ArticleNanoethics2018
"Just Carbon": Ideas About Graphene Risks by Graphene Researchers and Innovation Advisors.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elastic Tactile Sensor Glove for Dexterous Teaching by Demonstration.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Role of graphene in scavenging methyl cations: a DFT study.Journal of molecular modeling · 2023Article
- Graphene-Related Nanomaterials for Biomedical Applications.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Prospective Dynamic and Probabilistic Material Flow Analysis of Graphene-Based Materials in Europe from 2004 to 2030.Environmental science & technology · 2022Article
- Carbon-Based Materials for Articular Tissue Engineering: From Innovative Scaffolding Materials toward Engineered Living Carbon.Advanced healthcare materials · 2022Review
- A Study of the Impact of Graphene Oxide on Viral Infection Related to A549 and TC28a2 Human Cell Lines.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Graphene quantum dots decorated with imatinib for leukemia treatment.Journal of drug delivery science and technology · 2021Article
- A Review on Development of Ceramic-Graphene Based Nanohybrid Composite Systems in Biological Applications.Frontiers in chemistry · 2021Review
- Toxicological response of the model fungus Saccharomyces cerevisiae to different concentrations of commercial graphene nanoplatelets.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.