Finbarr Murphy

The insurability of nanomaterial production risk

Without insurance the long-term sustainability of nanotechnology is questionable, but insurance companies are encumbered by their institutional memory of losses from the asbestos crisis and the absence of suitable actuarial models to measure the potential risks of nanotechnology. Here we propose a framework that supports the transfer of nanomaterial production risk to the insurance sector.

Sustainable nanotechnology decision support system: bridging risk management, sustainable innovation and risk governance

The significant uncertainties associated with the (eco)toxicological risks of engineered nanomaterials pose challenges to the development of nano-enabled products toward greatest possible societal benefit. This paper argues for the use of risk governance approaches to manage nanotechnology risks and sustainability, and considers the links between these concepts. Further, seven risk assessment and management criteria relevant to risk governance are defined: (a) life cycle thinking, (b) triple bottom line, (c) inclusion of stakeholders, (d) risk management, (e) benefit–risk assessment, (f) consideration of uncertainty, and (g) adaptive response. These criteria are used to compare five well-developed nanotechnology frameworks: International Risk Governance Council framework, Comprehensive Environmental Assessment, Streaming Life Cycle Risk Assessment, Certifiable Nanospecific Risk Management and Monitoring System and LICARA NanoSCAN. A Sustainable Nanotechnology Decision Support System (SUNDS) is proposed to better address current nanotechnology risk assessment and management needs, and makes. Stakeholder needs were solicited for further SUNDS enhancement through a stakeholder workshop that included representatives from regulatory, industry and insurance sectors. Workshop participants expressed the need for the wider adoption of sustainability assessment methods and tools for designing greener nanomaterials.

Impact and effectiveness of risk mitigation strategies on the insurability of nanomaterial production: evidences from industrial case studies

Workers involved in producing nanomaterials or using nanomaterials in manufacturing plants are likely to have earlier and higher exposure to manufactured/engineered nanomaterials (ENM) than the general population. This is because both the volume handled and the probability of the effluence of ‘free’ nanoparticles from the handled volume are much higher during a production process than at any other stage in the lifecycle of nanomaterials and nanotechnology‐enabled products. Risk assessment (RA) techniques using control banding (CB) as a framework for risk transfer represents a robust theory but further progress on implementing the model is required so that risk can be transferred to insurance companies. Following a review of RA in general and hazard measurement in particular, we subject a Structural Alert Scheme methodology to three industrial case studies using ZrO2, TiO2, and multi‐walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT). The materials are tested in a pristine state and in a remediated (coated) state, and the respective emission and hazard rates are tested alongside the material performance as originally designed. To our knowledge, this is the first such implementation of a CB RA in conjunction with an ENM performance test and offers both manufacturers and underwriters an insight into future applications. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2015, 7:839–855. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1340 This article is categorized under: 1 Toxicology and Regulatory Issues in Nanomedicine > Regulatory and Policy Issues in Nanomedicine

A Tractable Method for Measuring Nanomaterial Risk Using Bayesian Networks

While control banding has been identified as a suitable framework for the evaluation and the determination of potential human health risks associated with exposure to nanomaterials (NMs), the approach currently lacks any implementation that enjoys widespread support. Large inconsistencies in characterisation data, toxicological measurements and exposure scenarios make it difficult to map and compare the risk associated with NMs based on physicochemical data, concentration and exposure route. Here we demonstrate the use of Bayesian networks as a reliable tool for NM risk estimation. This tool is tractable, accessible and scalable. Most importantly, it captures a broad span of data types, from complete, high quality data sets through to data sets with missing data and/or values with a relatively high spread of probability distribution. The tool is able to learn iteratively in order to further refine forecasts as the quality of data available improves. We demonstrate how this risk measurement approach works on NMs with varying degrees of risk potential, namely, carbon nanotubes, silver and titanium dioxide. The results afford even non-experts an accurate picture of the occupational risk probabilities associated with these NMs and, in doing so, demonstrated how NM risk can be evaluated into a tractable, quantitative risk comparator.

Application of Bayesian networks for hazard ranking of nanomaterials to support human health risk assessment

Abstract In this study, a Bayesian Network (BN) was developed for the prediction of the hazard potential and biological effects with the focus on metal- and metal-oxide nanomaterials to support human health risk assessment. The developed BN captures the (inter) relationships between the exposure route, the nanomaterials physicochemical properties and the ultimate biological effects in a holistic manner and was based on international expert consultation and the scientific literature (e.g., in vitro/in vivo data). The BN was validated with independent data extracted from published studies and the accuracy of the prediction of the nanomaterials hazard potential was 72% and for the biological effect 71%, respectively. The application of the BN is shown with scenario studies for TiO2, SiO2, Ag, CeO2, ZnO nanomaterials. It is demonstrated that the BN may be used by different stakeholders at several stages in the risk assessment to predict certain properties of a nanomaterials of which little information is available or to prioritize nanomaterials for further screening.

Engineered nanomaterials: risk perception, regulation and insurance

Concerns surrounding the health risk of engineered nanomaterials, effective regulation and the lack of specifically tailored insurance products for the nanotechnology sector are putting the industry’s long-term economic viability at risk. From the perspective of the underwriter, this article speculates on the relationship between risk perception, regulation and insurability. In the nanotechnology sector, regulators are currently failing to keep pace with innovation, and insurers generally lack guiding principles for underwriting occupational risk from nanomaterial exposure. Such vulnerabilities when combined with misguided risk perceptions can lead to the overpricing of risk transfer and ill-conceived regulatory initiatives, thus potentially exhausting resources and stifling innovation in the sector. In the absence of well-developed regulatory protocols, the insurance industry has, and will continue, to occupy a key role as an effective lobby in terms of improved risk management practice. We suggest that the insurance industry will increasingly rely on control banding frameworks and ‘risk mitigation at source’ methods developed in conjunction with their clients to manage severe acute diversifiable risks. Long tail risk will continue to represent a serious challenge to insurers and regulators. In the meantime, insurers will have to bridge their current needs with improvised solutions. As an example of one possible solution, we outline a framework that utilizes financial instruments to hedge an insurer’s exposure to uncertain estimates of these long-term risks.

Insuring nanotech requires effective risk communication

The absence of nanotechnology-specific insurance policies could be detrimental to the development of the nanotechnology industry. Better communication between insurers and scientists is an essential step to provide a regulatory framework protecting both producers and consumers.

Empowering citizens in international governance of nanotechnologies.

The international dialogue on responsible governance of nanotechnologies engages a wide range of actors with conflicting as well as common interests. It is also characterised by a lack of evidence-based data on uncertain risks of in particular engineered nanomaterials. The present paper aims at deepening understanding of the collective decision making context at international level using the grounded theory approach as proposed by Glaser and Strauss in “The Discovery of Grounded Theory” (1967). This starts by discussing relevant concepts from different fields including sociological and political studies of international relations as well as political philosophy and ethics. This analysis of current trends in international law making is taken as starting point for exploring the role that a software decision support tool could play in multi-stakeholder global governance of nanotechnologies. These theoretical ideas are then compared with the current design of the SUN Decision Support System (SUNDS) under development in the European project on Sustainable Nanotechnologies (SUN, www.sun-fp7.eu). Through constant comparison, the ideas are also compared with requirements of different stakeholders as expressed during a user workshop. This allows for highlighting discussion points for further consideration.

Comparing mental models of prospective users of the sustainable nanotechnology decision support system

Mental modelling analysis can be a valuable tool in understanding and bridging cognitive values in multi-stakeholders’ communities. It is especially true in situation of emerging risks where significant uncertainty and competing objectives could result in significant difference in stakeholder perspective on the use of new materials and technologies. This paper presents a mental modelling study performed among prospective users of an innovative decision support system for safe and sustainable development of nano-enabled products. These users included representatives of industry and regulators, as well as several insurance specialists and researchers. We present methodology and tools for comparing stakeholder views and objectives in the context of developing a decision support system.

The Essential Elements of a Risk Governance Framework for Current and Future Nanotechnologies

Societies worldwide are investing considerable resources into the safe development and use of nanomaterials. Although each of these protective efforts is crucial for governing the risks of nanomaterials, they are insufficient in isolation. What is missing is a more integrative governance approach that goes beyond legislation. Development of this approach must be evidence based and involve key stakeholders to ensure acceptance by end users. The challenge is to develop a framework that coordinates the variety of actors involved in nanotechnology and civil society to facilitate consideration of the complex issues that occur in this rapidly evolving research and development area. Here, we propose three sets of essential elements required to generate an effective risk governance framework for nanomaterials. (1) Advanced tools to facilitate risk-based decision making, including an assessment of the needs of users regarding risk assessment, mitigation, and transfer. (2) An integrated model of predicted human behavior and decision making concerning nanomaterial risks. (3) Legal and other (nano-specific and general) regulatory requirements to ensure compliance and to stimulate proactive approaches to safety. The implementation of such an approach should facilitate and motivate good practice for the various stakeholders to allow the safe and sustainable future development of nanotechnology.