Scientists versus regulators: precaution, novelty & regulatory oversight as predictors of perceived risks of engineered nanomaterials.

Engineered nanoscale materials (ENMs) present a difficult challenge for risk assessors and regulators. Continuing uncertainty about the potential risks of ENMs means that expert opinion will play an important role in the design of policies to minimize harmful implications while supporting innovation. This research aims to shed light on the views of 'nano experts' to understand which nanomaterials or applications are regarded as more risky than others, to characterize the differences in risk perceptions between expert groups, and to evaluate the factors that drive these perceptions. Our analysis draws from a web-survey (N = 404) of three groups of US and Canadian experts: nano-scientists and engineers, nano-environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers. Significant differences in risk perceptions were found across expert groups; differences found to be driven by underlying attitudes and perceptions characteristic of each group. Nano-scientists and engineers at the upstream end of the nanomaterial life cycle perceived the lowest levels of risk, while those who are responsible for assessing and regulating risks at the downstream end perceived the greatest risk. Perceived novelty of nanomaterial risks, differing preferences for regulation (i.e. the use of precaution versus voluntary or market-based approaches), and perceptions of the risk of technologies in general predicted variation in experts' judgments of nanotechnology risks. Our findings underscore the importance of involving a diverse selection of experts, particularly those with expertise at different stages along the nanomaterial lifecycle, during policy development.

Expert views on regulatory preparedness for managing the risks of nanotechnologies.

The potential and promise of nanotechnologies depends in large part on the ability for regulatory systems to assess and manage their benefits and risks. However, considerable uncertainty persists regarding the health and environmental implications of nanomaterials, hence the capacity for existing regulations to meet this challenge has been widely questioned. Here we draw from a survey (N=254) of US-based nano-scientists and engineers, environmental health and safety scientists, and regulatory scientists and decision-makers, to ask whether nano experts regard regulatory agencies as prepared for managing nanomaterial risks. We find that all three expert groups view regulatory agencies as unprepared. The effect is strongest for regulators themselves, and less so for scientists conducting basic, applied, or health and safety work on nanomaterials. Those who see nanotechnology risks as novel, uncertain, and difficult to assess are particularly likely to see agencies as unprepared. Trust in regulatory agencies, views of stakeholder responsibility regarding the management of risks, and socio-political values were also found to be small but significant drivers of perceived agency preparedness. These results underscore the need for new tools and methods to enable the assessment of nanomaterial risks, and to renew confidence in regulatory agencies' ability to oversee their growing use and application in society.

From cradle-to-grave at the nanoscale: gaps in U.S. regulatory oversight along the nanomaterial life cycle.

Engineered nanomaterials (ENMs) promise great benefits for society, yet our knowledge of potential risks and best practices for regulation are still in their infancy. Toward the end of better practices, this paper analyzes U.S. federal environmental, health, and safety (EHS) regulations using a life cycle framework. It evaluates their adequacy as applied to ENMs to identify gaps through which emerging nanomaterials may escape regulation from initial production to end-of-life. High scientific uncertainty, a lack of EHS and product data, inappropriately designed exemptions and thresholds, and limited agency resources are a challenge to both the applicability and adequacy of current regulations. The result is that some forms of engineered nanomaterials may escape federal oversight and rigorous risk review at one or more stages along their life cycle, with the largest gaps occurring at the postmarket stages, and at points of ENM release to the environment. Oversight can be improved through pending regulatory reforms, increased research and development for the monitoring, control, and analysis of environmental and end-of-life releases, introduction of periodic re-evaluation of ENM risks, and fostering a "bottom-up" stewardship approach to the responsible management of risks from engineered nanomaterials.

Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies.

Understanding emerging trends in public perceptions of nanomaterials is critically important for those who regulate risks. A number of surveys have explored public perceptions of their risks and benefits. In this paper we meta-analyse these surveys to assess the extent to which the following four hypotheses derived from previous studies of new technologies might be said to be valid for nanotechnologies: risk aversion will prevail over benefit appreciation; an increase in knowledge will not result in reduced aversion to risks; judgements will be malleable and subject to persuasion given risk-centric information; and contextual, psychometric and attitudinal predictors of perceived risk from prior studies can help anticipate future perceptions of nanotechnologies. We find that half the public has at least some familiarity with nanotechnology, and those who perceive greater benefits outnumber those who perceive greater risks by 3 to 1. However, a large minority of those surveyed (44%) is unsure, suggesting that risk judgements are highly malleable. Nanotechnology risk perceptions also appear to contradict some long-standing findings. In particular, unfamiliarity with nanotechnology is, contrary to expectations, not strongly associated with risk aversion and reduced 'knowledge deficits' are correlated with positive perceptions in this early and controversy-free period. Psychometric variables, trust and affect continue to drive risk perceptions in this new context, although the influence of both trust and affect is mediated, even reversed, by demographic and cultural variables. Given the potential malleability of perceptions, novel methods for understanding future public responses to nanotechnologies will need to be developed.

Methods for peptide identification by spectral comparison.

BACKGROUND: Tandem mass spectrometry followed by database search is currently the predominant technology for peptide sequencing in shotgun proteomics experiments. Most methods compare experimentally observed spectra to the theoretical spectra predicted from the sequences in protein databases. There is a growing interest, however, in comparing unknown experimental spectra to a library of previously identified spectra. This approach has the advantage of taking into account instrument-dependent factors and peptide-specific differences in fragmentation probabilities. It is also computationally more efficient for high-throughput proteomics studies. RESULTS: This paper investigates computational issues related to this spectral comparison approach. Different methods have been empirically evaluated over several large sets of spectra. First, we illustrate that the peak intensities follow a Poisson distribution. This implies that applying a square root transform will optimally stabilize the peak intensity variance. Our results show that the square root did indeed outperform other transforms, resulting in improved accuracy of spectral matching. Second, different measures of spectral similarity were compared, and the results illustrated that the correlation coefficient was most robust. Finally, we examine how to assemble multiple spectra associated with the same peptide to generate a synthetic reference spectrum. Ensemble averaging is shown to provide the best combination of accuracy and efficiency. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that when combined, these methods can boost the sensitivity and specificity of spectral comparison. Therefore they are capable of enhancing and complementing existing tools for consistent and accurate peptide identification.