book chapter
The precautionary principle is a decision-making tool that is used when human activities, technologies, or products, even though scientifically acceptable, have the potential to cause unacceptable harm due to their uncertainties. Through a systematic literature review (SLR), this study investigated the implications of the precautionary principle in nanotechnology applications. The PRISMA process was employed to ensure transparency and rigour in tracking and reporting the results of the SLR. To capture the most recent and relevant data, studies published between 2018 and 2024 were prioritised. The search was conducted across three academic research databases, yielding 32 peer-reviewed articles relevant to the investigation. The findings revealed that many nanotechnology applications use the precautionary principle, which often helps in managing risks and gaining regulatory approval. However, there were concerns that relying solely on this principle might not be sufficient to address the unique risks of nanotechnology. The review showed that combining the precautionary principle with structured risk assessment frameworks and design-based strategies, such as GRACIOUS, LOPA, Safer by Design, Responsible Innovation, and nano-toxicity screening models, can offer clearer and more practical guidance. As a result, some industries support integrating the precautionary principle into manufacturing design processes or combining it with other risk management strategies. The study recommends that policymakers, researchers, and industry stakeholders adopt a balanced approach by integrating the precautionary principle with strategies that promote innovation while ensuring public and environmental health. Future research should explore how integrated approaches operate in real-world applications, especially in areas where scientific uncertainty remains high, to enhance regulatory clarity and support responsible technological development.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.9734/bpi/mono/978-81-998711-6-8/ch2
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.