PERSPECTIVES An operationalized post-normal science framework for assisting in the development of complex science policy solutions: the case of nanotechnology governance Michael J. Bernstein • Rider W. Foley • Ira Bennett Received: 17 January 2014 / Accepted: 5 June 2014 Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014 Abstract Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technol- ogy to maximize societal benefits and minimize negative societal and environmental impacts of inno- vation processes. Yet innovation is a complex socio- technical process that does not respond predictably to modification. Our human propensity to exclude com- plexity when attempting to manage systems often results in insufficient, one-dimensional solutions. The tendency to exclude complexity (1) reinforces itself by diminishing experience and capacity in the design of simple solutions to complex problems, and (2) leads to solutions that do not address the identified problem. To address the question of how to avoid a complexity- exclusion trap, this article operationalizes a post- normal science framework to assist in the enhance- ment or design of science policy proposals. A literature review of technological fixes, policy pana- ceas, and knowledge-to-action gaps is conducted to survey examples of post-normal science frameworks. Next, an operational framework is used to assess the case of a proposed international nanotechnology advisory board. The framework reveals that the board addresses a slice of the broader, more complex problem of nanotechnology governance. We argue that while the formation of an international advisory board is not problematic in-and-of-itself, it is symp- tomatic of and plays into a complexity-exclusion trap. We offer researchers, policy analysts, and decision- makers three recommendations that incorporate a more appropriate level of complexity into governance proposals. Keywords Socio-technical problems Á Complexity- exclusion trap Á Science advisory boards Á Ethical Á Legal Á Societal Introduction Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts commonly suggest governance regimes for technology to mini- mize negative societal and environmental impacts of innovation processes and maximize societal benefits (Renn and Roco 2006). Paradoxically, potential soci- etal benefits often come at the cost of serious environmental degradation, human health impacts, and social inequality (UNEP 2011; UNCDF 2013). Drinking-water purification (Truffer et al. 2010) and M. J. Bernstein (&) School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA e-mail: mjbernst@asu.edu; Michael.j.bernstein@asu.edu M. J. Bernstein Á I. Bennett Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA R. W. Foley Engineering and Society, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA 123 J Nanopart Res (2014) 16:2492 DOI 10.1007/s11051-014-2492-1