You are hereBiblio / Problem Formulation and Option Assessment (PFOA) Linking Governance and Environmental Risk Assessment for Technologies: A Methodology for Problem Analysis of Nanotechnologies and Genetically Engineered Organisms

Problem Formulation and Option Assessment (PFOA) Linking Governance and Environmental Risk Assessment for Technologies: A Methodology for Problem Analysis of Nanotechnologies and Genetically Engineered Organisms


By csep - Posted on 13 May 2010

TitleProblem Formulation and Option Assessment (PFOA) Linking Governance and Environmental Risk Assessment for Technologies: A Methodology for Problem Analysis of Nanotechnologies and Genetically Engineered Organisms
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2009
AuthorsNelson, Kristen C., Andow David A., and Banker Michael J.
JournalJournal of Law, Medicine & Ethics
Volume37
Issue4
Pagination732-748
Date PublishedWinter2009
Type of ArticleArticle
Publication Languageeng
ISBN Number10731105
Accession Number46823890
KeywordsDECISION making, ENVIRONMENTAL risk assessment, NANOTECHNOLOGY, Risk Assessment, SOCIAL aspects, TECHNOLOGICAL innovations, TRANSGENIC organisms, TRANSPARENCY in government
Abstract

Societal evaluation of new technologies, specifically nanotechnology and genetically engineered organisms, challenges current practices of governance and science. Employing environmental risk assessment (ERA) for governance and oversight assumes we have a reasonable ability to understand consequences and predict adverse effects. However, traditional ERA has come under considerable criticism for its many shortcomings and current governance institutions have demonstrated limitations in transparency, public input, and capacity. The authors of this article suggest that Problem Formulation and Options Assessment (PFOA), may be a better alternative approach. This is a methodology founded on three key concepts in risk assessment (science-based consideration, deliberation, and multi-criteria analysis) and three in governance (participation, transparency, and accountability).

Notes

Nelson, Kristen C. 1 Andow, David A. 2 Banker, Michael J. 3; Affiliation: 1: Associate Professor in the Department of Forest Resources and the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Conservation Biology, Co-Coordinator for Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, and a recipient of the Morse Distinguished Teaching Award at the University of Minnesota. 2: Distinguished McKnight University Professor in the Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota, and has consulted for the National Academy of Sciences, USDA, EPA, FAO, WTO, NAFTA, and the Convention on Biological Diversity on ecological risks of genetically engineered organisms. 3: Communications/Outreach Manager and Project Analyst for the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources, Minnesota State Legislature.; Source Info: Winter2009, Vol. 37 Issue 4, p732; Subject Term: TECHNOLOGICAL innovations; Subject Term: TRANSPARENCY in government; Subject Term: NANOTECHNOLOGY; Subject Term: TRANSGENIC organisms; Subject Term: ENVIRONMENTAL risk assessment; Subject Term: DECISION making; Subject Term: SOCIAL aspects; Number of Pages: 17p; Illustrations: 1 Diagram; Document Type: Article

DOI10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00444.x