Both NANO2ALL and RiskGONE directly address governance frameworks for nanotechnology, with RiskGONE specifically building a Risk Governance Council methodology and SOPs.
MALSCH NEELINA
Dutch nano governance consultancy specialising in risk assessment methodology, ethical evaluation, and societal engagement for nanotechnology research consortia.
Their core work
MALSCH TECHNOVALUATION is a Dutch specialist consultancy — almost certainly a sole-expert practice — focused on the governance, ethics, and societal assessment of nanotechnology. Their work sits at the boundary between technical nano risk assessment and the social sciences: they help research consortia understand how nanotechnologies are perceived by society, how risks should be governed, and how to build transparent, trusted frameworks for responsible development. In NANO2ALL they contributed expertise on mutual learning and societal engagement with nano science; in RiskGONE they shifted toward structured risk governance methodology including test guidelines, SOPs, life-cycle assessment, and eco-toxicology framing. The name "Technovaluation" signals their core proposition: assessing the full value — technical, social, ethical, economic — of emerging technologies.
What they specialise in
NANO2ALL (2015–2019) was explicitly structured around mobilisation, mutual learning, inclusion, transparency, and co-development with civil society around nano science.
RiskGONE keywords include ethical assessment, social and economic impact, and LCA — indicating structured contributions to responsible innovation methodology.
RiskGONE keywords include LCA (life-cycle assessment) and modelling, consistent with the organization's 'technovaluation' brand positioning.
RiskGONE project data includes characterization, eco-toxicology, and human health keywords, suggesting methodological input to test guideline development.
How they've shifted over time
Their earliest H2020 work (NANO2ALL, 2015–2019) was rooted in public engagement and science communication: mobilising civil society, building mutual understanding between scientists and the public, and co-developing narratives of transparency and trust around nanotechnology. By the time of RiskGONE (2019–2023), the focus had shifted decisively toward technical governance methodology — risk assessment frameworks, standardised test guidelines, SOPs, eco-toxicology, and formal ethical assessment tools. The direction of travel is clear: from "how do we communicate about nano risks?" toward "how do we formally govern and assess them?" — a maturation from soft engagement to hard methodology.
They are moving from science communication and stakeholder dialogue toward structured risk governance frameworks — making them relevant for future projects on responsible innovation, safe-and-sustainable-by-design (SSbD) nanomaterials, or regulatory preparedness for emerging technologies.
How they like to work
MALSCH TECHNOVALUATION has participated in two projects but never led one, suggesting they operate as a specialist brought in by larger consortium leaders for specific governance, ethics, or engagement expertise rather than as an organisational anchor. The size of the consortia they work in — 41 unique partners across 19 countries from just 2 projects — indicates they are comfortable in large, multi-actor environments. The very small per-project EC funding (under €66K) points to a focused, well-scoped task rather than a broad work-package lead, typical of a boutique expert or individual consultant role.
Despite only two projects, MALSCH TECHNOVALUATION has built a surprisingly wide network of 41 partners spanning 19 countries — a testament to participating in large pan-European nano research consortia. Their network is European in geographic character, concentrated in the nanotechnology, materials, and responsible innovation communities.
What sets them apart
MALSCH TECHNOVALUATION occupies a rare niche: they bridge the gap between natural scientists working on nanomaterials and the governance, ethics, and societal impact worlds — a combination few private consultancies can credibly offer. Their "technovaluation" framing distinguishes them from pure ethics consultants (who lack technical grounding) and pure nano scientists (who lack governance and societal expertise). For consortium builders assembling a responsible innovation or SSbD package, they represent ready-made interdisciplinary credibility without the overhead of a university partner.
Highlights from their portfolio
- RiskGONETheir most technically substantive project, covering the full risk governance stack for nanotechnology — from test guidelines and SOPs to eco-toxicology, LCA, and ethical assessment — representing the clearest expression of their specialist value.
- NANO2ALLAn early pan-European mutual learning initiative that placed them at the intersection of science communication, public trust, and nanotechnology policy — establishing the societal engagement credentials they later built governance methodology on top of.