Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30546498›Full record

ArticleNanoethics2018

"Just Carbon": Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors.

Rickard Arvidsson, Max Boholm, Mikael Johansson, Monica Lindh de Montoya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nanoethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Graphene-Related Nanomaterials for Biomedical Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Graphene quantum dots decorated with imatinib for leukemia treatment.Journal of drug delivery science and technology · 2021
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rickard Arvidsson1Division of Environmental Systems Analysis, Chalmers University of Technology, Vera Sandbergs Allé 8, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-9258-0641
Max Boholm2Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 603, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Mikael Johansson2Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 603, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Monica Lindh de Montoya2Gothenburg Research Institute, University of Gothenburg, PO Box 603, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Graphene is a nanomaterial with many promising and innovative applications, yet early studies indicate that graphene may pose risks to humans and the environment. According to ideas of responsible research and innovation, all relevant actors should strive to reduce risks related to technological innovations. Through semi-structured interviews, we investigated the idea of graphene as a risk (or not) held by two types of key actors: graphene researchers and innovation advisors at universities, where the latter are facilitating the movement of graphene from the laboratory to the marketplace. The most common idea found is that graphene is not a risk due to, e.g., low toxicity, low amounts produced/used, and its similarity to harmless materials (being "just carbon"). However, some researchers and advisors also say that graphene is a risk, e.g., under certain conditions or due to a lack of risk-related information. We explain the co-existence of these seemingly contradictory ideas through (1) the semantic ambiguity of the word risk and (2) a risk/no-risk rhetoric, where risks are mentioned rhetorically only to be disregarded as manageable or negligible. We suggest that some of the ideas held by the researchers and innovation advisors constitute a challenge to responsible research and innovation regarding graphene. At the same time, we acknowledge the dilemma that the discourse of responsible innovation creates for the actors: denying graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to a lack of risk awareness, while affirming graphene risks makes them irresponsible due to their everyday engagement in graphene development. We therefore recommend more research into what researchers and innovation advisors should do in practice in order to qualify as responsible.

Indexed as

ELSANanomaterialResponsible research and innovationRisk associationSafety

Identifiers

PMID30546498
PMCPMC6267168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.