Nanotechnology - Nanotech Regulatory Document Archive - Arizona ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The UK Nanotechnology Engagement Group Research different stakeholders’ expectations of public engagement with nanotechnologies. Map current public engagement activities related to nanotechnologies in the UK and internationally. Identify lessons from other engagement activities. Analyse how the lessons learned relate back to the range of interested audiences and the spectrum of engagement activities undertaken. Communicate the learning to government, other stakeholders, nanoscience researchers, and the wider public. NEG – The Team Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008) Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008) 224 The UK Nanotechnology Engagement Group Established in 2005 General History: Response to a growing concern about the lack of trust between science and society (cf BSE, GM) New approach to risk communication Build trust in science policy and policy making ‘upstream engagement’ Nanohistory: RS/RAEng report August 2005: UK Government published Outline Programme for Public Engagement on Nanotechnologies (OPPEN) Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008) Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008)
NEG – The main Results Recommendations for science policy: Government should spend money on nanotechnologies provided that priority is given to funding research and developments that contribute to a wider social good, such as new medical innovations and sustainable technologies. Government should continue to identify the potential risks of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials, and create new regulation and laws for labelling based on such research. Government should take steps to ensure that the governance and funding of nanotechnologies is made more transparent NEG – The main Results Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008) Recommendations for public engagement policy (continued): Decision-making institutions to pilot action-learning networks to share and maintain capacity internally. Public engagement to be included as a course at the civil-service college. Scientific institutions to formally recognise public engagement. Science-funding bodies to stress the importance of dialogue-focused public engagement, alongside one-way engagement approaches such as public lectures. Organisations funding or delivering public engagement to explore new tools for communication of public engagement outputs and outcomes to large and diverse audiences. Organisations funding or delivering public engagement to explore options for involving larger numbers of people in deliberations about science and technology. Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008) 225 NEG – The main Results Recommendations for public engagement policy: A comprehensive Impacts Assessment Framework for public engagement in science and technology to be agreed by authorities and other stakeholders. Establish clarity among funders, organisers and participants on the purpose of a public engagement initiative, and create strategies to meet those needs. Institutional staff involved in funding or responding to public engagement activities to allocate sufficient time and resources to engage directly with the activities at every stage of the process. Institutions to respond formally to public engagement processes to explain what they are, and are not, taking forward and why. Decision-making institutions to offer tailored support such as training, coaching, and mentoring of staff who are involved in, or affected by, public engagement activities. NEG – The main Results Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008) Recommendations for public engagement policy (continued): Organisations funding or delivering public engagement to actively support innovation in public engagement through a focus on desired outcomes, not processes. Encourage collaborative innovation by formation of project teams that include public engagement practitioners, scientists, and policy makers to maximise innovation and build institutional capacity. Societal Engagement Round Table 3 rd International Dialogue, 11 th -12 th March 2008 © Nanotechnology Industries Association (2008)
Page 1 and 2:
Report ________________________ Thi
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. FOREWORD......
Page 5 and 6:
The final aim of this dialogue is t
Page 7 and 8:
• Enabling means, debating the pr
Page 9:
17:10 Debate: How to achieve a mean
Page 13 and 14:
Since the first International Dialo
Page 15 and 16:
First International Dialogue on Res
Page 17:
The role of the International Dialo
Page 21:
SPECIAL LECTURE The new Russian pro
Page 24 and 25:
Russian Research Centre Kurchatov I
Page 26 and 27:
Nanotechnology Russian Research Cen
Page 28 and 29:
EXAMPLES OF THE FINAL PRODUCTS OF N
Page 30 and 31:
30 2. Moving of the monomolecular l
Page 32 and 33:
32 4. Moving of the next layers
Page 34 and 35:
ASTRID MAX S.-Petersburg Gatchina D
Page 36 and 37:
AN UNIQUE EXPERIMENTAL BASE AND COM
Page 39:
PLENARY SESSION 1 NANOTECHNOLOGY GO
Page 42 and 43:
~ 2000 Perceived Higher Risks Areas
Page 44 and 45:
African colleagues, elaborated on a
Page 46 and 47:
I do believe that the International
Page 48 and 49:
assessment, and to rely on database
Page 50 and 51:
Giving this panel the responsibilit
Page 52 and 53:
Dear colleagues, most of you have m
Page 55:
Expert Consultation - Objectives (D
Page 58 and 59:
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical
Page 60 and 61:
Page 63 and 64:
Contributing to the 2020 Goal Inter
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
ROUND TABLE “WHERE SYNERGY CAN BE
Page 75 and 76:
Dialogue on Responsible Research an
Page 77 and 78:
The same results and recommendation
Page 79 and 80:
Establishment of ICS research and t
Page 81 and 82:
WHO-EU Project on “ENHANCED POLIC
Page 83:
ROUND TABLE 2 CODES OF CONDUCTS Eur
Page 86 and 87:
3- Why a Code of Conduct for Respon
Page 88 and 89:
4- The Code of Conduct (VI) ACTIONS
Page 90 and 91:
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 07/02/
Page 92 and 93:
2. That Member States endeavour to
Page 94 and 95:
Naturally occurring nano-objects ar
Page 96 and 97:
4.1.5 Given its potential, Member S
Page 98 and 99:
Application of the precautionary pr
Page 100 and 101:
Who is involved? ‘Founding partn
Page 102 and 103:
Principle Four - Public Health, Saf
Page 104 and 105:
104
Page 106 and 107:
A Code of Conduct - Why? Large inno
Page 108 and 109:
Thank you for your attention! Zinc
Page 110 and 111:
110
Page 112 and 113:
112
Page 114 and 115:
Period Era Impact Results 1920’s
Page 116 and 117:
Objectives To explore appropriate a
Page 118 and 119:
NANOTECHNOLOGY, OPPORTUNITY FOR DEV
Page 120 and 121:
State of the art on Nanotechnology
Page 122 and 123:
Corredor de Puertos Interiores en l
Page 124 and 125:
Tab. 12 - Flujo de Caja Neto de las
Page 126 and 127:
126
Page 128 and 129:
Climate Change Education Culture &
Page 130 and 131:
India Visit : 2- 6 April 2007 • 6
Page 132 and 133:
Nanotoxicity Studies Risk Assessme
Page 134 and 135:
134
Page 136 and 137:
Argentinean-Brazilian Argentinean B
Page 138 and 139:
Thank you for your attention! alama
Page 140 and 141:
140
Page 142 and 143:
Outer Liaison ANF Nano-standardizat
Page 144 and 145:
5 7 WPMN • Established in Septemb
Page 146 and 147:
13 Project 7: Alternative Methods i
Page 148 and 149:
…have encouraged public R&D inves
Page 150 and 151:
The WPN WPN established by the CSTP
Page 152 and 153:
152
Page 154 and 155:
There are over 560 ISO standards an
Page 156 and 157:
International Organization for Stan
Page 158 and 159:
ISO/IEC Guides ISO/IEC Guide 7, Gu
Page 160 and 161:
Other internationally relevant stan
Page 162 and 163:
TC 229 Current work programme - WG3
Page 164 and 165:
PD 6699-2 Why standards for nanotec
Page 166 and 167:
Y01N Label in European Classificati
Page 168 and 169:
Y01N Label Y01N2 Y01N4 Y01N6 Y01N8
Page 170 and 171:
Years 2000 2005 Miniaturisation 10n
Page 172 and 173:
Thank you for your attention! nano@
Page 174 and 175: 174
Page 176 and 177: 176
Page 178 and 179: GERMANY: the more you know, the les
Page 180 and 181: Organizations for Nanotechnology Go
Page 182 and 183: (14) (16) (12) (17) DNA (1
Page 184 and 185: Market expectations & unfolding Nan
Page 186 and 187: 186
Page 188 and 189: science, and far less the issue of
Page 190 and 191: one looks at ‘nano-enabled’ pro
Page 192 and 193: scientists are not there to ‘cond
Page 194 and 195: 194
Page 196 and 197: 196
Page 198 and 199: Governmental Nanotechnology Policy
Page 200 and 201: Working with International Communit
Page 202 and 203: Existing Governmental Regulations i
Page 204 and 205: Involvements of International Stand
Page 206 and 207: Sub conferences: nanoscale materia
Page 208 and 209: 208
Page 210 and 211: 210
Page 212 and 213: Information - transparency - opinio
Page 214 and 215: 214
Page 216 and 217: 3 Risk Governance Model (White Pape
Page 218 and 219: EXCHANGING WITH THIS PUBLIC In add
Page 220 and 221: TITANIUM DIOXIDE NANOPIGMENT AS DEL
Page 222 and 223: 222
Page 226 and 227: NEG … one year on Planned action
Page 228 and 229: 228
Page 230 and 231: In 2006 NANOMAT was one of the part
Page 232 and 233: 232
Page 234 and 235: 234
Page 236 and 237: European Commission DG Environment
Page 238 and 239: 238
show all

Nanotechnology - Nanotech Regulatory Document Archive - Arizona ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?