Working paper 2006

An integrated design approach to the governance during research and

innovation of environmental aspects related to nanotechnologies

Michael Søgaard Jørgensen ∗, Stig Irving Olsen, Department of Manufacturing Engineering and
Management, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark,

Antonio Franco and Steffen Foss Hansen, Department of Environment and Resources, Technical
University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark,

Abstract
The article develops an approach to the governance of environmental aspects and impacts related
to nanotechnologies. The elements of the approach are 1) a design approach using scripts and
scenarios to describe the roles researchers and designers assume the future users, the technology
and the surrounding society will have, 2) a systems approach to ensure focus on the
nanotechnology as a system, 3) environmental assessments based on a life cycle screening
approach, 4) a governance approach to environmental aspects building on democratic legitimacy,
visions as guidance in research policy and research, environmental screening of research
proposals and environmental assessments as part of research. Three case studies of consumer
products are part of the empirical basis.

Keywords
Nanotechnology, environment, design, scenarios

Introduction
In this article we present some methodological and strategic considerations about the governance
(society’s management) of environmental aspects of nanotechnologies during research and
innovation.

A range of new materials, production technologies, products etc. have and will probably continue to
arise based on processes within nanoscience and nanotechnology. Environmental benefits and risks
are part of this development. The discussions of nanotechnology are, however, often quite overall in
the sense that the discussions often are either in favour of nanotechnology in general or against
nanotechnology in general. Many discussions of the environmental potentials have focussed on the
small dimensions of nanotechnology and claimed that this would imply reduced material
consumption. At the same time the small dimensions of especially nanoparticles have also been the
focus of much of the analyses of risks related to nanotechnology, because the small dimensions also
make the particles more reactive in relation to human tissue etc. This implies that the discussions

∗
Today: Department of Management Engineering. Phone: +45 45 25 60 24. E-mail:
msj@man.dtu.dk

1
about nanotechnology and the environmental potentials and risks need to be more detailed and
focus on different types of nanotechnology and potential application fields.

At The Technical University of Denmark a joint effort within manufacturing engineering,

innovation management and environmental assessments has been initiated in order to develop an
approach to the governance during research and innovation of environmental aspects from nano
(and micro) production and the products here from. We call the approach ‘an integrated design
approach’, because the governance of social and environmental aspects is supposed to take place
parallel to and maybe integrated into research and innovation related to nanotechnologies. We see
the target group and the users of the approach as

• nanotechnology researchers and designers who want to integrate environmental concerns in

research and innovation
• environmental researchers, civil servants or NGOs who want to assess environmental
aspects and impacts of nanotechnologies, maybe as part of co-operation with
nanotechnology researchers or designers or governmental authorities

The methodological and strategic considerations and elements in the approach build upon analyses
of recent experiences with technology assessment and technology foresight of environmental
aspects related to nanotechnology (and also microtechnology) in Denmark, which the authors have
participated in as part of research and thesis work. Some experiences from Germany, the
Netherlands and the UK are also drawn upon in the article.

The background of the approach

Nanotechnology has been proclaimed to imply a wealth of potential benefits for society, many of
which will have direct or indirect impacts on the environment, positive or negative. The scientific
and the public discussions up till now show big disagreements about the environmental potentials
and risks, including the legitimacy of the problems addressed by nanotechnology researchers and
developers. For example: it would probably make a big difference in the societal acceptance of a
nanotechnology whether the problem, which the nanotechnology is claimed to solve, is to help
people not getting white on their skin when they apply sun tan protection or to improve the
efficiency of solar cells - in a time with need for more use of renewable energy.

The economic interests and expectations linked to nanotechnology are big among governments,
industry and researchers. The nanotechnology area seems, however, to be lacking what Gibbons et
al (1994) [1] call ‘socially robust knowledge’. The reasons are a combination of the big stakes –
economic, social and environmental interests - and the big uncertainties about environmental and
social aspects, which question the acceptability of the nanotechnologies. Potential technological
applications seems to attract researchers more and more already in the stage of basic research and
this moves basic research closer towards potential future use and the development of products,
patents, spin-off companies etc. It is a situation full of tensions. Some researchers dream about more
resources for basic research without having to claim that they can solve this and that big societal
problem, while others develop patents and start spin-off companies. This calls upon governance
policies, here understood as strategies for how and when different actor groups take or are given - or
not given - a voice in relation to science and its results and how decisions are made on issues of
public concern. Furthermore it calls upon strategies for transparency in order to discuss the
legitimacy of the problems addressed by the researchers and the solutions they claim to offer. This

2
includes how the boundaries for what and who are legitimate stakeholders and problems are drawn
(Jørgensen et al, 2006 [2]). We see governance and the creation and use of platforms and
frameworks for decision making as an important element in the management during research and
innovation of environmental aspects related to so-called high technology like nanotechnology (and
biotechnology).

We argue that it is necessary to develop the management of environmental aspects related to

nanotechnologies and their application into a governance problem, which is addressed from an
integrated design perspective. This implies that the environmental aspects are understood through
considerations about future applications and future infrastructure related to the technology (where
technology is understood in a broad sense as process, material and/or equipment etc.). An integrated
design approach also implies that environmental aspects are addressed from a preventive and
precautionary approach. An integrated design approach is an advantage because, ideally,
environmental aspects are addressed before vested interests in research structures, manufacturing
equipment, market development etc. hinder a more open discussion about needs, alternatives and
impacts in relation to the technology, which is under development. On the other hand an preventive
approach is difficult to handle at an early stage of the research and development activities because
little may be known about future users, their practice, their societal context etc., which makes
(detailed) assessments of environmental aspects and impacts difficult. This is a classical problem,
which sometimes is illustrated with two curves showing how the possibility to influence a
technology decreases as the knowledge about the technology and the related impacts increases and
the need for influence becomes more clear (figure 1). If this Catch22-like situation illustrated by the
figure should be avoided two prerequisites need to be fulfilled: that it is possible at an early stage in
technology or product development to assess and to influence the environmental impacts.

Possibility for
influence Level of knowledge
about environmental
aspects

Time

Figure 1: The increasing environmental knowledge during the development of a technology and the
decreasing influence on the sources

Many nano researchers and developers (like also biotech and ICT researchers and developers) are
often in the public domain describing their visions for a certain technology as a way of attracting
funding for research and development. Such visions or claims can – ideally – be a starting point for
a dialogue about the legitimacy of the problems addressed and the related environmental impacts –
whether positive or negative – from a governance perspective.

The developed approach could be characterised as a Design-for-Environment (DfE) strategy, which

means integration of environmental concerns during design in order to prevent future environmental
problems. Many tools have been developed within this area (see for example Lewis et al, 2001 [4]).

3
However, many of these tools are only dealing with a product as a single entity and not in a system
perspective, where the product is seen as part of a system involving, among others, the necessary
surrounding infrastructure. Moreover many DfE tools see the DfE process as a technical process
and not as a socio-technical process involving actors with different experiences and interests and a
co-shaping of the problems and solutions addressed by the proponents and opponents of a
technology. Therefore the developed approach is building upon a combination of a DfE approach
and a sociology of technology approach.

The next paragraphs introduce the elements of the integrated design approach:

A scenario perspective on nanotechnology and related environmental aspects and impacts implies a
focus on the future roles of a nanotechnology, its users and the surrounding society as they are
defined by researchers and designers in their considerations about the problems, which are
addressed by the technology and the solution that is offered.

A systems perspective implies that focus is on the system, which a nanotechnology or a

nanotechnology-based product is part of, including the need for supporting infrastructures like
stakeholder training, waste management etc.

A lifecycle based perspective to the environmental aspects and impacts is necessary in order not
only to capture partial environmental aspects, like “the tiny dimensions” of a nanotechnology, but
environmental aspects from cradle to grave, e.g. related to material extraction and refining,
chemical exposure during manufacturing, use and waste handling. When assessing environmental
aspect related to technologies three orders of environmental aspects are considered: the potential
environmental aspects related to production, use and disposal, the interaction with other parts of the
economy and different types of rebound effects.

A governance perspective on management of relevant environmental aspects is necessary, but also

in relation to the assessment of the legitimacy of the problems addressed and the solutions “offered”
by nanotechnology. A governance perspective focuses on how the integrated design is organised:
who is involved when and how and what aspects are seen as legitimate to address, including
precaution as a principle. This implies a focus on the possibilities of shaping of the environmental
aspects and impacts during research and innovation and the possibilities to prevent negative
environmental impacts and support the realization of positive environmental impacts.

In some of the following paragraphs three case studies of nanotechnology products carried out by
one of the authors are used to illustrate the environmental aspects. The selected goods are products
of carbon nanomaterial and are all available on the market: a badminton racquet and an oil lubricant
containing buckyballs and a baseball bat containing carbon nanotubes. The cases aims at capturing
the relevant environmental aspects related to nanoparticles production, extraction and refining,
exposure to humans or the environment during manufacturing, use and waste handling. In the
badminton racquet buckyballs are dispersed in the resin between carbon fibres to strengthen the
structure of the composite. Similarly, in the baseball bat, the addition of carbon nanotubes into the
resin between carbon fibres increases the strength of the material. In the oil lubricant soot
containing buckyballs is mixed together with other chemical additives; dispersed buckyballs
improve sliding between metallic surfaces thus improving the performance of the lubricant (Franco,
2006) [3]. Other examples are from a Danish green technology foresight about the environmental

4
potentials and risks from nano-, bio- and ICT-technology, where two of the authors participated
(Jørgensen et al, 2006 [2]).

The following sections give a more detailed discussion of the elements of the approach and how
these elements interact with each other.

The elements of the approach

A scenario perspective
A scenario perspective on nanotechnology implies that focus in research and innovation is on the
shaping of the nanotechnology through the problems that is addressed and the solutions that are
‘offered’.

Ornetzeder & Rohracher (2006) [5] see the linking of researchers, designers and users during the
development and dissemination of a technology through a number of processes and relations:
• references to discourses orient and restrict their expectations and actions
• technologies are part of wider sociotechnical regimes, which include expectations, practices
and norms
• intermediate actors translate and mediate between different stakeholders’ interests

Latour (1987) [6] mentions that scientists and technologists in many cases have been successful in
setting themselves up as obligatory passage points and thereby support a certain actor world. Callon
(1986) [7] mentions that “technologists” are endowed with a capacity to construct a world, their
world, to define its constituent elements and to provide for it a time, a space and a history.

Based on Ornetzeder & Rohracher, Latour and Callon we propose a starting point in the problems,
which a certain nanotechnology (area), according to the researchers and/or designers, is supposed to
solve. The overall questions to address are

• By whom are the addressed problems recognised as problems?

• By whom is the suggested technological change recognised as an acceptable solution?
• What are the environmental aspects and the potential environmental impacts related to the
technological change?
• How are the potential environmental impacts compared to the present ways of solving the
problem in focus?

These questions enable, ideally, assessments of the environmental aspects of a nanotechnology as

part of research and innovation. This is not to say that research and innovation always are
researchers’ and designers’ simple search for solutions to well-defined problems. Maybe the
contrary is the case: the problems addressed by researchers and designers are shaped parallel to the
development of solutions, when certain achievements are reached in research and innovation. This
implies that the “solutions” sometimes are found first and afterwards the researchers and developers
try to identify ‘problems’, which they think could be solved by these solutions. This implies that
what is legitimate as parameters, problems etc. within a researcher’s or designer’s understanding
and what is outside an understanding is shaped at the same time. The discourses around genetically

5
modified (GM) food and plants show examples of reverse search processes. GM researchers and
companies pointed initially to pesticide resistant plants as an efficient agricultural strategy. Only
after critique from the environmental movement about the risk of pesticide pollution of ground
water, the industry included arguments about the GM-plants as elements in an environmental
strategy by referring to a claimed potential for reduced pesticide consumption (Jørgensen et al, 2006
[2]).

Carroll (2000) [8] distinguishes in his discussion of design between an engineering approach and a
scenario-based approach to design. Carroll claims that most engineering methods belong to the
methodological tradition that seeks to control the complexity and fluidity of design through
techniques that filter the information considered and decomposes the problems to be solved.
Contrary to this Carroll characterises a scenario-based design approach as belonging to a tradition
that seeks to exploit the complexity and fluidity of design by trying to learn more about the
structure and dynamics of the problem domain. Carroll (2000) [8] characterises scenarios in the
following way
• Scenarios are stories about people and their activities
• Scenarios presuppose a setting
• Scenarios include various actors with goals and objectives
• Scenarios have a plot by including a sequence of actions and events

The actor-network theory considers technical objects as programs of action coordinating a network
of roles in a future scenario (for example Callon (1986) [7], Law (ed.) (1986) [9], Latour (1987)
[6]). Several authors within the Actor-Network Theory approach, including Akrich (1992) [10] uses
the concept of ‘script’ as a way of describing future roles. These roles are played by the objects
themselves, their supporting infrastructure and the humans (e.g. users, governmental authorities). In
a design approach the concept of ‘script’ (or program) can be seen as characterising those intentions
which a designer builds (‘inscribes’) into a technology through its material shape, its functions, the
user guidelines etc. This includes the future roles, which the technology, the user, the surrounding
infrastructures etc. are supposed to have. The word ‘script’ refers to the understanding of the design
as a (manu)script made by the designer for the technology and its future use. Whether the script
afterwards is accepted and a stable practice is developed depends on the script and on the type of
technology and the context. The actor-theory network theory talks about ’negotiations’ between the
inscribed possibilities and limitations the script gives the user. These negotiations take place in
interaction with the economic, knowledge, technical etc. resources which the user has access to
when shaping the practice with the product. The technology is said to be ‘hard’ if the users cannot
change the technology, even if they feel restricted in the shaping of their practice. On the other
hand, the technology is said to be ‘soft’ if the users can shape their own practice. The so-called
‘prescription’ refers to the room for action, which the script allows.

Scenarios as approach are not unknown to at least some researchers and designers although it may
not be practised in a systematic and consistent way. As earlier mentioned, researchers often tell
stories about goals and objectives in their research and as part hereof maybe also their script
inscribing future users and their activities, when they try to create awareness around their research.
Nowotny (1999) [11] explains that ‘potential technological applications today attract researchers
already in the stage of basic research and hence move basic research closer towards marketability
and potential future use’. This should imply that the claim for context-free knowledge cease to be a
powerful argument for the autonomy of science (Nowotny 1999) [11]. In a discussion of the
problems addressed and the solutions proposed or offered by researchers and developers within

6
nanotechnology it is therefore important to discuss the elements of the scenarios, as described by
Carroll (2000) [8]: the researchers’ claims about future possibilities, including the background and
consistency of the claims and the roles the scenarios give to different human and non-human
elements: the user, the technology and the surrounding society.

An example of a scenario identified in a Danish green technology foresight project about nano-,
bio- and ICT-technology (Jørgensen et al 2006 [2]) is the development and use of nanosensors for
environmental purposes. These sensors are said to become so small and so cheap in the future that
they can enable much more measurements of chemicals etc. in the environment, in wastewater etc.
Besides the environmental impact from the sensors themselves and the potentials for better
environmental management from better data, there could, however, be an indirect environmental
impact of the nanosensors, if the development of these sensors makes authorities and industry
believe that ‘we anytime and anywhere can detect environmental impacts’. Such an understanding
could imply an understanding saying that ‘we don’t need to prevent environmental problems, and
we don’t need to be cautious’ and thereby be a threat to more preventive environmental strategies.
In the discussion of such a scenario and its elements it is important to discuss the plot. This means
for example discussing whether it hitherto actually has been the lack of environmental data that has
been limiting the governmental environmental regulation or the corporate environmental
management, or it more has been a question about the level of environmental regulation and
management, which industry and other stakeholders have been willing to accept. If the latter is the
case, the development of nanosensors might not imply more concern for the environment but on the
contrary imply less focus on prevention and thereby higher environmental risks because focus then
moves towards clean-up activities (Jørgensen et al 2006 [2]).

Actors that can be called ‘enactors’ of a technology area build among themselves a repertoire of
promises and expectations and strategies, which tell how to position the research or the technology
in focus. They might feel forced to promise a lot in order to secure future funding, because if they
don’t do that they might not be able to mobilise (more) resources for research and development
activities. Other actors might more be outsiders or comparative selectors, who don’t necessarily buy
into these promises, but are more watching whether a certain field seems to be relevant for their
own interests, compared to other possibilities. It might also be possible to experience ‘mutual
positioning’, where some actors try to exclude others by for example referring to them as too much
into ‘hype’ in relation to a technology area (Rip 2004 [12]).

When analysing research and innovation processes information from different actors has to be
deconstructed and compared in order to identify mechanisms in research and innovation processes
and draw up possible (maybe conflicting, maybe converging) scenarios for future applications. The
identification of such possible futures within a scientific or technology area can be based on
identification of emerging irreversibilities (Rip 2004 [12]). The thoughts of researchers and
developers (and other actors, i.e. policy makers) about the possible futures are based on combined
thoughts about technological and social aspects of the future in the terms of thoughts about the
scientific and technological progress and about the future society, which is going to use or
implement these technologies. The dynamics of these expectations and the agenda building they are
part of can be recognised through (Rip 2004 [12]):
• Shared agendas among actors
• Collective learning processes, maybe as forced or antagonistic learning
• Emerging mutual dependencies in network linkages

7
Systems and life cycle perspectives
A systems approach to a nanotechnology should ensure that focus is not only on single properties or
features, for example the tiny dimensions of a nanotechnology, but the whole system, which a
nanotechnology or a nanotechnology-based product is part of, including the need for supporting
infrastructures like quality standards, waste management systems, the roles expected to be taken by
the future actors in these systems etc. (for example a specific practice during use or waste handling).
In order to make environmental assessments it is important to know whether these system elements
are emerging or need to emerge, so that relevant value chains and life cycles and social and
environmental aspects can be identified. A systems approach works well together with the actor-
network theory. The actor-network theory argues that a technology is not just working through a
technical artefact, but as an emerging and increasingly stabilised network of associations between
diverse material and non-material elements – artefacts, humans, texts, symbols, concepts etc.

A life cycle based approach to eco-design, like presented in Olesen et al (1996) [13], fits with a
systems approach to products and is useful as part of the approach described in this article, since it
allows an assessment of the interactions between a product, the user and the surrounding society
from an environmental perspective. Olesen et al [13] define the term ‘the meetings of a product’ as:
‘the action taking place, when a product, a product life system and an actor interact and this implies
effects, whereof some are environmental’ (Olesen et al 1996 [13]). As product life systems are
mentioned manufacturing, assembly, packaging, use, service and waste management. This
understanding works well within an actor-theory approach, since a designer’s intentions about the
future of a technology contained in a script can be seen as a way of describing possible future
‘meetings’ between the technology, different actors and different types of supporting infrastructure
systems.

Olesen et al [13] talks about ‘disposition’ as the way the designer during the product development
activities defines and influences the character and the effectiveness of the meetings of products.
This understanding fits also well with the earlier mentioned terms inscription and prescription from
actor-network theory. The disposition takes place through the shaping of the product or through
negotiations with other actors about the future of the product, for example which materials the
manufacturers will use, how product take-back might be organised etc. This shaping will take place
as negotiations among different actors during the research processes, during the planning of
manufacturing, during the later use of the product etc. Olsen et al (1996) [12] describe how
disposition thinking should develop an overview of the future meetings of the product so that the
future life (cycle) of the product is developing as planned.

The concepts of scripts and disposition in a systems and life cycle perspective can be used to assess
the environmental pressure a nanotechnology might put on the environment if realised and assess
the prerequisites or inscribed roles to the user and the surrounding society the designer (which may
also be a researcher) defines for the future in order to maybe handle or prevent these environmental
pressures. Improvements in environmental performance (reduction of potential negative impacts)
can be obtained through changes in one or more of the elements in each of the meetings during the
life cycle: actor, product and product life system. It is important to try to relate potential
environmental impacts in one of the life cycle phases back to the script. For example: high quality
demands for carbon nanotubes for a badminton racket imply that chlorinated organic solvents need
to be used during the manufacturing stage in the production of the carbon nanotubes. This pressure

8
can be managed through lower quality demands to the racket, substitution of the solvents with less
hazardous solvents or cleaning of the air emissions with filters. We will in a later section of the
article get back to more examples from the three consumer product case studies about this kind of
considerations and questions to be asked at the design stage within an integrated design approach.

Environmental assessment in a life cycle perspective

Nanotechnology has been proclaimed to imply a wealth of potential benefits for society, many of
which will have direct or indirect positive effects on the environment. Among the environmental
promises are improved efficiency of energy production, reduced energy use of products, reduced
use of chemicals due to e.g. functionalisation of surfaces, remediation of soil pollution, improved
sensoring and monitoring of the environment and improved functionality of materials. For a more
thorough review of ecopotentials and risks see e.g. Jørgensen et al (2006) [2] Malsch (2004) [14],
Dionysiou (2004) [15], Masiangioli and Zhang (2003) [16].

So far most of the focus in the research of environmental risks has been on the potential risks from
the nanotechnology itself and in particular nanoparticles (see e.g. Oberdörster et al. (2005) [17], Nel
et al. (2006) [18], Borm et al. (2006) [19]). Only a few studies have been made of the overall
environmental impacts during a life cycle from extraction of raw materials to the final disposal have
only been addressed in a couple of studies. The US EPA, NCER have sponsored a few projects to
investigate Life Cycle Assessment methodologies. Only one of these has yet published results on
automotive catalysts (Lloyd et al 2005 [20]) and nanocomposites in automobiles (Lloyd and Lave
2003 [21]), respectively. One project was sponsored by the German government (Steinfeldt et al
2004 [22]). The difficulties connected to such assessments of nanotechnology are related to the
facts that:

• Nanotechnology is an emerging technology, which makes foresight about possible future

usage etc. necessary.
• Nanotechnology is a horizontal technology resulting in wide dispersion of nanotechnology
in products and environment.

The above mentioned systems perspective should be combined with a life cycle approach, where
not only the use of the technology, but also the manufacturing of it, the use and the post-use phase
is described and assessed. At the research and innovation stages a life-cycle screening of possible
future applications, based on the MECO-concept (Materials, Energy, Chemicals, Others) from the
so-called EDIP-methodology (Environmental friendly Development of Industrial Products) (Wenzel
et al 1996 [23]), is a possible framework for identification, description and assessment of
environmental aspects and impacts related to a technology in its life cycle. The MECO-screening
focuses on a qualitative description and assessment of

• M: Materials, including the use of scarce and non-renewable materials

• E: Energy, including whether the energy sources are fossil or renewable
• C: Chemicals, including aspects of human toxicology (e.g. risks of carcinogen, reproductive,
allergic and neuro-toxic impact) and eco-toxicology (e.g. risks related to persistence and
bio-accumulation)
• O: Other aspects, like use of space, biodiversity, work environment etc.

9
We find it important to work from a dialogue-based understanding of ‘environment’, which not
only comprises of quantifiable environmental aspects like wastes and emissions, but for example
also area as a resource or impact on our understanding of the need for precaution. This approach to
environmental assessments has been inspired by the approach of ‘participatory life cycle
assessment’ as described by Bras-Klapwijk (1998) [24], where the focus of the life cycle
assessment is discussed among the concerned and involved actors when planning and carrying out
the assessment in order to increase the legitimacy of the assessment among the actors afterwards.
A more elaborated life cycle assessment (LCA) builds upon an object of assessment, namely the
functional unit, i.e. all impacts etc. are related to a specific service or function in the society. In a
LCA context, the assessment of emerging technologies like nanotechnology is challenging due to a
number of knowledge gaps. It may not be known exactly what is the function (or functional unit) or
what the technology may substitute, and the production may still be at an experimental level, raising
questions about technology and material choices. To illustrate the MECO concept a screening is
presented for two of the three cases on consumer products containing nanoparticles.
Buckyballs for the badminton racket is produced via a combustion process in which toluene and
oxygen is combusted in a closed system low pressure chamber forming a fullerenic soot (Takeara
2004 [25]). Buckyballs are extracted from the soot using solvent like chlorobenzene and purified to
C60 and C70 by high-pressure liquid chromatography (Nano-C 2002 [26]). The residual soot
contains low percentage of fullerenes thus having a commercial value. The fullerenes produced are
incorporated into an epoxy resin. For processing carbon fibres and an epoxy resin into a composite
material, the resin is put into a curing oven where it melts on the substrate (in this case the carbon
fibres); then it solidifies to form an insoluble plastic composite material, which does not melt again.
A certain amount of excess resin is always generated. In this case the hardened resinous waste
contains buckyballs. During the use phase of the racket no impacts are expected. When finally
disposed off the racket will presumably be disposed off as municipal solid waste and be either
incinerated or landfilled. A MECO screening of the racket is shown in Table 1.

Nanospeed racket Raw materials Production Use Disposal

Materials Fossil fuels Waste resin
Energy Vacuum pump Melting and curing
Chemicals Chlorinated and Nanoparticles
other solvents released from
waste?
Other aspects, Occupational
including handling of
occupational nanoparticles
health and safety

Table1: Presentation of the Materials, Energy, Chemicals and Others matrix for the different life cycle stages of a
“nanospeed” badminton racket.

Likewise an examination of the life cycle of the lubricant can be put into a MECO matrix as in table
2.

10
 Oil lubricant Raw materials Production Use Disposal
Materials Fossil fuels
Energy Electricity Improved
lubrication?
Chemicals Release of Nanoparticles
nanoparticles? released from
waste?
Other aspects, Occupational
including handling of
occupational nanoparticles
health and safety

Table 2: Presentation of the Materials, Energy, Chemicals and Others matrix for the different life cycle stages of a
motor oil.

The fullerenes for the lubricant are produced by the so-called arc method using electricity and
graphite. The soot containing app. 7% fullerenes is used directly as it is. The concentration of C60 in
the lubricant has been estimated to be approximately 3g/kg since the oil is used in automobiles the
use might be dispersive. Exhausted motor oil should be disposed off as hazardous waste with a
potential release of nanoparticles. Buckyballs do however seem to be thermally degraded at
incineration temperatures (Cataldo 2002 [27]).

In the life cycle of the baseball bat carbon nanotubes are produced by chemical vapour deposition.
Short-chained hydrocarbons are introduced into a furnace at temperatures ranging between 650º and
900ºC. Hence molecules are cracked into single reactive carbon atoms, which move towards the
heated substrate coated with a metal catalyst. Atoms recombine in the form of carbon nanotubes on
magnesium supported iron catalyst (Daenen et al. 2003 [28]). The product is washed in an acid
solution to remove impurities such as graphite, metal catalyst and smaller fullerenes. The Carbon
Nanotubes are additionally chemically treated to increase their homogeneous dispersion in a
polymer and are added to the structure of carbon fibres composite. Excess resin in the moulding
will be waste. Again the use stage is assumed to have no impacts and the disposal assumed to be
municipal solid waste. Carbon nanotubes seem to be more stable to thermal degradation than the
buckyballs in the badminton racket (Cataldo 2002 [27]) and may potentially escape from an
incineration plant.

There are indications that especially the manufacturing and the disposal stages may imply
considerable environmental impacts. Especially the toxicological risks of nanoparticles have
received considerable attention due to their mobility in organisms, the higher reactivity of small
particles compared to bulk material and potentially new types of effects. Although not considered
further here the toxicological risks of nanoparticles should be assessed over the life cycle.

Generic environmental aspects of nanotechnologies

A crucial question is whether one can talk about generic environmental properties of a technology
(comparable to the properties of chemicals or materials), which would allow for very early
assessments of the risks related to a technology and thereby maybe contribute to pro-active
assessments of all possible applications of the technology. The earlier discussion of GM-crops is an

11
example of assessment of core properties of a technology. Some NGOs claim that GM-crops are
inherently unsafe, because it is not possible to assess all aspects of the technology in the laboratory
and not possible after release to the market to withdraw the technology from ‘the environment’. If
unwanted effects are emerging the genetic material might already have spread to other plants.

IÖW has in a report for the European Parliament used an approach, which they call
‘characterisation of technologies’ as a way of getting some first generic indications about potential
problems of a nanotechnology (nanoparticles) before ‘adverse effects on targets are identified’
(Haum et al. 2004 [29]). IÖW points to smallness and mobility of the particles, changing chemical
reactivity and selectivity, and changing and intensified catalytic effects as properties or aspects,
which point to other types of environmental impacts deviating from other matter. It is, however,
important to consider how such characterisations are applied in an assessment. At a discussion in
the nanotechnology working group under the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering in
UK December 2003 it was noted in a discussion about effects of nanoparticles that ‘there are a lot
of naturally occurring (e.g. clays) and synthetically produced nanoparticles (e.g. diesel exhaust)
which are already present in the environment’ (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering
2003 [30]). The aim of the comparison was not clear, but since the negative impact of diesel
exhaust and welding fumes on respiration etc. is well known the comparison cannot be used as an
argument in favour of nanoparticles (by saying for example ‘we have known nanoparticles for many
years’). On the contrary, such past health impacts show the need for serious precaution in the future.
The use of general characteristics and comparisons is an important aspect for discussion within this
kind of assessments of technologies and their impacts. Such assessments might be used for
regulating a certain technology, but never for acquitting a technology for unwanted impacts.

In a report for the OECD Berkhout and Hertin (2001) [31] developed a methodology for the
assessment of environmental effects of ICT, which we been inspired by in the development of part
of our proposal for environmental assessments within the nanotechnology area. We prefer to use the
notion ‘aspects’ and ‘impacts’ in stead of effects, since we may not know the effects but only
aspects in the nanotechnology system that could create impacts (positive or negative). Our
approach, distinguishes, inspired by Berkhout and Hertin (2001) [31], between positive and
negative impacts of changes within a technology area and between three different levels, where the
assessments can be performed, called first, second and third order aspects. First order aspects are
connected directly to production, use and disposal of the material or the product itself. Second order
aspects are from the interaction with other parts of the economy through the impact from the fields
of application, like for example more intelligent design and management of processes, products,
services, product chains etc. The number of products, including the impact on the stocks of products
due to limited substitution of old products, is also important at first and second level. E.g. if not all
‘old’ products are substituted with more efficient ones, but the stock of products in stead is
increased with new, efficient products, whereby the total resource consumption might increase.
Finally, Berkhout and Hertin [31] focus on third order aspects, like changes in growth rates among
sectors. They see negative rebound effects as related to third order aspects, like when efficiency
gains stimulate new demand, which balances or overcompensates the savings. Positive rebound
effects could be added to this type of impacts. It is difficult to assess the role of such rebound
effects, but by highlighting potential negative (or positive) rebound effects, themes for future
governmental regulation can be identified. Table 3 illustrates the methodology we propose for
identification of environmental aspects of nanotechnology and the assessment of the related,
potential environmental impacts.

12
 Types of aspect The potential environmental impacts
related to the different types of aspects
Case: nanosensors

First order aspects Induced environmental impact and

Aspects related directly to the resource consumption from
technology and its infrastructure manufacturing, use and disposal from the
nanosensor itself

Second order aspects Further induced or avoided environmental

Aspects related to fields of direct
application
Third order aspects
Aspects related to changes among
sectors or areas of consumption
impacts from the use of data from
nanosensors, e.g. about emissions to the
environment or the state of the
environment
The indirect influence on environmental
pressure if environmental sensors are seen
as a safeguard towards environmental
impact and substitutes investments in
preventive measures like less resource
consuming technology or less polluting
chemicals and materials

Table 3.
Methodological framework for the identification of environmental aspects and assessment of potential environmental
impacts of a technology and its application (inspired by Berkhout & Hertin 2001 [31]).

Specific environmental impacts related to nanotechnologies

Some more specific environmental aspects and related potentially negative impacts on the
environment from nanotechnology identified in our research that will be further explored in the
following are:
• Increased exploitation and loss of scarce resources
• Higher requirement to materials and chemicals
• Increased energy demand in production lines
• Increased waste production in top down production
• Disassembly and recycling problems

Exploitation and loss of scarce resources could be a concern to companies since economic
consideration is a primary obstacle to the use of precious or rare materials in consumer products.
When products get smaller and the components that include the rare materials reach the nanoscale,
economy is not the most urgent issue since it will not significantly affect the price of the product.
Therefore, researchers and designers will be more prone to use materials that have the exact
properties they are searching for. For example in the search for suitable hydrogen storage medias
Zhao et al (2006) [32] experimented with the use of fullerenes doped with scandium to increase the
reversible binding of hydrogen. Other examples are the use of gallium, indium and other rare metals
in electronics. While an increased usage of such materials may be foreseen due to the expected
widespread use of nanotechnology products, the recycling will be more difficult because it probably

13
becomes more difficult and costly to recover the smaller amounts of these materials. This implies
that the total consumption of these materials, despite smaller amounts per product, may increase.
In addition to the potential loss of resources the extraction of most rare materials uses more energy
and generates more waste than the extraction of more abundant materials. Table 4 illustrates the
energy intensity of a range of materials, i.e. how much energy has been used for the production of 1
kg.

Material Energy intensity of materials (MJ/kg)

Glass 15
Lead 54
Ferrite 59
Steel 59
Plastics 84
Copper 94
Epoxy resin 140
Aluminium 214
Tin 230
Nickel 340
Silver 1570
Gold 84000

Table 4: Energy intensity of selected materials (modified from Kuehr and Williams (eds.) 2003 [33])

As mentioned there are not many studies on LCA of nanotechnology and much information has to
be understood from extrapolation of experiences from Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS)
and micro manufacturing. MEMS is the integration of mechanical elements, sensors, actuators, and
electronics on a common silicon substrate through microfabrication technology. While the
electronics are fabricated using integrated circuits, the micromechanical components are fabricated
using compatible "micromachining" processes that selectively etch away parts of the silicon wafer
or add new structural layers to form the mechanical and electromechanical devices.

The rapid development of technologies and limited availability of data makes full blown LCAs
difficult and rather quickly outdated. An example is the manufacture of a personal computer for
which the energy requirement in the late 1980’s were approximately 2150 kWh whereas in the late
1990’s the efficiency were improved and only 535 kWh were necessary (Schischke and Griese 2004
[34]). Using old data could result in erroneous results. Looking at the overall environmental impact,
however, this fourfold increase in efficiency has been overcompensated by an increase in number of
sold computers from approximately 21 million to more than 150 million (Schischke and Griese
2004 [34]), reflecting a economic rebound effect.
For the development of cell phones, the same authors conclude that life cycle impacts vary
significantly from one product generation to the next; hence generic product life cycle data should
incorporate a ‘technology development factor’ for main parameters.

A major trend is that shrinking product dimensions raise production environment requirements to
prevent polluting the product with dust etc. It involves energy intensive heating, ventilation and air
conditioning systems. Clean room of class 10.000 for example requires app. 2280 kWh/m2·a

14
whereas a class 100 requires 8440 kWh/m2·a. The same increase of requirements is relevant for
supply materials like chemicals and gases. The demand for higher purity levels implies more
technical effort for chemical purification, e.g. additional energy consumption and possibly more
waste. Most purification technologies are highly energy intensive, e.g. all distillation processes,
which are often used in wet chemical purification, account in total for about 7 % of energy
consumption of the U.S. chemical industry (Plepys 2004 [35]). Chemicals used in large volumes in
semiconductor industry are hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and ammonium
hydroxide (NH4OH). These materials are used in final cleaning processes and require XLSI grades
(< 0.1 ppb cation pollution). Sulphuric acid is also used in large amounts, but it is a less critical
chemical and requires a lower level of purity (Plepys 2004 [35]).

Micromanufacturing of other types of products also puts higher requirements on the quality and
purity of the materials. Additionally, a considerable amount of waste is produced. For example, up
to 99% of the material used for microinjection moulding of a component may be waste since big
runners are necessary for handling and assembling the small components. However, recycling of
this waste may not be possible due to requirements to and reduction of the material strength
(Sarasua and Pouyet 1997 [36]).

Miniaturisation also causes new problems in electronics recycling. Take back will hardly be
possible. If they are integrated into other products they need to be compatible with the recycling of
these products and the established recycling paths (Schischke and Griese 2004 [34]).

Design considerations within three consumer product case studies

In the consumer product cases discussed earlier, nanoparticles are simply added to a product. In all
three cases nanotechnology does not provide a new product but rather a new version of existing
goods. In all three cases the foreseeable environmental benefits are a possible longer lifetime of
enhanced products and a possible improved functionality. Sporting goods could last longer and
improve results of the athletes and the lubricant could require less frequent changes of oil in the
engine and improve the lubrication effect. It may neither have been the designers’ choice to use
nanomaterials nor a pull from users requiring new functionalities. Anyway the potential
environmental impacts have been decided consciously or unconsciously in early stages of the
design. However, already at these stages of product development it would be possible to assess
foreseeable impacts in a life cycle perspective.

The three cases all show that the designer has a significant influence on the environmental impacts
during a product’s life cycle through the choices (s)he makes, e.g. that chlorobenzene will be used
for the extraction of fullerenes for the badminton racket due to high quality demands for the
nanotubes or the possible release of nanoparticles at the end of life of the oil lubricant and the
baseball bat. The users may have similar influence via the demands they put on products. In both
cases the influence may be of indirect character since the designer may not be in dialogue with the
manufacturers and discuss the choice of materials and probably not the environmental impacts from
the manufacturing of the materials. The users most probably get no information about the
environmental aspects and impacts of the racket or the bat, most probably only information about
the improved quality due to lower weight and higher strength of the product. Either ways the results
is that lack of dialogue about the environmental aspects of up- and downstream processes could
lead to negative environmental impacts in the life cycle of the products.

15
Governance-based management of nanotechnology
A governance perspective on identification and analysis of relevant environmental aspects is
necessary, because recent projects about nanotechnology conducted in Denmark, in UK and the
Netherlands show the need for participatory approaches and transparency and what Gibbons et al
(1994) as earlier mentioned call ‘socially robust knowledge’. This is not needed only in relation to
the environmental aspects, but also in relation to the assessment of the legitimacy of the problems
addressed and the solutions ‘offered’ by nanotechnologies. The governance perspective can be seen
as the perspective, which focuses on how the activities and analyses discussed as part of the
previous perspectives could be organised.

Dingwerth describes three dimensions of democratic legitimacy in his analysis of democratic

governance, which we suggest to include in the approach: a) participation or inclusiveness, b)
democratic control and c) discursive quality (Dingwerth 2004, p.23 [37]). Legitimacy through
participation focuses on two aspects: the scope and the quality of participation. The scope of
participation refers to who participates and the quality of participation refers to how those, who are
included in the decision-making process, actually participate.
Various degrees of participation can be imagined from passive participation like receiving
information to more active ones like participation in public debate, voting, selecting a representative
or representing a constituency. Equality of opportunities to participation is seen as linked to the
quality of participation.
The idea of democratic control could be seen as passive forms of participation, where control refers
to concepts like accountability, transparency and responsiveness (Dingwerth 2004, p. 25 [37]). An
important aspect concerns what control actors actually are able to exert over decision-makers like
industry, research institutions or government.
The degree of transparency concerns the extent to which potentially affected actor groups are able
to get knowledge about the decision-making, including its existence and subject matter. Such
elements are highly relevant in relation to priorities and agenda-setting in research and innovation
and in the later regulation of applications.
Finally, the discursive quality is linked to an understanding of discourses as the social space where
collective interpretations are constructed and discourses are seen as a long-term consensus-forming
process rather than just a decision procedure (Dingwerth 2004, p. 27 [37]). Elam and Bertilsson
(2002) [38] argue in their development of the scientific base for analyses of science, technology and
governance that the modern democracy includes the acceptance and legitimacy of conflict and
accepts that consensus is of a conflict and contestable nature.

An important element related to the governance aspects of technology is the quality of the processes
of promises and requirements and methods for judging the robustness and pertinence of
expectations (Brown et al 2003 [39]). An example: Genetic engineering has demonstrated how
scientific research is informed by tacit visions and imaginaries of the social role of technology
(Grove-White et al 2004 p. 3 [40]). Although utopian, these visions form the basis on which
research priorities are negotiated and planned. Furthermore, such visions are seldom subject to
public discussion and debate, before the priorities for research and innovation are made. Such
visions need to be more articulated by their scientific authors and be subject to wider social
deliberation, review and negotiation. Controversies should be seen as necessary and productive
from a societal perspective (Grove-White et al 2004 [40]) and seen as a way of developing socially
robust knowledge and strategies. The need for review and negotiation are at least two-fold (see for
example (Norges forskningsråd 2005, p. 39-40 [41]):

16
 • From a democratic point of view: the citizens have to live with the consequences of the
research and innovation and the resulting products and since the public funds for research
and innovation are limited the priority given to certain types of research and innovation will
limit the funds available for alternative strategies for achieving the same types of values
• From a pragmatic point of view: citizens and NGOs can contribute with other perspectives
than the researchers and other experts, designers etc. due to other experiences and other
values.

Precaution should be used as an important principle in the environmental governance so that

uncertainty and lacking knowledge is giving favour to the environmental concern. Our approach to
precaution has among others been inspired by the approach in the European Environmental
Agency’s analysis of a number of case studies of so-called ‘late lessons from early warnings’
(Harremoes et al 2002 [42]). This inspiration implies that the assessments as much as possible
should include early warnings, account for real-world conditions and use different types of
knowledge, including knowledge from environmental researchers, NGO’s, governmental authorities
and businesses, which is seen as in line with the recommendations from Norges forskningsråd
(2005) [41].

The focus of the governance strategy should not only be on communication of risks from
researchers and government to the public. A more comprehensive concept of governance is needed,
learning from the earlier experience with for example nuclear power and genetic engineering.
Structures and processes should be established to enable the involvement of citizens, consumers,
users, employees etc. and their organisations in the assessment of the legitimacy of the problems
and the solutions addressed by the technologies and their proponents. The processes should include
dialogue about risks related to both the problems and the solutions in focus, but also the social and
economic set-up around the research and innovation, including who is in control of the technologies
and who is benefiting from the technologies, should be included (Grove-White et al 2004 [40]). The
need for governance is not something that only becomes relevant when a product is ready for
introduction on the market. It is also a question about influence on national research priorities
through for example stakeholder consultations or civil society organisations’ participation in
research priority setting etc., integration of environmental competence into the research processes,
transparent assessments and results etc. (Jørgensen et al 2006 [2]).

Strategies for integration of environmental competence in research and innovation

An important question to address in research policy is when and how to carry out dialogues and
other policy measures in relation to research within nanotechnology in order to obtain an enhanced
focus on environmental potentials and risks.

Research is not just one type of activity. An enhanced focus on environmental potentials and risks
related to a technology area calls upon at least the following three types of research:
1. Policy research which itself can guide research policy and research planning
2. Technology research developing processes, materials etc. with environmental potentials
3. Environmental research assessing environmental potentials and risks, either pro-active
research related to ongoing technology research or research related to real-life application of
technologies and products

17
When it comes to measures for integration of environmental aspects and concerns into research and
research policies the following types of guidance seem to be the relevant ones (Jørgensen et al 2006
[2]):
• Visions for the anticipated use and outcomes as a means of shaping the research policies and
also the micro priorities in the research community.
• Environmental screening of research proposals as a way of qualifying the decisions and
priorities made in research funding
• Environmental assessment as part of technology research, where some important questions
concern how such assessments are carried out in a preventive and holistic way and how the
assessments obtain legitimacy

These three measures are discussed in the following paragraphs. Finally, the integration of
environmental aspects in policies supporting strategic innovation is discussed briefly.

Visions as guidance of research policy and research

Research policy raises the question, when it is possible to say something about the environmental
potentials and risks related to technology research. Could too early regulation limit a creative
process? Could too late regulation imply that the vested interests in terms of equipment, external
expectations etc. are too high and the direction of the research difficult to change? If technology
research was an open process rather weak and guidance oriented measures could be adequate means
of influencing the visions and priorities of the research policies and the research process. However,
priorities concerning technology research often focus on rather general assumptions about the
importance of technologies and the possible results coming from economic investments in these
areas of research (Jørgensen et al 2006 [2]). Even though there, as earlier discussed, might not be a
direct link between research, innovation and application, researchers and policy makers often
produce quite far reaching and presumptuous promises for the societal and sometimes also
environmental benefits to be expected from new research areas. Since researchers often, as earlier
mentioned, are using public communication in presenting their visions and promises to government,
ministries, NGO’s etc., part of the research policy process should challenge these promises in order
to create a better knowledge about the social and technical prerequisites and assumptions the
promises are based on.

The dialogue around expectations and promises may seem quite difficult in relation to
nanotechnology, where there is rather little experience with the technologies and their application.
There is also limited knowledge about the environmental effects related to nanotechnology.
Dialogue processes with broad participation of interested stakeholders, including organisations that
seldom are invited into planning and management of research (e.g. consumer organisations,
environmental organisations and trade unions) might be a way of enabling assessments of the social
and technical prerequisites of technology breakthroughs and of the environmental (and other
societal) aspects of research and innovation. By being based on different types of knowledge and
experience and by having broad stakeholder participation the achievements from such assessments
may achieve broad societal legitimacy.

Dialogue and vision building around the future development of nanotechnology as technology areas
could get inspiration from the plan of the Dutch Rathenau Institute’s for dialogue around five
possible near-future applications of nanotechnology in order to make the discussion about

18
nanotechnology more concrete and involve more stakeholders in dialogue around the pro’s and
con’s of nanotechnology (Van Est & Van Keulen 2004 [43]).

Environmental screening of research proposals

Environmental screenings of research proposals is a measure that is proposed as part of the
approach. However, such screenings are only valuable if those evaluating the proposals agree in the
importance of environmental aspects and are able to assess these aspects. Some of the earlier
Danish experiences within food technology and biotechnology research based on a request for
applicants to address aspects of the impacts on environment, health and safety have not shown too
promising results. Many researchers chose not to address the issues and the evaluators consequently
did not find the aspects important enough to let these aspects influence the priorities and decisions
made. The experience with the present demand for addressing socio-economic aspects in EU
research applications has neither been too promising, as many of the technical domains have
addressed these issues rather superficially. One reason may be the lack of environmental and health
knowledge among evaluators of the proposals, but disagreements with the priorities and the very
basic difficulties in assessing these aspects in the very beginning of a new field of research play also
a role. The earlier described dialogue processes could also be applied in the screening of research
proposals.

Environmental assessment as part of research

Environmental screening of research proposals is one thing, while environmental assessments as
part of research are something else. Such assessments can be part of all three types of research
(policy research, technology research, environmental research). So-called ‘integrated environmental
assessment’ is suggested in the EU nanotechnology strategy and in the Danish nanotechnology
action plan. The idea could also be worthwhile exploring while building on the experiences from
the Danish technology assessment activities of ICT and biotechnology in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

An important aspect of the assessment of environmental aspects of technology concerns the

structure of the research funding schemes and the organisation of the environmental research as
integrated or independent of the technology research: Should the funding for environmental
research be given independently of the technology research? Should the environmental research be
organised as an integrated or an independent activity? Environmental researchers being part of a
nanotechnology research group or department could, on the one hand, develop trust in the relation
to the nanotechnology researchers and have enough proximity to the research process and the
research subject to allow for detailed assessments. On the other hand, integrated environmental
research capacity without independent funding could run the risk of becoming too close to and too
dependent of the nanotechnology researchers. The environmental researchers could be afraid of
preventing patenting as a possibility by pointing to environmental risks of a certain material,
process etc. or by presenting the research to external stakeholders for dialogue about environmental
aspects. This dilemma would become even bigger, if the environmental researchers do not have
their own funding. Furthermore, the competencies needed for such assessments are complex and
could probably not be built within the single research organisation. All in all this points to the
development of some independent capacity for assessment of societal aspects, including
environmental potentials and risks of the nanotechnology areas.
Two European examples show how social and environmental concerns may be integrated into
nanotechnology research and innovation, although it is not clear what impact the two initiatives
actually have had on the research and innovation agendas. But at least the two examples show two
ways of organising the interaction between nanotechnology research and broader societal concerns.

19
At University of Cambridge a researcher, who is trained as a chemist before switching to the social
sciences, was employed within a nano research group. The activities included development of
methods for reflection on the social implications of scientific research and to help figure out how
non-scientists might be involved in deciding what this new wave in technology can do and how it
might be managed. The challenge is to avoid making the social sciences the handmaiden of
technological innovation (Turney 2005 [44]).
The Dutch constructive technology assessment (CTA) activity within the national Dutch
nanotechnology programme, NanoNed, is organised as an independent, but integrated programme.
The CTA programme organises their own projects, but in connection to activities within the
national nanotechnology program: ‘The aim of technology assessment is to understand and improve
the interaction between science, technology and society. This requires dedicated methodologies and
in-depth studies. Our intellectual framework is based on the notion of co-evolution: research
activities, scientific fields, funding opportunities and societal visions are interdependent and shape
each other mutually. Reflection on such co-evolution is a further goal of the NanoNed TA program’
(Technology Assessment 2006 [45]). In one of the CTA projects about bionanochips the starting
point is the tracing of expectations and agenda building, network relations and mutual dependencies
of actors, which leads to new structures in the field of nanotechnology. This is the input for the
participants in a CTA study, which consist of the development of socio-technical scenarios,
workshops and follow up interviews. The hope is that this lead to ‘changed behaviour of the
participants due to the CTA study, which could lead to more desirable paths of technological
development’ (Merkerk 2006 [46]). The challenge to the CTA strategy is, as we see it, how not to
become social marketing of nanotechnology by helping the nano researchers make their diffuse
scenarios better without challenging the need for the nanotechnologies in focus by for example
confronting the legitimacy of the problems addressed and the solutions provided by the researchers
and the designers.

Integration of environmental aspects in policy support for strategic innovation

The integration of environmental aspects into strategic innovation policies is a possibility of
supporting the creation of new paths of development and bringing new technologies to real life test.
Instruments for this support include (Jørgensen et al 2006 [2]):
• The support for combining technologies into products within specific fields of application
whereby the environmental impacts better can be identified and assessed and realistic user
conditions confront the technologies.
• The integration of environmental concerns into the innovation processes at the earlier stages
of prototype developments are important to assure that these aspects are being part of the
creation of development paths shaped in these innovation processes.
• The support for market development through combinations of regulation of potential
application fields, support for demonstration projects and network activities involving
potential suppliers, customers, knowledge institutions and intermediaries.
The Danish experience with development within wind power and organic food as areas of eco-
innovation show that it is possible to develop new, more sustainable development paths within an
application area in competition and cooperation with existing well-established trajectories
(Jørgensen et al, 2006). Such path creation demands a combination of reshaping existing
institutions, competencies and regulatory mechanisms etc., and developing new institutions,
competencies and regulatory mechanisms etc. The experience with the regulation of wind power
and organic food also show, however, that there are limitations to the regulatory capacity of the

20
market if the development of the market is not supported by systematic public procurement,
development of standards, support for research and development, competence development and
restrictions to the competing technologies and products (Jørgensen 2004 [47]).

Concluding remarks
The analysis of three consumer products shows how the environmental aspects and potential
environmental impacts might be quite different although the nanotechnology apparently seems to be
the same. The differences are related to differences in demands for material purity, use of hazardous
chemicals and exposure routes during manufacturing, use and waste handling. This shows the need
for detailed environmental assessments as part of research and innovation within nanotechnology.
The big stakes and the big uncertainties point to the need for development of socially robust
knowledge about nanotechnologies and their environmental potentials and risks. An integrated
design approach to the management during research and innovation of environmental aspects and
impacts has been developed. The approach can be summarised in the following way:

• Nanotechnologies should not be seen as single elements, as a chemical or material, but whole
systems of actor-networks seen in a systems and a life cycle perspective. The systems need to be
included in the identification and assessment of environmental aspects and impacts.

• Scripts and scenarios might be used to describe the future roles of a nanotechnology, users and
the surrounding society and necessary infrastructures, which researchers and designers –
consciously or unconsciously - define as part of their development of a nanotechnology.

• Societal problems and their solutions are not universal, but actor-specific and their legitimacy
can be discussed. Furthermore, the legitimacy of different solutions to social and environmental
problems might be compared. Such a comparison might go beyond the simple comparison of
consumption of chemicals and resources etc., and include the cultural impact, like the impact on the
societal understanding of nature and the need to act in a preventive and precautious way.

• The environmental aspects related to a nanotechnology and the nanotechnology itself are co-
shaped during research, innovation and application, so that iterative and adaptive governance
concepts need to be applied involving different types of stakeholders with different competences.

• The governance perspective builds upon democratic legitimacy as concept, which includes
possibilities and limitations to participation, democratic control and the quality of the discourses
among stakeholders.

• As measures which can support the integration of environmental concerns into research and
innovation policies and research and innovation the following are recommended: Visions as a
means of shaping the research policies and the research, environmental screening of research
proposals, environmental assessment as part of technology research with a preventive focus and
organised with a high level of legitimacy through a balance of proximity and independence.
Integration of environmental aspects in policies supporting strategic innovation can support the
development of prototypes and emerging markets.

21
Acknowledgements
The contribution of Ulrik Jørgensen, Technical University of Denmark in the dialogue about
development of governance strategies in relation to research and innovation is acknowledged.

References
[1] Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M. The New Production of
Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Sage,
1994

[2] Jørgensen MS, Andersen MM, Hansen AG, Wenzel H, Pedersen TT, Jørgensen U, Falch M,
Rasmussen B, Olsen SI, Willum O. Green Technology Foresight about environmentally friendly
products and materials - The challenges from nanotechnology, biotechnology and ICT. Working
Report No. 34, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, 2006

[3] Franco A. Mapping the gaps in regulation of nanotechnology in a life cycle perspective. Master
thesis project. Technical University of Denmark, 2006

[4] Lewis H, Gertsakis J, with Grant T, Morelli N, Sweatman A. Design + Environment. A global
guide to designing greener products. Greenleaf, 2001
[5] Ornetzeder, M and Rohracher, H (2006): User-led innovations and participation processes:
lessons from sustainable energy technologies. Energy Policy 2006; (34):138-150

[6] Latour B. Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker
WE, Law J, editors: Shaping technology, building society. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1987:225-
258

[7] Callon M. Some elements in a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and
fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In: Law J, editor: Power, action and belief: A new sociology of
knowledge? Routledge & Kegan, Paul, London, 1986: 196-233

[8] Carroll JM. Making Use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. The MIT
Press, 2000

[9] Law J. editor. A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination.
London, Routledge, 1991

[10] Akrich M. The De-scription of Technical Objects. In: Bijker, W.E. and Law, J, editors.
Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1992:205-224

[11] Nowotny, H The Need for Socially Robust Knowledge. TA-Datenbank-Nachrichten December
1999;8(3/4): 12-16

[12] Rip A, Articulating Images, Attitudes and Views of Nanotechnology: Enactors and
Comparative Selectors. Paper for ELSA Nano workshop, Brussels 14-15 April 2004.

22
[13] Olesen J, Wenzel H, Hain L, Andreasen MM. Environmental friendly design (In Danish:
Miljørigtig konstruktion). Instituttet for Produktudvikling, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet; Miljø-
og Energiministeriet, Miljøstyrelsen; Dansk Industri, 1996

[14] Malsch I. Benefits, Risks, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Nanotechnology. 4th
Nanoforum report, June 2004

[15] Dionysiou DD. Environmental Applications and Implications of Nanotechnology and

Nanomaterials. Journal of Environmental Engineering 2004;139:723-724.

[16] Masciangioli T, Zhang WX. Environmental Technologies at the Nanoscale.

Environmental Science and Technology, 2003:102A-108A

[17] Oberdorster G, Maynard A, Donaldson K, Castranova V, Fitzpatrick J, Ausman K, Carter J,

Karn B, Kreyling W, Lai D, Olin S, Monteiro-Riviere N, Warheit D, Yang H. Principles
for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements
of a screening strategy. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2005; 2

[18] Nel A, Xia T, Mädler L, Li N. Toxic Potential of Materials at the Nanolevel. Science, 2006;
(311):627.

[19] Borm PJA, Robbins D, Haubold S, Kuhlbusch T, Fissan H, Donaldson K, Schins RPF, Stone
V, Kreyling W, Lademann J, Krutmann J, Warheit D, Oberdorster E. The potential risks of
nanomaterials: a review carried out for ECETOC. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2006;3:11

[20] Lloyd S, Lave L, Matthews S. Life Cycle Benefits of Using Nanotechnology To Stabilize
Platinum-Group Metal Particles in Automotive Catalysts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005;39:1384-
1392.

[21] Lloyd, S and Lave L (2003): Life Cycle Economic and Environmental Implications of Using
Nanocomposites in Automobiles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 3458-3466

[22] Steinfeldt, M, Petschow, U, Haum, R, von Gleich A. Nanotechnology and Sustainability.

Discussion paper of the IÖW 65/04, IÖW, 2004

[23] Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Rasmussen E. Environmental assessment of products (In Danish:

Miljøvurdering af produkter). Instituttet for Produktudvikling, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet;
Miljø- og Energiministeriet, Miljøstyrelsen; Dansk Industri, 1996

[24] Bras-Klapwijk B. Adjusting Life Cycle Assessment Methodology for Use in Public Policy
Discours. Delft University of Technology, 1998

[25] Takehara H, Fujiwara M, Arikawa M, Diener MD, Alford JM. Experimental Study of
Industrial Scale Fullerene Production by Combustion Synthesis. Carbon 2004; 43 (2):311-319

[26] Nano-C. Masters of Flame: Industrial Production of Fullerenes Becomes a Reality, 2002
(Available at www.nano-c.com/pdf/Masters%20of%20the%20Flame.pdf, accessed 25 June 2006)

23
[27] Cataldo F. A Study on the Thermal Stability to 1000°C of various Carbon Allotropes and
Carbonaceous Matter both under nitrogen and in air, Fullerenes 2002;20(4):293-311

[28] Daenen M, de Fouw R, Hamers B, Janssen PGA, Schoutveden K, Veld, MAJ. Wondrous
World of Carbon Nanotubes - a review on current carbon nanotube technologies, Interdisciplinary
Student project, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2003 (Available at
http://students.chem.tue.nl/ifp03/default.htm, accessed Dec 4 2006)

[29] Haum R, Petschow U, Steinfeldt M, von Gleich A. Nanotechnology and Regulation within the
Framework of the Precautionary Principle, Schriftenreihe des IÖW 173/04, IÖW, 2004

[30] Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. vironmental applications and impacts of
nanotechnology” 8 December 2003. Summary of evidence presented to the nanotechnology
working group (Available at www.nanotech.org., accessed Dec 1 2006)

[31] Berkhout F, Hertin J. Impacts of Information and Communication Technologies on

Environmental Sustainability: Speculations and Evidence” Report to the OECD. Brighton: Science
and Technology Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, 2001

[32] Zhao Y, Kim Y, Dillon AC, Heben MJ, Zhang SB. Hydrogen storage in novel
organometallic buckyballs. Physical Review Letters 2004; 94(15):1-4

[33] Kuehr R, Williams E, editors. Computers and the environment. Dordrecht, Boston, London:
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003

[34] Schischke K, Griese H. Is small green? Life Cycle Aspects of Technology Trends in
Microelectronicss and Microsystems, 2004 (Available
http://www.lcacenter.org/InLCA2004/papers/Schischke_K_paper.pdf.)

[35] Plepys A. The environmental impacts of electronics. Going beyond the walls of semiconductor
fabs.Conference Record.2004 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment,
2004, IEEE:159-165.

[36] Sarasua JR, Pouyet J. Recycling effects on microstructure and mechanical behaviour of PEEK
short carbon-fibre composites. Journal of Materials Science 1997;37:533-536.

[37] Dingwerth K. Democratic Governance beyond the State: Operationalising an Idea. Global
Governance Working Paper No 14. Amsterdam, Berlin, Oldenburg, Potsdam: The Global
Governance Project, 2004. (Available at www.glogov.org)

[38] Elam M, Bertilsson M. Consuming, Engaging and Confronting Science: The Emerging
Dimensions of Scientific Citizenship. STAGE Discussion Paper One, 2002 (Available at
http://www.stage-research.net/STAGE/downloads/StageDiscussPaper.pdf, accessed Dec 6, 20006)

[39] Brown N, Rip A, Van Lente H. Expectations In & About Science and Technology. A
background paper for the ‘expectations’ workshop of 13-14 June 2003, Utrecht (Available at
http://www.york.ac.uk/org/satsu/expectations/Utrecht%202003/Background%20paper%20version%
2014May03.pdf, accessed Nov 15, 2005)

24
[40] Grove-White R, Kearns M, Miller P, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J, Wynne B. Bio-to-Nano?
Learning the lessons, interrogating the comparison (Amended version), Lancaster University and
Demos, 2004

[41] Norges forskningsråd. Nanotechnologies and new materials: Health, environment, ethics and
society. National research and competence needs (In Norwegian: Nanoteknologier og nye
materialer: Helse, miljø, etikk og samfunn. Nasjonale forsknings- og kompetansebehov) Oslo, 2005
(Available at
http://www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?Vis=Detalj&c=Publikasjon&cid=1137743006251&
p=1138650412920&pagename=ForskningsradetNorsk%2FPage%2FPublikasjonssokSidemal,
accessed Dec 6 2006)

[42] Harremoes P, Gee D, Mac Garvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Vaz SG. Late lessons from
early versions: the precautionary principle 1896-2000. Environmental Issue Report No. 22,
Luxembourg: European Environmental Agency, 2001

[43] Van Est R, van Keulen I. Small technology – big consequences: Building up the Dutch debate
on nanotechnology from the bottom. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie und Praxis 2004;
13(3):72-79

[44] Turney J. Before you build that nanobot. The Times Higher Education Supplement, 28 January
2005 (Available at http://www.nanoandsociety.com/news/documents/THES%20-%2005.pdf,
accessed Dec 4, 2006)

[45] Technology Assessment (About technology assessment in the Dutch NanoNed programme)
(Available at http://www.nanoned.nl/TA/Technology+Assessment.htm, accessed Dec 4, 2006)

[46] Merkerk, R. (2006): Emerging irreversibilities and constructive technology assessment of

bionanochips in the Netherlands (Accessed at
http://www.geo.uu.nl/phpscripts/staffpages/personal/personal.php?id=Merke101, Dec 4, 2006)

[47] Jørgensen. M.S. Policy integration in the shaping of organic food as strategy in the Danish
food sector – what happened to the environmental concern as driving force. Paper presented at 2004
Berlin Conference on the Human Dimension of Global Environmental Change: Greening of
Policies - Policy Integration and Interlinkages. Berlin, 3-4 Dec 2004, Free University of Berlin

25