Kåre Nolde Nielsen

Framing Fish, Making Markets: The Construction of Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs):

The quota that is on offer, which would cost you in the order of NOK 1.0–1.3 million if you got the bid, is a right to fish a specific amount of a certain kind of fish. ‘9–10m’ is the length of the fishing vessel in relation to which the quota is defined. ‘gr 1’ is short for Group1, a basic category of fishing vessel defined within the management system for the coastal cod fishery in Norway. There are two such basic categories (Group1 and Group2), the first targeting full-time professional fishermen, the second reserved for part-timers. In 2005, the quota for a Group1 vessel of 9–10 meters would have been 65380 of ‘cod equivalents.’ As the above suggests, the commodity we have before us is a complex thing. Every phrase in the ad, including the date at the start and the phone number at the end, is packed with significance. While you, the model reader of this chapter, have no problem with the numbers that frame the ad (date and phone number), you are not pre-equipped with the lexicon required to decode the meaning of its key concepts. We shall try to turn this quality of the tradable quota into our advantage. Still, we would not be surprised if you, at this point, see the quota and the cod as just another case of fishy objects. At the end of the chapter, however, you will learn to appreciate these things in all their intricate beauty. Let us begin with the obvious. The ad indicates that a market for fish quotas exists. From the specifications in the ad (9–10m; gr 1; Nordland) and the rule systems these refer to, we understand that the fish quota is a legal construct. Without a formal apparatus to define and produce the fish quota as a stable

Operationalization and application of “early warning signs” to screen nanomaterials for harmful properties

In 2001 the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a report that analyzed 14 cases of technological developments that later on turned out to have negative side-effects and they identified 12 “late lessons” for current and future policy-makers to bear in mind when initiating new technological endeavors. This paper explores how the first lesson – “Acknowledge and respond to ignorance, uncertainty and risk in technology appraisal” could be applied to screen nanomaterials. In cases of ignorance, uncertainty and risk, the EEA recommends paying particular attention to important warning signs such as novelty, persistency, whether materials are readily dispersed in the environment, and whether they bioaccumulate or lead to potentially irreversible action. Through an analysis of these criteria using five well-known nanomaterials (titanium dioxide, carbon nanotubes, liposomes, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) and nanoscale zero-valent iron), it was found that only nanoTiO2 fulfils all the five criteria. Depending on the length of the nanotubes, carbon nanotubes fulfil 3 or 4 criteria whereas liposomes, poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), nanoscale zero-valent iron fulfil only one criteria. Finally, we discuss how these warning signs can be used by different stakeholders such as nanomaterial researchers and developers, companies and regulators to design benign nanomaterials, communicate what is known about nano-risks and decide on whether to implement precautionary regulatory measures.

Mapping Uncertainties in the Upstream: The Case of PLGA Nanoparticles in Salmon Vaccines

The diversity of nanotechnologies and of the governance challenges that their applications raise calls for exploration and learning across different cases. We present an Upstream Oversight Assessment (UOA) of expected benefits and potential harms of nanoparticles made of a synthetic polymer (PLGA) to improve vaccines for farmed salmon. Suggested by Jennifer Kuzma and colleagues, an UOA may help identify and prioritise research needs, and it may support evaluations of the adequacy of relevant existing regulatory frameworks. In this work, the UOA approach is modified and supported with elements from the uncertainty analysis framework developed by Warren Walker and colleagues. Empirically, we draw on relevant available published literature and insights generated in an ongoing nanoparticle salmon vaccine project, in which one of the authors participates. Nanotechnologies have not previously been encountered in the regulatory context of fish vaccines, which in part raises unique challenges due to prospective large scale vaccine use in semi-open aquatic systems. Strengthened through cooperation between ELSA and technology researchers we found the UOA useful for an early mapping of benefits and concerns, and for identifying areas in need of further research prior to a nanoparticle based salmon vaccine is developed and taken into use. We consider our approach to represent one among several complementing initiatives that seek to contribute to early stage evaluations of possible negative side effects, broadly conceived, in order to facilitate a more robust nanotechnology development.

Centre and Periphery of Nano—A Norwegian Context

This work describes the nano field in Norway as currently emerging in the dynamics between two forms of nano research activities described along a centre-periphery axis. 1) There are strategic research initiatives committed to redeem the envisioned potential of the field by means of social and material reorganisation of existing research activities. This activity is seen as central as it is one of our premises that the standard circulating nano vision implies such a work of reorganisation. The fact that nano is often taken as a paradigmatic example of the shift from Mode-1 to Mode-2 research, supports this assumption. 2) In parallel to this activity, a wide variety of research projects pursuing nano strategies are being funded. We regard such research activity as peripheral in so far as the activity is not marked by being committed to the circulating nano vision, as may often be the case. In the process of reorganising, this article argues, the research activity at the periphery provides a crucial arena for discussing and validating what is to be achieved through the work of reorganisation that takes place at the centre. Our analysis is informed by two Norwegian cases. We examine a major nano research initiative at a Norwegian university as a centre and a research project utilising nanoparticles in fish vaccines as a periphery.