title: Commentary: Emerging technologies oversight: research, regulation, and commercialization.
abstract: This paper reviews the paper by Kuzma, Najmaie, and Larson that looks at what can be learned from the experience with genetically engineered organisms for oversight of emerging technologies more generally. That paper identifies key attributes of a good oversight system: promoting innovation, ensuring safety, identifying benefits, assessing costs, and doing so all while building public confidence. In commenting on that analysis, this paper suggests that looking at "oversight" in three phases - research and development, regulatory review, and market acceptance - can help to determine when certain of these attributes should take precedence over others and how to structure remedies when an error occurs. The result is an approach that is precautionary with respect to research and development, prudent and open to public input in the regulatory review stage, and purposefully persuasive once market acceptability is at stake, with remedies that are risk-containing in the first phase, risk-managing in the second, and risk-assuaging in the third. Combining the key attributes with the idea of three phases can help attune oversight to society's needs.
authors.affiliation: Humphrey Institute at University of Minnesota, USA.
authors.forename: Robbin
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Johnson
mesh_terms: D001709:Biotechnology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003132:Commerce / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005818:Genetic Engineering / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D036103:Nanotechnology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D030781:Organisms, Genetically Modified; D011050:Policy Making; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical; D014481:United States