Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 May 4;38(2):170-176.
doi: 10.1007/s10669-018-9686-5.

Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies

Affiliations

Comparative, collaborative, and integrative risk governance for emerging technologies

Igor Linkov et al. Environ Syst Decis. .

Abstract

Various emerging technologies challenge existing governance processes to identify, assess, and manage risk. Though the existing risk-based paradigm has been essential for assessment of many chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear technologies, a complementary approach may be warranted for the early-stage assessment and management challenges of high uncertainty technologies ranging from nanotechnology to synthetic biology to artificial intelligence, among many others. This paper argues for a risk governance approach that integrates quantitative experimental information alongside qualitative expert insight to characterize and balance the risks, benefits, costs, and societal implications of emerging technologies. Various articles in scholarly literature have highlighted differing points of how to address technological uncertainty, and this article builds upon such knowledge to explain how an emerging technology risk governance process should be driven by a multi-stakeholder effort, incorporate various disparate sources of information, review various endpoints and outcomes, and comparatively assess emerging technology performance against existing conventional products in a given application area. At least in the early stages of development when quantitative data for risk assessment remain incomplete or limited, such an approach can be valuable for policymakers and decision makers to evaluate the impact that such technologies may have upon human and environmental health.

Keywords: Biotechnology; Decision analysis; Governance; Nanotechnology; Policy; Regulations; Risk Assessment; Synthetic biology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Differentiation of a traditional ‘risk-based’ and a ‘comparative-based’ approach to risk policy and governance for emerging technologies

References

    1. Bates M, Grieger KD, Trump BD, Keisler JM, Plourde KJ, Linkov I (2015) Emerging technologies for environmental remediation: integrating data and judgment. Environ Sci Technol 50:349–358 - PubMed
    1. Blaunstein R, Trump B, Linkov I (2014) Nanotechnology risk management: an insurance industry perspective. In: Hull M, Bowman D (eds) Nanotechnology environmental health and safety: risks, regulation, and management, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 247–263
    1. Calvert J, Martin P (2009) The role of social scientists in synthetic biology. EMBO Rep 10(3):201–204 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canis L, Linkov I, Seager TP (2010) Application of stochastic multiattribute analysis to assessment of single walled carbon nanotube synthesis processes. Environ Sci Technol 44(22):8704–8711 - PubMed
    1. Csiszar SA, Meyer DE, Dionisio KL, Egeghy P, Isaacs KK, Price PS et al. (2016) Conceptual framework to extend life cycle assessment using near-field human exposure modeling and high-throughput tools for chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 50(21):11922–11934 - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources