Log in
Dr Robert Falkner's research into international risk regulation for emerging technologies underpins the work of the Nanotechnology Policy and Regulation programme at LSE. On the basis of this work, Dr Falkner was tasked by the European Commission to lead the first ever comparative study of nanotechnologies regulation in the EU and US. This research has stimulated policy debates in the UK and Europe on how to strengthen regulatory capacity in the field of nanotechnologies. The research has highlighted, in particular, the importance of improved transparency about nanomaterials in consumer goods and supply chains. This research finding has influenced the conclusions of the first UK parliamentary enquiry into nanotechnologies regulation and has informed a recent shift in global policy debates towards comprehensive and mandatory nanomaterials registers.
An AHRC and ESRC-funded Edinburgh research collaboration with the Argentinian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovative Production (MOST), from 2007-2012, served as a key driver in the formation of regulatory structures, norms, knowledge and social understanding, helping to overcome state non-intervention in the regulation of regenerative medicine. As a direct result of engagement with the stakeholders in law/policy, medical and scientific communities, the research exposed a strong appetite for top-down legal intervention. This culminated in the first-ever model law presented by the MOST to the Argentine legislature (Congress) in 2013.
The findings of University of Reading research around the contemporary proliferation of `regulatory myths' and media misrepresentation of health and safety law have been used by a number of stakeholder organisations and charitable bodies in evidence given to official Government reviews, and drawn upon by those reviews as part of the development of policy recommendations for Government. By reshaping the policy debate around public perceptions of safety regulation, the innovative analysis of this phenomenon developed in the research output has allowed key actors to understand and draw attention to a major policy problem in a more coherent and principled manner.
Ethics regulation across UK institutions has undergone two decades of rapid change and has sometimes resulted in fragile, controversial and difficult regulatory processes. Research by Hine, Peele and Philp has given rise to a better understanding of the conditions under which institutional ethics regulation and standard setting is more likely to be effective. Their findings have contributed to the clarification of the ethical principles that guide the codes of conduct in the UK public sector; shaped the institutional strategies of regulators (in particular the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority); and influenced international debate on standards in public life.
The four Environment Agencies in England & Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland have introduced, or are planning to introduce, new strategies for regulating low risk treatment sites and activities. These strategies are based on Black and Baldwin's research. Implementation is planned for 2011-13 onwards. The Irish Environmental Protection Agency has led the way in 2012-13, having already implemented GRID/GRAF in a specific low risk area (domestic waste water).
Hogarth and external collaborators at Cambridge have developed a regulatory model for the governance of commercial genetic testing in the EU that requires pre-market review of all new commercial genetic tests and greater public disclosure of clinical data about test performance. Drawing on this model they recommended a number of changes to the current European regulations. In 2012 the European Commission published a proposal for a new regulation on In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) medical devices that incorporated most of the changes which they recommended be addressed in the revision of this regulation. Hogarth also helped the Human Genetics Commission to draft the first transnational guidance for the regulation of direct-to-consumer genetic testing services.
Nanotechnology is one of the world's fastest developing industrial sectors; as well as the economic significance of nanomaterials, they have potentially serious implications for health and the environment. Impact from research on governance and legal regulation of nanotechnology by a Cardiff Law School research team operating within the ESRC-Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS) has: shaped UK government nanotech strategy; decisively influenced industry and industrial standards; and reached across other States and international organisations. Research by the team has: demonstrated that existing regulation dealt poorly with nanotechnologies and the health/environmental risks they might pose; identified regulatory gaps; recommended the introduction of nano-specific guidance/standards; evaluated the need for a nanotech moratorium; and analysed social responsibility and performance of nanotechnology companies. This research has now been codified in the first British Standards Institution (BSI) Publicly Available Specification (PAS) on nanotechnology.
Over the last decade, research by the Department of Geography's King's Centre for Risk Management (KCRM) has helped successive UK governments to reform regulation by making regulatory inspection and enforcement more `risk-based'. Risk-based approaches promise to make regulation more efficient by targeting regulatory activities only at cases that pose unacceptable risks rather than by trying to prevent all possible harms. KCRM research has helped make UK regulation more risk-based in three important ways. First, KCRM research significantly informed the key recommendation of HM Treasury's Hampton Review of Administrative Burdens on Business that all regulatory inspection and enforcement should be risk-based. Second, KCRM supported the implementation of that recommendation when it gained statutory force for almost all regulators in 2008 through practical advice to a number of government departments and agencies. Third, KCRM's impact on regulatory reform was reinforced by HM Government's full acceptance and ongoing implementation of Löfstedt's recommendations to strengthen risk-based regulatory practice in his 2011 Independent Review of Health and Safety Regulation.
Research in the Centre for Competition and Regulatory Policy (CCRP) at City University London has influenced extensively UK competition policy and continues to do so. The research has influenced directly the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in the development of the new Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERR Act). A process of engagement including two Round Tables chaired by Professor John Cubbin and a corresponding documentary submission, shaped the way in which the ERR Act gives enhanced powers to a unified competition authority, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The research impacted on the eventual form of this new institution, especially in its independence in merger and market inquiries between Phase 1 (Could there be a problem?) and Phase 2 (What do we do about it?), which were previously carried out by the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission respectively. The Centre's input into the Act has also been central in influencing how the CMA will retain and enhance the role of members of the panel of independent "external" experts.
The ESRC Innogen Centre brought together a multiplicity of disciplines for a large 12-year research programme (2002-14) on the impact of regulation on innovation dynamics in the life sciences. Research design promoted interactions between stakeholders to achieve policy impact. Innogen developed a range of tooIs to disseminate research findings and influence policy in Europe, the African Union (AU), Kenya, Qatar and at the OECD. We used secondments and temporary placements to achieve impact, as well as more traditional activities and outputs, resulting in major policy impacts in Europe, Africa and the Middle East.