In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. (...) To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply. (shrink)

This work presents a blueprint or set of guidelines for the planning and development of sustainable national centers dealing with the safety of nanomaterials and nanotechnologies toward public health and environment. The blueprint was developed following a methodological approach of EU-wide online survey and workshop with several stakeholders. The purpose was to identify the key elements and challenges in the development and sustainability of a national nanosafety center. The responses were received from representatives of 16 national nanosafety centers across Europe (...) and 44 people from 18 EU member states who represented the stakeholder groups of researchers, academics, industry, regulators, civil society, and consultants. By providing an overview of the organizational design of existing national nanosafety centers across EU and converging demands in the field of nanosafety, the blueprint principally benefits those EU member states who do not have a national nanosafety center, but intend to develop an entity to manage the human health, environmental, ethical, and social concerns/risks toward the growing nationwide activities on engineered nanomaterials, e.g., their production, use or disposal, at national level. (shrink)

In recent years, informed consent has been suggested as a way to deal with risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. We argue that while we can learn from experiences with informed consent in treatment and research contexts, we should be aware that informed consent traditionally pertains to certain features of the relationships between doctors and patients and researchers and research participants, rather than those between producers and consumers and employers and employees, which are more prominent in the case of engineered nanomaterials. (...) To better understand these differences, we identify three major relational factors that influence whether valid informed consent is obtainable, namely dependency, personal proximity, and existence of shared interests. We show that each type of relationship offers different opportunities for reflection and therefore poses distinct challenges for obtaining valid informed consent. Our analysis offers a systematic understanding of the possibilities for attaining informed consent in the context of nanomaterial risks and makes clear that measures or regulations to improve the obtainment of informed consent should be attuned to the specific interpersonal relations to which it is supposed to apply. (shrink)