---
title: "Regulation of nanotechnology"
chunk: 2/6
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nanotechnology"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:27:37.701684+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

== Democratic governance ==
Many argue that government has a responsibility to provide opportunities for the public to be involved in the development of new forms of science and technology. Community engagement can be achieved through various means or mechanisms such as referendums, consultation documents, and advisory committees that include community members and other stakeholders as possible governance structures for nanotechnologies. Other conventional approaches include public meetings and "closed" dialog with stakeholders. More contemporary engagement processes that have been employed to include community members in decisions about nanotechnology include citizens' juries and consensus conferences. Leach and Scoones argue that since that “most debates about science and technology options involve uncertainty, and often ignorance, public debate about regulatory regimes is essential.”
It has been argued that limited nanotechnology labeling and regulation may exacerbate potential human and environmental health and safety issues associated with nanotechnology, and that the development of comprehensive regulation of nanotechnology will be vital to ensure that the potential risks associated with the research and commercial application of nanotechnology do not overshadow its potential benefits. Regulation may also be required to meet community expectations about responsible development of nanotechnology, as well as ensuring that public interests are included in shaping the development of nanotechnology.
Community education, engagement and consultation tend to occur "downstream": once there is at least a moderate level of awareness, and often during the process of disseminating and adapting technologies. "Upstream" engagement, by contrast, occurs much earlier in the innovation cycle and involves: "dialogue and debate about future technology options and pathways, bringing the often expert-led approaches to horizon scanning, technology foresight and scenario planning to involve a wider range of perspectives and inputs." Daniel Sarewitz Director of Arizona State University's Consortium on Science, Policy and Outcomes, argues that "by the time new devices reach the stage of commercialization and regulation, it is usually too late to alter them to correct problems." However, Xenos, et al. argue that upstream engagement can be utilized in this area through anticipated discussion with peers. Upstream engagement in this sense is meant to "create the best possible conditions for sound policy making and public judgments based on careful assessment of objective information". Discussion may act as a catalyst for upstream engagement by prompting accountability for individuals to seek and process additional information ("anticipatory elaboration"). However, though anticipated discussion did lead to participants seeking further information, Xenos et al. found that factual information was not primarily sought out; instead, individuals sought out opinion pieces and editorials.
The stance that the research, development and use of nanotechnology should be subject to control by the public sector, or that favors participatory politics to guide state intervention in the effort to manage the transition to a society revolutionized by molecular nanotechnology, is sometimes referred to as nanosocialism.  The term was coined by USC professor David M. Berube, who argued that nanotechnological projections need to be tempered by technorealism about the implications of nanotechnology in a technocapitalist society, but that its applications also offer enormous opportunities for economic abundance and social progress.