A Basis for Action - Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la ...

Position Statement of the Commission de l'éthique de la science et de la technologie
Oversight and accountability measures
Nanotechnology oversight measures are another aspect of governance that make it possible to manage
the conflicts inherent to the divergent interests present within society or between nations. As seen in
Chapter 2, such oversight may take a variety of forms: legislation, regulation, code of conduct, guide to
best practices, standards, guidelines, declarations, etc. It dictates the prerequisites for conducting work
in nanotechnology; it confers both rights and responsibilities on those involved in nanotechnology
development and innovation.
In Canada like elsewhere around the world, no government agency has full authority over
nanotechnology. Each has its own field of jurisdiction on the subject, and the tendency is to adapt
existing laws rather than to create new ones. 289 Regulating or managing emerging technologies is
particularly complex, especially when there is very little data on their possible effects on human health
and the environment. However, “social reference points” such as the precautionary principle 290 and the
life cycle approach 291 addressed above can underpin governance.
The Commission recognizes that nanotechnology oversight requires a deeper understanding of the
potentially harmful consequences that could result from the introduction and dissemination of into the
environment of nanoparticles or their penetration into living organisms. However, such a constraint
should in no way limit the actions taken to monitor and examine emerging technologies and update
existing regulatory measures as needed. It is also important that all those involved in
nanotechnology work together to adopt behaviors in line with the goal of sustainable
development. In the Commission’s view, it is necessary to bring all interested parties together
in order to develop a model of flexible governance, adapted to the reality of nanotechnology
and capable of responding to ethical concerns raised by these technologies.
One last point deserves stressing with regard to oversight measures: It is imperative to ensure that the
rules are upheld. Quality control measures, toxicological data verification, inspections to verify the
innocuity of production areas, and respect for the health and safety of workers and the public are
examples of actions that must be taken systematically. Faced with major budgetary constraints, how will
government agencies responsible for protecting human health and the environment be able to do their
jobs as new and still little-known categories of products arrive on the market? What protective
measures are taken will doubtless depend on the costs involved, 292 as well as the political will and the
cooperation of all those concerned. To what extent can current risk management methods account for
the many facets of emerging technologies and address the uncertainty associated with them in terms of
risk?
289 J. Clarence DAVIES, op. cit.
290 Michael D. MEHTA, op. cit., p. 37.
291 INTERNATIONAL RISK GOVERNANCE COUNCIL, Survey on Nanotechnology Governance, Volume A. The Role of
Government, IRGC Working Group on Nanotechnology, December 2005, p. 18 [online]
http://www.innovationsgesellschaft.ch/images/fremde_publikationen/IGRC_Nano_Governance.pdf.
292 MERIDIAN INSTITUTE and NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, op. cit., p. 12.
72 Ethics and Nanotechnology:
A Basis for Action