hawai
Heard and McDonald I...
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Isle of Man
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macao
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
North Korea
Northern Marianas Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Palestinian Authority
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn Island
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Reunion
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Samoa
San Marino
Sao Tome & Principe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Georgia
South Korea
Spain
Sri Lanka
St-Barthelemy
St-Martin
St. Helena
St. Kitts & Nevis
St. Lucia
St. Pierre et Miquelon
St. Vincent & the Gr...
Sudan
Suriname
Svalbard & Jan Mayen...
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Taiwan (Republic of ...
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad & Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks & Caicos Islands
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States (Minor...
United States of America
Uruguay
US Virgin Islands
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City State (...
Venezuela
Vietnam
Wallis & Futuna Islands
Western Sahara
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
|
NGOs
| Report Title: |
A Review of Current Practices in the Nanotechnology Industry: Survey of Current Practices in the Nanotechnology Workplace |
| Report ID: |
548 |
| Date: |
11/13/2006 |
| Author: |
International Council on Nanotechnology |
| Report Type: |
Survey |
| URL: |
[ICONNanotechSurvey_indexed_Full%20Reduced.pdf] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Council on Nanotechnology |
| Summary: |
This report contains the survey results of 337 organizations invited to participate in an international survey of current environmental, health, and safety practices in the nanotechnology industry. 64 companies, research labs, and universities responded (a 19% response rate). In general, responding organizations believed that there are special risks to working with nanomaterials, stated that they are implementing nano-specific safety programs, and are actively seeking more information. Reported practices include engineering controls, personal protective equipment, cleanup methods, and waste management. However, few organizations reported that they monitored their workplace for nanoparticle and in the absence of specific guidance, there is no consensus on what precautions and processes to implement. There were also geographical differences noted, with North American organizations more likely to have invested in expensive ventilation systems and European organizations more likely to have conducted toxicological research. |
| Archived Copy: |
ICONNanotechSurvey_indexed_Full Reduced_548_3114.pdf |
 |
|
| Report Title: |
Nanotechnologies and Manufactured Nanomaterials |
| Report ID: |
452 |
| Date: |
2/25/2010 |
| Report Type: |
Resolution |
| URL: |
[Advance%20report%20of%20the%203rd%20African%2.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) |
| Summary: |
Fifty-three African nations met at the third African regional meeting on the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) from January 25-26, 2010 (see report ID 451), where they adopted a non-binding resolution on nanotechnology (contained in Annex II of this document). The resolution follows the "no data, no market" principle similar to that of the EU, and recommends requiring a comprehensive hazard assessment, including toxicology and ecotoxicology data, prior to the introduction of nanomaterials into the market. Recognizing that developing countries often ship waste to African countries lacking the resources for safe management, the resolution also calls for a ban on shipments of waste containing nanomaterials unless the receiving country can adequately manage the waste. It also recognizes the right of countries to accept or reject the use and import of manufactured nanomaterials, and encourages the formation of multi-stakeholder working groups and international partnerships to develop the financial, technical, and regulatory knowledge necessary to safely manage nanomaterial use and disposal. |
| Archived Copy: |
Advance report of the 3rd African reg mtg on SAICM_April 25 2010_452_8810.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
Report of the Third Africa Regional Meeting on the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management |
| Report ID: |
451 |
| Date: |
2/25/2010 |
| Report Type: |
General Report |
| URL: |
[Advance%20report%20of%20the%203rd%20African%2.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) |
| Summary: |
The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) is a policy framework to promote chemical safety worldwide, adopted by the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM). This document is an advance report of the activities of African governments who met on January 28-29 to conduct the third African regional meeting on SAICM. Nanotechnology was an emerging policy issue at the meeting, and a regional awareness-raising workshop had been previously held on January 25-26, 2010, held in conjunction with the SAICM meeting by OECD and UNITAR. Following the spirit of ICCM's Resolution II/4 (adopted at the ICCM’s second session in Geneva, 2009), the participants at this regional meeting adopted a resolution to ensure safe handling of nanomaterials. Other work at this meeting in the area of nanotechnology consisted primarily of raising awareness of new issues and ensuring that developing countries were adequately engaged in future ICCM sessions (for the third ICCM session, the OECD had encouraged greater attention to their nanotechnology-related concerns). |
| Archived Copy: |
Advance report of the 3rd African reg mtg on SAICM_April 25 2010_451_5906.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology, & Public Opinion: A Report Of Findings Based On A National Survey Among Adults |
| Report ID: |
427 |
| Date: |
9/29/2009 |
| Author: |
Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. |
| Report Type: |
Public Polling |
| URL: |
[Default.htm] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies |
| Summary: |
Nanotechnology and synthetic biology continue to develop as two of the most exciting areas of scientific discovery, but research has shown that the public is almost completely unaware of the science and its applications. A groundbreaking poll of 1,001 U.S. adults conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) found 90 percent of Americans think that the public should be better informed about the development of cutting-edge technologies.
The poll, which was conducted by the same firm that produces the well-known NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls, revealed that the proportion of adults who say they have heard a lot or some about synthetic biology more than doubled in the past year (from 9 percent to 22 percent). Awareness of nanotechnology (30 percent have heard a lot or some) increased slightly since last year, putting it back at the same level measured in 2006.
|
| Archived Copy: |
nano_synbio_09_427_9232.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
A Report for IRGC: Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics |
| Report ID: |
162 |
| Date: |
9/1/2008 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
General Report |
| URL: |
[IRGC_Report_FINAL_For_Web.pdf] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Summary: |
In 2005, the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) initiated a project on risk governance in nanotechnology. This report on risk governance of nanotechnology in food and cosmetics is part of a series of reports and white papers stemming from this project. The IRGC investigated applications of nanotechnology in food and cosmetics, reviewed current risk assessments of these applications, identified gaps in global risk governance, and explored a voluntary certification program for nanoparticle-containing materials. A workshop was held in April 2008, and the subsequent workshop briefing paper was developed into this report. Current nanoparticle hazards are uncertain and despite the recommendations of occupational protection measures, there is a lack of trust between stakeholders. The report discusses two approaches to risk assessment: nanoparticle safety and whole product safety. Regulators in the US and Europe have chosen a whole product approach; however, main NGOs criticize this approach as missing the point. This report encourages a proactive initiative by industry to implement voluntary agreements so as to best gain consumer trust in nanoparticle food and cosmetic products. |
| Archived Copy: |
Michael Vincent IRGC (2008), Food and Cosmetics_162_4517.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
White Paper on Risk Governance: Towards an Integrative Approach |
| Report ID: |
161 |
| Date: |
7/1/2005 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
White Paper |
| URL: |
[IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_versi.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Summary: |
In 2004, the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) undertook a project, Basic Concepts of Risk Characterisation and Risk Governance. This white paper is the first deliverable of this project, and presents a integrated analytic framework for risk governance. This framework is not specific to nanotechnology, and integrates scientific, economic, social, and cultural aspects. It distinguishes between simple, complex, uncertain, and ambiguous risk problems, and provides differing strategies for each type of risk based upon its categorization. Risk assessment is a three-step process: pre-assessment, appraisal, and management. This framework also addresses risk communication and wider governance issues such as different regulatory styles across countries. |
| Archived Copy: |
Michael Vincent IRGC (2006), White Paper on Risk Governance - Towards_161_8965.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance |
| Report ID: |
160 |
| Date: |
6/1/2006 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
White Paper |
| URL: |
[IRGC_white_paper_2_PDF_final_version-2.pdf] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Summary: |
In 2005, the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) undertook a comprehensive project, Addressing the need for adequate risk governance approaches at the national and international levels in the development of nanotechnology and nanoscale products. Following two workshops, the IRGC authored this white paper, which contains recommendations for risk governance in nanotechnology. It suggests a regulatory framework which anticipates four generations of nanotechnology products (steady function nanostructures, active function nanostructures, systems of nanosystems, and heterogeneous molecular nanosystems). The proposed framework integrates a scientific risk-benefit assessment, addressing environmental, health, legal, ethical, and social issues. It attempts to resolve the educational gap, political and security issues, and human development issues of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology development is divided into two frames of reference, with first generation nanoparticles being in Frame 1 and second through fourth generation nanoparticles (some which do not yet exist), being in Frame 2. The IRGC believes that these frames possess different risk perceptions and will require separate identification of risks and concerns |
| Archived Copy: |
Michael Vincent IRGC (2006), White Paper on Nanotechnology Risk Governance_160_2579.pdf |
|
|
| Report Title: |
Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: Volume D, The Role of NGOs |
| Report ID: |
146 |
| Date: |
4/1/2006 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
Survey |
| URL: |
[Survey_on_Nanotechnology_Governance_-_Part_D_.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
IRGC Working Group on Nanotechnology |
| Summary: |
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is an independent organization which focuses on emerging risks to human health, the environment, and society. The objective of the IRGC Nanotechnology Risk Governance project is to develop frameworks for the risk governance of nanotechnologyto provide recommendations to decision makers. This document is the fourth of a four-volume series supporting this project. In preparation for a workshop on January 30-31, 2006 and a conference on July 6-7, 2006, surveys were sent to twenty-five NGOs. These surveys asked a variety of questions regarding nanotechnology, such as the organizations interest in nanotechnology research, area of focus, collaboration with other institutions, etc. This document contains the survey responses in both condensed and verbatim forms. The NGOs surveyed believed that it was important for community dialogues and debates to take place for addressing risk. They also noticed a tendency for governments to focus on environmental and health issues to the neglect of ethical and legal issues. |
| See Also: |
143, 144, 145 |
|
|
| Report Title: |
Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: Volume C, The Role of Risk Research Organizations |
| Report ID: |
145 |
| Date: |
6/1/2006 |
| Author: |
International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) |
| Report Type: |
Survey |
| URL: |
[Survey_on_Nanotechnology_Governance_-_Part_C_.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
IRGC Working Group on Nanotechnology |
| Summary: |
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is an independent organization which focuses on emerging risks to human health, the environment, and society. The objective of the IRGC Nanotechnology Risk Governance project is to develop frameworks for the risk governance of nanotechnologyto provide recommendations to decision makers. This document is the third of a four-volume series supporting this project. In preparation for a workshop on January 30-31, 2006 and a conference on July 6-7, 2006, surveys were sent to fifteen research organizations. These surveys asked a variety of questions regarding nanotechnology, such as the organizations interest in nanotechnology research, governance gap identification, and measures needed to address risk. This document contains the survey responses in both condensed and verbatim forms. Respondents were largely divided into two groups: Those examining ethical, legal, and social issues, and those examining environment, health, and safety issues. The most important factors cited for risk reduction were collaboration and communication with other sectors such as NGOs. |
| See Also: |
143, 144, 146 |
|
|
| Report Title: |
Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: Volume B, The Role of Industry |
| Report ID: |
144 |
| Date: |
4/1/2006 |
| Report Type: |
Survey |
| URL: |
[Survey_on_Nanotechnology_Governance_-_Part_B_.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
IRGC Working Group on Nanotechnology |
| Summary: |
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is an independent organization which focuses on emerging risks to human health, the environment, and society. The objective of the IRGC Nanotechnology Risk Governance project is to develop frameworks for the risk governance of nanotechnologyto provide recommendations to decision makers. This document is the second of a four-volume series supporting this project. In preparation for a workshop on January 30-31, 2006 and a conference on July 6-7, 2006, surveys were sent to 112 participants, including multinationals, nanotechnology start-ups, and standardization organizations. These surveys asked a variety of questions regarding nanotechnology, including areas of research, organizational focus, industrial connections, etc. This document contains the survey responses in both condensed and verbatim forms. These surveys had a lower response rate than those sent to governments (volume A). It is suspected that confidentiality issues may have affected the response rate. Respondents largely agreed that current knowledge is insufficient for creating new regulations, any new regulations should be careful not to stifle innovation, and that prolonged regulatory uncertainty would harm the industry. |
| See Also: |
143, 145, 146 |
|
|
| Report Title: |
Survey on Nanotechnology Governance: Volume A, The Role of Government |
| Report ID: |
143 |
| Date: |
12/1/2005 |
| Author: |
IRGC Nanotechnology Risk Governance Project |
| Report Type: |
Survey |
| URL: |
[Survey_on_Nanotechnology_Governance_-_Part_A_.....] |
| Country: |
NGOs |
| Organization: |
IRGC Working Group on Nanotechnology |
| Summary: |
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) is an independent organization which focuses on emerging risks to human health, the environment, and society. The objective of the IRGC Nanotechnology Risk Governance project is to develop frameworks for the risk governance of nanotechnologyto provide recommendations to decision makers. This document is one of a four-volume series supporting this project. In preparation for a workshop on January 30-31, 2006 and a conference on July 6-7, 2006, surveys were sent to sixteen countries and/or economies. These surveys asked a variety of questions regarding nanotechnology, including R&D, regulations, institutions, governing approach, etc. This document contains the survey responses in both condensed and verbatim forms. Respondents indicated that they are encouraging collaboration between industry and academia. Most have established nanotechnology-specific bodies within their science and technology sector to provide policy guidance. |
| See Also: |
144, 145, 146 |
|
|
|