report
2.3 Codes of conduct

 

This chapter summarises the current debate on the European Commission and other codes of conduct for nanotechnology, and places it in a broader framework of discussions and initiatives relevant to responsible nanotechnology development including defining guiding principles, governance initiatives such as the EC code, and capacity building and participation activities.

 

The European Commission has published a “Commission Recommendation of 07/02/2008 on a code of conduct for responsible nanosciences and nanotechnologies research” and is stimulating debate on and implementation of this code with governments and stakeholders. The recommendation is addressed to member states of the European Union and includes seven general principles: meaning (comprehensible to the public, respect human rights), sustainability, precaution, inclusiveness (openness, transparency and participation), excellence, innovation and accountability (for social, environment and health impacts). Implementation is monitored; member states are asked to report annually on implementation of the code in their country to the European Commission. (European Commission, 2008)

 

Parallel to the work on the European Commission Code, another Code of Conduct has been developed, in dialogue with the EC. This Responsible NanoCode has been developed by a Working Group of the Responsible Nano Forum and is supported by four organisations including the Royal Society, Insight Investment, Nanotechnology Industry Association and Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network. The code is addressed to organisations involved in the research, production, retail and disposal of products using nanotechnologies. It includes seven principles: board accountability, stakeholder involvement, worker health & safety, public health, safety & environmental risks, wider social, environmental, health & ethical implications & impacts, engaging with business partners and transparency & disclosure. The Working Group intends to monitor compliance with this code during 2008, 2009 and possibly afterwards. Evidence of the announced launch of the Responsible NanoCode and Benchmarking Framework in October 2008 has not been published on the website. (Responsible NanoCode, 2008) The steering group has chosen Cranfield University to be the organisation to take forward the benchmark and become the permanent home for the code.  They are currently putting together a funding programme for this. (Hilary Suttcliffe, personal communication, 15-01-09)

 

A precursor to the European Commission code, aimed at developing a practical precautionary approach to nanosafety started in 2005, in the form of a private partnership of the NGO Environmental Defence and the company Dupont. These partners have joined forces to develop a NanoRisk framework. This framework for evaluating potential risks of nanoscale materials (2007) is a six step approach:

1)      Describe material and application;

2)      Profile life cycle(s);

3)      Evaluate risks;

4)      Assess risk management;

5)      Decide, document and act;

6)      Review and adapt.

The approach is published on a website (www.nanoriskframework.com), applied to case studies and discussed in meetings. Environmental Defence and Dupont have been criticised for their attempt at sharing responsibility for nanotechnology development.

 

What is the relationship between these three initiatives?

 

All three initiatives are attempts at voluntary governance of nanotechnology in a situation characterised by uncertain risks. There are also other relevant initiatives as discussed below.

Recently, the International Risk Governance Council has compared these two codes and Nanorisk framework plus the ICCA Global Core Principles of Responsible Care report on “Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics”. The authors have found that the documents overlap in shared core principles, but that each code also includes particular priorities. They conclude that voluntary codes are a useful complement to regulation of nanotechnology in a situation characterised by uncertain risks. Even though it would be ideal to have only one code, such a code would have to reflect national differences and different positions of players like SMEs and large companies. A step by step approach harmonising various parallel codes is recommended. Voluntary codes can play a role in building trust by stakeholders in companies risk management policies, but must include mechanisms for ensuring compliance in order to be credible. (Grobe, Renn & Jaeger, 2008)

 

International organisations’ activities on responsible nanotechnology development

 

UNESCO and OECD have created international platforms for discussing responsible nanotechnology at global scale. UNESCO’s World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology (COMEST, 2007) has proposed several actions to be taken by UNESCO and its member states to stimulate an ethical approach to the development of nanotechnology. These proposals include activities for articulating the ethical framework (ethical principles, public accountability and transparency, capacity building on ethical issues, public participation, media outreach, international cooperation and establishing an International Commission for Nanotechnologies and Ethics). They also stress the need for awareness raising and debate on nanotechnologies, including public debate addressing environmental impact and health issues; the need for risk assessment; issues related to nanomedicine; privacy and confidentiality; and intellectual property. In the existing UNESCO Ethics Education Programme (EEP), specific additions should be made to address issues raised by nanotechnology. UNESCO could also develop voluntary compliance guidelines for incorporation in regional education programmes, addressing researchers and governments. Finally, COMEST sees a need for research and development policies including in developing scientific and technical knowledge, social science research to guide policy, ethical research and ethics in connection with legal issues, social science research and innovation in research methodology, promotion of Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (ELSI) research, nanotechnology and development, voluntary guidelines and institutionalisation. It appears that UNESCO favours an approach like the European Commission policies and code of conduct for responsible nanotechnology research. So far, no follow up on the recommendations has been initiated.

 

The OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology WPN aims for responsible development of nanotechnology through six focus areas including three relevant to ethical and social aspects of nanotechnology rather than more innovation issues:

-         Outreach and Public Engagement;

-         Policy Dialogue;

-         Global Challenges: Water;

-         Companies and Business Environments;

-         International Research Collaboration;

-         Indicators and Statistics.

In the field of “Outreach and Public Engagement,” OECD WPN organized a conference exploring best practices in “how to best engage the general public in nanotechnology,” in Delft, The Netherlands, 30 October 2008. According to key note speaker Arie Rip (University of Twente), several governments including the Dutch now have to start new public engagement activities for nanotechnology which are more aimed at orchestration of the public debate than at trying to do traditional risk communication. He also warned that traditional public engagement, as a form of direct democracy, may undermine our system of parliamentary, representative democracy. He concluded that it is more important to stimulate good governance of nano than to democratise the debate. Involving stakeholders should get more priority than activities aimed at the general public. 

The Dutch government published an action plan for nanotechnology in July 2008. As part of this, it is about to install a temporary “Commission for the social dialogue on nanotechnology” (end of 2008-2011). This commission will draw up a political agenda for nanotechnology priority issues to be discussed, including privacy. The French government is discussing plans for a national debate on nanotechnology, to be organised by the National Committee on Public Debate CNDP. Both are looking for new ways to do this.

In the UK, the government intends to fund social and ethical research into:

-         exploring social impacts of geographical clustering of nanotechnology innovation communities (DEFRA will issue a call for proposals shortly);

-         (ethics of) nanotechnologies in medical research;

-         life cycle effects of nanotechnology products;

-         Exploring potential lessons for nanotechnology from GMO crops, asbestos etc.[1]

The aim of the “Policy Dialogue” is to facilitate dialogue on policy responses to nanotechnology issues through questionnaires, events and other materials. In the field of “Global Challenges: Water”, OECD has organised a workshop in connection with the Nanotech Europe 2008 conference in Copenhagen.[2] The aim is to identify nanotechnology opportunities for water purification.

 

Relevant stakeholder initiatives in Europe and internationally

 

Not only governments and intergovernmental organisations are active in codes of conduct and other voluntary measures for responsible nanotechnology development. Both NGOs and industry associations have taken relevant initiatives. NGOs tend to focus on defining guiding principles, whereas industry associations are more focused on putting responsible nanotechnology in practice.

 

In 2007, an international coalition of originally 44 and currently 69 NGOs and research organisations has published “Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials”, including eight principles:

I.                    A Precautionary Foundation;

II.                 Mandatory Nanospecific Regulations;

III.               Health and Safety of the Public and Workers;

IV.              Environmental Sustainability;

V.                 Transparency;

VI.              Public Participation;

VII.            Inclusion of Broader Impacts;

VIII.         Manufacturer Liability. (Nanoaction, 2007)[3]

Related to this, in Europe, the Health and Environment Alliance HEAL has published recommendations on a strongly precautionary approach to nanotechnology and health risks on their website after consultation with their member organisations and other NGOs. The recommendations include assessment of nanomaterials as new chemicals, mandatory safety testing, labelling, consideration of broader societal implications and public participation in decision making.[4] Furthermore, the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) executive committee has called for applying the precautionary principle to nanotechnologies, 26 June 2008. The main concern is worker (and consumer) safety. (ETUC, 2008)

 

In parallel to this, several chemical industrial companies have published company codes of conduct on their website and are participating in stakeholder dialogue organised by governments and the European Commission. In addition, the European Chemical Industry Council CEFIC is organising stakeholder dialogue on enabling responsible innovations of nanotechnologies, in response to a call in October 2007 from Director General Robert Madelin of European Commission DG SANCO (Health and Consumer Protection) for informing public authorities, NGO’s and the general public about functionality, benefits and risk related questions of nanoproducts. CEFIC has identified two topics for dialogue: nano-coatings (with the highest number of consumer-relevant products) and environmental technologies incorporating nanotechnology (with the highest potential for the future to solve challenges like energy efficiency and renewable energies). Cosmetics and food are also considered topics for debate, but other industry associations are in a better position to take the initiative: COLIPA for cosmetics and CIAA for food. In 2009, CEFIC wants to carry out stakeholder participative projects on nanotechnologies stimulating the European Chemical Industry to research, develop and market nano-enabled products in a socially responsible and environmentally sustainable manner. (CEFIC, 2008)

On a global level, the International Council for Chemical Associations (ICCA) has issued Global Core Principles of Responsible Care. Currently, nanotechnology or nanomaterials are not explicitly included, but there are plans to do so according to the IRGC. (Grobe et al, 2008)

 

What does the general public think about responsible (nanotechnology) research?

 

In a recent Flash Eurobarometer study on “Young People and Science,” almost 25000 young people aged 15-25 in the EU27 member states were asked to give their opinions on science and technology. The survey included questions relevant to responsible nanotechnology.

Most respondents agreed strongly or tended to agree that “Science brings more benefits than harm”, and that “science and technology make our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable”. Opinions were split over the potential of science and technology to eliminate poverty and hunger, and to create more jobs than they eliminate. Most respondents thought that “today, scientific research is influenced too much by profit.”

Eight out of ten respondents agreed that “scientists are devoted people who work for the good of humanity”. But six out of ten thought that “due to their knowledge, scientists have power that can make them dangerous.” This seems to imply young people think scientists have a large responsibility for technological development.

The citizens are most often seen as the group who should have the biggest influence on decisions about where money for research is spent. (26% considered them firstly, 18% secondly). They were followed by the scientific community (20% firstly, 17% secondly) and the government (18% firstly, 20% secondly). Research organisations (16% firstly, 17% secondly) and the European Union (13% firstly, 16% secondly) were mentioned a bit less, and private enterprises (2% firstly and 5% secondly) and the media (2% firstly and 3% secondly) were hardly considered as groups which should be influential.

The young respondents were considerably less aware of nanotechnology than of other innovations. 61% had heard about nanotechnology, and 34% had not heard about it. 34% were interested in nanotechnology and 52% not. They felt much less able to give an opinion on whether nanotechnology presented more risks or more advantages to society compared to other innovations. 27% gave the answer “don’t know” or no answer, which was 2-7% for other innovations. The young people who gave an opinion on nanotechnology were mostly positive. 44% thought nanotechnology presents more advantages than risks to society, 11% thought it presents more risks than advantages and 19% foresaw the same amount of risks and advantages. This was less optimistic than for brain research, mobile phones, computer & video surveillance techniques, and human embryo research; but more optimistic than for nuclear energy and genetically modified foods. (Gallup Organisation, 2008)

Young Europeans in 2008 were more certain about nanotechnology than the general public in 2005, according to the latest Eurobarometer study on biotechnology. Then, 42% of respondents did not know if nanotechnology would have positive or negative impacts on their lives. 40% were positive, 13% expected no change, and 5% believed nanotechnology will deteriorate their life. Only 44% said they had heard of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology was considered morally acceptable, useful and not risky, and most respondents believed it should be encouraged. 55% of respondents supported nanotechnology[5].