Paper long abstract:

Quasi-governmental guidelines have gained functional importance for the regulation of nanotechnology. Regulators face the problem that, currently, generalizable scientific statements describing the handling of nanoparticles for the safety of employees, consumers and the environment are not possible. Laws regulating the production and consumption of nanoparticles would need to be based on the precautionary principle. Then, on a broad scale, regulatory measurements would need to intervene in economy and science implying profound consequences for investments and growth. In contrast, quasi-governmental guidelines offer an alternative allowing more flexible and less intruding rules.

In the societal nano-debate, commissions having issued guidelines share the commonality to be oriented towards participation. Depending on the policy-level, some or all relevant actors join a dialogue on the handling of nanoparticles. In interviews actors claim that the status of knowledge constructed in these commissions is comparable to scientific knowledge and consequently is eligible to inform regulations. Being based on the perspectives of actors from science, economy, politics and civil society, the knowledge of the commissions is seen as the best available one. A comparison of three commissions (German NanoKommission, ISO-Committee and OECD-Working-Party) reveals several reasons for the influential status of the commissions' guidelines and their knowledge: e.g. the reputation of a guideline through repetition in various situations, the relation of the guidelines to existing law, the commissions' institutional authority, the societal context etc. The analysis shows that the epistemic validity of the commissions' knowledge is strongly interweaved with social mechanisms which are set within the play of governance.