![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
One of the key objectives of the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is to clarify the role of science in policymaking. As such, scientists can help inform science and technology policy decisions by providing information on the risks and benefits of a technology. There is also high demand for scientists to take an active role in policy debates, and policymakers often rely on scientific experts to help them make decisions on regulations. However, few empirical studies have focused on the establishment of coalitions and their impact on policy outputs, or on the role of scientists in these coalitions. This paper explores how the ACF can be applied to a policy subsystem by examining two nanotechnology regulation policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as cases. Drawing on 21 interviews with people involved in nanotechnology subsystems, this paper finds that there are two opposing advocacy groups in the nanotechnology policy subsystem, each with their own shared beliefs. The qualitative interview analysis suggests that the lineup of coalition members is stable over time, but the EPA exhibits less consistent positions. The interview data also show that despite many policy actors being involved in the nanotechnology policy process, there is a significant role for scientific information in the subsystem. The paper concludes with discussions of the role of science within the nanotechnology policy subsystem and the applicability of the ACF in various settings.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. 72 Fed. Reg. 38081 (July 12, 2007).
2. EDF. Why is the nanotech industry so intent on keeping EPA from doing its job? http://blogs.edf.org/health/2015/08/20/why-is-the-nanotech-industry-so-intent-on-keeping-epa-from-doing-its-job/.
3. Comments Of The Nanomanufacturing Association On The Proposed Information Collection Rule for Chemical Substances When Manufactured Or Processed As Nanoscale Materials. http://nebula.wsimg.com/c14ec384d2be557ec6288b2400631ec4?AccessKeyId=AE1000B96B4DE9DDFA21&disposition=0&alloworigin=1.
4. EPA. Information Gathering Rule. https://www.epa.gov/reviewing-new-chemicals-under-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca/control-nanoscale-materials-under#inforule.
5. Scale back nanomaterial reporting proposals, industry tells EPA. https://chemicalwatch.com/36989/scale-back-nanomaterial-reporting-proposals-industry-tells-epa.
6. The TSCA gives the EPA the authority to regulate “chemical substances.”
7. Environmental Defense Fund. 2015. Comments on Chemical Substances When Manufactured or Processed as Nanoscale Materials: TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. http://www.eenews.net/assets/2015/08/06/document_gw_07.pdf.
8. Joint statement on the EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. 2008. http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6378.php.
9. EPA (August, 2007) Meeting Summary Report: Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program. http://nanotech.lawbc.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/539/2007/10/00021299.pdf.
10. American Coatings Association. No Small Issue: EPA’s Proposed Nano Rule and the Paint and Coatings Industry. http://www.paint.org/documents/2016/05/may-2016-ib-no-small-issue-epa-nano-reporting-rule.pdf.
11. Citizen Petition for Rulemaking to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.icta.org/files/2011/12/CTA_nano-silver-petition__final_5_1_08.pdf.
12. EPA’s Voluntary Reporting Program Fails to Deliver Data Needed to Determine Safety of Nanomaterials, Report Shows (2009). https://www.edf.org/news/epas-voluntary-reporting-program-fails-deliver-data-needed-determine-safety-nanomaterials-repor.
13. Joint statement on EPA’s Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (2008). http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=6378.php.
14. Environmental Defense (Citation2007). Environmental Defense and DuPont Jointly Launch Nano Risk Framework to Evaluate and Address Potential Risks of Nanoscale Materials. https://www.edf.org/news/environmental-defense-and-dupont-jointly-launch-nano-risk-framework-evaluate-and-address-potent.
15. The Nano Risk Framework. http://www.nanoriskframework.org/.
16. Civil Society-Labor Coalition. (2007). Civil society-labor coalition rejects fundamentally flawed DuPont-EDF framework (An open letter to the International Nanotechnology Community at Large). http://www.etcgroup.org/content/civil-societylabor-coalition-rejects-fundamentally-flawed-dupont-ed-proposed-nanotechnology.
17. Risk Policy Report (June 2017). Nanotech Sector Urges Trump EPA To Delay, Revise TSCA Reporting Rule. https://environmentalnewsstand.com/newsletters/risk-policy-report.