Specification of scope through Standards work As stated multiple times, the complexity (e.g., of the MNM types, uses, regulatory oversight, and disciplines, and stakeholder groups of experts) of the scope for Task 2.3 makes interpretation of results difficult. One of the lessons learned through developing the questions and considering the responses for the task was that the specification of topic is necessary prior to a discussion of foresight and methods needs. For example, a question of methods needs for SbD development of a new use of nanoscale SiO2 will differ by MNM form, life cycle stage, use, and regulatory category. The opinions of stakeholders will also differ. Therefore, framing a question to support policy about specific methods is not possible at some aggregate level of general policy making. For nanomaterials, the level of aggregation may be as simple as a single MNM with multiple uses, or a grouping of MNM types with similar surface characteristics, or a grouping of functionalities. Instead of developing general questions to bridge these differences, it may be necessary to create specifications that can then be used to generate finer grained data about methods needs and markets. The finer grained data can then be aggregated into overall policy needs. Making such specifications is the province of standards development organizations (SDO). Therefore, in order to be useful to SbD decision making, discussion of foresight may need to be carried out through scope narrowed to a material type or use or life cycle stage and a similarly structured parsing of the other specifications. Such a structured discussion is also needed so that issues of one material, use, or regulatory decision context are not inappropriately taken as relevant to another. This kind of structure through specification could be further formalized in standards processes such as Technical Reports and Standard Methods also developed through standards development organizations. Several groups are attempting to address this kind of specificity in methods development/standardization in regions and internationally. Including an awareness of foresight needs for SbD in the standards process would be a valuable addition to these efforts to facilitate safe innovation.
