Person:
Barke, Richard P.

Permanent Link
https://hdl.handle.net/1853/71082
Associated Organization(s)
Organizational Unit
ORCID
ArchiveSpace Name Record

Filters

2006 - 2009 2 2010 - 2018 2
2 2
2 1 1
4
4
Reset filters

Settings

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Nanotechnology, Risks, and Regulatory Options
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2018-03-27) Barke, Richard P.
    The National Science Foundation estimated that revenues from nano-enabled products grew worldwide from about $340 billion in 2010 to $731 billion in 2012, and more than $1 trillion in 2013. The impact of the nanotechnology revolution is undeniable, with vast potential benefits, from consumer products to industrial products, pharmaceutical and military applications, energy technologies, cosmetics, and so on. But along with these benefits come potential risks. As the EPA wrote in 2016, “nanomaterials are very useful, but there is little research about how they affect human and ecosystem health.” Uncertainties about health, safety, and environmental effects, and even about how to define and classify nanomaterials, have persisted. It is certain that regulatory policies in the U.S. and internationally will attempt to address these risks and balance them with the benefits, but several decades of experience reveals that analogies to previous emerging technologies are difficult and regulators have been hesitant to make definitive decisions. In some ways, the regulatory regime that will emerge may be as innovative as the technology that it addresses. In this talk I will examine some of the legally and politically inescapable procedural and substantive aspects of nanotechnology regulation, and identify some of the directions that American regulatory policy might move.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    This I believe / Richard Barke
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2012-02-02) Barke, Richard P.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Balancing Uncertain Risks and Benefits in Human Subjects Research
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2007-06) Barke, Richard P.
    Composed of a variety of scientific and technical experts plus a few lay members, thousands of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the US must identify and assess the potential risks to human research subjects, and balance those risks against the potential benefits of the research. These assessments are laden with uncertainty, however. Most IRBs handle risk and its uncertainty by adopting a version of the precautionary principle, which is largely suggested by the Belmont Report and the Common Rule. To assess scientific merit, IRBs tacitly employ a "sanguinity principle," which treats uncertainty as inevitable in scientific progress. In balancing the uncertainties of human subjects risks and scientific benefits, IRBs use uncertainty as a bridging device that allows the approaches of science and ethics to be reconciled. Nevertheless, the flexibility and lack of consistent oversight of how IRBs apply these principles leads to frustration by investigators who are unclear about the criteria by which their proposals are evaluated.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    From Experts' Beliefs to Safety Standards: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards in Polarized Technical Communities
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2006-06) Barke, Richard P. ; Silva, Carol L. ; Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.
    Public policy debates often involve complex, high-stakes issues in which the views of experts within scientific and technical communities play a prominent role. Disputes over appropriate governmental actions concerning global climate change, genetically modified organisms, nuclear waste disposal, cloning, and stem cell research highlight the political importance that can be attached to debates within scientific communities. Not only do these debates influence the kinds of assumed causal relationships that underlie policy alternatives (e.g., the link between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperatures, or the dispersal patterns of pollens from genetically modified corn), but also those appointed to advisory and technical policy making positions are often chosen from the participating scientific communities. The appointment to such positions has become an increasingly contentious process; some critics contend that experts’ policy positions have trumped their scientific standing in determining appointments to important science policy boards (Revkin 2004; Mooney 2005).