A few weeks ago I was asked to give a “TED style talk” on nanotechnology for the University of Michigan Environmental Health Sciences department 125th anniversary.  What they got was a a short take on “thinking small”:

The other talks in the series are also worth checking out – covering topics as diverse as epigenetics, cancer, exposure science, obesity, endocrine disruptors, global health and mercury in the environment.  Watch them here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF87730C0E0C26FEA

Nanotechnology leads to novel materials, new exposures and potentially unique health and environmental risks – or so the argument goes.  But an increasing body of research is showing that relatively uniformly sized nanometer scale particles are part and parcel of the environment we live in.  For instance a number of simple organisms such as bacteria and diatoms have the capability to produce nanoparticles, either as part of their natural behavior or under specific conditions.  Nanoscale minerals, it seems, play an important role in shaping the world we live in.  Metals like silver wantonly shed silver nanoparticles into our food and water according to research published last year.  And now a group of researchers have shown that food containing caramelized sugar contains uniformly sized amorphous carbon particles.

This latest paper was published in the journal Science Progress a few weeks ago, and analyzes the carbon nanoparticle content of such everyday foods as bread, caramelized sugar, corn flakes and biscuits.  The authors found that products containing caramelized sugar – including baked goods such as bread – contained spherical carbon nanoparticles in the range 4 – 30 nm (with size being associated with the temperature of caramelization).  This isn’t that surprising as nanoparticle formation is closely associated with hot processes.  The authors point out that, as caramelized products have been eaten with no apparent health impacts for centuries, these particles are probably safe.  But the bigger question perhaps is whether these particles are sufficiently similar to some nanoparticles now being intentionally produced to provide insight into the safety of engineered nanoparticles, or whether there remain fundamental differences between the particles we are exposed to everyday, and those that smart technologists are dreaming up in laboratories around the world. As Gwyneth Shaw writes in the New Haven Independent,

“The presence of carbon nanoparticles in hamburger buns only illustrates the depth and complexity of the challenge for policymakers, in the U.S. and internationally, in ultimately deciding what’s “safe” and what might not be.”

This is not an easy question.  Hypothetically, it is possible to produce nanoscale particles that are so unlike anything we have evolved to handle that they interfere with our biology in potentially destructive ways.  And when some of the more esoteric types of nanomaterials now being explored are considered, this possibility is easy to imagine.  Yet in many cases commercial nanomaterials show a striking resemblance to those found in this study and elsewhere.  In these cases, there is a need to understand what is new in the context of what we are already regularly exposed to.

To do this requires more research into the nature of naturally occurring nanomaterials and our exposure to them.  And I can guarantee that this will be a contentious area of research, as it questions the prevalent dogma that exposure to uniform nanoparticles is both new and potentially dangerous.  In fact research in this area is so sensitive that my first reaction on reading the Science Progress paper was to wonder how valid the findings were.  Fortunately, the analysis stands up to scrutiny.  The authors were careful to test their findings using electron microscopy – which showed the presence of very uniform nanoparticles associated with caramelized sugar.  And to make sure the observed particles weren’t an artifact they carried out similar tests on uncaramalized sugar solutions – where they found no evidence of nanoparticles.

As usual though, the research raises as many questions as it answers.  While the size and composition of these particles has been measured, their concentration and precise chemical nature remains unknown.  So as ever there is more research to be done to pin down how many – or how few – carbon nanoparticles you are ingesting with your morning bowl of corn flakes, and to understand how these data affect how we approach intentionally manufactured nanoparticles.  But what is becoming increasingly clear is that the safe use of engineered nanomaterials cannot be understood in isolation from the nanopaterials that we eat and breathe every day of our lives.

End Notes:

Gwyneth Shaw has an excellent piece on this paper at the New Haven Independent: http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/how_long_have_we_been_eating_nanoparticles/  I would strongly recommend anyone interested in following nanotechnology implications issues to subscribe to her writing in this area.

The papers cited above are:

Palashuddin Sk M., Jaiswal A., Paul A., Ghosh, S. S., and Chattopadhyay A. (2012) Presence of Amorphous Carbon Nanoparticles in Food Caramels. Scientific Reports 2:383, DOI: 10.1038/srep00383

POPESCU M., VELEA A., and  LÖRINCZI A. (2012) Biogenic Production of Nanoparticles. Digest Journal of Nanomaterials and Biostructures 5:4 pp1035-1040.

Hochella Jr. M. F., Lower S. K., Maurice P. A., Penn R. L. Sahai N.,  Sparks D. L., Twining B. S. (2008) Nanominerals, Mineral Nanoparticles, and Earth Systems.  Science 319 pp1631-1635. DOI: 10.1126/science.1141134

Glover R. D., John M. Miller J. M., and Hutchison J. E. (2011) Generation of Metal Nanoparticles from Silver and Copper Objects: Nanoparticle Dynamics on Surfaces and Potential Sources of Nanoparticles in the Environment.  ACS Nano, 2011, 5 (11), pp 8950–895  DOI:10.1021/nn2031319

Maynard A. D., Warheit D. B. and Philbert, M. A (2011) The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond. Tox. Sci. 120 (suppl 1): S109-S129. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq372

And finally, any paper with a methods section that starts like this gets my approval

Bread buns were purchased from the local market (Homa Bread, Guwahati, India) and analysed to check the presence of CNPs within it. The top brown layer of bread was carefully excised and 1 g of it was dissolved in 20 mL methanol by sonicating it at 35 kHz in a bath sonicator (Elmasonic TI-H-5 Elma, Germany) for 10 min. Following sonication, the volume of the methanol was reduced to 3 mL in a rotary evaporator before further purification.

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/05/19/carbon-nanoparticles-could-be-ubiquitous-to-many-foods/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2012/03/04/nano-quadrotors-a-game-changing-technology-innovation-but-can-we-handle-it/ http://2020science.org/2012/03/04/nano-quadrotors-a-game-changing-technology-innovation-but-can-we-handle-it/#comments Sun, 04 Mar 2012 20:25:30 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4634

It’s been hard to avoid the buzz surrounding nano quadrotors this week, following the posting of Vijay Kumar’s jaw-dropping TED talk – and the associated viral video of the semi-autonomous machines playing the James Bond theme.

The quadrotors are impressive – incredibly impressive.  But I’m sure I am not the only person watching these videos who felt a shiver of apprehension about where the technology might lead.

When people talk about emerging technologies – especially when the focus is on potential risks and unintended consequences – it doesn’t take long for the usual suspects to emerge: with nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering usually appearing toward the top of the list.  But I wonder whether focusing on big, well-publicized technology trends sometimes masks some of the less discussed but more important technology innovations that are already impacting on people’s lives.

Tim Harper and I underscored this concern in a report from the World Economic Forum last year where we suggested we should be focusing just as much on the innovations that build on synergistic connections between technology platforms (see below), because this is where many of the more significant disruptive and game-changing technologies will emerge.

It’s partly because of this that I have been so intrigued by the nano quadrotor work coming out of the GRASP lab at the University of Pennsylvania.

The nano quadrotors that Vijay Kumar’s team are developing are a prime example of synergistic innovation leading to a game-changing technology.  The quadrotors combine components from multiple technology platforms – sensors, materials, information processing and others – and as a result they present opportunities and risks that depend on the synergism between these platforms.  In other words, the potential disruption comes not from the platforms, but how they are combined into products.

Just thinking briefly about the potential impacts of the nano quadrotors, it’s not hard to see how it could shake things up.  In fact Chris Anderson, the curator of TED, tweeted after Vijay’s talk:

On the plus side, the nano quadrotor technology clearly opens new avenues into the areas of search and rescue, exploration and surveillance.  But it’s also frighteningly easy to see how it could lead down darker paths.  I’m sure I am not the first to have the sensation of dystopic Sci-Fi movies playing out before my eyes as I watch the video above.

Applications in military intelligence are a no-brainer – as well as in tracking terrorist activities, or any other activities that goverments and others want to monitor for that matter.  The swarming ability of the nano quadrotors also opens up intriguing new options for semi-autonomous offensive systems that are able to outsmart defensive screens.  And it’s not hard to imagine the devices being deployed on search and destroy missions, equipped with advanced face recognition capabilities and some suitably nasty toxin.  And that’s just after giving the possibilities a cursory thought.

Of course, the technology is almost definitely not as mature as the videos suggest – just yet.  The most impressive videos – including the nano quadrotors playing the James Bond theme – downplay the complexity of the external feedback and control systems needed and the limited range of the devices.  But this is where synergistic technology innovation that builds on advanced technology platforms comes into its own.

For instance, take these four possible limitations of the technology, and the likely availability of technology-based solutions (and I’m speculating a little here, not being a nano quadrotor insider):

Sensors:  To work effectively, the nano quadrotors need feedback – and lots of it.  In the lab, this is provided through a combination of on-board and remote sensors.  Although out of lab use is possible, it seems to be limited in part by the size, range, speed and sensitivity of on-board sensors at present.  This will change.  With advances in sensor technology that are already on the horizon, it will be easier to equip the devices with small, lightweight sensors that will allow increasingly autonomous operation.

Materials:  The nano quadrotors depend on lightweight, high performance materials to ensure minimum power requirements and maximum maneuverability.  Nanoscale science and engineering are already leading to a new generation of lightweight high performance materials that will further improve performance, as well as enabling further miniaturization.

Data processing: The current generation of nano quadrotors depend on incredibly powerful and sophisticated data processing capabilities.  The next generation will demand even more.  My guess is that there is still a shortfall between what can be achieved and what is needed for strong out of lab performance.  But we’re getting there.  There is still no end in sight to the exponential growth in processing power, or in smart new ways of using this power to process complex datasets on the fly.

Power.  Vijay Kumar estimates that the current crop of nano quadrotors consume 15 watts of power – giving them in my estimate a maximum of 10 – 20 minute operating time between charges using current battery technologies.  Not a lot if you are on an extended search and rescue mission!  But battery technology is still advancing rapidly, and over the next few years it is entirely conceivable that this range will be doubled or more.  Perhaps more intriguingly, it’s not too hard to imagine extending the range of a nano quadrotor to tens of miles by combining the its semi-autonomous behavior with hundreds of well-placed recharging stations.  And if those stations used wireless power-transmission technologies currently under development – and thousands of them were air-dropped over a region – the effective range of nano quadrotor swarms could be extended to hundreds of miles or more.

Even looking at these four potentially limiting factors on nano quadrotor performance and use, it becomes apparent that current technology platforms are close to providing solutions that will make this a viable, powerful, and probably highly disruptive technology.  Whether this will lead to a net gain or a net loss for society is by no-means clear yet.  What I think is clear is that focusing on the responsible development of technology platforms, to the exclusion of the innovations that arise at the intersections between them, runs the risk of us missing what is most likely to change the world we live in.

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/03/04/nano-quadrotors-a-game-changing-technology-innovation-but-can-we-handle-it/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2012/02/24/is-maynard-going-over-to-the-nano-dark-side/ http://2020science.org/2012/02/24/is-maynard-going-over-to-the-nano-dark-side/#comments Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:56:01 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4618

A few weeks ago I spent some time chatting with Howard Lovy for an article for the Nanobusiness Commercialization Association.  That interview was posted by Vincent Caprio on his blog a few days ago, and raised a few eyebrows – was I showing signs of becoming a nano-risk skeptic?

I hope not, as as I still feel emerging evidence and trends indicate major perceived and real risk-related barriers lie in the path of developing nanoscale science and engineering successfully, if we aren’t smart.  But I have always adhered to the idea that successful and responsible technology development depends on taking an evidence-based approach – even if that evidence is sometimes uncomfortable.  And so these days I sometimes worry that too much is made of artificial constructs surrounding “nanotechnology”, and not enough is made of the underlying science.

Reading through Howard’s piece, I felt it was a pretty accurate reflection of our conversation.  There are a couple of places where it possibly indicates less concern on my part than is warranted.  Toward the end of the piece for instance I am quoted as saying “there is no need [for the nanobusiness community] to respond to individual challenges such as this lawsuit against the FDA”, referring to a recent lawsuit by consumer advocates against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which claims the FDA is failing to regulate nanomaterials in products.

I’m pretty sure I did say something along these lines.  But the context was that lawsuits like these are a relatively widely used mechanism for holding federal agencies to account and prodding them into action.  And while they are often important, the nanobusiness community need to understand this context and be aware of the bigger picture when it comes to responsible and sustainable development.

Overall though, the piece captures my increasing interest in getting to the bottom of what can go wrong as new technologies are developed, and how we need to start exploring better ways of ensuring responsible innovation.

Here’s the piece that Howard wrote – the original can be read on Vincent Caprio’s blog Evolving Innovations.

When Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan, read the text of a recent lawsuit by consumer advocates against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which claims the FDA is failing to regulate nanomaterials in products, one phrase jumped out at him. The groups used the words “fundamentally unique properties” when referring to nanoscale ingredients.

The phrase, in fact, comes directly from marketing material of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. So, in one sense, the nanotech industry is a victim of its own public relations, Maynard believes. A phrase used to promote nanotech commercialization is being thrown back at nanotech advocates by those who would use the same logic to demand strict regulations.

“There is an assumption that you can have everything your own way,” Maynard says. “You can say something was unique and important and world-changing, selling the hype, and yet not really understanding what the long-term consequences of that hype are.”

This is what Maynard does for a living. He tries to reach beyond hype and beyond gloom to assess and communicate the real risks associated with emerging technologies, including nanotechnology. But he approaches these assessments from a starting point that seems increasingly difficult to achieve in these polarized political times – one based on scientific principles rather than political agenda.

The problem with that “unique properties” phrase that has been so misused over the years is that the science does not necessarily back it up. Material at the nanoscale is not necessarily any different from its macroscale cousin.

“Now, with the research that’s been generated in the last few years, it’s become increasingly clear that there’s no well-defined set of materials that raise red flags when it comes to size,” Maynard says. “About the best you can do is say that the smaller and more sophisticated you make things the more you have to think about a wide range of questions when you’re evaluating safety.”

So, when Maynard now discusses nanotechnology and potential risk, he’s not likely to even use the “n” word. He’s talking about advanced materials, or “sophisticated materials.”

For example, he says, what questions do you ask when trying to determine whether quantum dots are safe? Well, you talk about the composition of the quantum dot, how its physical and chemical structure determines how it interacts with biological systems, and how its size effects where it goes in the body and how it interacts within it.

“But those are not nano-specific questions,” he says. “They’re the questions associated with a specifically designed material.”

The same thing with titanium dioxide found in sunscreens. Shrink them down to nanosize and you get concerns raised by advocacy groups such as the Friends of the Earth and others involved in the lawsuit against the FDA, but the research says titanium dioxide, even at that size, is still pretty benign.

It has taken Maynard a few years to reach this point in his thinking about nanotech. Many in the nanotech business community might remember Maynard when he was scientific adviser for the Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) between 2005 and 2008. The PEN raised many questions about the potential risks of nanomaterials. Has he changed since his Wilson Center days?

“I have, which is I think inevitable. If you take a young field, our knowledge is going to change over time,” Maynard says. “And if we don’t change our opinions based on that knowledge there’s something wrong.”

But one thing that has not changed is his belief that if nanotech is going to develop into a sustainable industry that is economically robust, it needs to also be “socially robust” and develop with an eye toward social implications.

“It makes a lot of business sense, if you’re developing any new technology – not just nanotech or whatever – to be aware of the possiblities of what might go wrong with that technology and those products and shore things up as early as possible,” he says.

The problem, though, is that roughly 10 years after these questions were first asked, after the U.S. government has invested millions in looking at the environmental and health implications of nanotechnology, we still are not much wiser.

“We know a lot more now,” Maynard says. “The question is do we know a lot more that’s useful now. That’s what I would debate.” The problem, he says, is that the wrong questions are being asked.

Take, for example, carbon nanotubes. There is an assumption by many researchers, Maynard said, that the material is similar to asbestos. But nanotubes are not straight, long, rigid fibers, yet this assumption is driving the research.

“I am quite often concerned that you talk to toxicology groups doing research on carbon nanotubes, I don’t think many of them could actually accurately describe to you the physical form or nature of a carbon nanotube. And yet they’re doing research under various assumptions of what these things are like.”

So, this is the mission of Maynard’s Risk Science Center – to start discussions about the risks of technology with a grounding in real science and not on speculation, taking and “evidence-based approach.”

He’s come a long way since the early 1990s, Maynard, now 46, worked on his Ph. D. at Cambridge in the UK, using advanced microscopy techniques to analyze airborne particles. At the time, many of his colleagues told him he was wasting his time. There would be no future in tiny materials. They were wrong, of course, and Maynard got involved further and further into studying emerging technologies. Eventually, he made the jump from doing science to studying the proper ways of communicating it to the public.

Next on his agenda is looking at issues involved in advanced manufacturing, which overlaps with nanotech. Again, he said he is asking questions having to do with how businesses using new manufacturing technologies, producing new materials, can predict where economic and social barriers are going to be and have a plan to get over them. That includes codes of conduct, standards and best practices. It is up to the industry, itself, to make sure these are in place. The alternative is unwanted regulation.

The most-important advice Maynard gives to the nanotech business community is to simply be aware of the possible implications of the technology they’re developing and make sure regulatory agencies are properly informed of what is being done. But there is no need to respond to individual challenges such as this lawsuit against the FDA.

“It’s worthwhile playing the long game and not being too reactionary to what happens,” Maynard says. “What’s happened over the last 10 years is that concerns over nanotechnology really haven’t gained that much traction.”

In fact, it’s just the opposite. People, in general, remain excited about the prospects of nanotechnology.

“I think the bottom line is to be as honest as possible, and talk to people,” Maynard says. “One of the biggest problems is if you come across as trying to hide things or trying to obscure things. Generally, people are really excited about this technology. They just want to know what’s going on. They want to know what it’s about.”

For more on where my thinking is going on sophisticated materials, check out:

Maynard, A. D., Philbert, M. A. and Warheit, D. B. (2011) The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond. Toxicol. Sci. 120 (suppl 1): S109-S129. [Free download]

Maynard, A. D. (2011) Don’t Define Nanomaterials. Nature 475, 31 [Accessible here]

Maynard, A. D., Bowman, D., Hodge, G. (2011) The problem of regulating sophisticated materials. Nature Materials 10, 554–557 [Accessible here]

Here’s an introduction to the “wonders and worries of nanotechnology” that I think is rather brilliant:

It’s part of a series being produced by the Science Museum of Minnesota for the Nanoscale Informal Science Education network (NISE Net). The series is designed to stimulate discussions addressing the societal and ethical implication of nanotechnology – but in an accessible and non-threatening way.

Keep your eyes peeled for further episodes with Mindy and Denny – having read through some of the draft scripts, I think you will enjoy them!

For the past few months, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies has been working on identifying some of the most significant trends in technology innovation.  Published yesterday by WEF, these represent ten areas that we as a council felt are likely to shake things up over the next few years in terms of their economic and social impact.

The plan is to update this assessment on an annual basis

Here’s the list:

Informatics for adding value to information

The quantity of information now available to individuals and organizations is unprecedented in human history, and the rate of information generation continues to grow exponentially. Yet, the sheer volume of information is in danger of creating more noise than value, and as a result limiting its effective use. Innovations in how information is organized, mined and processed hold the key to filtering out the noise and using the growing wealth of global information to address emerging challenges.

Synthetic biology and metabolic engineering

The natural world is a testament to the vast potential inherent in the genetic code at the core of all living organisms. Rapid advances in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering are allowing biologists and engineers to tap into this potential in unprecedented ways, enabling the development of new biological processes and organisms that are designed to serve specific purposes – whether converting biomass to chemicals, fuels and materials, producing new therapeutic drugs or protecting the body against harm.

Green Revolution 2.0 – technologies for increased food and biomass

Artificial fertilizers are one of the main achievements of modern chemistry, enabling unprecedented increases in crop production yield. Yet, the growing global demand for healthy and nutritious food is threatening to outstrip energy, water and land resources. By integrating advances across the biological and physical sciences, the new green revolution holds the promise of further increasing crop production yields, minimizing environmental impact, reducing energy and water dependence, and decreasing the carbon footprint.

Nanoscale design of materials

The increasing demand on natural resources requires unprecedented gains in efficiency. Nanostructured materials with tailored properties, designed and engineered at the molecular scale, are already showing novel and unique features that will usher in the next clean energy revolution, reduce our dependence on depleting natural resources, and increase atom-efficiency manufacturing and processing.

Systems biology and computational modelling/simulation of chemical and biological systems

For improved healthcare and bio-based manufacturing, it is essential to understand how biology and chemistry work together. Systems biology and computational modelling and simulation are playing increasingly important roles in designing therapeutics, materials and processes that are highly efficient in achieving their design goals, while minimally impacting on human health and the environment.

Utilization of carbon dioxide as a resource

Carbon is at the heart of all life on earth. Yet, managing carbon dioxide releases is one of the greatest social, political and economic challenges of our time. An emerging innovative approach to carbon dioxide management involves transforming it from a liability to a resource. Novel catalysts, based on nanostructured materials, can potentially transform carbon dioxide to high value hydrocarbons and other carbon-containing molecules, which could be used as new building blocks for the chemical industry as cleaner and more sustainable alternatives to petrochemicals.

Wireless power

Society is deeply reliant on electrically powered devices. Yet, a significant limitation in their continued development and utility is the need to be attached to the electricity grid by wire – either permanently or through frequent battery recharging. Emerging approaches to wireless power transmission will free electrical devices from having to be physically plugged in, and are poised to have as significant an impact on personal electronics as Wi-Fi had on Internet use.

High energy density power systems

Better batteries are essential if the next generation of clean energy technologies are to be realized. A number of emerging technologies are coming together to lay the foundation for advanced electrical energy storage and use, including the development of nanostructured electrodes, solid electrolysis and rapid-power delivery from novel supercapacitors based on carbon-based nanomaterials. These technologies will provide the energy density and power needed to supercharge the next generation of clean energy technologies.

Personalized medicine, nutrition and disease prevention

As the global population exceeds 7 billion people – all hoping for a long and healthy life – conventional approaches to ensuring good health are becoming less and less tenable, spurred on by growing demands, dwindling resources and increasing costs. Advances in areas such as genomics, proteomics and metabolomics are now opening up the possibility of tailoring medicine, nutrition and disease prevention to the individual. Together with emerging technologies like synthetic biology and nanotechnology, they are laying the foundation for a revolution in healthcare and well-being that will be less resource intensive and more targeted to individual needs.

Enhanced education technology

New approaches are needed to meet the challenge of educating a growing young population and providing the skills that are essential to the knowledge economy. This is especially the case in today’s rapidly evolving and hyperconnected globalized society. Personalized IT-based approaches to education are emerging that allow learner-centred education, critical thinking development and creativity. Rapid developments in social media, open courseware and ubiquitous access to the Internet are facilitating outside classroom and continuous education.

Another product of the A World Of Surprises project with James King and a bunch of extremely talented public health and science students.  This is a video from Gracie Trinidad, and explores the frisson between superstition and science through medieval paintings – with a contemporary twist at the end [make sure you watch to the very end of the video for the final quote].

A product of the A World Of Surprises project with James King and a bunch of extremely talented public health and science students.

The task was to explore the confluence between mundane and catastrophic risk, which the team does beautifully.  Love the technique, and the subtle touches (note the progressive effect of Rhino Bananas on their creator).  And the news/web mockups are priceless.  Brilliant!

[Make sure you watch to the quote at the end]

Many thanks to:

• Chad Warhola
• Janae Adams
• Anirudha Rathnam
• Sarah Kang
• Alejandro Mendoza

(Needless to say, this is a bit of speculative fiction!)

Last semester, speculative designer James King worked with myself and a small group of science and public health students at the University of Michigan to explore how a fusion of science and creative art can lead to new insights and modes of communication.  The exercise was part of the A World of Surprises project – a project James is working on as the Witt Artist in residence at the UM School of Art and Design.

Part of the aim was to take these science-grounded students out of their comfort zone, expose them to some radical new ideas and perspectives, and see what happens.

The results were impressive!  Once the students realized that they weren’t bound by the rigid limitations of their science education, they became enthused over using creative techniques to tell science-grounded stories that connected with people on a far deeper level than just the facts would allow.

Today the group presented the fruits of their final assignment: to produce a piece of creative work that captures the tension – in narrative form – between imagined catastrophic risks and experienced mundane risks. As a group, we were interested in the tension between the catastrophic consequences often imagined to arise from human endeavors, and the mundane reality that often develops.

I’ll try to showcase all of the projects over the next few weeks.  They were all, in their own way, quite brilliant.  Coming up in future posts there will be:

• The Tale of Rhino Banana (a brilliant story of a technological breakthrough that runs up against public resistance);
• Salutary lessons from the struggle between evil and the divine in the middle ages;
• A visual juxtaposition of comparative risks related to Fukushima; and
• A new-future story of technological sophistication and mundane consequences.

(I’ll add the links as they are posted – The Tale of Rhino Banana will be up first)

James will be back in Ann Arbor for the culmination of the A World Of Surprises project in March – stay tuned on that.

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/02/04/exploring-speculated-catastrophe-and-mundane-reality/feed/ 2 http://2020science.org/2012/01/25/national-academy-publishes-new-nanomaterials-risk-research-strategy/ http://2020science.org/2012/01/25/national-academy-publishes-new-nanomaterials-risk-research-strategy/#comments Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:38:00 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4587

The US National Academy of Science today published its long-awaited Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. I won’t comment extensively on the report as I was a member of the committee that wrote it.  But I did want to highlight a number of aspects of it that I think are particularly noteworthy:

Great progress so far, but it’s time to change gears. Something we grappled with as a committee was what the value of yet another research strategy was going to be.  After all, it wasn’t so long ago that the US federal government published a well received strategy of its own.  A key driver behind our strategy was a sense that the past decade has been one of defining the challenges we face as the field of nanotechnology develops, while the next decade will require more focus as an ever greater number of nanotechnology-enabled products hit the market.  In other words, from a research perspective it’s time to change gears, building on past work but focusing on rapidly emerging challenges.

Combining life cycle and value chain in a single framework for approaching nanomaterial risk research.  As a committee, we spent considerable time developing a conceptual framework for approaching research addressing the health and environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials.  What we ended up using was a combination of value chain – ranging from raw materials to intermediate products to final products – and material/product life cycle at each stage of the value chain.  This effectively allows risk hot spots to be identified at each point of a material and product’s development, use and disposal cycle.

Principles, not definitions.  Rather than rely on a single definition of engineered nanomaterial to guide risk-related research, we incorporated a set of principles into our conceptual framework to help identify materials of concern from an environment, health and safety impact perspective.  These build on the principles proposed by myself, Martin Philbert and David Warheit in a toxicology review published last year.  From the National Academies report:

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

The World Economic Forum Global Risks Report is one of the most authoritative annual assessments of emerging issues surrounding risk currently produced. Now in its seventh edition, the 2012 report launched today draws on over 460 experts* from industry, government, academia and civil society to provide insight into 50 global risks across five categories, within a ten-year forward looking window.

As you would expect from such a major undertaking, the report has its limitations. There are some risk trends that maybe aren’t captured as well as they could be – chronic disease and pandemics are further down the list this year than I would have expected. And there are others that capture the headlining concerns of the moment – severe income disparity is the top-listed global risk in terms of likelihood. But taken as a whole, the trends highlighted capture key concerns and the analysis provides timely and relevant insight.

Risks are addressed in five broad categories, covering economic, environmental, geopolitical, societal and technological risks. And cutting across these, the report considers three top-level issues under the headings Seeds of Dystopia (action or inaction that leads to fragility in states); How Safe are our Safeguards? (unintended consequences of over, under and unresponsive regulation); and The Dark Side of Connectivity (connectivity-induced vulnerability). These provide a strong framework for approaching the identified risks systemically, and teasing apart complex interactions that could lead to adverse consequences.

But how does the report relate to public health more specifically?

The short answer is that many of the issues raised have a direct or indirect impact on public health nationally and globally. Many of the issues are complex and intertwined, and are deserving of much more attention than I’ve been able to give the report so far. I did however want to pull out some of the points that struck me on a first read-through:

Unintended consequences of nanotechnology. Following a trend seen in previous Global Risks reports, the unintended consequences of nanotechnology – while still flagged up – are toward the bottom of the risk spectrum. The potential toxicity of engineered nanomaterials is still mentioned as a concern. But most of the 50 risks addressed are rated as having a higher likelihood and/or impact.

Unintended consequences of new life science technologies. These are also relatively low on the list, but higher up the scale of concern that nanotechnologies. Specifically called out are the possibilities of genetic manipulation through synthetic biology leading to unintended consequences or biological weapons.

Unforeseen consequences of regulation. These are ranked relatively low in terms of likelihood and impact. But the broad significance of unintended consequences is highlighted in the report. These are also linked in with the potential impact and likelihood of global governance failure. Specifically, the report calls for

“A shift in mentality … so that policies, regulations or institutions can offer vital protection in a more agile and cohesive way.”

The report’s authors also ask how leaders can develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards; how businesses and governments can prevent a breakdown of trust following the emergence of new risks; and how governments, business and civil society can work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks.

Vulnerability to pandemics. Pandemic-associated risks are in the middle of the pack when it comes to potential impact, but not as high as might be expected on the likelihood scale. In 2007 and 2008 pandemics were listed in the top five global risks in terms of impact in the Global Risks Report, but have not appeared this high since 2009. With increasing talk about flu strains like H5N1, I wonder whether the relegation of pandemics from the top-tier risks is an oversight.

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are flagged up right in the middle of the risk-pack as an emerging risk, and are one of the highest-ranked risks directly related to public health. The report provides little additional information beyond this though.

Food and water shortage crises. Thee are the highest-ranked risks in terms of impact below major systemic financial failure. And while they are both addressed as systemic risks, failure in each area has clear public health implications.

Rising rates of chronic disease. While overshadowed by higher profile risks, this remains an area of significant anticipated adverse impact and likelihood in the report.

Dystopic trends. The chapter addressing potential drivers of a dystopic future does not directly address public health issues. But trends that have an indirect impact on health thread through it. The impact of the current global financial crisis on jobs, working hours and benefits is highlighted, and it is noted that young people have been especially hard hit recently by a lack of career opportunities. The challenges of an aging population are also flagged. Both areas impact indirectly (and sometimes not so indirectly) on health and well-being. One of the questions for stakeholders posed here is “What measures should be taken today to deal with the changing socio-economic dynamics of an ageing population and a bulging young population?” One could equally well ask what measures should be taken to ensure the health of these two populations.

Regulatory risks. In the case addressing asking “How Safe are our Safeguards?” the report’s authors conclude that:

“far-reaching weaknesses in regulations [suggest] that we may be falling behind in our capacity to protect the systems that underpin growth and prosperity”

This report considers regulation extremely broadly, and spans everything from financial regulation to safety regulation. Yet it also stresses the need for integrated approaches to systemic challenges. The highlighted questions to stakeholders at the end of this section are particularly pertinent to health risk-related regulation and governance:

• How can leaders break the pattern of crisis followed by reactionary regulation and develop anticipatory and holistic approaches to system safeguards?
• How can appropriate regulations be developed so that firms will undertake effective safeguards?
• How can businesses and governments prevent a rapid breakdown of trust following the emergence of a new widespread risk?
• How can businesses, government and civil society work together to improve resilience against unforeseen risks?

Emerging technologies and emerging risks: In examining information on technologies and risks, the report concludes

“globally, the latest technologies are increasingly accessible to local industries, but indicators relating to confidence in the institutions responsible for developing safeguards, including those that manage the risks of emerging technologies, have not shown proportional increases.”

Special report on the 2011 Japan earthquake. The March 11 earthquake that hit Japan last year and the following tsunami resulted in widespread social, economic and health impacts. In a special report, the 2011 Global Risk Report takes a holistic look at factors, events and impacts. This is a case review that is well worth reading from a systemic risk perspective.

Risk centers of gravity. The report concludes with a fascinating analysis of risk “Centers of Gravity” within the five sectors it focuses on – these are described as the risks perceived to be of greatest systemic importance, or the most influential and consequential in relation to others, within each sector. The risk centers of gravity that emerged in each sector were:

• Economic: Chronic fiscal imbalances
• Environmental: Rising greenhouse gas emissions
• Geopolitical: Global governance failure
• Societal: Unsustainable population growth
• Technological: Critical systems failure

The bottom line? The report concludes that

Decision-makers need to improve understanding of incentives that will improve collaboration in response to global risks;

Trust, or lack of trust, is perceived to be a crucial factor in how risks may manifest themselves. In particular, this refers to confidence, or lack thereof, in leaders, in systems which ensure public safety and in the tools of communication that are revolutionizing how we share and digest information; and

Communication and information sharing on risks must be improved by introducing greater transparency about uncertainty and conveying it to the public in a meaningful way.

The Global Risks 2012 Seventh Edition is available at http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2012/

*I was marginally involved in the report as a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies

Note to self: When being swept up in the inevitable innovation frenzies* that 2012 will bring, don’t forget to:

• Be aware of where change is needed, and where it is not;
• Focus on inventiveness that will foster new solutions to pressing challenges;
• Develop the foresight to explore and respond to the consequences of actions arising from new ideas;
• Have the humility to ask others for help in areas where expertise runs thin; and
• Not discount simple solutions to seemingly complex problems.

Oh, and go easy on the chocolate and booze.

Hope you all have a happy, fulfilled and productively innovative new year!

Andrew

__________________________________________________

*As well as working on and writing about technology innovation as usual, I’m expecting 2012 to be a big year for innovation in the “day job”, including exploring some new approaches to teaching and knowledge translation. 

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/12/31/innovation-resolutions-for-2012/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/11/07/exposure-to-silver-nanoparticles-may-be-more-common-than-we-thought/ http://2020science.org/2011/11/07/exposure-to-silver-nanoparticles-may-be-more-common-than-we-thought/#comments Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:58:27 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4463

The past few years has seen an explosion of interest in silver nanoparticles.  Along with a plethora of products using the particles to imbue antimicrobial properties on everything from socks to toothpaste, nanometer scale silver particles have been under intense scrutiny from researchers and policy makers concerned that they present an emerging health and environmental risk.  But a paper published last month in the journal ACS Nano suggests that, contrary to popular understanding, we’ve been exposed to silver nanoparticles for as long as we have been using the metal.

I became aware of work in Jim Hutchison’s lab at the University of Oregon some months ago that showed nanoscale silver particles are readily released from larger particles and pieces of metal.  I remember the shiver (quite literally) as I saw data that seemed to challenge the current obsession with nanoscale silver as a possible new and unusual risk to people and the environment.  And at the time I wondered just how people would react when they discovered how ubiquitous exposure to nano-silver has probably been for the past few thousand years.

But rather than headlines screaming “feds invest millions in researching a centuries old non-problem” when the work was published last month, the response was rather muted.  Since publication, there has been a piece in Chemical & Engineering News, a long article written by Gwyneth Shaw in the New Haven Independent, a bizarrely headlined article claiming “Nanoparticles ‘no threat to health’” in TG Daily (as if the inverted commas justify the clearly unfounded statement)… and that’s about it.  And I’m not quite sure what to make of this deafening indifference.

The research itself shows that under certain conditions, metallic silver will release large numbers of silver nanoparticles.  Researchers attached small silver particles to electron microscope grids and exposed them to moisture.  Over a period of weeks, the particles became surrounded by large numbers of much smaller particles – the silver was shedding silver nanoparticles (see images to the right).  Nanoparticle release was also seen when resting large silver objects on the grids.  And the effect wasn’t confined to silver – copper also released nanoparticles in the presence of moisture.  To be sure that this wasn’t a product of how the research was conducted, the researchers checked to make sure that the particles weren’t being produced because of conditions on the grid or in the electron microscope – they weren’t.

The implications of this work are quite stunning.  It implies – although verification is needed – that any object made out of silver or coated in silver will slowly release silver nanoparticles into the environment.  Silver jugs and cutlery – used since ancient times – will have been releasing silver nanoparticles into food and drink.  Silver jewelry will have been releasing silver nanoparticles onto wearer’s skin.  Silver tongue studs will have been releasing silver nanoparticles into people’s gastrointestinal tract.  As soon as you start to think about it, there are all sorts of places where people and the environment could have been coexisting with silver nanoparticles for some time!

Assuming that this is the case, what are the implications for current research on the health and environmental impacts of silver nanoparticles, of which there is rather a lot? (A search of the ICON nanoEHS Virtual Journal returns over 300 papers mentioning silver published since 2005).  Is nano silver a sufficiently unusual and potentially dangerous substance to justify millions of dollars being spent on researching its risks?  Does the new wave of nano silver products represent an emergent risk, or simply a repackaged old risk?  And if exposure to nano silver has been occurring for millennia, where is the evidence for harm associated with this exposure?

Of course, a critical factor here is how much stuff are people and the environment exposed to – how much nano silver will you be exposed to eating with premium silverware for instance, and how does this compare to wearing the latest offering of nano-silver socks?  It may be that the new interest in using nano silver in commercial products is leading to a significant jump in exposure.

Be that as it may, the most significant implication of the research to me is that it undermines the assumption that products carrying the “nanotechnology” label automatically present new and unusual risks.  Silver nanoparticles have been touted as a product of nanotechnology, and indeed they do fit the bill – intentionally engineered at the nanoscale to be used in unique ways.  And this association with nanotechnology has led to research and policy organizations to invest an awful lot of time and effort in them – from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to the US Environmental protection Agency.  Yet from a health and environmental impact perspective, it is looking increasingly likely that many engineered silver nanoparticles are indistinguishable from those nanoparticles shed by every piece of silver and silver plated stuff in common use.

So where does this leave us?  Should we abandon research into the health and environmental impacts of silver nanoparticles?  Probably not, because we still need to understand the risks associated with what we intentionally use.  But we might want to ease back on the passion that seems to be driving interest in nano silver risks, almost to the exclusion of other materials.

And we might want to rethink framing nano silver as a new threat from an emerging technology – unless someone can convincingly demonstrate that the nanoparticles from my silver spoon are not as worrisome as those from my nano-engineered socks.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/11/07/exposure-to-silver-nanoparticles-may-be-more-common-than-we-thought/feed/ 8 http://2020science.org/2011/11/06/techno-hype-or-techno-hope-two-panel-discussions-on-technology-innovation/ http://2020science.org/2011/11/06/techno-hype-or-techno-hope-two-panel-discussions-on-technology-innovation/#comments Sun, 06 Nov 2011 15:46:59 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4452

I’ve been up to my eyeballs this past few weeks in stuff, and haven’t had as much time as usual to post here.  So this weekend I thought I would take the easy route and post a couple of videos from the recent Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation.

These were back to back panel discussions that were designed to set the scene for the symposium by helping to distinguish technology reality from technology hype.  They make interesting viewing, as well as providing what I thought was a rather interesting take on significant areas of technology innovation – especially the second panel.

The full set of symposium videos can be viewed here.

Enjoy

Techno-hype or techno-reality?

Mark Banaszak Holl, UM Associate VP, Office of Vice President for Research.  Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Dean for Entrepreneurial Programs, UM College of Engineering.  Paula Olsiewski, Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.  James Bagian, Director of the UM Center for Healthcare Engineering and Patient Safety.

How are new technologies changing the world?

Gil Omenn, Director of the UM Center for Computational Medicine & Bioinformatics.  James Baker, Director of the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine.  Ann Marie Sastry, CEO and Co-Founder of Satki3.  Jörg Lahann, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan.

The European Commission had just adopted a “cross-cutting designation of nanomaterials to be used for all regulatory purposes” (link). The definition builds on a draft definition released last year, but includes a number of substantial changes to this.

Here’s the full text of the definition:

1. Member States, the Union agencies and economic operators are invited to use the following definition of the term “nanomaterial” in the adoption and implementation of legislation and policy and research programmes concerning products of nanotechnologies.

2. “Nanomaterial” means a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50 % or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1 nm – 100 nm.

In specific cases and where warranted by concerns for the environment, health, safety or competitiveness the number size distribution threshold of 50 % may be replaced by a threshold between 1 and 50 %.

3. By derogation from point 2, fullerenes, graphene flakes and single wall carbon nanotubes with one or more external dimensions below 1 nm should be considered as nanomaterials.

4. For the purposes of point (2), “particle”, “agglomerate” and “aggregate” are defined as follows:

(a) “Particle” means a minute piece of matter with defined physical boundaries;

(b) “Agglomerate” means a collection of weakly bound particles or aggregates where the resulting external surface area is similar to the sum of the surface areas of the individual components;

(c) “Aggregate” means a particle comprising of strongly bound or fused particles.

5. Where technically feasible and requested in specific legislation, compliance with the definition in point (2) may be determined on the basis of the specific surface area by volume. A material should be considered as falling under the definition in point (2) where the specific surface area by volume of the material is greater than 60 m2 / cm3. However, a material which, based on its number size distribution, is a nanomaterial should be considered as complying with the definition in point (2) even if the material has a specific surface area lower than 60 m2/cm3.

6. By December 2014, the definition set out in points (1) to (5) will be reviewed in the light of experience and of scientific and technological developments. The review should particularly focus on whether the number size distribution threshold of 50 % should be increased or decreased.

7. This Recommendation is addressed to the Member States, Union agencies and economic operators.

Particular points of interest here include:

1.  The inclusion of incidental and natural materials in the definition.  The inference is that any product containing or associated with nanomaterials from any of these sources will potentially be regulated under this definition.  Strict enforcement of this definition would encompass many polymeric materials and most heterogeneous materials currently in use.  And the lack of distinction between “hard” and “soft” nanoparticles means that the definition applies to any substance containing small micelles or liposomes – someone needs to check the micelle size distribution in homogenized milk.

2.  The focus on unbound nanoparticles and their agglomerates and aggregates.  This makes sense in terms of targeting materials with the greatest exposure potential.  But it may be hard to apply to complex nanostructured materials which nevertheless present unusual health and environmental risks – such as materials with biologically active structures that are not based on unbound nanoparticles (patterned surfaces, porous materials and nano-engineered micrometer-sized structures come to mind).

3.  The threshold of 50% of a material’s number distribution comprising of particles with one or more external dimension between 1 nm – 100 nm.  This is a laudable attempt to handle materials comprised of particles of different sizes.  But it is unclear where the scientific basis for the 50% threshold lies, how this applies to aggregates and agglomerates, and how diameter is defined (there is no absolute measure of particle diameter – it depends on how it is defined and measured).

4.  The “grandfathering” in of materials such as fullerenes, graphene flakes and carbon nanotubes with one or more dimensions below 1 nm.  This makes little sense – carbon 60 fullerenes are around 1 nm in diameter, and single walled carbon nanotubes typically have a lower diameter just above 1 nm.  Unless this is a typo, and should have read “100 nm”.  Surely not.

This seems very much like a definition of convenience – and one that I worry will detract from developing evidence-based regulation (see my previous comments on this).  Of course, the critical question is, how will the definition be used.  According to the EC,

Nanomaterials are not intrinsically hazardous per se but there may be a need to take into account specific considerations in their risk assessment. Therefore one purpose of the definition is to provide clear and unambiguous criteria to identify materials for which such considerations apply. It is only the results of the risk assessment that will determine whether the nanomaterial is hazardous and whether or not further action is justified.

In other words, there is no clear evidence of risk here, but provisions are being made to regulate a notional class of materials, just in case evidence should indeed emerge.

The desire to identify materials that require further action makes sense.  But I do worry that this definition is a significant move toward requiring industry action and providing consumer information in a way that creates concern and raises economic barriers, without protecting health (and possibly taking the focus off materials that could present unusual risks) – in the “do no harm” and “do good” stakes, it seems somewhat lacking.

This coming Thursday (Oct 20 2011), the US National Nanotechnology Initiative is releasing the latest version of the Initiative’s federal nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research strategy.  The strategy will be available for download from 10:00 AM Eastern time, with a webinar on the release being held between 12:00 PM – 12:45 PM Eastern (registration required).  Further details can be found here.

A draft of the research strategy was published in December 2010 for public comment – with the aim of using these comments where appropriate to strengthen the final strategy.

In anticipation of the final version coming out on Thursday, I’ve been revisiting the public comments received.  They are still accessible on the NNI Strategy Portal, although you will need to register to read them (my comments are available separately here).  I’m particularly interested in how the NNI has addressed them in the final strategy.

While going through this exercise, I thought it worth listing the key recommendations made within these public comments.  These are extracted from comments posted on the NNI Strategy Portal, and i many cases just represent the key recommendations made in the comments:

Richard Harenburg

The 2011 NNI EHS Research Strategy needs to provide more focus on building a collaborative informatics infrastructure. Improved speed in disseminating risk and safety information is particularly critical. Collaboration with foreign nanotechnology research organizations should be developed in this area. Priority should also be given to the signature nanotechnology initiatives such as third generation solar energy. Collaborative informatics infrastructure examples can come from small businesses that use agility and innovation to succeed and grow. Examples can also come from some foreign countries that have demonstrated agility, innovation and growth.

Jeffrey Ellis

The strategy I recommend is for each product containing a nanomaterial and its uses to be first screened by the manufacturers for potential safety problems once it leaves the production facility. The manufacturers thereof should as a matter of course provide such data. If use requires special safety equipment (gloves, masks, etc) such instruction must be provided with the product.

Bill Kojola

An integrated and linked research effort to assess, via epidemiological studies, the impact of exposure to engineered nanomaterials on human health and any necessary resultant risk assessment/management responses seems to be missing from the strategy.

Andrew Maynard

…what would it take to craft a federal strategy that enabled agencies to work together more effectively in ensuring the safe use of nanomaterials?  I’m not sure that this is entirely possible – an internal strategy will always be constrained by the system in ways that an externally-crafted strategy isn’t.  But I do think that there are three areas in particular that could be built on here:

1. Principles. The idea of establishing principles to which agencies sign up to is a powerful one, and could be extended further.  For instance, they could include a commitment to working closely and cooperatively with other agencies, to working toward a common set of aims, and to critically reviewing progress towards these aims on a regular basis.
2. Accountability. The implementation and coordination framework set out in chapter 8 of the draft strategy contains a number of items that, with a bit of work, some group within the federal government could be held accountable to.  Formally, the NNCO would seem to be the most appropriate organization to be held responsible for progress here.  With accountability for actions that support the implementation and coordination of the strategy, a basis could be built for an actionable strategy, rather than wishful thinking.
3. Innovation. So often in documents like this, there is a sense of defeatism – “this is the system, and there’s nothing we can do to change it”.  Yet there are always innovative ways to circumvent institutional barriers in order to achieve specific ends.  I would strongly encourage the NEHI to start from the question “where to we want to go, and how are we going to get there”, rather than “what are we allowed to do”, and from this starting point explore innovative ways of making substantive and measurable progress towards the stated mission of the strategy.  Just one possibility here is to use the model of the Signature Initiatives being developed elsewhere within the NNI – which overcome institutional barriers to encourage agencies to focus on a common challenge.  Something similar to a Signature Initiative focused on predictive modeling, or personal exposure measurement, or nanomaterial characterization, could enable highly coordinated and integrated cross-agency programs that accelerate progress toward specific goals.  But this is just one possibility – there are surely many more ways of getting round the system!

John DiLoreto, The Nanotechnology Coalition

A core mission of the NNI is to foster “technological advancements that benefit society” (Draft NNI 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety Strategy, page 1). The NNI strategy provides valuable help in identifying key research areas and, in some cases, providing the necessary funding to conduct the research itself. The Coalition believes that to fulfill its mission in this regard, the NNI could and should direct its considerable influence and resources to educating regulatory and other officials in positions of influence about nanotechnology so they can better fulfill their responsibilities to protect the safety of consumers. The EHS research strategy should also examine ways that science-based safety information can be shared with regulatory officials and others in leadership positions and provide scientific resources to assist these officials in understanding what a ‘nanomaterial’ is and help create a better understanding of properties that may impact safety.

David Berube

Section 6, p. 56, line 23/25/26/30 – 23 conflates translation with risk communication (they are different). 25 “approaches” is unclear and should reference levels of acceptable caution. 26 high uncertainty may demand whole new algorithms – your assumption whether risk communication and risk management can be integrated is incorrect. 30 is a good point to discuss the conflation of translation which occurs between parties within similar ranges of understanding and public perception (NGOs) as well as perception of public perception (legislators). Each of these subset publics have different needs and interests and standardization of terminology is hardly sufficient to the task at hand.

p. 57 line 4 – see above and consider we might need to develop algorithms appropriate to different levels of certainty. The assumption the answer to uncertainty is more certainty is not necessarily valid for all publics. The simplified version in the document seems more attuned to strategic communication involving response strategies for different risks and certainty values involving variables like plausibility, phenomenon specificity, exigence, salience, etc.

p. 63 lines 34/37 34 (see above). 37 one model does not fit all. 38 link to trust is very complex and complicated by new/digital media sources as well as new credibility (social media) and reliability.

p. 58 lines 1/5/11/27 (see above) and this demands information sharing and transparency as well as answering how data is defined, who decides what is relevant data, how it is generated, how data is compiled and concatenated. how data is vetted and debunked, and how data is revised. 5 two ways is overly simplistic, try interactional. 11 this is a model issue and we do not have a model for high uncertainty. 27 assumes risk communication is a function of data, esp. scientific data and for many publics that is not true.

p. 76 – Explanation SP objective 4.2 re: needs of the stakeholders – it might be prudent to ask them what their needs are.

Samantha Dozier, PETA

A complete, step-wise method for rigorous characterization is imperative so that measurement is not questioned and studies are not repeated. A clear requirement for nanomaterial characterization will help eliminate redundancy and imprecise data-gathering and will aid in reducing animal use for the field.

For human health effects assessment, the NNI should promote the development of a tiered, weight-of-evidence approach that is based on the most relevant methods available and encourages the NNI to support the incorporation of appropriate in vitro human-relevant cell and tissue assays for all endpoints, instead of relying on inadequately modified, non-validated animal assays. This tiered approach should start with an initial characterization of the nanomaterial, followed by in vitro basal cell and portal-of-entry toxicity assessments according to human exposure potential and a full characterization of the toxicokinetic potential.

Martin Philbert

…it is imperative that the NNI focuses on developing and implementing a plan of action that supports coordinated and responsive progress towards addressing nanomaterial safety, despite mounting barriers to achieving this. Such an approach will need to focus less on the details of what research needs to be done – there is already a plethora of information available on this – and more on cross-agency mechanisms that will support relevant and timely research.

Chapter 8 of the draft strategy begins to address this need. I would strongly encourage the NEHI working group to build on this promising start, and develop a cross-agency plan of action that enables the necessary research to progress, despite political, social, institutional and other pressures that will inevitably obstruct it.

Maria Victoria Peeler

After much discussion and reviewing comments on this web site, as well as reviewing NNI’s proposals again, I believe it’s in order to point out that while the document makes it clear that the funding is comparatively large, but limited, the critical prioritization of current US needs to achieve sustainable use of nanotechnology is missing.

The listing of the proposed projects by each requestor does not answer the question as to which projects are 1) absolutilely necessary to survive, 2) of major importance for competitive purposes (list of competitive priorities should also be defined. For example, is economic viability a higher priority than population viability..of key species or top of the chain species?) and 3) of major importance to maintain stable diversity of all Earth meeds, to avoid global to regional catastrophy. Beyond that, each project ought to require documentation that ensures the end result will not be deletirious. We do not need to foul our own nest anymore than we have already.

Robert Wiacek

Responsible and cautious science-base risk analysis and risk management by the EHS community needs to be a priority in order to curtail any unsubstantiated fears of nanomaterials that might arise by the public and ultimately restrict the development of nano-based technology.

In the listing of the goals, Line 8 (Protects public health and the environment) should remain first, Line 10 (Fosters technological advancements that benefits society) should be second, and the last goal listed should be Line 9 (Employs science-based risk analysis and risk management). This would be more consistent with the overall fourfold goals of the NNI (Introduction, Page 1).

Ronald Turco

Overall, the effort is comprehensive looking at the history of the program. However, I keyed in on page 43 line 10, “Releases of engineered nanomaterials ….” as I feel the forward thinking part of the effort ignores “nanocomposites” (the word occurs one time in the document.)… I think the report needs to move forward a bit and start to think more seriously and address the real materials. Use of the term nanomaterials is too vague as it leaves it open as to what is actually being studied (pure forms or product materials). I think raw nanosilver gets a little too much attention – again in what form will it actually be entering the environment (page 54)? We need to be thinking about how the real materials are or will be transformed. The photochemistry work of Jafvert (Hou and Jafvert, 2009; Hou et al., 2010), the fungal work of Filley (Schreiner et al., 2009) and others are a great example of how readily these materials can actually be acted upon in the environment.

Karoly Meszlenyi, The Methodist Hospital Research Institute (TMHRI)

Chapter 2 Instrumentation, Metrology, and Analytical Methods
The monitoring of nano-materials in the environment is critically important for the protection of the safety of laboratory workers at all levels. Because of this, TMHRI suggests that additional research efforts be directed into and reliable methods for the rapid detection, identification and measurement of nano-materials in laboratory and other environments.

Chapter 3 – Nanomaterials and Human Health
Research should also be directed toward an evaluation of the relative toxicity of each type of nano-material, as well as the methods and/or routes by which each nano-material is most likely to be taken into the body. lt is particularly important to proceed with research into the most effective equipment and methods for protection of workers from exposure to nano-materials. This research should include proper techniques for the handling and disposal of equipment once it has been used.

Chapter 6 – Risk Management Methods
In addition to the activities we suggest with regard to the development of the proper equipment and methods for the handling of nano-materials, research should be conducted into the development of equipment and methods for the prevention of nano-materials spills, as well as the most effective equipment and methods for the safe, rapid and effective cleanup and remediation of any such incidents.

Gaythia Weis

I recommend that some input from industrial techniques for matrix management and virtual team building would be highly useful approaches to dealing with the inter-agency and multiple stakeholder issues… I think this document:
http://www.particlea…f/1743-8977-7-40.pdf is a great outline of how to establish protocols for working with new and unfamiliar materials, and implementation of the precautionary principle. I especially like the design tree flow chart and the figures. I believe that something very specific based on the style of this report should appear early on in the US National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental, Health and Safety strategy document. I would place this directly after the material now in Chapter 8. Because if you want to convey concepts about health and safety you have to be clear about it. And this Particle Fiber and Technology document knows how to do that. I don’t think you can have a Environmental health and safety strategy unless you really get down to the nuts and bolts of health and safety.

The American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel

The Panel supports the approach of integrating the risk assessment paradigm within product life cycle stages and the NNI’s overall adaptive management approach to EHS research. While we support the vision and mission in principle, we believe that the vision statement does not adequately acknowledge the potential of nanotechnology to enhance environmental quality. The panel also hopes that, contrary to the text box following the mission statement, the definition of “engineered nanomaterial” used in the EHS strategy would provide some degree of guidance (and consistency) to federal agencies developing their own definitions.

The Panel believes that risk communication deserves increased emphasis. We do not believe that it is sufficient to simply “integrate and standardize risk communication within the risk management framework” (p. 63). As nanotechnology EHS research increases, the question of what study results mean in terms of potential health or environmental risk must be communicated effectively. The draft frequently mentions increasing the availability of EHS information, but the public needs more than the numbers from a risk assessment to interpret studies and understand what risk management measures, if needed, are in place. We recommend that risk communication be more of a priority with a focus on addressing scientific uncertainty, public perceptions, and ELSI.

The draft strategy does not prioritize the need for consistent terminology in EHS research and practice. Standardized terminology would reduce confusion (e.g., routine use of primary particle size to describe materials composed mostly or entirely of aggregates and agglomerates). The lack of common terminology can lead to erroneous conclusions about the sources of potential EHS impacts and how to perform appropriate surveillance and exposure monitoring. As noted in the draft, lack of common terminology can also undermine risk communication.

The Panel notes that the term “comparative risk assessment” is used frequently, but it is not defined. Is it a comparison of different nanomaterial risk assessments or of how different properties influence risk assessment? The Panel requests clarity on the meaning of this term and notes that assessments that compare nano and non-nano forms of materials may be useful for assessing whether nano forms of materials possess increased risk relative to non-nano forms.

Although education is a major component of the overall NNI strategic plan, there are no linkages to education in the draft EHS strategy.

Günter Oberdörster

Page 31, lines 7-13: Although the need for developing appropriate, reliable, etc. in vitro and in vivo assays need to be identified, this need could include and emphasize the validation of any in vitro system through in vivo studies. In addition, the choice of realistic, relevant doses/concentrations should be informed by data from exposure assessment which should be stressed.

Page 31, line 35: The nose is listed here as a non-traditional route of entry, it certainly is not, nasal and oral inhalation are both very traditional portals of entry.

Page 32, lines 3 and 4: When designing dose response and time course studies, the need for inclusion of realistic doses should be mentioned.

Page 32, lines 9 and 10: Likewise, with respect to alternative in vitro testing methods for rapid screening, it should be emphasized again that validation is necessary since mechanisms are dose-dependent and mechanisms associated with extraordinarily high doses in vitro are likely not to operate in vivo. So the predictability of in vitro assays for in vivo responses clearly needs to be confirmed.

Page 35, lines 3-14, Overview: In this well-written overview section, I would like to see more emphasis on a validation of in vitro assays by in vivo studies; just pointing to the correlation (correlation which way?) of in vitro results with in vivo outcomes is not strong enough in my view. It should be pointed out in this section that the term in vivo also requires some scrutiny with respect to methodologies: for example, inhalation as the preferred method is clearly the gold standard as far as the respiratory tract as portal of entry is concerned, yet bolus type delivery (instillation, aspiration) are continuously used, calling for a need to compare different in vivo types of exposure to assess their usefulness. (Differences in dose-rate as important determinant of acute effects).

Page 37, lines 15-29, Overview: This section again is a good overview, however, it could be more specific with respect to what are the goals of biokinetics, which are described here as developing models that predict ENM biological exposure and fate. Important in addition is to identify from such biokinetic studies potential target tissues/organs. Specifically, sensitive tissues could be mentioned, such as bone marrow, CNS, cardio-vascular system, placenta, the latter pointing to the potential of reproductive effects.

Page 38, lines 38-45: This overview of ENM uptake and portal of entry tissues addresses also the issue of inhalation vs. intratracheal instillation as well as use of high exposure doses. However, it appears that for the instillation methodology (aspiration should be mentioned also, both together to be described as acute bolus type deliveries) by-passing of the upper respiratory tract is identified as the only limiting factor with respect to risk assessment. However, a major problem not mentioned here is the difference in dose rate between inhalation and bolus type delivery, in addition to differences in distributions of deposited doses in the lower respiratory tract.

Page 39, lines 34-46, Overview: The need for fundamental understanding of the mode of action is addressed here, and it would be helpful to remind the reader that mechanisms also are dose-dependent, and that therefore the identification of molecular mechanisms mediating biological responses also require to make certain that they are operating in vivo, particularly in case they are derived from high-dose in vitro studies.

Page 56, lines 9 and 10: A minor point, I suggest to reverse these two lines, to place Hazard Identification first, followed by Risk Characterization, which is dose-response assessment.

Page 68: This last section on Informatics and Modeling identifies some problems with regard to setting up a better collaborative infrastructure considering, among others, the policies and practices of different agencies (line 5), funding mechanisms and funding evaluation schemes, etc.; but there doesn’t seem to be a solution offered to solve these problems although there is some attempt in the last section, The Path Forward (see below).

The Informatics section is very useful, in particular also since it emphasizes the importance of validating predictive capabilities of in vitro and in vivo assays (lines 17 and 25) and to incorporate necessary additional information. It would be helpful to add a short paragraph about the time line of informatics, obviously these are long-term goals, can you provide any milestones for the goals?

Pages 70/71, Path Forward: With respect to targeting and accelerating HS research, six bullet-points are listed, however, an overarching issue that could be introduced here (it comes several pages later) is that there ought to be a coordinating oversight body, otherwise, it might be just a continuation of how it is now.

Page 71, line 22: Dosemetrics such as surface area and solubility are listed as something new which certainly is not the case. Otherwise, this listing of prioritized research is well developed and makes good sense.

“Page 77, lines 2-7, Implementation and Coordination: The essentiality of continuous coordination among agencies through the NEHI working group and addition of an NNCO coordinator is expressed. This sounds pretty good, how well will it work though? This document lists many projects for each of the research needs, but there was not much evidence of inter-project collaboration/discussions.

Page 78, first bullet-point, lists the new NNCO coordinator but it is not clear what, if any, directive power this coordinator will have? Just assisting agencies may not be enough.

Page 78, (Lines 4-9) In addition, the NEHI working group will continue to facilitate coordination and increased collaboration among the agencies, so it is not clear really how these two coordinating groups work together and how much of a directed coordinated agenda for accelerated EHS research is now in place or how is that different from the past? The NEHI working group is continuing its coordinating efforts nationally and internationally, so what is the role of the new NNCO coordinator?

Page 79 discusses very nicely the dissemination of knowledge and comes up with a Conclusion Paragraph. However, in both of these the NNCO coordinator is not mentioned, so how important really is this coordinator? Role of the NNCO needs to be better clarified.

Page 91, Appendix C. Definitions — Nanoparticle or nanoscale particle: Text reads: “ … a nano-object with all three external dimensions …” — should be “…at least one external dimension….”.

Skip Rung

1. The document is not by any means a roadmap for “support(ing) responsible development of nanotechnology” (NNI goal #4), because it is almost completely focused on risk rather than on proactive activities (though these are briefly mentioned in a few places), and because there are no cost or timeline estimates for achievement of objectives that would enable such development.

2. Though the term “comparative risk” is used in places, there is almost no sense of comparison of the risks of using new nanomaterials with (a) conventional materials or (b) incumbent nanomaterials that were certified prior to recent precautionary blocking and slowdowns. This concern is somewhat personal : an ONAMI gap fund portfolio company, Dune Sciences, which has a better (performance and safety) nanosilver technology, has been severely harmed precisely because of an inability to make such beneficial tradeoffs. Unlike the world of “substances” under TSCA, at least some categories of new nanomaterials developed in the US are at this time practically blocked from commercialization here. This is causing loss of opportunity to Asia.

Two suggestions: a) Set appropriate comparative risk context in the introduction and all relevant sections. b) Fund comparative hazard/exposure/risk studies in a few key/prioritized cases

3. It is unlikely that more than a tiny fraction of the US public knows that the level of scrutiny (both because of genuine scientific interest and because of technophobic NGO influence) being applied to nanomaterials is unprecedented, and has not been applied to molecular (other than certain categories) or micron-scale materials. To cite two of many possible examples, molecular species in plastics used in many products (household items, electronics, automobiles) are known to outgas, and micron-scale particles (in the range most favored for deep lung inhalation) are emitted from paper products and office copiers.

4. It seems imperative to me, unless the NNI wants to be an enabler of even more loss of manufacturing and high-value product development activity in the US, to incorporate – or at least prominently mention in its introduction – a broader comparative sense of risks vs. benefits in the world of materials/substances, and to include/highlight more activity on proactive development of nanomaterials and nanomanufacturing processes, including not just “safe by design” efforts but also safe and low-impact fabrication and purification methods.

5. The occupational exposure research methods should use NIOSH-approved workplace and PPE protocols as the baseline, otherwise needless concern may be raised. If resources permit, comparing this baseline with less precautionary practices would provide useful sensitivity information.

6. There might be greater mention of biological assay methods that combine the best features of in vitro (e.g. small material requirement, high throughput) and in vivo (e.g. vertebrate development impact) studies. One is the use of embryonic zebrafish.

Thomas Peters

Major comments

1) I disagree with the order of priorities in the Human Exposure Assessment area. The authors seem confused among what can be done and what needs to be done. Ultimately, I think that most would agree that the number one need is to “characterize exposures among [people, although the word ‘workers’ was used in 2008]”. The new need #1 is to “understand processes and factors that determine exposures to NM”. I disagree with this reprioritization and suspects that this change reflects the desire to have something more easily tactically achieved in the number one slot. I do not agree that the old needs map to the new needs as indicated by the arrows in Figure 3-1.

I also suspect that the authors have overstated the progress that has been made as stated on page 22, line 10. We still know very little about workplace exposures and there should still be a focus in this area.”\

2) There seems to be an opportunity for more clear linkage among the different chapters. Additionally, the different chapters do not seem parallel as they are presented. Consequently, I sense that there is not an overarching vision within this document that is not explicitly stated.
I believe that this problem would not be overly difficult resolve. I suspect that the figure on the cover of the document was an attempt to provide linkage. From this figure, I see that areas of “Predictive Modeling & Informatics” and “Nanomaterial Measurement Infrastructure” form an important overarching core that is used by “Human Health”, “Human Exposure”, and “Environment”. Ultimately, all of these areas feed “Risk Assessment and Management”. This figure and discussion should be a central piece of the Introduction.

3) The Introduction needs to clearly state what the current strategy is apart from the old strategy. The introduction weaves back and forth between old and new. I am confused as a new reader of this document. The result of this confusion is that the entire strategy appears non-cohesive and weak.

4) The development of partnerships with industry and other stakeholders are absent in this document, or perhaps they are simply too deeply embedded for me to find.

Specific comments

…

3) Miscellaneous issues:

• Figure 1-3 appears on page 4 but is not referenced in the text until page 7. It is also not really discussed so it feels like an afterthought rather than a central piece of the document.

• P9, line 25. I find it strange that the words ‘new and improved’ are inherent to the definition of ‘instruments’. I suggest that they be dropped.

• P9, line 21. I find that “developed by national metrology institutes” is too exclusive for the definition of “standards” in a document of this scope.

Fred Klaessig

The issues surrounding safety and societal acceptance are broader than the specifics of any one technology, and for that reason, I am a proponent of Objective # 4 (EHS and ELSI) becoming the NNI’s Objective #1. Some separation should be encouraged so that the enthusiasm, the jargon and the promotional fervor do not cast a strong shadow over thoughtful EHS evaluations. The definition of nanomaterial in this document, the EHS Research Strategy, is more appropriate to the first three NNI objectives and less so to the fourth, and consideration should be given to using the ISO definition in its stead along with a qualifying statement.

1). When breathing, we inhale particles and not ‘nano-enabled’ products;
2). When these particles pass into our lungs, the smaller particles reach the deep alveoli based upon hydrodynamic flow and particle size, not ‘unique’ properties;
3). The particles that reach the deep long may lodge there, while the larger particles are coughed up and then go down the GI tract;
4). The body’s initial response to lodged particles is based on the innate immune system’s general reaction to any foreign body plus some immediate chemistry such as wetting, acid-base reactions, dissolution; and
5). The body’s long-term response is closely tied to persistent inflammation, while the localized chemical response is closely tied to biopersistence and particle migration.

The above points favor the ISO definition of nanomaterial with an advisory that for EHS purposes, we emphasize particulate matter. A suggestion would be for the definition on page 1:

nanomaterial: material with any external dimension in the nanoscale or having internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale

Note: For EHS purposes the primary interest is in respirable and ingestible particulates, where the information developed can be extended to larger nanomaterials.

Vincent Caprio, Nano Business Alliance (NbA)

First, NbA urges NNI to prioritize the development of consistent terminology to insure regulatory initiatives are properly focused. Standardized terminology reduces the potential for unwarranted and commercially stifling regulatory measures that have the potential to undermine the successful commercialization of nano enterprises.

Second, the Alliance urges NNI to enhance its commitment to educate the public, including legislators and regulators, about nanotechnology to foster a thorough understanding of the benefits nanotechnology offers.

David Wagger (Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries inc.)

Figure 1-4 [8/9–13] should show recycling pathways from Product End of Life to each preceding step (e.g., refurbished used electronics, reused electronics components, and shredded hard-drives) and identify potential recycling worker exposure. Also, the text regards recycling unevenly, including it in Ch. 2 and Ch. 3 [10/35–36; 15/11–13; 18/18–20; 20/19–26] but tending to omit it in Ch. 5 and Ch. 6 [43/22–23; 48/22–25; 62/18–20; 64/32–34]. Recycling should be identified where appropriate.

…

Finally, ISRI agrees that “stakeholders have an essential role to play” [80/3–4] and would be interested in participating in the Strategy’s efforts to meet NNI Strategic Plan Objectives 4.1.2, 4.2, and 4.3.2.

Paul Sarahan

With respect to Chapters 4 and 5, the report should emphasize the need for proposed research projects to focus on and be designed to reflect real-life material usage, exposure doses, and exposure pathways, so that the results can be easily translated to real world operations in a meaningful way.

Regarding Chapter 6, I would encourage a review of existing statutory and regulatory authority that could spur nano operations to perform risk assessments as a regular course of business. See, e.g., http://www.fulbright…technologySafety.pdf , http://www.fulbright…technologySafety.pdf

Michael Ellenbecker

Page Line Comment

14 30 TEM and SEM are very valuable tools for analyzing properties of ENMs. Standardized protocols for sample collection, preparation and analysis need to be funded and developed.

15 18 Standardized methods for evaluating workplace exposures to ENMs must receive a very high priority.

20 17 We believe that the international harmonization of exposure assessment methodologies is of utmost importance. We recommend that US NNI agencies work closely with colleagues in the EU and elsewhere to ensure this occurs. It is important to recognize that different exposure assessment methodologies are appropriate for different exposure scenarios, i.e., exposure methods used for epidemiology studies will require different measurement equipment and strategies than exposure methods used for comparison to permissible exposure limits.

20 30 Again, it is very important that consistent quantitative assessment methods be used in all countries, so data can be compared and correlated.

24 4 International harmonization and consistency is extremely important here, since it is likely that in the near future the only way to establish large enough cohorts of workers exposed to a particular ENM is by combining populations from different countries.

30 6 The lack of any funded health surveillance projects is of great concern. Such projects should be designed and funded with international partners.

30 10 The safe levels of exposures should consider the effects of available controls applied to such exposure when the evaluation was taken, this is usually important for workplace exposure. Thus, the information about the control strategies used and associated with the studied exposure has to be reported.

30 30-38 The assessments for populations who are exposed to consumer products containing engineered nanomaterials will require a different evaluation/assessment strategy compared to workplace exposures.

31 3 The assessment models require further evaluation to be adopted for different scenarios. This will need large funding to develop the tools and appropriate instrumentation.

31 5 Harmonization of assessment models and data collection with international partners is important for further development on health surveillance.

60 44 We strongly agree with the statement that studies on exposure control methods are lacking. Equal emphasis must be given to controlling exposures as to evaluating them; the current NNI strategy seems to favor evaluation over control, which is a mistake in our view.

70 15 We strongly believe that another key principle should be “Develop effective strategies to effectively control exposures to ENMs.”

72 43 We agree with the importance of international coordination. All ENM research should be performed with an eye towards international coordination.

Lockheed Martin

The recommendation to create an exposure registry deserves further exploration.

For example:

1. Who would establish the program to gather physician case reports and other reports of adverse events?
2. What constitutes exposure and what factors determine who is entered into the registry? Exposure needs to be categorized. For example, the type of nanomaterials used in the workplace, exposure estimates, and control measures should be documented. Otherwise, data might not be collected in a format or using a method which could be used for future studies.
3. There is no specific health impact identified, so would medical surveillance constitute a research study? Do the criteria and requirements for human subject research need to be applied?
4. What type of medical surveillance should be performed? There is a wide variety of nanomaterials, and it is not likely that one type of medical surveillance will suffice for all nanomaterials. With the exception of draft recommendations from NIOSH for carbon nanotubes/nanofibers, very little has been published on this issue. Thus, NNI should consider providing recommendations for appropriate medical surveillance.

References to the “transformation products” of nanomaterials and the potential for human exposure to these transformed materials appear in the Human Health and other sections of the NNI document. The draft creates the impression that generation of “transformation products” from nanomaterials is a foregone conclusion and that there is potential for a biological response. Although basic environmental chemistry may allow one to predict how a chemical will be transformed when released into the environment, this is not necessarily the case with nanomaterials/nanoparticles due to their unique properties. NNI should support well-designed studies regarding if/how specific nanomaterials are transformed in the environment. This would provide useful data while saving resources otherwise expended seeking biological responses to an unknown or nonexistent transformation product.

The use of toxicological data to create computational models for predicting toxicity in silico along with references to high throughput testing are mentioned in the Human Health section. These technologies hold great promise for the future. However, a substantial amount of work remains to be done in developing reliable, reproducible methods for conducting in vitro and in vivo toxicity testing. The emphasis for the near term should be placed on refining the latter methods and collecting data essential for developing and understanding the toxicity associated with different nanomaterials.

Christopher Bosso, Ronald Sandler, and Jacqueline Isaacs

Environmental Justice. The EHS strategy makes only one reference to environmental justice (p. 40), and not in its standard understanding as the disproportionate exposure of high-minority and low-income communities to environmental hazards. Nanotechnologies and nanomanufacturing processes are likely to produce both environmental benefits and burdens, so any meaningful EHS strategy must address research, planning, and policy outcomes necessary to ensure that nanotechnology reduces any unjust distribution of environmental burdens and benefits. It is crucial that any meaningful EHS strategy promote the development of nanotechnology ways that distribute the benefits justly – e.g., that remediation focus on toxins prevalent in environmental justice communities and that “environmental illnesses” on which resources are spent include those, such as asthma, that are more prevalent in environmental justice communities. Whether nanotechnologies are likely to exacerbate or alleviate environmental injustice depends on how they are implemented, disseminated, and situated (and who or what factors determine these); who controls them; what sorts of oversight and regulations pertain to them; and how effectively these are enforced. To address such components require substantial community engagement and significant policy development. The EHS strategic plan must, therefore, include a research strategy for these aspects of environmental justice.

Regulatory design. The EHS strategy makes no reference to fostering a deeper understanding of the suitability of existing regulatory structures and approaches to nanotechnology. There is real doubt about the efficacy of existing federal environmental and health statutes (e.g., TSCA, FIFRA), and the current capacity of federal regulatory agencies (e.g., EPA, FDA) to adequately address the expected deluge of nanoscale applications and products. The situation at the state level is of even greater concern since state governments are often in the front lines when addressing environmental and health concerns. The absence of a focus on the basic design or orientation of an effective 21st century regulatory regime is glaring.

Public Outreach and Education. Public outreach and education is among the core strategic goals of the NNI, yet the EHS research strategy nowhere addresses these concerns. Developing effective models and strategies for engaging the public about nanotechnology EHS concerns in general and in particular contexts (e.g. siting of a nanomanufacturing facility) should be part of any EHS research plan aimed at promoting the public good. For example, a crucial component of environmental justice – and of democracy – is the right of citizens to know about possible EHS concerns in their community. Strategies for communicating about EHS to communities that build on existing best practices need to be developed. Moreover, communities need to be engaged to determine what their EHS concerns are and what sorts of environmentally beneficial nanotechnologies would be most important for their community. A research strategy is therefore needed to develop effective methods of public engagement to teach and learn from a variety of “publics” regarding EHS concerns and goals. Such engagement is crucial to the responsible development of nanotechnology, and may also reveal research needs and goals that are not readily recognized by the EHS research community.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/10/15/us-national-nanotechnology-initiative-to-release-latest-environmental-health-and-safety-ressearch-strategy-oct-20/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/10/10/new-models-needed-to-master-technology-trends-world-economic-forum/ http://2020science.org/2011/10/10/new-models-needed-to-master-technology-trends-world-economic-forum/#comments Mon, 10 Oct 2011 19:36:15 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4421

In his opening remarks at this year’s Summit on the Global Agenda, World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab placed the need for new models to support effective use of technology innovation firmly on the table.

This is the fourth year I have participated in the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Summit – an intense two-day meeting of over 700 thought leaders from around the world to explore global emerging issues and opportunities and to begin developing possible solutions.

On the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies, we have been working hard on getting the opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technologies on the radar of top-level decision-makers.  Not because we think they should know about the latest cool technologies, but because we feel that effective solutions to complex challenges demand an integrated and proactive approach to technology innovation.

It’s been a tough task – high level decision makers are often uneasy talking about science and technology, and prefer to assume that “techies” will deliver technology-based solutions to pressing problems as and when they are necessary.  Sadly, this is a model that doesn’t work well, and is rapidly running out of steam in the face of accelerating technological capabilities, increasing global connectivity and diminishing resources.

So it was gratifying to hear WEF’s Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab highlight the need for new models to master technological trends in the Summit’s opening keynote.  Schwab emphasized the need for new models in five areas – the fifth being how we handle accelerating technologies:

“Ladies and gentlemen, fifth, we need a new model to master the trend of technology. The velocity of technological change, for which we are not really prepared, will accelerate in an exponential manner, having significant implication on all of us. What is particularly striking, for me as an engineer I may add, is the character-changing nature of technological change. Today’s technological evolution no longer solely affects what we are doing, but also affects who we are. Of course, the internet in many ways is still a tool. But it has also become a part of our internal DNA. This new dimension of technological progress and societal change is still in relative infancy. The other ways of forthcoming evolutions in technology such as genetics and STEM cell technology, nanotechnology, and numerous sciences and so on, will all provide opportunities and threats regarding the ultimation of ourselves. And this raises fundamental moral and ethical issues, for which we are not yet prepared, and for which we have to prepare new models.”

(The full address can be watch on YouTube)

This is an important high-level endorsement to think differently about how we develop and use technology innovation for the greatest good, and it sets the scene for the Council on Emerging Technologies’ work over the next year.

We still have our work cut out – but at least we know that we have the strong support as we explore new models of developing and deploying technology innovation as successfully, safely and sustainably as possible.

Question: What do you get if you place some of the leading thinkers and practitioners in the fields of technology innovation, risk and sustainability in the same room for two days?

Answer: one whopping headache!

Not because of the confusion and cacophony, but because of the overwhelming volume of information, ideas and insights that emerge.

To be honest, my less than coherent state at the end of this weeks symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation wasn’t helped by moderating eight discussion panels over two days, and coordinating a handful more.  But without a doubt, this was a meeting that pushed the boundaries of how much a sane person can take in and remain sane.

The idea behind the symposium was simple: Bring a bunch of smart people with different perspectives together to explore the complex intersections between risk, sustainability and innovation, and see what happens.  In practice, we put together a format and a program that encouraged a candid exploration of realistic challenges and plausible approaches to developing sustainable applications of technology innovation, as well as using technology innovation to develop sustainable solutions to pressing problems.

The result: Two ideas-packed days of engaging, inspiring and challenging discussion on how businesses, governments and others can better ensure safe, successful and sustainable outcomes from technology innovation.

Having been in the thick of the discussions, I’m still trying to unravel and assimilate a lot of the ideas that emerged. And I missed a lot of the nuances – much of the time I was too intent on keeping the conversation going to be fully aware of its content.   Fortunately, the symposium was caught on video, and will be posted on the Risk Science Center’s Vimeo site in a week or so, so I will be able to revisit the discussions at my leisure.  But I did want to capture some of my initial impressions here.

New ideas for new audiences. Something I did want to achieve with the symposium was to expose people to ideas they may not have previously come across.  In this, the meeting was resounding success.  While some of the ideas being explored on innovation, sustainability, risk and communication may have been old hat to people that live and breathe this stuff, there were many others in the room who were hearing things for the first time that had a direct bearing on their work.

Innovation relating to communication, informatics, processes and systems is more relevant than “named” emerging technologies.  I had planned the first couple of sessions of the symposium to focus on technology innovation rather than risk, with the intention of ensuring the following discussions were grounded in plausibility rather than wild speculation.  I had expected these discussions to focus on the usual chestnuts – nanotechnology, synthetic biology, geoengineering, human enhancement etc. Instead, despite having experts in cutting edge emerging technologies on the panels, the discussion focused more on innovation in how we use knowledge and information – in areas like communication, informatics, processes and systems.  When pressed, panelists felt that the labels new areas of technology attract are less important than innovations that are allowing things to be done in new ways.

Risk and risk communication float to the top.  I was also intrigued to find that, try as I might, I could not keep risk and risk communication out of the conversation.  Even the panels looking at emerging areas of technology innovation naturally gravitated to the challenges of understanding and addressing emerging risks, as well as communicating information on risks and benefits effectively.

A clear synergy exists between risk, innovation and sustainability.  Although it was this synergy I wanted to explore through the symposium, I was surprised at how apparent it was that to many participants, successful technology innovation is critically dependent on taking an integrative approach to innovation, risk and sustainability.

There were also a number of personal highlights for me at the meeting, in addition to the discussion panels:

• John Viera – Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering at the Ford Motor Company – gave an inspiring talk on the company’s approach to sustainability.
• David Munson – the Robert J. Vlasic Dean of Engineering in the College of Engineering at the University of Michigan – beautifully articulated the need for integrative approaches to innovation and sustainability, as well as highlighting a number of innovative initiatives within the College of Engineering.
• James Wilsdon – Director of the Royal Society Science Policy Centre – gave a wonderful talk on technology innovation, going back to controversies over lightening rods in the 1700′s and highlighting how similar many of the issues we face today are to those society was facing three hundred years ago.
• Rodrigo Martinez and Mark Jones from the design company IDEO led delegates in a great team exercise in approaching challenges from different perspectives. I was particularly pleased with this session, as it demonstrated how design-inspired methodologies can be used to enable cross-expertise and innovative exploration of complex challenges.
• A panel of students and young professionals provided candid and insightful feedback on the first day’s proceedings – asking the questions and making the observations that more seasoned delegates were dying to ask and make, but were too scared to!  A number of people commenting that it was the best session of the day.

With the exception of the IDEO session, all of these talks will be available on Vimeo soon – along with the rest of the discussion panels.

All in all, it seemed to be a highly successful meeting – although I still have a pile of evaluation forms that I haven’t dared look at yet.  There were things that I would do differently next time – information overload was a major issue this year, and I’m not sure that giving myself so many panels to moderate was a great idea.  But in terms of exposing people to new ideas and sparking new insights, things seened to go pretty well.

Hopefully now, some of those sparks will catch light and grow.

Further information on the symposium can be found here.

The full set of photos from the symposium can be viewed on Flickr.

Videos of keynotes and panel discussions will be available on Vimeo shortly.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/09/24/emerging-technologies-and-sustainability-whats-risk-got-to-do-with-it/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2011/08/25/the-human-project-needs-your-help/ http://2020science.org/2011/08/25/the-human-project-needs-your-help/#comments Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:00:36 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4353

Here’s an interesting idea – build a free iPad app that kicks off a global conversation about the future of the human species.

The Human Project is the brain child of Erika Ilves & Anna Stillwell.  At its core is a yet-to-be-built iPad app that captures the essence of humanity past and future – who we are, where we are going, and how we are going to get there.  As Erika and Anna explain:

There are so many challenges that confront the species as a whole. The ones that get a lot of press (like climate change, food & water shortages, poverty, war, overpopulation and economic crises). The ones that don’t (like comets and asteroids, extreme experiments in science, technological terror and error). The ones that we humans don’t even imagine we can solve (like mega volcanoes, mega earthquakes, nearby supernova explosions, a dying sun, an aging universe). And there are plenty of visions too (like a space-faring civilization, transhumanism, zero carbon world, general artificial intelligence, the end of poverty, universal human rights, designing life and matter, zero nuclear weapons, the end of aging).

Everything is so fragmented. Every expert claims their issue matters most. Everyone fighting for their share of attention. So few have the big picture. Nobody seems to have their eye on the species as a whole.

So why not capture the big picture in a compellingly sleek package, make it free, and watch it take off?

Sounds like a great idea.  But here’s the kicker – someone has to pay for the up-front development.  To cover this, a crowd-funding initiative has just been launched on Kickstarter – if $25,000 are raised by Sept 28, a matching $25k is put in the pot, and the project goes ahead.

If you are interested in finding out more, check out the video below or visit www.kickstarter.com/projects/thehumanprojectapp/the-human-project-app

It’s been a while in the making, but with a little under five weeks to go, we have just posted the final program for the 2011 Risk Science Symposium (20-21 Sept).  And even though I say so myself, it’s a doozy!

Somehow, we are squeezing 45 invited speakers into the two days, and not any old speakers – the lineup includes John Viera – Ford Motor Co. Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering; Ray O. Johnson,  Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Lockheed Martin Corporation; Brian Ivanovic, Senior Vice President of Swiss Re; and Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and Science Advisor to the EPA.  And that’s just for starters.  We also have experts in innovation, policy, communication end engagement, risk, governance and sustainability.  We even have two leading designers from the company IDEO.

It’s going to be quite a party!

For more information on the speakers, check out the symposium website.  I’ve posted the program below, because I’m so excited about it, but you can also access it here.

The symposium is being held in Ann Arbor MI between Sept 20-21.  There are still a few spaces left, but we are nearing capacity – so if you are thinking of coming, it’s worth registering sooner rather than later.

________________________________________________________

September 20 – The benefits and challenges of technology innovation

7:30 AM Continental Breakfast and Registration

9:00 AM Welcome and Introductions
Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

9:15 AM Opening Address
Martin Philbert, Dean, University of Michigan School of Public Health

9:30 AM Keynote: Innovate or perish – Why innovation and sustainability are critical to economic and social growth in the 21st century.
John Viera, Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co.

10:00 AM Panel: What keeps us awake at night? The risks of getting technology innovation wrong.
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel Members:

• John Viera, Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co.
• R. Alta Charo, Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law & Bioethics, University of Wisconsin
  
• Greg Bond, Corporate Director of Product Responsibility, Dow Chemical Company
  
• Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER
  

10:45 AM Break

11:15 AM Panel: Techno-hype or techno-reality – are we on the cusp of a new era in the history of human innovation?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

• Mark Banaszak Holl, Associate Vice-President, Office of Vice President for Research, University of Michigan
• Thomas Zurbuchen, Associate Dean for Entrepreneurial Programs, College of Engineering, University of Michigan
• Paula Olsiewski, Program Director, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
• James Bagian, Director of the Center for Healthcare Engineering and Patient Safety; Professor in the Medical School and the College of Engineering, University of Michigan
  

12:00 PM Panel: How are new technologies changing the world, and what are some of the key emerging risk-related opportunities and challenges?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

• Gil Omenn, Professor of Internal Professor of Internal Medicine, Human Genetics, and Public Health and Director of the Center for Computational Medicine & Bioinformatics and the Proteomics Alliance for Cancer Research, University of Michigan
• James Baker, Ruth Dow Doan Professor of Medicine and Bioengineering, Director of Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine
• Ann Marie Sastry, Arthur F. Thurnau Professor of Mechanical, Biomedical and Materials Science and Engineering, University of Michigan; CEO and Co-Founder of Satki3
• Jörg Lahann, Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan

12:45 PM Lunch and poster session

2:00 PM Panel: New technologies – new risks? What are the implications of a technologically complex world on the way we think about risks of novel technologies and practices?
Moderator: Shobita Parthasarathy, Associate Professor, Ford School of Public Policy
Panel members:

• Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. Science Advisor to the EPA
  
• Mark Banaszak Holl, Associate Vice-President, Office of Vice President for Research, University of Michigan
  
• David Goldston, Director, Government Affairs, Natural Resources Defense Council
  
• Jameson Wetmore, Assistant Professor, Arizona State University

2:45 PM Panel: The risk toolbox: What are we good at, and what do we need to learn to do better?
Moderator: Martin Philbert, Dean, University of Michigan School of Public Health
Panel members:

• Adam Finkel, Executive Director, Penn Program on Regulation
• Bernard Goldstein, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
• Jo Anne Shatkin, CEO, CLF Ventures
• Carlos Peña, Director of Emerging Technology Programs in the Office of the Chief Scientist, Office of the Commissioner, FDA

3:30 PM Break

3:45 PM Panel: Innovation, uncertainty and risk: Reflections on the day’s discussions
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

• David Bidwell, Research Fellow, University of Michigan, Serving as program manager for the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Assessments Center (GLISA)
• Diana Bowman, Assistant Professor, Department of Health Management Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health
• Erica Blom, PhD Candidate in Sociology and Public Policy, University of Michigan
• Ahleah Rohr, Masters of Public Health student, University of Michigan

4:30 PM Adjourn

6:00 PM Reception and Dinner (University of Michigan Art Museum)
Dinner speaker: Rodrigo Martinez, Life Sciences Chief Strategist, IDEO. Mark Jones, Associate Partner and Service Innovation Lead, IDEO.

9:00 PM End of day

September 21 – Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation – Exploring options

7:00 AM Continental Breakfast

8:00 AM Welcome and introductory remarks

8:15 AM Keynote: Thinking differently about Risk, Innovation and Sustainability
David Zaruk, Risk Governance Analyst, Risk Perception Management

8:45 AM Panel: Ensuring sustainable innovation-based solutions to global issues – how significant are risk and uncertainty, and how should we handle them?
Moderator: Don Scavia, Director, University of Michigan Graham Environmental Sustainability Institute
Panel members:

• Ray O. Johnson, Senior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
  
• James Wilsdon, Director, Royal Society Science Policy Centre
  
• Greg Bond, Corporate Director of Product Responsibility, Dow Chemical Company
• Paul Anastas, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. Science Advisor to the EPA
  

9:30 AM Panel: Thinking differently about risk and sustainability I: How can we manage emerging health risks more proactively?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

• Brian Ivanovic, Senior Vice President, Swiss Re
• R. Alta Charo, Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law & Bioethics, University of Wisconsin
• Larisa Rudenko, Director of Animal Biotechnology, Center for Veterinary Medicine, FDA
• Adam Finkel, Executive Director, Penn Program on Regulation

10:15 AM Break

10:30 AM Panel: Thinking differently about risk and sustainability II: Are there new models we should be exploring?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

• Bernard Goldstein, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health
• Dan Greenbaum, President, Health Effects Institute
• Brian Ivanovic, Senior Vice President, Swiss Re
• John Viera, Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering, Ford Motor Co
• David Zaruk, Risk Governance Analyst, Risk Perception Management

11:15 AM Panel: Ubiquitous Monitoring and Risk: What are the implications for Public Health and Sustainability?
Moderator: John Stone, Co-Director, Center for the Study of Standards in Society, Michigan State University
Panel members:

• Lawrence Busch, University Distinguished Professor of Sociology and founder and former
  Director of the Center for the Study of Standards in Society at Michigan State University
  
• John Spink,Assistant Professor and Associate Director for the Anti-Counterfeit and
  Product Protection Program, Michigan State University
  
• Kyle Powys Whyte, Assistant Professor of Philosophy and affiliated faculty at the Center for the Study of Standards in Society, the Peace and Justice Studies Specialization, and the American Indian Studies Program

12:00 PM Lunch, followed by keynote presentation

12:30 PM Keynote: Technology innovation, risk and policy in the 21st century – a UK perspective.
James Wilsdon, Director, Royal Society Science Policy Centre

1:15 PM: Panel: What are the roots of risk perceptions and what are their implications for forward-thinking approaches to addressing risk?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, Universiry of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

• Brian Zikmund-Fisher, Assistant Professor, Health Behavior and Health Education, Research Assistant Professor, Internal Medicine, University of Michigan
  
• Julie Downs, Director of the Center for Risk Perception and Communication. Social and Decision Sciences at
  Carnegie Mellon University
  
• Michael Siegrist, Professor for Consumer Behavior Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), ETH Zurich, Switzerland

2:00 PM Panel: Risk, uncertainty and social engagement – how can we do better?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center
Panel members:

• Britt Erickson, Senior editor in the government and policy group Chemical & Engineering News
• Larry Bell, Senior Vice President – Strategic Initiatives, Museum of Science, Boston. Director of the Nanoscale
  Informal Science Education Network
• Rae Ostman, Director of National Collaborations, Sciencenter, NY
  
• Hilary Sutcliffe, Director, MATTER

2:45 PM Moving forward, what are what are the most important next steps to ensuring healthy lives and a growing economy through technology innovation?
Moderator: Andrew Maynard, Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

3:15 PM Close of symposium

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/08/19/final-program-posted-for-the-risk-uncertainty-and-sustainable-innovation-symposium/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2011/08/15/want-to-know-about-teens-and-social-media-from-the-horses-mouth-watch-this-space/ http://2020science.org/2011/08/15/want-to-know-about-teens-and-social-media-from-the-horses-mouth-watch-this-space/#comments Mon, 15 Aug 2011 22:27:57 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4333

If you are a teen who uses YouTube (or know of one – maybe even your own teenager), please think seriously about posting a response to this video:

(You can also watch it directly on YouTube here).

Over on the Risk Science Blog, I’ve just posted a piece about Baroness Susan Greenfield’s views on the internet and society.  Something that concerns her a lot is how the internet, gaming and social media might be affecting teenagers.  But hardly anyone it seems actually bothers to ask teens what they think.

The video above was posted by my daughter Jade on her YouTube collab channel.  She has been talking with her fellow collaborators for a while now on asking their followers for thoughts on social media and being a teenager.  I’m afraid my interest in Susan Greenfield’s ideas tipped the balance, and encouraged them to get a move on with posting the three questions in the video.

This seems like an important opportunity though for teens to talk about social media on their own terms, and in a way that will help “experts” who think they know what is going on from actually finding out what it’s like for teenagers in today’s hyper-connected world.

So please encourage anyone you know to watch and post a response.

And check back in a few weeks to see the result.

Thanks!

In 2004, the first International Symposium on Occupational Health Implications of Nanomaterials was held in Buxton in the UK.  Seven years later, I’m preparing for a discussion panel at the fifth meeting in this very successful community-led series (being held this week in Boston MA), and looking through the research recommendations we made at the Buxton meeting.  Disturbingly, they look remarkably similar to recommendations still being made.

The report from that original meeting can be found here, although I have also reproduced the research recommendations from that report below.  As there are a rather lot of recommendations (and I need to cover these in some rational way in this Friday’s discussion panel), I thought it would be interesting to filter them through the Wordle Creator.

This is what I got:

Of course things have moved along a lot in some areas over the past few years, and in some cases priorities have changed and new priorities have arisen.  But looking at the – admittedly qualitative – Wordle, it’s remarkable how many of these old issues remain contemporary issues.

So are we making progress, or are we simply going round in circles?  This is what I hope to tease out of my panel of experts this Friday!

In the meantime, here are the research/action recommendations we made back in 2004:

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FILLING GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

The following recommendations were made within the workshops addressing current knowledge gaps in understanding the potential health implications of nanotechnology in the workplace. Inclusion in this report does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH and HSE

6.2.1 Measurement of exposure to nanoparticles

1. there needs to be internationally agreed definitions of the particles that we should be measuring to assess exposure.

2. the health-related importance of agglomerated nanoparticles as opposed to single discrete nanoparticles should be addressed to ensure that measurements include all particles that may have health effects.

3. further research is needed to define the biologically relevant parameters that should be measured.

4. until more is known about which parameters should be measured, it is recommended that multiple parameters should be measured in parallel, if possible. Information is then gained about relationships between parameters to allow links with past exposure data.

5. simple, relatively cheap personal monitors for measuring exposure to nanoparticles should be developed. These should be for particle surface area or number as they are likely to be the most biologically relevant parameters.

6. as a crude identification of nanoaerosol emissions, the measurement of particle number concentrations using a hand-held CPC is considered to be useful as a process control tool.

7. strategies for differentiating between new engineered nanoparticles and ambient combustion-derived nanoparticles should be developed.

6.2.2 Control of exposure to nanoparticles

1. the effectiveness of engineering control methods, such as containment, local exhaust ventilation (LEV) systems, etc., in controlling exposure to nanoparticles should be assessed.

2. the efficiency of HEPA filtration systems used in extraction equipment fitted to LEV system (especially where the air is recirculated) and vacuum cleaners should be assessed for nanoparticles. The integrity of seals is particularly important.

3. research and development should be carried out to improve the control of exposure to nanoparticles during breakdown, maintenance and clean up procedures.

4. the propensity for powdered nanomaterials to release nanostructured particles into the air should be assessed. The usefulness of current methods of dustiness testing for nanomaterials should be investigated.

5. mechanisms should be put in place to enable good control practice for nanoparticles to be shared between companies and industry sectors.

6. the efficiency of respiratory protection equipment for minimising exposure to nanoparticles should be investigated, especially in terms of face-seal leakage and for very small particles (< 5nm).

7. the penetration of nanoparticles through skin protection equipment (gloves, boiler suits, etc) should be investigated.

6.2.3 Mechanisms underlying toxicity of nanoparticles

1. the possible mechanisms by which engineered nanoparticles have the potential to translocate through the body and to affect cells in host organs should be further investigated at the molecular level.

2. the effect of the state of aggregation on the toxicity of nanoparticles should be investigated.

3. work should be carried out to determine the relative contributions to adverse health effects of the generic size of the nanoparticle and the role of surface chemistry including any agent that it may carry.

4. relevant test methods should be developed to investigate the genotoxic hazards and risks of nanoparticles in their various applications.

5. it was suggested that OELs exposure limits are still set on a mass basis as well as on data including surface area and particle number.

6. screening methods should be developed for new nanoparticles that are based on biochemical mechanisms and susceptible targets.

7. existing data on toxicity of other particulate materials should be used for comparison of hazards.

8. more relevant (in-vivo) screening methods should be used to assess potential mutagenicity of nanoparticles.

6.2.4 Human experience in exposure to nanoparticles

1. a multidisciplinary approach was necessary to investigate the health effects of nanoparticles, including toxicological mechanisms of action.

2. an agreed definition of nanomaterials and nanoparticles is required.

3. an agreed exposure metric is required.

4. development of practical devices which, with development of agreed exposure measurement techniques, would enable reliable measurement of workplace exposures to nanoparticles is required.

5. no agreed health surveillance approaches were identified.

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REGULATORY ACTION ON THE CONTROL OF EXPOSURE TO NANOMATERIALS

The views and recommendations expressed in this section are solely those of the workshop participants in the First International Symposium on Nanotechnology and Occupational Health. Inclusion in this document does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH or HSE.

6.3.1 Regulations for nanomaterials

When occupational health and safety regulatory authorities review the adequacy of their regulations with respect to nanomaterials the following issues should be considered:

1. determine the number of people exposed and at what levels;

2. evaluate whether mass-based exposure limits are adequate;

3. investigate what measurement methods are available;

4. review adequacy of personal protection equipment for nanoparticles;

5. determine if there are any susceptible groups in the workforce;

6. evaluate whether a “skin” notation is needed;

7. consider the adequacy of labelling and of the material safety data sheets;

8. evaluate whether nano-forms of a material should be considered to be a new substance (as in Notification of New Substances [NONS] regulations);

9. develop a framework to categorise or group nanomaterials for hazard classification and exposure limits;

10. recommend interim measures and generic approaches until more specific information is available on risk from nanomaterials.

The current regime was considered to provide an adequate framework for regulations with the following suggestions for improvement:

1. determine if current toxicological protocols are adequate;

2. evaluate (as an EU.-specific issue) whether current production triggers (in NONS) are suitable for nanomaterials;

3. consider establishment of new ultrafine sampling convention;

4. ensure that regulations are internationally harmonised.

6.3.2 Occupational exposure limits

1. it was concluded that there was currently insufficient data upon which to set any occupational exposure limits (OELs) for nanoparticles.

2. the one exception was nano titanium dioxide particles for which there is a reasonable data on pulmonary and dermal toxicity.

3. as a way forward to enable safe production of nanomaterials, it was recommended that best practice in controlling exposure be deployed.

In order for regulatory authorities to set OELs for nanomaterials, the following was recommended:

1. substantial research funding should be available to conduct exposure and toxicity studies on new and existing nanomaterials;

2. exposure and toxicity studies should be carried out by multidisciplinary teams;

3. consideration should be given to co-exposures, synergisms, exposure modifiers, smokers, sensitive populations;

4. animal toxicity studies should include multi-generational studies.

6.3.3 Risk assessment and exposure control

1. it was concluded that there is insufficient information to determine whether current methods to assess risk and control exposure are adequate.

2. the process of risk assessment for nanomaterials should begin with approaches used for traditional workplace exposures, treating nanomaterials as a distinct topic.

3. research on the adequacy of current methods of control should carried out as soon as possible.

4. specific recommendations for good control practice should be developed.

5. it was recommended that a hierarchy of controls specifically targeted at nanomaterials should be produced.

In order to manage the production and use of nanomaterials in a safe way the following interim measures were proposed:

1. examine and build on our knowledge about “known” categories of ultrafine particles such as diesel exhaust and welding fumes.

2. assemble specific examples of when nanoparticle risks or nanotechnology process risks are less than or greater than risks for materials or processes involving “traditional” materials.

3. take advantage of opportunities to limit occupational exposures to nanomaterials to levels that are as low a reasonably achievable.

4. develop methods to identify manufactured nanoparticles in the presence of background particles.

5. identify suitable nanomaterial surrogates for use in studies to improve instrumentation, control technology, and toxicology for nanomaterials.

6. develop and disseminate nanoparticle assessment and control strategies for small and medium enterprises (e.g., “risk management” or “control banding” toolboxes).

7. seek global harmonisation of approaches.

8. establish easily accessible databases and information sources.

9. improve the content of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and other communications.

10. maintain a sense of urgency to answer practical questions now and to establish partnerships and approaches needed to address underlying questions of risk assessment, control, and toxicity mechanisms for nanomaterials.

6.3.4 Classification of nanomaterials

1. there is a need for new nomenclature to allow nanomaterials to be clearly identified and described.

2. current nomenclature and means of describing complex materials in NONS are not sufficient for nanomaterials.

3. materials in particles less than ~100 nm were considered to behave differently than micrometer-sized particles.

4. the current regulatory system was considered to be inadequate to control exposure to nanomaterials.

5. it was recommended that in the EU, all materials under an agreed particle size (possibly < 100 nm) should be considered new materials for NONS and REACH. (delegates were split on this recommendation).

6.3.5 Risk management

1. there is no need for a new risk management paradigm when considering the production and use of nanomaterials.

but there is a need for new tools to increase understanding of each part of the current risk management paradigm. They are:

consider adopting the precautionary principle;

reduce uncertainty by increasing knowledge through science;

consider perception or risk issues such as external risk, subjective human 
experience of risk and quality of information;

understand the paucity of information on the possible long-term effects such as 
carcinogencity, foetal exposure, neurotoxicity and cardiovascular effects and on the population at risk including the workforce and susceptible groups such as children and the elderly.

The complete report from the 2004 Buxton meeting is available at www.hsl.gov.uk/media/1646/nanosymrep_final.pdf

Update 8/11/11: Link to 2004 Buxton meeting report corrected

The materials that most current regulations were designed to handle are pretty simple by today’s standards. Sure they can do some nasty things to the environment or your body if handled inappropriately. And without a doubt some of the risks associated with these “simple” materials are not yet well understood – especially when it comes to long term and trans-generational impacts.

Yet it’s hard to escape that reality that researchers are now designing new materials from the ground up that behave in novel ways, that have few analogs in the world of conventional materials, and that exhibit different properties according to the environment they are in. And as they do, it is becoming increasingly apparent that many of the regulations we rely on are ill-equip them to deal with the pending flood of sophisticated materials that is coming our way.

The development of relatively simple engineered nanomaterials in recent years has highlighted this disconnect between established regulations and the new demands being placed on them. Fortunately, many of the first nanomaterials to emerge have not presented insurmountable challenges, and regulators have been able to stretch existing regulatory frameworks to cover them (although even this in itself has not been an easy task). But these are just the beginning of a trend in novel materials designed and engineered at the nanoscale that will transcend current regulatory mindsets.

So what what are the options here? Before this question can be answered, a clearer understanding of the issues being faced needs to be developed.

Some of these are explored by Graeme Hodge, Di Bowman and myself in a commentary in the August 2011 edition of the journal Nature Materials.

“The problem of regulating sophisticated materials” [DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmat3085 - paywall] explores issues surrounding the safe introduction and use of complex new materials such as engineered nanomaterials, and suggests that there are seven key regulatory challenges that need to be addressed for progress to be made.

Unfortunately, I can’t reproduce the commentary in full here because of copyright restrictions. However, much of it draws on and builds upon an analysis presented in the recent International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies.

What I thought it would be useful to do here is to summarize the seven challenges discussed in both the Handbook and the Nature Materials commentary. These are summarized from the final chapter of the Handbook (the full chapter can be downloaded here) – further information can be found both in the Handbook chapter and in the Nature Materials Commentary.

I must confess to being rather saddened this morning to read Roger Highfield’s New Scientist blog on the state of nanotechnology in the UK.  Hot on the heels of reports that the company Nanoco is threatening to leave Britain for more fertile grounds, it left me wondering what has happened to the promise of ten years ago, when the UK was without doubt a player in the nanotech arena.  But the real sadness comes from that fact that, beyond the nanotech hype, nanoscale science and engineering are without doubt going to underpin some of the most significant technological breakthroughs of the coming years – and the UK is in severe danger of missing the boat.

Having left the UK eleven years ago to work in the US, I have retained a deep and personal interest in how Britain has invested in nanotechnology.  Back in 2004, the UK was at the forefront of the movement to develop economically strong and socially responsive nanotechnologies – the country was home to some of the world’s most prominent experts in the field; interdisciplinary research centers in Oxford and Cambridge were breaking new ground under internationally recognized leadership;  companies like Oxford-based Oxonica were paving the way to developing exciting new nanotech products; researchers in Edinburgh were leading the world in nanomaterial safety research; and the Royal Society set the pace globally developing this new technology responsibly.  Even in the US, where funding vastly outmatched that available in the UK, British research, innovation and action were having a sizable impact.

Working closely with the US and international nanotechnology community, I couldn’t help but be just a little bit proud of what the UK was achieving, and excited by where things were going.

So what went wrong?

Sitting here three thousand miles away, I’m not too sure.  Certainly rapid turnover in UK government nanotechnology leadership didn’t help sustain momentum here – the team that was leading the charge in the early 2000′s had moved on by the late 2000′s, with no clear succession plan in place.  What started as a clear vision and strategy appeared to get bogged down in uncomprehending bureaucracy.  R&D funding was not forthcoming and – more importantly – was not fully leveraged to ensure strategic impact.  And moves to ensure the safe development of nanotechnology ended up dominating the field- quite possibly at the expense of innovation.

There must be a lot more to the story than this, and I would be interested in hearing from people who have been in the thick of the rise and fall of UK nanotechnology over the past decade.  But without a doubt, the UK has moved from being a leader in the field to something of a straggler.

A personal experience I didn’t write about at the time foreshadowed this nearly two years ago.  I was in London for a series of events that happened to coincide with  a meeting of the UK Nanotechnologies Stakeholder Forum, overseen by DEFRA – the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.  As I was in the area and had some time, I went along.  At the time I was Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, and involved with working with and advising governments and organizations around the world on nanotechnology.  Given my work at the time, you’d have thought this might have been an opportunity for the forum to squeeze me for all I was worth on the current state of play of nanotechnology in the US and around the world.  As it was, I was relegated to being a passive observer – and not asked once to contribute to the meeting. (Just in case my memory was playing tricks I checked – these are the minutes of that meeting, where you can read my eloquently short contributions!).

The point here is not that I was ignored – that doesn’t bother me – but that the organizers of the main UK stakeholder forum on nanotechnology didn’t even realize that they could have pumped me for insider information on stuff that was directly relevant to nanotechnology in the UK.  Or they didn’t care – one of the other.

Two years on, nanotechnology in the UK is a shadow of its former self, and successful nanotech companies are threatening to move away – at a time when the commercial opportunities of nanoscale science and engineering are becoming increasingly clear.

Here I must clarify that I am often a little down on the brand of “nanotechnology” – there a lot of hype, re-branding and marketing associated with the term.  But beyond the brand, the science and engineering of working at the nanoscale – using the fundamental building blocks of everything in innovative and imaginative ways – is sound.  Whether in the area of materials, biology, or at the intersection of the two, the coming decades are going to be dominated by economies that have invested in the expertise, tools and frameworks to exploit nanoscale engineering and technology.

And in this emerging world, where will the UK be?

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/07/08/nanotechnology-has-the-uk-dropped-the-nano-ball/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2011/07/06/dont-define-nanomaterials-new-commentary-in-nature-and-an-early-draft/ http://2020science.org/2011/07/06/dont-define-nanomaterials-new-commentary-in-nature-and-an-early-draft/#comments Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:20:09 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4252

One of the problems with publishing in journals like Nature is that it can get a little pricey for people to read your work if they (or their organization) don’t subscribe.  For instance, if you want to read the commentary I’ve just had published on defining engineered nanomaterials for regulatory purposes, you are facing a hefty $32 fee to push through the paywall.  Now I know that I write interesting stuff.  But I’m not sure it’s that interesting!

Which is why I have just posted an earlier draft of the piece over on the Risk Science Blog.

This isn’t as focused or specific as the published commentary.  But it gives a rough idea of where I’m coming from.

And just because I can, I have also posted link to a later draft, and some notes on the editing process – so that those of you with more time than  sense can study in depth the evolution of the piece from initial scribblings to final product!

The early draft can be read here, and the published commentary “Don’t define nanomaterials” (Nature 475, 31 2011) can be accessed here.

It must be Nanotechnology Regulation week in Washington DC.  Yesterday, two federal agencies and the White House released documents that grapple with the effective regulation of products that depend on engineered nanomaterials.

In a joint memorandum, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the United States Trade Representative laid out Policy Principles for the U.S. Decision Making Concerning Regulations and Oversight of Applications of Nanotechnology and Nanomaterials.

On the same day, the US Environmental Protection Agency posted a prepublication notice on Policies Concerning Products Containing Nanoscale Materials.

And to cap it all, the US Food and Drug Administration released Draft Guidance for Industry on Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology.

A busy week for nanotechnology regulation!

White House Memo on Nanotechnology Regulation Policy Principles

The White House memorandum is the latest document to come out of the Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee – ETIPC for short.  In part, it is a response to the 2010 review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and in particular the concern expressed by PCAST that

“In the absence of sound science on the safe use of nanomaterials and of technologies and products containing them, the chance of unintentionally harming people and the environment increases.  At the same time, uncertainty and speculation about potential risks threaten to undermine consumer and business confidence.”

Correspondingly, this is a memorandum that is heavily focused on science-driven regulation, and the avoidance of knee-jerk responses to speculative concerns.

Reading through it, a number of themes emerge, including:

• Existing regulatory frameworks provide a firm foundation for the oversight of nanomaterials, but there is a need to respond to new scientific evidence on potential risks, and to consider administrative and legal modifications to the regulatory landscape should the need arise.
• Regulatory action on nanomaterials should be based on scientific evidence of risk, and not on definitions of materials that do not necessarily reflect the evidence-based likelihood of a material causing harm.
• There should be no prior judgement on whether nanomaterials are intrinsically benign or harmful, in the absence of supporting scientific evidence.
• Transparency and communication are important to ensuring effective evidence-based regulation.

Overall, this is a strong set of policy principles that lays the groundwork for developing regulation that is grounded in science and not swayed by speculative whims, and yet is responsive and adaptive to emerging challenges.  Gratifyingly, the memorandum begins to touch on some of the concerns I have expressed previously about approaches to nanomaterial regulation that seem not to be evidence-based.  There is a reasonable chance that they will help move away from the dogma that engineered nanomaterials should be regulated separately because they are new, to a more nuanced and evidence-based approach to ensuring the safe use of increasingly sophisticated materials.  Where it perhaps lacks is in recognizing the importance of other factors in addition to science in crafting effective regulation, and in handling uncertainty in decision making.  But it is undoubtedly a move in the right direction.  The principles are listed at the end of this post.

EPA Draft Pesticides and Nanomaterials Policies

The second piece in this triumvirate is a prepublication version of a document from EPA that should appear in the Federal Register next week, titled “Pesticides; Policies Concerning Products Containing nanoscale Materials; Opportunities for Public Comment.”

As the title makes very clear, this is a statement from the EPA that is setting out draft policies for dealing with nanomaterials in pesticide products – materials such as nanoscale silver particles – and asking for public comment.  This is the latest iteration in a process that has been going on for some time to address the use of nanoscale silver as an antimicrobial agent, together with other antimicrobial, fungicidal and pesticide uses of nanomaterials.

The crux of the proposed policy is a requirement for manufacturers to let EPA know when a pesticide product contains an engineered nanomaterial – irrespective of whether it is an active or passive ingredient in the product. EPA acknowledges that the presence of a nanoscale material in a product does not necessarily indicate the possibility that it will exhibit new or unusual risks – but the agency intends to use this information as a trigger for a more thorough evaluation of products that might raise concerns.

This is a long and somewhat convoluted document, that spends some time outlining what the agency considers is an engineered nanomaterial, and reviewing nanomaterial hazard data.

Reading the document, EPA still seems somewhat tangled up with definitions of engineered nanomaterials. After outlining conventional attributes associated with engineered nanomaterials, including structures between ~1 – 100 nm and unique or novel properties, the document states

“These elements do not readily work in a regulatory context because of the high degree of subjectivity involved with interpreting such phrases as “unique or novel properties” or “manufactured or engineered to take advantage of these properties” Moreover the contribution of these subjective elements to risk has not been established.”

This aligns with where my own thinking has been moving in recent years.  Yet following this statement, the document reverts back to considering nanoparticles between 1 – 100 nm as the archetypal nanomaterial, and intimates “novel” properties such as “larger surface area per unit volume and/or quantum effects” as raising new risk concerns.

I also found the background information on potential hazards somewhat lopsided, as a litany of studies were cited that indicate a number of potential hazards associated with a range of materials, but without clear information on how this might translate to plausible and quantifiable risk.

At the end of the day, I found this to be a mixed bag of a document – some useful information and some evidence of new thinking, but all surrounded by a rather unfocused assessment.   However, it is a draft that has been put out for public comment, which means that there is an opportunity here to tighten it up considerably in the final version.

I must also add that I was impressed by the final section on Questions for Comment – here you will find a list of highly relevant questions that are the clearest indication in the document that EPA understands many of the critical issues here, and is genuinely looking for expert input to address them.

Interestingly though, the EPA document does not reference the White House memorandum on Policy Principles published at the same time – unlike my third and final document in this set from FDA.

FDA Draft Guidance for Industry on Products and Nanotechnology

The FDA Guidance for Industry: Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology is a very different kettle of fish to the EPA document.  It is overtly responsive to the White House memo; it demonstrates a deep understanding of the issues surrounding nanotechnology and regulation; and it is mercifully concise.

To be fair, the scope of the draft guidance is limited to helping manufacturers understand how the agency is approaching nanotechnology-enabled products under their purview.  But this is something it does well.

One of the more significant aspects of the guidance is the discussion on regulatory definitions of nanomaterials.  Following a line of reasoning established some years ago, the agency focuses on material properties rather than rigid definitions:

“FDA has not to date established regulatory definitions of “nanotechnology,” “nanoscale” or related terms… Based on FDA’s current scientific and technical understanding of nanomaterials and their characteristics, FDA believes that evaluations of safety, effectiveness or public health impact of such products should consider the unique properties and behaviors that nanomaterials may exhibit”

Of course, this still begs the question “what is a nanomaterial in FDA’s eyes?”  The agency answer by stating:

At this time, when considering whether an FDA-regulated product contains nanomaterials or otherwise involves the application of nanotechnology, FDA will ask:

1. Whether an engineered material or end product has at least one dimension in the nanoscale range (approximately 1 nm to 100 nm); or
2. Whether an engineered material or end product exhibits properties or phenomena, including physical or chemical properties or biological effects, that are attributable to its dimension(s), even if these dimensions fall outside the nanoscale range, up to one micrometer.

The guidance goes on to state

“These considerations apply not only to new products, but also may apply when manufacturing changes alter the dimensions, properties, or effects of an FDA-regulated product or any of its components. Additionally, they are subject to change in the future as new information becomes available, and to refinement in future product-specific guidance documents.”

FDA is clearly aiming for responsive and adaptive regulation here.

Reading the first of the two criteria above and the associated justification in the guidance, I can’t help feeling that FDA is still trying to justify responding to sub-100 nm scale materials based on assumptions of risk rather than evidence.  But the second criteria is important, because it opens the door to considering physical form and structure as a factor in determining potential risk irrespective of scale – as long as a material can come into intimate biological contact with a person.  This is a significant move, as it supports evidence-based decision-making on materials and products under FDA’s jurisdiction, irrespective of what technological label is applied to them.

That said, there remains some confusion as to how this criteria will be applied, and the reasoning behind it. Clearly, there is an aim here to capture supra-100 nm materials that nevertheless exhibit biological behavior associated with a nanometer-scale structure – including agglomerates, coated materials and hierarchical structures.  Yet the criteria is also said to have been selected to “exclude macro-scaled materials that may have properties attributable to their dimension(s) but are not likely relevant to nanotechnology”.  This statement seems to hark back to an assumption that “nanotechnology” is something that needs to be regulated, rather than focusing on materials and products that run the risk of slipping through the regulatory net – no matter what they are called.

But like the EPA document, the FDA guidance is still in draft form, and open to public comment.  And so is still very much a work in progress.

Overall, all three of these documents seem to be heading in the right direction if evidence-based, responsive and responsible regulations are the end goal.  There is still a way to go for both FDA and EPA before regulatory policy escapes being mesmerized by “nanotechnology”. But with strong science-driven policy principles emerging from the White House, the odds of this occurring are looking decidedly more healthy.

_____________

While House Policy Principles for the U.S. decision-Making Concerning Regulation and Oversight of Applications of nanotechnology and Nanomaterials:

In addressing issues raised by nanomaterials, agencies will adhere to the Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies. Specifically, to the extent permitted by law, Federal agencies will:

• To ensure scientific integrity, base their decisions on the best available scientific evidence, separating purely scientific judgments from judgments of policy to the extent feasible;
• Seek and develop adequate information with respect to the potential effects of nanomaterials on human health and the environment and take into account new knowledge when it becomes available;
• To the extent feasible and subject to valid constraints (involving, for example, national security and confidential business information), develop relevant information in an open and transparent manner, with ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement and public participation;
• Actively communicate information to the public regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with specific uses ofnanomate rials;
• Base their decisions on an awareness of the potential benefits and the potential costs of such regulation and oversight, including recognition of the role of limited information and risk in decision making;
• To the extent practicable, provide sufficient flexibility in their oversight and regulation to accommodate new evidence and learning on nanomaterials;
• Consistent with current statutes and regulations, strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and risk management across the Federal Government, using standard oversight approaches to assess risks and benefits and manage risks, considering safety, health and environmental impacts, and exposure mitigation;
• Mandate risk management actions appropriate to, and commensurate with, the degree of risk identified in an assessment.
• Seek to coordinate with one another, with state authorities, and with stakeholders to address the breadth of issues, including health and safety, economic, environmental, and ethical issues (where applicable) associated with nanomaterials; and
• Encourage coordinated and collaborative research across the international community and clearly communicate the regulatory approaches and understanding of the United States to other nations.

I thought I’d post this spoof presentation for the fun of it on the responsible development of “unobtainium”, which seems to have some remarkable similarities with some other emerging technologies:

Last week, the Victoria branch of the Australian Education Union (AEU) passed a resolution recommending that “workplaces use only nanoparticle-free sunscreen” and that sunscreens used by members on children are selected from those “highlighted in the Safe Sunshine Guide produced by Friends of the Earth” as being nano-free.  The AEU also resolved to provide the Friends of the Earth Safe Sunscreen Guide and Recommendations to all workplaces their members are associated with.  Given what is currently known about sunscreens – nano and otherwise, I can’t help wonder whether this is an ill-advised move.

The debate over the safety or otherwise of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens has been going on for over a decade now.  Prompted by early concerns over possible penetration through the skin and into the body of the nanosized titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide particles used in these products – and potential adverse impacts that might result – there has been a wealth of research into whether these small particles can actually get through the skin when applied in a sunscreen.  And the overall conclusion is that they cannot.  There have been a small number of studies that demonstrate that, under specific conditions, some types of nanoparticle might penetrate through the upper layers of the skin.  But the overwhelming majority of studies have failed to find either plausible evidence for significant penetration, or plausible evidence for adverse health impacts – a body of evidence that led the Environmental Working Group to make an about-face from questioning the use of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens to endorsing them in 2010.

So why is the AEU now advising against their use?  And why are they advocating selecting sunscreens based on a document that does not provide evidence-based advice on efficacy or safety – and may end up leading to decisions that increase the risk of sun-related skin damage in children (more on this below)? (Update 5/25/11 – see notes below)

In part, the answer lies in the uncertainty inherent in proving anything safe.  It’s not too difficult to show that something is unlikely to be harmful, or is probably safe.  But proving something is absolutely safe under all conditions of use is simply not possible – there is always some room for doubt.  This is why decisions on health risks are typically based on plausible risk and weight of evidence – evaluating the most reasonable and defensible interpretation of the data, and not basing decisions on speculation and fantasy.

With the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens, the weight of evidence is that they are safe and effective – and may be safer and more effective than a number of non-nanoparticle alternatives as they work by coating the skin rather than being absorbed into it.  That said, it’s always prudent to check whether anything has been missed with a relatively new technology like this, and so research is ongoing just to make doubly sure that the nanoparticles currently being used stay on top of the skin, and that manufacturers are using the safest possible types of nanoparticles.

But there is another reason I suspect why the ASU have released this advice, and that is due to a study using human volunteers that was published last year.

In this study by Brian Gulson and colleagues, sunscreens were formulated with zinc oxide particles made from a stable isotope of zinc that doesn’t occur in great abundance naturally: Zn-68. Using Zn-68 as a tracer, they were able to tell whether zinc from the applied sunscreen entered the bodies of the volunteers, and ended up in their blood and urine.

The detected presence of Zn-68 in the urine and blood of volunteers was used by Friends of the Earth Australia to renew their recommendations against using nanoparticle-containing sunscreens until more is known about their safety in.  And given the ASU’s reliance on the Friends of the Earth document, it seems to have influenced their decision to recommend not using nanoparticle-containing sunscreens.

But what does the Gulson study actually conclude?  In a nutshell, the researchers showed that:

• Small amounts of zinc from sunscreens containing any form of zinc oxide particles tested found their way into the blood and urine of volunteers.
• The amounts of zinc entering the body over the five day study were miniscule – around one thousandth of the concentration of zinc already in the volunteers’ bloodstream, and around one thousandth of the amount of zinc recommended in a person’s daily diet.
• Women in the test generally showed higher uptakes of zinc than men.
• Zinc levels in blood associated with the sunscreen peaked some days after applications ended, suggesting the zinc or zinc oxide was stored somewhere in or on the body and slowly released.
• For men, zinc uptake from sunscreens was independent of particle size.  For women, zinc uptake was greater from the sunscreens containing smaller particles.

So did the particles go through the skin?  The study only showed that the zinc passed through the skin, and did not provide any evidence of particle penetration.  Two possible explanations for this are that the particles penetrated and entered the bloodstream, or that the applied particles dissolved, and that it was dissolved zinc that was penetrating into the body.

Out of the two possibilities, there is minimal evidence for particle penetration being a plausible mechanism. On the other hand, zinc oxide is sparingly soluble, and under the acid-conditions of the outer layers of the skin the particles would have readily released zinc ions.  The weight of evidence to date therefore strongly supports dissolution of the particles and subsequent dermal penetration of dissolved zinc.  This is supported by the similarity in uptake seen in men of zinc for two different sizes of zinc oxide particles.

In other words, this study provides neither compelling evidence that nanoparticles in sunscreens can pass through the skin, or that they can lead to worrying internal exposure to harmful materials.  It did indicate on the other hand that any sunscreen containing zinc oxide will lead to zinc entering the body via the skin – including sunscreens that rely on large zinc oxide particles.

And this is where it is worth returning to the Friends of the Earth recommendations.

The Friends of the Earth Safe Sunscreen Guide recommends:

Use a nano-free zinc-based SPF 30+ broad spectrum sunscreen in conjunction with protective clothing, a broad-brimmed hat, sunglasses and shade to stay sun safe.

It goes on to list sunscreens that are “nano and chemical free”, “may use nano” and “use nano” (based on information from manufacturers and assumptions from Friends of the Earth).

Passing over the fact that Friends of the Earth are advocating the use of sunscreens that demonstrate the same behavior – zinc penetration through the skin into the body – as the sunscreens they recommend people don’t use, it’s hard to understand how this document provides an authoritative and evidence-based guide for the use of sunscreens on school children – as suggested by AEU.

For a start, this is a document that is specifically concerned with nanoparticle-containing sunscreens, and is not aimed at providing advice on selecting sunscreens as a whole based on their safety and efficacy.  It is advocating a specific course of action, and is not a tool for taking informed action. And in this respect alone it is a questionable document to be distributing to school workers. But it gets worse.

The sunscreens listed in the document are listed solely with respect to their nanoparticle content.  There is no – let me repeat that no – information on how effective these sunscreens are at protecting against UVA and UVB, and what the specific safety issues associated with their use are (update 5/25/11 – see notes below).  What is more, the top tier products – those that appear to be most strongly endendorsed by Friends of the Earth – also claim to be “free of UV-absorbing chemicals”.  In other words, this is a document that appears to be endorsing the use of products that do not necessarily protect against ultraviolet light. (Update 5/25/11 – see notes below).

To be fair to Friends of the Earth – and this is not a critique of their document so much as a questioning of its use as authoritative guidance – they do recommend the use of sunscreens providing substantial UV protection that are (presumably) based on large zinc oxide particles.  But if school workers were to base their choice of what to slather onto kids on the list of products, rather than the one sentence top level recommendation, they could well be applying sunscreens that do not protect against skin damage.

And this is my greatest concern here – by advocating the use of the Friends of the Earth document, AEU could actually be endangering the health of children in the care of their members. (Update 5/25/11 – see notes below)

Of course, there are important issues to grapple with here – including how appropriate sunscreens should be selected for use on children, irrespective of the technology being used.  But surely these selections should be based on the best possible evidence that is focused on what is most appropriate for the children, and not on an action campaign by an advocacy group, no matter how well intentioned.

Update, 5/25/11:  As clarified by Georgia Miller of Friends of the Earth Australia in the comments below, the sunscreens listed in the top tier of the Friends of the Earth document are all – as far as I can tell – marketed as offering SPF 30 + protection.  This is something that I do not think is explicitly clear in the document, and the heading of “nano and chemical-free”, clarified with “products also free of UV-absorbing chemicals” raises an obvious question to the naive reader over whether these products do indeed offer significant protection.  I also continue to have serious reservations over the use of a document designed to steer people away from nanoparticle-containing sunscreens as authoritative advice on sunscreen protection for children, given it’s lack of independent testing and evaluation of all significant factors that might affect choice in a given situation.  Nevertheless, given the protection ratings of the recommended sunscreens, I have on reflection retracted the statements made in regard to the protection offered above.

A few weeks ago, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative website – www.nano.gov – underwent a much-needed facelift.  The NNI’s web portal was creaky when I was part of the Initiative several years ago now.  And it’s somewhat ironic that the world’s leading interagency initiative on one of the most prominent cutting edge technology platforms has relied on a website that is the antithesis of technology innovation for over a decade.  So I was pleasantly surprise to see the other week that the site has been updated, streamlined, and made more accessible, attractive, and – dare I say – useful.

The update has been in the works for a while now – I was one of a number of people asked about the old site and what improvements could be made well over 12 months ago.  Fortunately, despite the slow pace of progress, it looks like the changes have been worth waiting for.

Glancing around the new and improved site, the designers and NNI have done a good job.  Useful information on nanotechnology and the initiative is now far easier to find.  Information on stuff like current funding opportunities and recent reports is now clearly accessible from the home page.  It’s a cinch to find out more information about the Initiative and its member agencies.  Heck, you can even follow the NNI on Twitter now!

I particularly appreciate the new search page for NNI publications and resources.  If you are looking for specific resources from 2008 onwards, it’s easy to pull them out using the search interface.  The downside is that if you want anything before 2008, things are a little trickier – the search date fields don’t allow you to easily enter dates before January 1 2008 (although bizarrely you can search for stuff published between 2012 – 2014 – maybe time travel is a little-touted side-project of the NNI!).  Fortunately, you can enter earlier dates manually though – although you can’t see what you are typing.  Using this workaround, I managed to pull up some of the pre-2000 NNI documents, although I did notice that some of the early Interagency Working Group on Nanotechnology documents (the precursor of the NNI) were missing.

I’m not sure how much substantive new content has been added to the site with the update – although clearly there is some.  But at least in style and accessibility, the NNI now have a web portal that is commensurate with the technology it promotes.

________________________

For nano-geeks, this is what the NNI website looked like on November 12 2010:

(You can access the archive by clicking on the image, but it will take a while to load).

And this is what it looked like on April 7 2000 (the earliest archived copy I could find):

Admittedly, the 2010 version was rather slicker that the 2000 version.  The basic design that has just been superseded dates back to 2004.

Registration is now open for the 2011 Risk Science Symposium, and as I’m chairing it, I thought it worth giving a bit of a plug here.

The symposium brings together a fantastic cast of experts from very different backgrounds to explore the intersection of technology innovation and human health risk – with the aim of stimulating new thinking and ideas.

If you are grappling with emerging risk issues in industry, government, academia or the non-profit sector, this will be the place to be in September (not that I’m bias!).

A warning thought – space is limited to around 220 participants, so early registration is highly recommended.

Further details on the speakers, program and registration can be found here.

Some of the highlights include:

• An opening keynote by John Viera, Ford Motor Company Director of Sustainability Environment and Safety Engineering
• Insights from Paul Anastas, Science Advisor to the US EPA
• A UK perspective on technology innovation, risk and policy from James Wilsdon, Director of The Royal Society Science Policy Centre
• Cutting edge discussions on developments in science and technology that are pushing the boundaries of what is possible.
• Insights into emerging risk issues and innovative solutions
• A unique symposium dinner experience with designer Rodrigo Martinez from IDEO
• A chance to interact with some of the leading cross-disciplinary thought leaders on addressing emerging risk challenges.

Draft Program

Confirmed Speakers

Registration

Tomorrow, I will be speaking at the Marshal M. Weinberg Seminar on Optogenetic Manipulation of the Brain at the University of Michigan – not a subject I must admit that I am that familiar with.  Fortunately, there are other speakers who will be doing much of the heavy-lifting, including Karl Deisseroth – a leading optogenetics researcher, and author of a recent in-depth article in Scientific American on controlling the brain with light.  My role – I suspect – is to bring a broader social and technological perspective to the benefits and risks of this rapidly emerging field as part of the closing panel discussion – neatly titled “Mind Control: What do you think?”

Here, I must confess that I’m going to be relying an awful lot on the preceding talks to round off my education in optogenetics before I launch in.  But I have been doing some preparatory work on optogenetics, and in particular the plausibility of its possible use in manipulating brain function at a sophisticated level.

By way of background, optogenetics is a relatively young field that revolves around the study and use of specific genetic sequences – opsins – to enable the modulation of cellular and sub-cellular processes in the presence of light.  Its roots stem back to early research into optically-modulated biological processes in microorganisms.  But it wasn’t until a number of fields began to converge that the possibility of utilizing these seemingly esoteric processes began to emerge.

For decades now, it has been known that some microorganisms have the ability to respond to light by producing  proteins that switch or otherwise modify specific cellular processes. This might have remained a curiosity if it wasn’t for the increasing ability to cut and paste functional genetic sequences from one species to another, and the realization that to control many cell-level biological processes, fast, precisely timed pulses of light could provide a control mechanism that overcomes the limitations of electrical and chemical alternatives.  The result has been the emergence of optogenetics as a well-defined field – in Deisseroth’s words

“the use of optics and genetics to control well-defined events within specific cells of living tissue”.

Optogenetics includes the discovery and insertion into cells of genes that enable them to respond in specific ways to light… It also includes the technologies that enable the delivery of  light deep within complex organisms to control light-sensitive processes at the cellular level, and technologies for monitoring and assessing the results of this optical control.

One of the more high profile application areas of optogenetics is in understanding the brain and intervening in neural processes.  Deisseroth again:

What excites neuroscientists about optogenetics is control over defined events within defined cell types at defined times—a level of precision that is most likely crucial to biological understanding even beyond neuroscience. The significance of any event in a cell has full meaning only in the context of the other events occurring around it in the rest of the tissue, the whole organism or even the larger environment. Even a shift of a few milliseconds in the timing of a neuron’s firing, for example, can sometimes completely reverse the effect of its signal on the rest of the nervous system. And millisecond-scale timing precision within behaving mammals has been essential for key insights into both normal brain function and into clinical problems such as parkinsonism.

The possibilities here are tremendously exciting.  But they also raise whole rafts of questions over the dangers and ethics of meddling with the brain – and by extension the mind.  What are the possibilities of dual-use technologies that can lead to questionable as well as acceptable control?  Could optogenetic “mind control” lead to significantly altered personalities – and if so, who is responsible for the results?  Might optogeneticically modulated individuals be “hacked” – enabling third parties to gain control over their decisions and actions?  And what are the ethical boundaries to developing and using technologies that depend on genetic, physiological and psychological manipulation of subjects?

These are all questions that are ripe for serious discussion.  But to be productive, they must also be grounded in scientific and technological plausibility.  It’s easy to imagine what might be achieved by optogenetics through extrapolation and speculation.  But given realistic scientific and technological constraints, what is is plausibly likely to be achieved?

Reading up on the state of the science as it stands now, it seems that concerns over the nefarious use of optogenetics for sophisticated mind control are probably premature.  The brain is a hugely complex organ, and sophisticated as current technologies seem, we are still a long way from being able to understand, control and manipulate it with any real dexterity.  In fact, worrying too much about mind control at this point is probably the equivalent to jumping straight from using crude saws to amputate damaged limbs to worrying about the implications to advanced brain surgery.  Nevertheless, in preparation for tomorrow’s panel discussion, I though it worthwhile spending some time thinking about the technologies that could potentially bring sophisticated mind control closer to being a reality.

Over the next decade or so, getting new genetic sequences into neurons will probably be less of a challenge than getting short, precisely-timed pulses of light to neurons deep within the brain.  We already have a number of technology platforms that are actively being explored on this front.  On the other hand, the ability to channel pulses of light to small and highly localized volumes deep within the brain still presents huge challenges.  So what are the options here, and where might the technology develop?

Advances in fiber-optic probes are beginning to open up deep brain optical stimulation, and offer the possibility of stimulating relatively small volumes on demand.  But the spatial resolution achievable is still coarse, and will probably remain so as there is a limit to how many probes can be inserted into a brain.  This technology may well prove suitable for modulating brain function in very basic ways – possibly to a sufficient degree to aid patients with conditions such as Parkinson’s disease.  But insertion of fiber-optic probes lacks the finesse required for sophisticated manipulation.  And of course, there is the hassle of both inserting the probes, and having them present as a permanent fixture for as long as the stimulation is required.

High density and highly localized probes that are hard wired to the external world ideally requires a dense network of probes that are organically “grown” through the brain – a technology I am sure will remain in the realms of science fiction for my lifetime at least.  If such a technology could be developed, it would enable high spatial resolution optical stimulation, opening up the possibility of fine-tuning optogenetic control to small clusters of neurons.  But while nanoscale regenerative medicine is making interesting breakthroughs in self-assembling biocompatible structures, it is hard to imagine these translating into useable optogenetic neural nets any time soon.

There is another possible route to high resolution and highly localized stimulation though, which isn’t too dissimilar to the sci-fi concept of a optogenetic neural net.  Imagine that you could place the equivalent of millions of fiber optic probe tips through the brain, and then communicate with them wirelesly – you would have the equibalent of the neural net, without the net part.

Fanciful as it may sound, it’s and approach that has already been used to develop cellular and sub-cellular probes.  PEBBLE technology – Photonic Explorer for Biomedical use with Biologically Localized Embedding technology – has been under development for some years for tracking biological processes in situ.  Could a similar technology be used for wireless neurogenetic control?

Imagine a biologically benign nanoparticle that could be stimulated to emit light of a given wavelength in the presence of a specific electromagnetic field.  If these particles could be diffused throughout the brain, local stimulation might be possible by using focused electromagnetic fields.  Wireless optogenetic control.

Of course, there are tremendous technical barriers here – not least engineering particles that are able to pick up and respond to specific signals.  But our ability to engineer nanomaterials to exhibit non-liner interactions with electromagnetic fields and to exploit these interactions may help us to overcome overcome this particular barrier.  Even then though, there is the challenge of focusing these fields to within precise volumes within the brain in order to elicit the desired effect.

Plausible I suspect, but extremely time consuming and cumbersome.

But what if the nanoparticles could be programmed to respond to specific stimuli once in place?  Imagine a sophisticated nanoparticle that, in the presence of a high intensity electromagnetic field, can be programmed to respond to a specific lower intensity field by emitting light of a given wavelength.  A subject’s brain could be infused with the nanoparticles, and particles within specific regions of the brain subsequently programmed to respond to stimuli that might be distinguished in terms of their frequency, intensity or time/phase modulation.  All that would then be needed to “control the mind” of the subject would be to subject them to electromagnetic fields with the appropriate characteristics – and this is the important part – without needing a high level of spatial resolution.

In effect, once programmed, a simple wide-field transmitter could be used to send signals to very specific parts of the subject’s brain.  And if the responses weren’t quite what was wanted, there is no reason why the nanoparticles couldn’t be reset, ready for the next round of programming. In other words, you would have the neural equivalent of an old-style computer EPROM (Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory) – an Erasable Programmable Nanoparticle Optogenetic Control device, or EPNOC!

Plausible?

Borderline most likely I suspect.  But not beyond the realms of possibility.

Delivery of spatially dense and highly localized pulses of light is key to optogenetics being used for sophisticated mind control.  If we cannot achieve it, the technique is likely to remain a blunt – albeit still very valuable – instrument.  But if technology platforms such as nanotechnology do begin to converge more fully with optogenetics, we may see some interesting, possibly startling and undoubtedly challenging advances over the coming decades.

Maybe not mind control, but certainly more brain manipulation than has ever before been in our grasp.

Cross-posted from The Risk Science Blog:

Back in 2007 the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued a set of “Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health and Safety Oversight” (no longer available on the OSTP website it seems, but you can read them in this Nanowerk article). At the time, I was less than enamored with the “don’t mess with business” tone of the principles. So I was particularly interested to read what the White House Emerging Technologies Interagency Policy Coordination Committee (ETIPC) had to say on a very similar issue last month.

ETIPC was formed last year, and consists of assistant secretary-level representation from about twenty federal agencies. From the White House blog, the group is

…part of an effort to give special attention to technologies so new—such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology—that their policy implications are still being gauged. Created jointly by OSTP, the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the ETIPC consists of assistant secretary-level representatives from about 20 Federal agencies.

The same post goes on to explain that

Emerging technologies promise to have significant scientific, economic, and perhaps societal impacts because of their potential to revolutionize fields as varied as materials science, electronics, medicine, communications, agriculture, and energy. Rapid scientific and technological advances in these fields are resulting in a variety of new products and processes with unique and transformational characteristics. But full realization of the economic and public benefits of these applications will require open consideration of policy questions with the full range of stakeholders, including governments, industry, non-governmental organizations, academia, and the public.

The first publicly released outcomes of ETIPC were released last month. On March 11 2011, John Holdren (Director of OSTP and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology), Cass Sunstein (Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget) and Islam Siddiqui (Chief Agricultural Negotiator, United States Trade Representative) issued a joint memorandum on Principles for Regulation and Oversight of Emerging Technologies, developed by ETIPC.

These are consistent with the President’s Executive Order 13563 (issued on January 18 2011) on Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. They also include much of the same language of the 2007 principles. But the tone and emphasis are markedly different.

The memorandum starts by noting that

Innovation with respect to emerging technologies — such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology, and genetic engineering, among others — requires not only coordinated research and development but also appropriate and balanced oversight.

It then frames the issues at stake by stating:

We share a fundamental desire for regulation and oversight that ensure the fulfillment of legitimate objectives such as the protection of safety, health, and the environment. Regulation and oversight should avoid unjustifiably inhibiting innovation, stigmatizing new technologies, or creating trade barriers.

This is in stark contrast to the 2007 principles, which have a much stronger primary focus on not intrfereing with business and innovation.

The principles follow up this focus on safety, health and the environment with an emphasis on science-based decision-making, public participation, and flexibility. These reflect emerging thinking on the challenges and opportunities presented by emerging technologies, and appear to offer a firm foundation for moving forward.

However, reading the principles (which are included below) I do have a couple of concerns.

The first is that these principles are extremely general. While establishing laudable objectives such as basing regulation on scientific evidence, engaging stakeholders in the process of developing regulation, balancing the costs and benefits of regulations and ensuring regulatory flexibility, they lack the details which would transform them from a set of nice ideas to something that has impact. This is understandable in a document of this type, but it would be good to see a move toward actionable recommendations coming out of this group.

I’m also concerned that some of the principles hint at less than innovative thinking to address the safe and sustainable development of technology innovation. For instance, while the emphasis on public participation is welcome, the principles are written in terms of modes of public consultation that rarely allow engagement with and input from citizens as opposed to mobilized interest groups. Rather than supporting the idea that posting details of public meetings and consultation periods in the Federal Register constitutes public participation, (it doesn’t), it would be good to see some innovative thinking on what true engagement means in terms of developing effective regulations for emerging technologies.

I am also unsure what “Risk assessment should be distinguished from risk management” means – especially when risk experts are beginning to explore more integrative approaches to risk assessment and management as a way of addressing complex and emerging issues.

But these concerns aside, there is a lot to applaud here. In particular, the combination of science-driven, participatory and flexible approaches to emerging technologies regulation should lay the groundwork for approaches to oversight that both protect people and the environment, and support technology innovation.

It is also worth noting that the principles align closely with the University of Michigan Risk Science Center’s vision of evidence-informed and socially-responsive action on human health risks. And they set the scene rather well for this September’s Risk Science Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation.

So although there is still a long way to go before technology innovation is accompanied by innovations in governance that will support rather than hinder its safe and sustainable development, these principles are an important step toward the federal government coordinating approaches to ensuring emerging technologies and emergent risks are regulated effectively.

From the memorandum:

…the following principles, consistent with Executive Order 13563 and discussed and approved by the ETIPC, should be respected to the extent permitted by law:

• Scientific Integrity: Federal regulation and oversight of emerging technologies should be based on the best available scientific evidence. Adequate information should be sought and developed, and new knowledge should be taken into account when it becomes available. To the extent feasible, purely scientific judgments should be separated from judgments of policy.
• Public Participation: To the extent feasible and subject to valid constraints (involving, for example, national security and confidential business information), relevant information should be developed with ample opportunities for stakeholder involvement and public participation. Public participation is important for promoting accountability, for improving decisions, for increasing trust, and for ensuring that officials have access to widely dispersed information.
• Communication: The Federal Government should actively communicate information to the public regarding the potential benefits and risks associated with new technologies.
• Benefits and costs: Federal regulation and oversight of emerging technologies should be based on an awareness of the potential benefits and the potential costs of such regulation and oversight, including recognition of the role of limited information and risk in decision making.
• Flexibility: To the extent practicable, Federal regulation and oversight should provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate new evidence and learning and to take into account the evolving nature of information related to emerging technologies and their applications.
• Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Risk assessment should be distinguished from risk management. The Federal Government should strive to reach an appropriate level of consistency in risk assessment and risk management across various agencies and offices and across various technologies. Federally mandated risk management actions should be appropriate to, and commensurate with, the degree of risk identified in an assessment.
• Coordination: Federal agencies should seek to coordinate with one another, with state authorities, and with stakeholders to address the breadth of issues, including health and safety, economic, environmental, and ethical issues (where applicable) associated with the commercialization of an emerging technology, in an effort to craft a coherent approach. There should be a clear recognition of the statutory limitations of each Federal and state agency and an effort to defer to appropriate entities when attempting to address the breadth of issues.
• International Cooperation: The Federal Government should encourage coordinated and collaborative research across the international community. It should clearly communicate the regulatory approaches and understanding of the United States to other nations. It should promote informed choices and both sharing and development of relevant data, particularly with respect to the benefits and costs of regulation and oversight. The Federal Government should participate in the development of international standards, consistent with U.S. law and guidance (e.g., the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and OMB Circular A-119). When appropriate, international approaches should be coordinated as far in advance as possible, to help ensure that such approaches are consistent with these principles.
• Regulation: The Federal Government should adhere to Executive Order 13563 and, consistent with that Executive Order, the following principles, to the extent permitted by law, when regulating emerging technologies:
  • Decisions should be based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information, within the boundaries of the authorities and mandates of each agency;
  • Regulations should be developed with a firm commitment to fair notice and to public participation;
  • The benefits of regulation should justify the costs (to the extent permitted by law and recognizing the relevance of uncertainty and the limits of quantification and monetary equivalents);
  • Where possible, regulatory approaches should promote innovation while also advancing regulatory objectives, such as protection of health, the environment, and safety;
  • When no significant oversight issue based on a sufficiently distinguishing attribute of the technology or the relevant application can be identified, agencies should consider the option not to regulate;
  • Where possible, regulatory approaches should be performance-based and provide predictability and flexibility in the face of fresh evidence and evolving information; and
  • Regulatory approaches shall comply with established requirements and guidance such as the following:
    • Executive Order 13563 – Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 14, Friday, January 21, 2011, 3821-3823, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf;
    • Executive Order 12866 – Regulatory Planning and Review. Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 190, Monday, October 4, 1993, 51735-51744, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866.pdf;
    • Information Quality Act (Sec. 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for FY 2001, Pub. L. No. 106-554); Information Quality Guidelines: OMB (2002) Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies (2002), 67 Fed. Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible2.pdf;
    • National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”). Public Law 104-113, available at http://standards.gov/standards_gov/nttaa.cfm;
    • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Transmittal Memorandum, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards (02/10/1998), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a119/a119.html;
    • OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (December 16, 2004), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2005/m05-03.pdf;
    • OMB Bulletin No. 07-02 (M-07-07), Issuance of OMB’s “Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices” (January 18,2007), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf;
    • OMB/OSTP Memorandum: M-07-24, Updated Principles for Risk Analysis (September 19, 2007), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-24.pdf;
    • The Trade Agreements Act of 1979, as amended (Pub.L. 96-39, 93 Stat.
      144, enacted July 26, 1979, codified at 19 U.S.C. ch.13 (19 U.S.C. §
      2501-2581);
    • A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable
      Growth and Quality Jobs” (September 2009), available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/SEPT_20_Innovation_Whitepaper_FINAL.pdf; and
    • Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Disclosure and Information As Regulatory Tools (June 18, 2010), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/disclosure_principles.pdf

I‘ve just posted a piece over on the Risk Science Blog on regulatory definitions of engineered nanomaterials.  What may come as a surprise to many readers given my comments over the years is the title – “Why we don’t need a regulatory definition for nanomaterials”!  Have I flipped, lost my senses, or what?

As you might guess, I still think that engineered nanomaterials present a huge regulatory challenge – both from the perspective of avoiding unnecessary health impacts, and providing manufacturers with clear, rational rules for their safe use.  But I also have this odd idea that regulations should at the minimum be built on evidence if the resulting rules and guidelines are to have any relevance and traction.

Sadly, it now looks like we are heading toward a situation where the definitions of nanomaterials underpinning regulations will themselves be based on policy, not science.

This scares the life out of me, because it ends up taking evidence off the table when it comes to oversight, and replacing it with assumptions and speculation on what people think is relevant, rather than what actually is – not good for safety, and certainly not good for business.

But you can read more about why I’m getting worried about a regulatory definition for nanomaterials over at the Risk Science Blog.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

[Transcript]

I’ve occasionally been accused of thinking big when it comes to Risk Science. So I was rather chuffed to hear former Executive Director of Google.org Larry Brilliant out-big me on every point as he delivered the 10th Peter M. Wege lecture here at the University of Michigan a couple of weeks ago.

Larry was talking about sustainable humanity, and the need to actively work toward a global society that overcomes problems (some old, some emerging) and continues to get better. But threaded through the lecture was the theme of risk, and the urgent need we face to become more educated and informed on the risks that humanity faces, and how together we can overcome them.

Many of the themes that emerged are near and dear to my heart, and are reflected in the Risk Science Center’s vision – enabling evidence-based and socially-responsive action on human health risks in a rapidly changing world. In fact, the lecture and Larry’s following answers to questions were so relevant to the Center that I felt like saying – next time someone asked what we were about – to simply say “what he said!”

Much of this was encapsulated in the following response to a question from Larry following the lecture:

We need a whole new generation of leaders, leaders who are cross-trained in governance, who understand risk literacy, who can communicate complex problems in simple ways, who truly believe in democracy, and who are willing to engage with their constituents in a way that ups the conversation. So people know what the hell they’re voting for. And what the consequences and the risks that they’re taking on. We’ve reached the stage where the public is being used as if it were the ultimate re-insurer. What happens when a nuclear power plant us built on an earthquake fault and things go bad? It’s paid for by the tax payers in ways that we haven’t contemplated. Who has done the risk cost benefit analysis of continuing to use fossil fuels? So these are not things that we normally train students with. It’s a shame but I think that the three “r’s” of reading, writing and arithmetic must have a fourth “r” added: risk; as we understand the ever-more risky world that we have inherited and the complex interrelated-ness of the factors that lead to it.

Of course, enabling sustainable humanity is about far more than risk. But, as Larry so eloquently indicated, we neglect developing a deep and sophisticated understanding of risk and how we should be responding to it at our peril.

The transcript of Larry Brilliant’s lecture can be read here, and the lecture and Q&A session can be listened to below:

[Track 1: Introductions. Track 2: lecture. Track 3: Q&A]

Dr. Larry Brilliant is Dr. Larry Brilliant is president of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, and a University of Michigan School of Public health alumnus.

The videos of the lecture and the following question and answer session can be watched here.

As anyone who has followed my work over the past few years will know, I have a deep interest in the potential benefits and risks associated with emerging technologies, and in particular whether we can swing the balance towards benefits by thinking more innovatively about risk and how we address it. So it’s not surprising that I’m extremely excited to be chairing this year’s Risk Science Symposium at the University of Michigan, which is all about how we can think differently about human health risk to support sustainable technology innovation.

The symposium is shaping up to be a unique event, and one that I hope will expose participants to new ideas as well as energizing them to explore new possibilities as they work toward developing responsible and sustainable products based on technology innovations.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be firming up the program in time for early registration, opening on April 4.

Something I’m particularly excited about is that the symposium is turning out to be a great opportunity to explore some different formats for getting people to think differently about common challenges. Rather than use the tried and tested – but often bum-numbingly boring – “talking heads” lecture format, we will be basing most of the proceedings on a series of moderated discussions. These will be designed to engage experts from different perspectives – as well as other participants – in addressing key questions, under the guiding hand of a strong moderator.

It’s a format that one colleague described as “symposium speed-dating” – but I think it’s one that will encourage new ideas and insights, and lead to some extremely engaging exchanges. And in case you think that these will go the way of many panel discussions where participants simply use their time (and that of their fellow-speakers often) as a soap box for their own ideas, think again. We’ll be working hard to ensure that this doesn’t happen. Rather, the panels will be similar to those in the Risk Science Center Unplugged series of discussions – experts from different perspectives engaged in candid, animated yet carefully directed conversation.

And what about the the content?

Day one will lay the groundwork of why technology innovation is important, explore critical areas of technology innovation that are closely intertwined with questions over human health impacts, and begin to unpack why we need to think differently about risk and how we handle it if these technologies are to succeed.

Day two goes on to considering more closely the challenges of taking an integrative approach to addressing potential human health risks associated with technology innovation, and how new thinking on risk can increase the long-term success of technology innovation.

And in between the two days, we have what is shaping up to be a rather unique and definitely no-to-be-missed dinner event. But more on that another time.

Involved in the symposium will be leading experts from industry, government, academia, civil society, the media and other groups – all challenging and inspiring each other and the symposium participants to take a new look at how thinking differently about risk can support sustainable technology innovation.

Over the next few weeks, I’ll be posting a series of blogs on the symposium. But in the meantime, you can check out the details on the symposium website, and follow progress on the Risk Science Center Facebook page.

And remember, early registration for the symposium opens April 4 – but be forewarned, space is limited.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

Back in December 2009, I rode the Acela Express up to New York from Washington DC for the day to record one of a series of nanotechnology podcasts for the ASME – the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The podcast was to be part of a new educational outreach initiative on all aspects of nanotechnology developed by the society.

That podcast – which deals with environmental, health and safety aspects of nanotechnology – has now been published. Together with a continuing series of nanotech audio and video podcasts, it can be seen on ASME’s Nanotechnology Institute website. You’ll have to register to watch and download the podcasts – but registration is free.

However, the good folk at ASME have also allowed me to post the podcast here:

A product of 4 grueling hours of filming (for four minutes of footage!!), I thought the editing and production team did a great job of pulling something coherent, informative and engaging together.  It should be obvious by the way where the real talent lay here by comparing the length of the filming session to the length of the final video!

If you find this interesting, you should check out other podcasts in the series, which currently cover energy, materials, the life sciences, and environment, health and safety.

ps – there is one juxtaposition of images in the podcast that I thought was rather strange – brownie points to anyone who can spot it!

I don’t believe it – once again I’ve let myself be talked into doing an event in Second Life.  But this time it’s even worse – I’ll be hosting a combined second life and real-life event, and in effect acting as the medium between physical and virtual realities.

The only compensation is that the subject is a really juicy one – the Seven Deadly Sins!

On March 8 – Fat Tuesday appropriately – I’ll be indulging myself talking about the Seven Deadly Sins of Techno-Complacency to a combined audience in Second Life, and in real life, here at the University of Michigan.  And just to ice the cake so to speak, it looks like we’ll be webcasting the event as well.

If you want to indulge as well, the event is from 2:00 – 3:00 PM Eastern Time on March 8 – 1655 SPH Crossroads if you are in town, or Second Life if you are not (I’ll post the webcast link later). But be warned – only the real-life crowd will be getting Deadly Sin Cupcakes (seriously)!

The blurb for the event – which as you might imagine is not going to be that straight laced – goes something like this:

Science and technology are transforming our world faster than ever before.  Yet for all our technological brilliance, are we really in control of our destiny?  Do we have the wherewithal to steer a course between a future techno-heaven and techno-hell? Or are we so caught up in our technological infatuation that we have become insensitive to the future consequences of our actions?

Inspired by the “Seven Deadly Sins” of the ancient world, Andrew Maynard takes a wry look at the challenges of using science and technology to build a sustainable future – while avoiding the “fiery pit” of techno-failure.  Among his seven deadly sins of a techno-complacent society: Sucker Syndrome, soppy thinking, and blind faith.”

If you’re interested, there’s more information available at http://slum.wetpaint.com/

And the seven sins?  They are:

1. Widget Envy. (Envy)
2. Sucker-syndrome. (Gluttony)
3. Soppy thinking. (Greed)
4. Megalomania. (Lust)
5. Techno-hubris. (Pride)
6. Blind faith. (Sloth)
7. Intolerance. (Wrath)

PS – the version of my bio being used for the event should be taken with a pinch of salt – a pinch of sinful hubris possibly crept in there somewhere in the spirit of things!

The recently published International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies has a rather unconventional cover image. But it’s one that I must confess I am rather pleased with.

The image is a photo of a piece of Murano glass that I picked up several years ago while visiting Venice. At the time I was participating in a nanotoxicology conference, and so was sensitized to all things nano. Taking some time out to wander round the glass showrooms of Murano, I was struck by the deep red glass that a number of the pieces were showcasing. The coloring comes from the glass being infused with gold nanoparticles – a technique that dates back to medieval times, but is especially associated with the artisans of Murano. Given the nanoparticle connection, I picked up this particularly eye-catching piece, thinking that it might come in useful some day.

The original inspiration for the book cover

Fast forward a few years to the final stages of pulling the International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies together. As we neared completing the book, my co-editors Graeme Hodge and Di Bowman and I were looking for an arresting image for the book’s cover. At the time, my daughter was taking a photography class at school, and had just taken an abstract image of my Murano glass piece. As a photo, it worked rather well, and got me thinking about whether I could finally use the piece for something nanotech-related.

Examining the piece more closely, it struck me that there was scope here for a rather sophisticated image that illustrated the challenges of regulating nanotechnologies on multiple levels. On one level, the piece used gold nanoparticles to achieve a specific effect. On a more abstract level, the nanoparticles were used to illustrate an ordered array of circular objects – a little reminiscent of an ordered array of nanoparticles. Then, these objects were multi-layered – hinting at the sophistication that can now be achieved in engineering nanometer scale structures with multiple components.

So the piece took on the role of an elegant and sophisticated metaphor for nanotechnology, that incorporated the technology within the metaphor itself.

But what persuaded me that this might be an image that would work on the front of a book about regulation was an intriguing question that the piece raised. Even though the technology used to color the glass uses nanoparticles, the technology could hardly be termed nanotechnology when it was initially developed – simply because the artisans had no idea that the effect they were achieving was due to these small, uniform particles in the glass. But now we know that this is the cause of the effect. And artisans continue to utilize the technology with the full knowledge that it is associated with uniformly sized nanometer diameter particles of gold infused through the glass. Does this conscious understanding and use make it nanotechnology? And does that mean that we need to ask new questions about how the technology is regulated – even though it’s been around for thousands of years?

These are some of the overarching questions that we and our co-authors were grappling with in the book. So it made perfect sense to use the image as a metaphor for the the challenges we face in regulating nanotechnologies – or even formulating the questions we need to address.

And, as it turns out, it doesn’t look half bad!

From the book cover:

An abstract image realized in contemporary glass, from the Venetian island of Murano. The deep red coloring results from the glass being infused with gold nanoparticles, a technique used by artisans lung long before it was realized that the effect was due to the size of the gold particles suspended within the glass. The regular array of concentric geometric shapes is an apt metaphor for the complexity of engineered nanomaterials, where useful attributes arise from controlling how matter is structured from the nanoscale up to the scale of everyday objects. But it also poses an intriguing question in the context of regulation: now that the artisans know the glass gets its unique properties from nanometer-scale gold particles – and can presumably better control it as a result – is it nanotechnology?

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/02/26/the-art-of-regulating-nanotechnologies/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2011/02/23/crowdsourcing-sinful-images-for-a-tech-talk-can-you-help/ http://2020science.org/2011/02/23/crowdsourcing-sinful-images-for-a-tech-talk-can-you-help/#comments Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:51:51 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4103

How would you illustrate the “Seven Deadly Sins of Techno-Complacency” (see below)? On March 8, I’m giving a combined Second Live/Real Life talk on emerging technologies, inspired by the Seven Deadly Sins.  This will be a rather tongue in cheek affair as you might imagine, but with some serious points embedded in it somewhere.

My Seven Deadly Sins (or rather, those I will be talking about) are outlined below.  Given a bit of a time-crunch here, I’m desperately looking for images/graphics to illustrate each sin – and I’d love any thoughts you have on what might work.

Please post your ideas – including links – in the comments space below, following some basic guidelines:

• Photos, paintings, abstract images, real life – the more creative the better!
• Please don’t post anything that could be considered offensive though – I’ll be deleting any comments that I think cross the line.
• For the presentation, I’ll probably select one image per sin to use as a backdrop.

I’ll post further details of the event as soon as I have them.

Thanks!

My Seven Deadly Sins of Techno-Complacency:

Widget Envy. (Envy). As technology gets more sophisticated, we constantly hanker after the next upgrade or widget.  But is this widget-envy leading to a better world, or just a different world? Or is it even eroding away our ability to make informed decisions?

Sucker-syndrome. (Gluttony). Are manufacturers playing into the “sin of widget-envy” by exploiting our desires?  Are we becoming complacent suckers to tech-savvy marketing machines?

Soppy thinking. (Greed). Is the Some One else’s Problem mindset (SOPpy thinking) leading to rampant overuse and mis-use of resources, with the assumption that someone else will deal with the consequences?

Megalomania. (Lust). New technologies come with new powers – not only military might, but also the ability to impact societies and the environment on a global scale.  What’s to stop small groups and individuals misusing high-impact technologies to force their own agenda on others?

Techno-hubris. (Pride). We think that science and technology can solve every problem.  But you know what they say comes before a fall…

Blind faith. (Sloth). On the other hand, how many people are happy to sit back and let the nerds and geeks get on with things – assuming that everything will work out just fine?  Will they make the world a better place on our behalf? And if they don’t, who’s fault is it?

Intolerance. (Wrath). Where does intolerance for those that don’t “get” science and technology “like we do” lead?  Is this a sin clothed in righteous anger?

In one of the more bizarre yet less publicized proposed cuts in the 2012 Obama budget, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Education and Research Centers are on the chopping block.  Bizarre, because the move is directly counter to Obama’s push on innovation and education as drivers of economic growth.

The Education and Research Centers (ERCs, previously called Educational Resource Centers) were originally established in the mid-1970′s, in direct response to the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act mandate to

“conduct, directly or by grants and contracts, education programs to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of this Act”

The aim was to support academic institutions in developing interdisciplinary occupational health and safety training programs that ensured health and safety professionals had the best possible training.

There are currently 17 ERCs in the US, each of them equipping occupational health professionals with a unique skill-set to support safe and effective business practices.  In the academic year 2009-2010, there were 689 graduate students enrolled in ERCs, of which, 423 (61%) were supported by NIOSH.  Over the same period 287 graduated from ERC training programs. Of those, 234 (82%) entered occupational safety and health careers or more advanced occupational safety and health training.

Without a doubt, this $24 million per year program hits way above its weight in ensuring US businesses remain competitive and sustainable.  And it does this by leveraging other resources, and by ensuring businesses do not making costly and unnecessary mistakes when it comes to health and safety.

But more than this, the ERCs have an essential role in ensuring US health and safety professionals are up to speed on the latest knowledge and tools for ensuring safe and effective work practices in an increasingly complex world.

Let’s face it – we’re no longer living in the 1900′s, where businesses could gamble on worker safety (and sometimes get away with it in the short term) and many safe working practices were grounded in common sense.  Today’s successful modern business demands highly skilled personnel to ensure safety contributes to success, and to ensure that enterprises don’t fail because someone was foolish enough to think safety doesn’t matter.

And no-where is this more apparent than at the cutting edge of technology innovation.

Technology innovation is critical to the US economy.  Yet if we’ve learned anything in recent times, it’s that if cutting edge innovation is to lead to jobs and economic growth, it has to be accompanied by cutting edge approaches to ensuring its safe development and use.  Technologies such as nanotechnology have taught us that new technologies demand new approaches to safe and responsible development.  This is a lesson that emerging technologies such as synthetic biology are re-enforcing.  And in today’s globalized world, corporations are increasingly realizing that sustainable development requires new value-sets and understanding that integrate safety into design and development in sophisticated ways.

And where is the expertise going to come from to achieve this?  The ERCs. Apart from the fact that they won’t be there in 18 months time if the proposed cuts are approved.

I can just see US competitors rubbing their hands in glee as they see the country’s shortsightedness eroding the foundations of its innovation strategy.

Of course, the ERCs aren’t the only source of occupational safety knowledge.  And as they stand, they will still need to develop and adapt to address emerging workplace safety needs.  But they are without a doubt a critical part of the US’s complex business and innovation structure, and their removal will have long-reaching repercussions to US innovation and competitiveness.

What is worse, it appears that the thinking behind their removal is more than a little sloppy.  The Pump Handle has already questioned the justification for killing the program.  And over on the Risk Science Blog there is a detailed rebuttal of poorly researched justifications made in the budget.

Which leaves the question – why cut a $24 million program that has proven its worth, and is probably more important to US growth and development now than at any time previously – especially where such a cut will be extremely costly to reverse once made?

It’s a question that I, and probably many others involved with making technology innovation work for Americans, are still trying to understand.

Here’s an offer I’m sure you won’t be able to resist: The opportunity to read the first and last chapters of the just-published International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies – for free!

Due to the farsightedness of my co-editors, the publishers have agreed to let authors post their chapters on their institutional web pages.

So if you head over to the Risk Science Blog, you can download the chapter that frames the book, and the one that pulls everything together at the end.

Don’t all rush at once!

I have to add, this was a master-stroke by Di Bowman in her negotiations with Edward Elgar Publishing- kudos to her!

Cross-posted from The Risk Science Blog

Several months ago, I was asked by a colleague if I fancied co-authoring a review on nanotoxicology for a copy of Toxicological Sciences celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Society of Toxicology (coming out later this year).

Fool that I am, I agreed.  Interestingly though, as I and my co-authors (Martin Philbert and David Warheit) grappled with a topic we were all, to be frank getting a little fatigued with, it became clear that “nanotoxicology” as it is currently understood is merely a step towards a much bigger field of the “new toxicology of sophisticated materials”

The review is currently available here as an Advance Access publication from Toxicological Sciences.  In it we start by reviewing the history of the emergence of nanotoxicology as an integral part of the field of nanotechnology, and continue to examine some of the key toxicology-based challenges presented by engineered nanomaterials.

Yet we conclude that, despite the current flurry of activity in researching the toxicity of nanomaterials, the field of nanotoxicology is suffering from something of an identity crisis:

“There is a strong sense that emerging, novel and complex materials that have been engineered at the nanoscale may exhibit unusual or unanticipated toxicity from a conventional perspective, and that research is needed to understand and address how these designed-materials might cause harm in ways that are not readily understood at present. This concern is supported by a growing body of research which indicates that some nanometer scale materials do demonstrate biological behavior that is mediated by physical form as well as chemical composition. Yet a clear identification and formulation of the problems being faced remain elusive.

For example, what is meant by the “nanoscale” is far from clear, meaning that there is considerable ambiguity over which materials are embraced by “nanotoxicology.” Widely accepted definitions of nanotechnology refer to a size range of approximately 1 – 100 nm “where unique phenomena enable novel applications”. Yet these are largely definitions of convenience, not of science. And while the definitions defining the field of nanotechnology have been important in driving new science and technology   innovation, it is not clear how they apply to a new material’s propensity to cause harm in unexpected ways.”

This is not to say that the questions and issues raised by nanotoxicology are not important.  On the contrary, we note that

“there is an array of increasingly sophisticated materials that are emerging from advances in science, technology and engineering that do demand careful consideration of the new risks they might pose.”

But we suggest that new thinking on how the potential safety challenges presented by these “sophisticated materials” is needed.

“In this respect a differential approach to toxicology studies is required – one which helps identify where emerging materials and products deviate from established ones in their potential to cause harm, and focuses research on narrowing the resulting knowledge gap.

Undoubtedly, materials intentionally designed and engineered to behave in specific ways because of their fine structure are at the forefront of the new challenges being faced in toxicology. These materials increasingly demonstrate biological behavior that results from a synergistic interaction between chemical composition and physical form. But whether these new challenges can be confined to a narrow size scale implied by “nanotoxicology” is debatable.

Rather, we would argue that a broader perspective is needed on the challenges presented by novel and functional materials, that captures the idea of “sophisticated materials.” These are substances that arise at the intersection of scientific disciplines and technology platforms, and demonstrate novel and even time and context-dependent functionality based on their engineered and increasingly complex physicochemical structure.

While many of these materials will depend on nanoscale engineering, decoupling the materials from the underlying technology – or technologies – is helpful in formulating science-based questions regarding their toxicity. In this respect, the toxicology challenge presented by sophisticated materials is to understand and address the hazards presented by materials that have the ability to enter the body, interact with it and elicit an adverse response in ways that are not adequately understood through a conventional and chemical composition-dominated perspective on toxicology.”

We conclude the review by suggesting that

We can now begin to appreciate the challenges presented by simple nanoscale materials such as TiO2, ZnO, Ag, carbon nanotubes and CeO2. But these simple materials are merely the vanguard of a new era of complex materials, where novel and dynamic functionality is engineered into multifaceted substances. If we are to meet the challenge of ensuring the safe use of this new generation of substances, it is time to move beyond “nano” toxicology and towards a new toxicology of sophisticated materials.

Maynard, A. D., D. Warheit and M. A. Philbert (2011). “The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond.” Tox. Sci. Advance Access.  DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq372

Next Tuesday, we’ll be launching a new series of occasional discussions on contemporary public health risk issues at the University of Michigan Risk Science Center.  And the first topic is – no surprises – nanotechnology.

Under the tagline “No PowerPoint, no script; just stimulating conversation”, the Unplugged series will be engaging experts in lively conversation on a range of topics. Each event will be webcast (and archived), and will allow on-line discussion around the topic of focus.

Nanotechnology is the topic of the first event, being held on February 8. Under my “strict and provocative” moderation, three leading experts will engage in conversation about what nanotechnology is, what it’s significance to public health is, and how we as a society might exploit it safely and responsibly.

You can view the event on-line (or turn up for the live discussion if you are around in Ann Arbor).  You can also join the conversation by going to the Nanotechnology – Unplugged website.In fact, I’d really like to encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of this and post their questions and comments.  I’ll be doing my best to thread questions posted before and during the event into the discussion on the day.

Nanotechnology – Unplugged: Join the conversation on February 8 from 2:00 PM – 3:00 PM Eastern Time.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/02/01/nanotechnology-unplugged/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2011/02/01/davos-2011-committed-to-changing-the-state-of-the-world/ http://2020science.org/2011/02/01/davos-2011-committed-to-changing-the-state-of-the-world/#comments Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:55:21 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4075

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

As it did last year, the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos has left me with a daunting task – how do I summarize the highlights of the meeting in a single, short post?

The answer of course is that I can’t – Davos is so complex, diverse and multi-layered that no single account could do it justice. But sitting here waiting for the flight home, I wanted to capture at least something of the past few days.

World Leaders – world issues

This year saw the usual parade of world-leaders passing through Davos, selling their wares in public, while cutting deals in private.

In public and private, the unfolding events in North Africa, the Moscow terrorist attack and the world economy dominated discussions.

As is fairly typical at Davos, not too much that was startling or new was announced in public. But this is a meeting where off the record meetings and encounters are everything. And given the isolation, camaraderie and personal access that pervades Davos, the barriers to meaningful exchanges are perhaps lower here than at almost any other gathering of the great and good.

As one person pointed out to me – many delegates simply cannot afford to bring their usual entourage, meaning that the chances of conversations that get to the heart of issues – rather than leading a carefully choreographed dance around them – are reasonably high. And of course this is further enabled by the many social occasions that smooth the way for serious conversations.

Business leaders – revealed values. This stripping away of the buffers between public personas and the people behind them is one aspect of Davos that continues to fascinate me. It’s one of the few places I know if where you can get a sense of who someone really is, not who the PR machinery tries to convince you they are (again, because most people end up having to leave the PR machinery at the door). And no-where do I find this more revealing than in talking with business leaders.

It may be because the World Economic Forum actively develops partnerships with organizations that share its commitment to improving the state of the world, but I’m encouraged by the number of high profile CEO’s and business leaders I speak with here who are motivated by far more than bottom-line dollars. A cynic might claim that it’s all part of the PR machinery, which managed to sneak past the barriers. But I don’t think it is. There’s no need for these people to spend a week of their busy schedule talking about how to make the word a better place – and what excites and inspires them – unless they really mean it.

Davos provides a rare glimpse of the idealists still alive and beating in these world-wise corporate leaders. Of course, talk is a lot easier (and cheaper) than action, and these people have to deal with colleagues, shareholders, stakeholders and an economic landscape that doesn’t necessarily allow their true values and passions to flourish . But I suspect that one of the “positive dangers” of Davos is that, having revealed their inner-self to others who have the capacity to fan the flames, many business leaders emerge just that little more motivated to look beyond the bottom line, and toward changing the world for the better.

Global risks – global opportunities

This year, global risks were a central theme of the Davos meeting. The World Economic Forum formally launched the new Risk Response Network, and risk permeated many of the sessions. The aim is to establish resources and mechanisms to respond to emerging global risks more effectively than in the past – whether they are associated with natural disasters, social collapse, financial melt-down or technological failure.

While most of the discussions revolved around avoiding risk or managing the consequences, there were a few that touched on actively mitigating risk – and supporting global economic and social growth through new approaches to risk. These included developing the means to actively reduce risks through technological, policy and social mechanisms. But they also included the need to increase resilience within global institutions, infrastructure and communities – so that when things go wrong, the system can respond and adapt quickly and effectively.

This need for resilience was highlighted in a final session on global risk I was participating in, as we considered what lessons can be learned from events in Tunisia and Egypt on our dependence on and the fragility of the internet.

Science and technology – more than entertainment

Science and technology were more prominent than usual at this year’s meeting. There were packed-out sessions on the current state of science, and on contemporary issues such as the nature of the universe and personalized medicine. Yet there was still a sense that this was entertainment for delegates – a light distraction from the serious business of putting the world right, and something for accompanying partners to attend.

Nevertheless, there were indications that this is changing. The World Economic Forum has established a science advisory council that will be looking at how science can be better-integrated into the program in future years. A number of conversations I had with scientists and technologists – and there were a surprising number of them at the meeting – revolved around their desire to see science and technology rise up the agenda. And business leaders like Ellen Kullman – CEO of DuPont – were vocal about the need to pay more attention to technology innovation in building a better world.

As this is one of the aims of the Global Agenda Council I chair, it was good to see the beginnings of a groundswell toward shifting from science and technology as the Davos entertainment, to making them a significant part of broader discussions on building a sustainable future.

Social media – WEF goes grass-roots?

The use of social media was huge at this year’s meeting.

I’m not sure whether the impact is there yet – that will come – but content generation was significantly higher than previous years. Over 400 delegates were tweeting from the meeting, providing real-time insight into proceedings. Delegates were also encouraged to record short YouTube videos responding to questions posed by members of the public – and many did (including a number of prominent participants). Many delegates contributed guest blogs to the WEF blog, providing further insight into the meeting. And FaceBook marketing director Randi Zuckerberg (sister of Mark) conducted livestream webcast interviews with everyone from Tony Blair to Bill Gates to Bono.

Having seen social media in action at this year’s meeting, I’m convinced that this is the beginning of a powerful outreach and engagement by WEF that breaks the established boundaries of the organization – watch this space!

Real lives – strong inspiration

There are numerous misconceptions about Davos – many of them characterizing it as a meeting where gray men in gray suits with gray imaginations get together to schmooze with other, equally gray men, usually with no appreciable outcome. But as anyone who has been a part of the meeting can attest to, this is about as far from the truth as you can get.

At the heart of Davos is a common desire to change the world for the better. Invited participants are carefully selected according to what they do – not just who they are (even the celebrities are here because of the initiatives they are involved in, rather than the star status attached to them. And paying participants are carefully filtered and cultured to encourage a meeting where common values permeate the conversations.

This is perhaps best summed up in this year’s closing session, where Klaus Schwab, the Executive Chairman of WEF, spoke with Christine Lagarde, the French Minister of Economy, Nick Vujicic, President of Life without Limbs, and two of the Davos Global ChangeMakers – Raquel Silva and Dan Cullum.

The topic was “Inspired for a lifetime”. Unusually for a meeting characterized as full of “gray men”, there was hardly a dry eye in the house. (you wouldn’t have known at the time, but I’ve yet to speak to someone who was there who didn’t admit to tearing up at times). But I’m convinced that this wasn’t because of an overtly emotional program – it was simply because the delegates recognized in the panelists a common desire to act to make the world a better place.

Without the context of the preceding four days, the session might have come across as overly sentimental. But with the weight of Davos behind it, it was grounded in a reality that transcended mere sentimentality.

But don’t just take my word for it – the closing session of Davos 2011 can be viewed below.

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog.

Take a metaphorical slice through this year’s annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, and Global Risk would be writ large through every part of it.  Hot on the heels of the sixth Global Risk report, this year’s meeting saw the launch of the Risk Response Network – a new initiative to facilitate responsive, informed and integrative action on global risks.  And throughout the meeting, sessions and conversations abound that are grappling with understanding and mitigating emerging risks in today’s complex and interconnected world.

But important and impressive as this agenda is, I wonder whether there is something missing.

I’m approaching risk at Davos this year from three perspectives: exploring the relationship between science, innovation and risk; understanding the impact of emerging risks on public health; and developing technology-enabled approaches to risk mitigation.  The common themes here are science and technology – both as potential drivers of risk, and as sources of possible solutions.

From my work in science, technology and public health, it is clear that a deep understanding of the roles of science and technology in addressing risk is critical to building resilient and sustainable responses to global risks.  It is also increasingly clear that integrating this understanding into the process of addressing global risks is vital.

Yet this is where the World Economic Forum’s timely thrust to address global risks seems to be somewhat lacking.

Science and technology are certainly well-repented on the Davos agenda.  But I get the sense that they are part of the alternative program – “the entertainment” as one colleague described them.  This is probably a little harsh.  But the science and technology sessions do tend to be aimed at wowing delegates, rather than engaging them in exploring integrated solutions to pressing problems – a bit of light relief from the serious business of fixing the world’s problems.  Even the IdeasLab sessions, which get the closest to engaging people on emerging issues, struggle to make science and technology part of a larger conversation.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m the first to admit that there’s a lot to get excited about in contemporary science and technology.  But if robust solutions are to be found to global risks, science and technology must be integrated into mainstream discussions – not treated as an entertaining but often incomprehensible sideshow.

And that means elevating science to a seat at the table as new solutions to emerging risks are explored.

I realize that this is a daunting task. I’ll be the first to admit that scientists can be an intimidating bunch – an image they don’t necessarily try too hard to dispel.  But until scientists, engineers and technologists are seen as partners in the process of risk mitigation, not just  consultants or contractors, building resilient solutions to global challenges is going to be one tough call.

Cross-posted at ForumBlog.org – the World Economic Forum blog

My high school physics teacher used to tell me there’s no such think as a dumb question.  It’s a lesson I’ve carried with me through my professional career as a scientist.  But it’s a philosophy that might be just about to come back and bite me.

This year at Davos, a number of sessions are including formal “challengers” – people officially sanctioned to pose those dumb questions everyone else is thinking, but are too afraid to ask.  And guess what – I’m one of this years’ challengers.

I will be challenging some of the best and brightest minds in the business as they talk about the science agenda for 2011. Stating their case will be Francis Collins – Director of the National Institutes of Health and famed for his leadership of the Human Genome Project; Rolf Heuer – Director-General of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN); Ray Johnson – Senior Vice President and CTO of Lockheed Martin; and Christopher Viebacher – CEO of Sanofi-Aventis.

These are people who know their stuff, and will undoubtedly present a compelling and inspiring case for science and technology that leaves few opportunities for probing questions.

As if that wasn’t enough, this is my community.  I’m one of them.  But by challenging them, I risk setting myself apart as a trouble-maker, a contrarian, or worse – a Luddite!

Yet the role of challenger is a vital one.  Because without sober reflection, it’s all too easy for experts to become disconnected from the broader context in which their work has relevance.  And more often than not, it’s those “dumb” questions – the ones no-one dares ask – that most effectively help re-ground the conversation in reality.

So despite some trepidation, I’m looking forward to being the middle man here, and challenging four very smart people to think critically about what their work means in a broader social, economic and political context.

Will I pull it off and still be able to show my face in public?  I hope so.  Because when it comes to science in particular, it is vital that we learn to more effectively integrate the awe-inspiring stuff in the lab into everyday stuff that changes lives.

And the first step to better integration is to ask the right questions – no matter how dumb they might seem.

Technology innovation was front and center of Obama’s State of the Union speech tonight.  This is extremely good news for those of us who believe more needs to be done, and done better, to ensure science and technology translate into effective solutions that enable economic and social growth.  But recognizing the importance of technology innovation is just the start – ensuring the continued success of investment in technology innovation is where the hard work really begins.

What makes this all the harder is that the world we live in now is profoundly different from the world half a century ago when Sputnik stimulated a new era of science and technology innovation.  Obama’s “This is our Sputnik moment” is a great rallying cry – and an important one.  But over the past half century the dynamic between having a good idea and coming up with a sustainable solution has changed – increasingly complex technologies and a vastly more interconnected  world have ensured that.

Which leaves us with the question – if technology innovation is as important as Obama (and many others besides) believes it is, how do we develop the twenty first century understanding, tools and institutions to take full advantage of it?

One thing that is clear is that in connecting innovation to action, we will need new insights and “intelligence” on how to make this connection work in today’s world.  These will need to address not only the process of technology innovation, but also how we develop and use it within an increasingly connected society, where more people have greater influence over what works – and what doesn’t – than ever before.  This was the crux of a proposal coming out of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Agenda earlier this year, which outlined the need for a new Global Center for Emerging Technologies Intelligence.

But beyond the need for new institutions, there is also the need for far more integrated approaches to building a sustainable future through technology innovation – getting away from the concept of technology innovation as something that is somebody else’s business, and making it everybody’s business.  This was a central theme in the World Economic Forum report that Tim Harper of CIENTIFICA Ltd. and I published last week.

Then there’s the complex interplay between the possible good and bad consequences arising from technology innovation.  These include potential health and environmental impacts that could arise from new technologies if they are not developed responsibly;  the difficulties of ensuring innovation in governance keeps pace with innovation in technology; and the dangers of failing to implement innovations that could make significant improvements to quality of life.

This interplay between possible consequences is made all the more complex by the increasing need to work within a distributed rather than a command and control decision-making hierarchy in today’s society.  How can we work together in partnership to ensure the long-term success of innovations where there is considerable uncertainty over the consequences of our actions? This is a challenge that will be explored further in a symposium this coming September on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation.

Obama is right on target in recognizing that technology innovation remains vital to long-term social and economic prosperity.  But getting it right?  That’s a whole other challenge!

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/01/25/obama-spotlights-innovation-but-how-do-we-get-it-right/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2011/01/24/davos-2011-desparately-seeking-google/ http://2020science.org/2011/01/24/davos-2011-desparately-seeking-google/#comments Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:58:46 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4039

It’s that time of year again – 2000+ of the worlds top movers and shakers are beginning to descend on the Swiss ski town of Davos for this year’s Annual World Economic Forum meeting.  Political heavyweights like Clinton, Annan, Sarkozy and Cameron will be intermingling with the likes of Gates, Bono,  deNiro, Carreras and a plethora of CEO’s and others as they evaluate the state of the world, and plan for the future.

And amidst them will be a whole bunch of people who don’t live on such an ethereal plane – people like me.

This year’s meeting is on the theme “Shared Norms for the New Reality” – reflecting, according to WEF, the foremost concern of many leaders that we are living in a world that is becoming increasingly complex and interconnected and, at the same time, experiencing an erosion of common values that undermines public trust in leadership as well as future economic growth and political stability.

To address this theme, the meeting is built around four “pillars”:

• Responding to the New Reality
• The Economic Outlook and Defining Policies for Inclusive Growth
• Supporting the G20 Agenda
• Building a Risk Response Network

I’ll be speaking in a couple of sessions on risk, science and innovation in the 21st century, and will be blogging and tweeting from the meeting – when I get the chance.

The big session for me will be on Wednesday afternoon, when I undertake the role of “challenge” to a panel addressing the science agenda in 2011.

I think I’m supposed to be the one asking the awkward questions – the ones everyone’s dying to ask, but is to scared to.  A tough call given a lineup that includes Francis Collins (NIH Director), Rolf Heuer (Director-General of CERN), Christopher Viehbacher (CEO of Sanovi-Aventis) and Ray Johnson (senior VP and CTO of Lockheed-Martin).

I’ll let you know how it goes.

Through the rest of the meeting I’ll be catching people outside sessions and in the corridors to talk about the recent white paper Tim Harper and I published on technology innovation, and about new approaches to addressing health risks in a complex and interconnected world (aligning myself neatly with this year’s theme).

I’ll also be keeping an eye on the myriad other groups, events and sideshows going on here, including the “Davos Teens”.  These are a select group of five Global Changemakers – young social entrepreneurs – chosen to attend and participate in the meeting.  As well as being a brilliant idea (I wrote a little about the previous group last year), there’s every evidence that this will be a vibrant and challenging group of teens who will be making every effort to shake up the middle-age pomposity that sometimes threatens to overwhelm Davos.

Then there are the parties.  Actually, I’m not making much headway into the party scene yet – my attempts to press leading figures for tips on getting an invite to the infamous Google party went no-where.  Even Boris Johnson didn’t return my email, although I did get a reply from Alison Levine – who sadly was as much in the dark as me).  But the week is young…

In the meantime, time to catch the plane from a snowy Michigan to a Snowy Switzerland, and work out exactly what I’m going to be challenging Francis, Rolf et al. on…

Further information on the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos can be found here.  There will also be regular and relatively informal updates on the WEF blog (I might be writing a guest blog later in the week).  And participants tweeting from the meeting can be followed here.

Over at the Risk Science Center blog, I have posted a request for help on web-based nanotechnology resources. Given that 2020 Science has such a nano-savvy readership, I thought I would cross-post the request here.

If you have any suggestions on useful websites dealing with nanotechnology – especially those describing potential and actual applications – please do pop over to the Risk Science blog and add them to the comments there.  Thanks!

What are the clearest, most helpful web-based resources on nanotechnology that you know of?

On February 8, we are hosting a conversation on the opportunities and challenges of nanotechnology, with three leading experts on the benefits, risks, and social/policy aspects of the technology.

And this is where I could do with some help.

On the event’s website, we are compiling a short list of key web-based resources on nanotechnology. The current list is a starting point only, and needs to be fleshed out considerably over the next two weeks.

If you have websites or web-based resources you find particularly helpful on providing information on the benefits, challenges, and nature of nanotechnology – including applications arising from the technology – please post them in the posts’ comments section.

We will be adding them to the Nanotechnology – Unplugged website as appropriate.

Thank you!

“Technology doesn’t just happen” – people must be sick of hearing me say this.  Yet as chair of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies, it’s something I seem to end up saying rather a lot as we strive to help decision-leaders maximize the benefits of technology innovation, while avoiding untoward consequences.

The trouble is, it’s all too easy for people to assume that technology innovation will provide bolt-on answers to pressing problems as and when they are needed – a potentially dangerous misconception.  Which is why the Council has just published a new paper through the World Economic Forum that looks at how we develop and use technology within an increasingly complex and interconnected society, and how we can translate this into developing timely, cost effective and acceptable solutions to pressing global challenges.

Building a Sustainable Future: Rethinking the Role of Technology Innovation in an Increasingly Interdependent, Complex and Resource-constrained World is co-authored by myself and Tim Harper – director of CIENTIFICA Ltd. – and takes a hard look at the increasingly tough task of ensuring technology innovation helps solve the problems we need it to solve as a society, rather than just the ones that are easy to solve.

In it, we recommend that action is needed in seven areas, including increasing access to intelligence on new technologies; building new partnerships and engaging more effectively with stakeholders; re-examining how innovative ideas are translated into effective solutions to pressing problems; and rethinking the process of global technology governance.

Working with my colleagues on the Emerging Technologies Global Agenda Council, I kept coming back to three things in particular as we crafted the paper:

How can we ensure relevant and responsive technology-based solutions to problems are available as and when they are needed? I worry sometimes that focus too much on the successes of technology innovation in helping address issues,  and neglect to contemplate our failures.  Yet it is where we have failed to cure a disease, or to relieve poverty and hunger, or to increase someone’s quality of life, that we have the most to learn.  It’s easy to match a new technology to a pressing need and claim success. It’s much harder to start with a need, and develop technology-based solutions that will help resolve it – especially if timescales are long and profits are potentially marginal.  How can we change the paradigm so we start with the problem, not the solution?

How can we proactively invest in technology innovation so that it gets us where we need to be, when we need to be there? I am constantly surprised at the blind faith many people have in science and technology – assuming or hoping that it will deliver just-in-time solutions to just-discovered problems.  The reality is that it takes years – decades even – of targeted research and development to arrive at relevant and responsive technology innovations.  Which means that in today’s world, we need to become increasingly forward-thinking and integrative in how we craft and implement the science and technology agenda.  How can we move away from technology innovation being perceived as an off the shelf solution to problems, and toward it being understood as an integrated part of addressing issues?

How can we avoid new risks from new technologies, while also using them to reduce established and emerging risks? Emerging technologies lead to new potential risks – thousands of years of technology innovation attest to this.  As the rate of technology innovation increases and the world becomes increasingly interconnected, we are going to need new ways to respond to these risks if we are to build a sustainable future.  Yet there is another side to the innovation-risk equation.  Technology innovation also has the potential to provide the means of managing or avoiding old and new risks – but only if it is developed and implemented appropriately.  How do we ensure that emerging technologies are an integral part of the toolkit we use to reduce risks, and improve quality of life?

These weren’t the only drivers behind the paper – there were many other issues we grappled with, and high on the agenda was the economic imperative of thinking increasingly smartly about how we develop and use emerging technologies.  But the questions surrounding quality of life and risk struck a particular chord with me, having worked at the intersection between emerging technologies, risks and benefits for a number of years.

Next week sees the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos.  This year the theme is Shared Norms for the New Reality, and is built around four “pillars”: Responding to the New Reality; The Economic Outlook and Defining Policies for Inclusive Growth; Supporting the G20 Agenda; and Building a Risk Response Network.

I will be there, talking to people about the Building a Sustainable Future paper in the context of each of these pillars.  But it is that last pillar that I will be focusing on in particular.  Sustainability depends on getting smart about identifying, addressing and managing risks – often before they have happened, and this means getting smarter on how we develop and use new technologies.  The potential is there to do great things.  There’s also the danger of technology innovation increasing the chances of harm if we aren’t careful.  The trick will be to learn how to be more sophisticated, integrative and informed in how we develop and use technology innovation.  And to ensure we are proactive in planning for a technology-driven future.

Because… technology doesn’t just happen – you know!

_______

The Building a Sustainable Future white paper can be read and downloaded here.  Tim and I also gave a guest blog on the paper on the World Economic Forum blog – ForumBlog.org

Cross posted from the Risk Science Center Blog:

There’s a lot to like in President Obama’s perspective on 21st century regulation. Writing in today’s Wall Street Journal, Obama outlines his thinking behind his new executive order to review and revise a convoluted and potentially disruptive federal regulatory system. But if regulation in the 21st century is to be effective in protecting people and enabling economic growth, it needs to become more sophisticated and innovative, while avoiding the traps of over-simplistic thinking.

I’m glad Obama puts a strong emphasis on public health in his op ed. It’s all too easy easy for these conversations to degenerate into regulatory bashing in favor of business freedom – a trap Obama deftly avoids. Yet he is spot on when he calls out the dangers of out-dated and ill-conceived regulations potentially stifling innovation and economic growth – an outcome which ultimately also impacts on public health, albeit in less directly measurable ways.

The trick is to find that sweet spot between preventing harm while supporting the economy.

As society and the technologies it relies on become ever-more complex, finding this sweet spot is becoming increasingly difficult. New technologies are spawning new products that cause harm in new and sometimes unanticipated ways. An ever more interconnected global society is eroding traditional command-and-control oversight frameworks. And a growing flood of tantalizing yet often incomplete data is creating confusion over what is safe, and what is not.

Yet the same changes that are making old-style regulation increasingly difficult are also opening up opportunities for innovation in how we protect people. Group-sourcing expertise and perspectives in new ways can help craft more responsive regulation. Novel approaches to collecting and analyzing information are able to offer new insights into balancing safe and profitable practices. New approaches to science and engineering are beginning to push risk management up the innovation chain – engineering risk out of products from the get-go. And new technologies are delivering new ways to evaluate and manage potential risks.

As well as cutting out the dead wood from the existing system, 21st century regulation also needs to innovate and take advantage of these opportunities. This will bring us closer to finding that sweet spot where both safety and economic success are achieved. But to achieve it, we will have to be increasingly sophisticated about how we think about risk and regulation.

It’s all to easy to over-react to potential risks, and to push for action based on gut instincts rather than clear evidence. This is why formal regulation starts with evidence-informed decision-making, rather than instinct and assumption. But there is also a danger of the pendulum swingging the other way, and instinctive assumptions leading to inadequate regulation.

Although the point was well-made, I must confess to being a little concerned by Obama’s comment on saccharin when he stated that “if it goes in your coffee, it is not hazardous waste”. When it comes to risk, dose and context are everything – what is good in moderation in one place can be deadly if present in excess in another. Saccharin is now widely acknowledged as safe for human consumption – hence Obama’s quip. But it won’t always be the case that what is good in small quantities is also good when dumped by the ton in the environment – especially if it has potential long-term, environmental or trans-generational impacts.

Rather than rely on over-simplistic assumptions on risk, we need now more than ever to develop sophisticated, evidence-informed yet socially, economically and politically responsive approaches to human health risks. This is at the heart of risk science, where evidence and understanding drive the process of reducing risks.

Hopefully it will also be at the heart of US regulatory reform, as we continue to strive for the sweet spot between safety and success.

- all to often, these conversations emphasize the need to prevent regulation interfering with business concerns. Obama on the other hand places human health high on the agenda. But at the same time he acknowledges the importance of good regulation in

Next week sees the debut of the PBS science program NOVA’s new series Making Stuff – a four part special “exploring the materials that will shape our future”, hosted by NY Times technology columnist David Pogue.

You may recall that I expressed some reservations over the program’s approach to bioengineered materials a few weeks back – reservations that plenty of others didn’t share I hasten to add…

The sequence – which wasn’t necessary the final version of what will air on January 19th – involved the production of spider silk protein from a genetically modified goat.  What worried me was the rather off-hand way safety and ethical concerns were handled.

So it was interesting that, following those comments, NOVA’s David Levin asked me to record a podcast with him on the darker side of another set of materials covered in a later program – nanomaterials.

The podcast was posted yesterday (and can be listened to here).  Despite the rather scary title of “The Dangers of Nanotech” I thought Levine did a good job of taking the conversation through some of the concerns surrounding new nanoscale materials.

The associated NOVA episode – Making Stuff: Smaller – airs on January 26.  I’m interested to see what David Pogue makes of nanomaterials, and the broader field of nanotechnology.

In fact, I must confess that I’m eagerly anticipating the whole series.  Despite my reservations over the whole goat thing, the series has the potential to delve into some rather exciting new developments in the field of materials science.  It starts with strong materials (Jan 19), followed by small materials (nanomaterials – Jan 26), leading into materials designed to make the world a cleaner, more sustainable place to live (Feb 2) and ends up examining the world of “smart” materials (Feb 9).

Making Stuff kicks off January 19 – watch the series, and let me know what you think!

As I report on the Risk Science Blog, the latest iteration of the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report has dropped “Nanoparticle Toxicity” as an emerging and significant risk.  Instead, the far more generic “Threats from New Technologies” takes its place.

This is a welcome move – but I do have some reservations.

Certainly, identifying nanoparticles as a specific risk made little sense – research and thinking over the past few years has indicated not only how heterogeneous nanoparticles themselves are, but also the range of risks they are likely to present (spanning negligible to probably significant).  Perhaps more importantly, the possibility of nanoparticles to cause harm is exceedingly context-dependent, making it very dificult to generalize about risks.

Replacing nanoparticles with new technologies does introduce a placeholder for a far more interesting and potential worrysome array of technologies – including specific applications of nanoscale science and technology.  It also opens the way for discussions on the potential risks of technology platforms such as synthetic biology, geoengineering and robotics (just three of many).

But the sheer breadth of this placeholder surely makes it somewhat meaningless – how can you place an – albeit subjective number – on the likelihood and magnitude of “new technologies” creating problems in the future?

So while it’s good that the placeholder is there, there is a lot more work to be done in unpacking it, and having evidence-grounded discussions on the potential impacts of plausible and specific technologies.

Global Risks 2011 can be downloaded here. The website also allows the information presented in the report to be explored in greater depth.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/01/12/nanoparticle-toxicity-dropped-from-the-world-economic-forum-global-risks-report/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2011/01/04/us-national-nanotechnology-initiative-draft-ehs-strategy-good-in-part/ http://2020science.org/2011/01/04/us-national-nanotechnology-initiative-draft-ehs-strategy-good-in-part/#comments Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:51:39 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3972

Update 1/6/11: The comment period has been extended to January 21

There are only two days left to comment on the current draft US National Nanotechnology Initiative Environmental, Health and Safety strategy (the comment period closes January 6) – so time to read the draft, log in to the portal and add your comments.

This is actually a rather important opportunity for anyone with an interest in the development of safe and successful nanotechnology-based applications to the US government in developing and implementing a strong safety research strategy.

I finished reviewing the draft strategy this afternoon and submitted my thoughts – admittedly over five comments, given the just-slightly frustrating cap on 4000 characters per comment.  Just so that all the words appear in one place at least somewhere, I’ve included a copy of my comments below.

I must confess I tried to be positive in my comments – despite suggesting (a little naughtily) that trashing 75% of the report might make it better!  Admittedly there were plenty of things here that worried me – failing to ground an analysis on what needs to be done on what has already been achieved; a sorry excuse for a chapter on risk assessment and management; and a reliance on project numbers and $$ as indicators of whether research needs are being adequately addressed, to name just a few.  But there was also a ray of sunshine at the end of the report – a chapter that holds the seeds of a coordinated approach to nanotech risk research that could well work – even within the limitations of an inter agency initiative with no budget and no authority.  As I note below, this could form the core of an effective cross-agency strategy that focuses more on a framework for enabling targeted and responsive research, rather than the research itself.

Oh, and I was also pleased to see that, in response to criticisms from the National Research Council after the previous strategy, there is now an in-your-face mission statement – just so no-one misses it this time round.

The NNI strategy portal can be accessed here – comments on the EHS strategy need to be submitted by close of business (presumably) on January 6.

Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health and Safety Strategy

Andrew Maynard

Director, University of Michigan Risk Science Center

Submitted Jan 4 2011

The close of 2010 marked the tenth anniversary of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  Over the NNI’s first decade, the potential health and environmental impacts of the products of nanotechnology – engineered nanomaterials in particular – have moved from being of relatively minor concern to having a significant supporting role in the US federal government’s nanotechnology strategy.  Reflecting this, the federal government – under the auspices of the Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications working group (NEHI) – has published a series of documents and strategies aimed at coordinating, focusing and stimulating agency research addressing the safety of engineered nanomaterials.  On December 6 2010, the NEHI invited comments on the latest in this series of documents – the draft National Nanotechnology Initiative 2011 Environmental, Health and Safety Strategy.  The following comments respond to this request.

In developing a cross-agency research strategy, the NNI is in something of a difficult position.  Neither the NNI, NSET (the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Technology Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology) or the NEHI have budgetary, policy or operations authority over the federal agencies they represent.  So developing and implementing a research strategy that is both actionable and accountable is a tough challenge.  At the same time, urgent, coordinated, responsive and substantive action is needed across federal agencies according to the NEHI and other organizations, if the safe development and use of engineered nanomaterials is to be ensured.  This begs the question: how can the NEHI respond to this urgent need, without the conventional tools of resources and authority that usually back up a strategy?  Or to be more specific, does the current draft environmental, health and safety strategy manage to “pull it off”?

Having read the draft carefully, I think the answer is no.  But, there are some rather bright glimmers of hope here.  In reviewing the draft document, my first instinct was to conduct a line-by-line evaluation of the content – what is missing, what is redundant, what doesn’t make sense, what could be expressed better, and what could be developed further.  But this would have missed the central question of whether the strategy enables what needs to be done to be done, and if it doesn’t, how could it be different – within the constraints of a cross-agency document?  This therefore is where the bulk of my comments focus.

To start with, it’s worth asking what the federal government hopes to achieve here?  I’m pleased to say that the mission is clear in the draft  – protect public health and the environment, use science-based risk analysis and management approaches, and foster technological advances that benefit society.  This is where the government is going – a nanotechnology-enabled future where people are healthy, and risk-based decision-making is informed by science.  With this established, the next logical question is how are they going to get there – which also prompts the supporting question of where are they now?

This is where the draft strategy gets a little shaky.

The question of where the federal government – and the field of nanomaterial safety – is now – is addressed in a somewhat lateral and obscure way within the draft document.  Research needs are based in part on recommendations from a series of stakeholder workshops that presumably reflected the state of the science – but in almost all cases they are presented as a given, with little or no justification or rationale.  This demands a great deal of trust from the reader – especially as the draft strategy is rather sparse on citations that support the statements being made.  But more importantly, the document provides no indication of the extent to which progress has already been made towards each research need to date – both within and beyond the confines of the federal government – and what still needs to be done to achieve the strategy’s stated mission. What we are left with is a one-sided list of research areas that – while important – are presented with very little context.  What context there is tends to focus on the number and cost of federally-funded research projects in specific areas.  On occasion this is useful information – especially where there is no research being funded in a particular area – but I struggled to understand how these numbers indicated research and information gaps than need to be filled if concrete progress is to be made towards the draft strategy’s stated mission.

On the issue of how the federal government intends getting to where it wants to be, the draft is something of a mixed bag.  Chapters 1 – 6 – which form the bulk of the document – provide next to no insight into how the NEHI and its respective agencies intend to address the research and information gaps that are identified.  Chapter 7 is different.  Addressing the need for new actions and initiatives on working with data (informatics and modeling), it is still more focused on needs than solutions.  But it does provide a number of clear challenges to agencies on how they work with data if they are to make progress.  And as an aside, it also presents some of the more innovative and interesting ideas to appear in the document.

However, it is chapter 8 – The Path Forward – where the draft document becomes particularly interesting.

In chapter 8, there is a move toward developing an approach that will help nudge federal agencies towards where the NEHI feel they should be, that begins to get around the limitations inherent in a cross-agency group. This comes in two parts – a set of principles that will help encourage agencies to move in the right direction, and a framework that supports the NEHI and the Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) in implementing the strategy.

The principles addresses six areas: (in my words) prioritizing nanomaterials of interest; establishing systems for reproducible, reliable and translatable research; helping ensure high quality data; coupling research to different risk assessment needs; partnering with stakeholders and engaging with the international community.   These form the beginnings of a robust framework that sets the scene for ensuring relevant and responsive research is conducted, rather than dictating who does what.  It is a welcome move.  The six areas make sense, and are well articulated.  My only slight concern is that there is perhaps too strong an emphasis on standard measurements, terminology and nomenclature.  These are important – but it must always be acknowledged that they are a means to an end only, not an end in themselves, and that there are areas of research that can be stifled by an over-zealous application of standards.

The implementation and coordination framework that follows articulates eight areas where the NEHI and participating agencies can and are taking action together.  These include the extremely welcome appointment of a named Environment, Health and Safety coordinator within the NNCO, the exploitation of digital media and networking opportunities, and the facilitation of partnerships with industry.

Talking a high-level look at the draft strategy, if I was to suggest radical revisions, I would recommend ditching chapters 1 – 6, and developing chapter 8 as the core of the strategy.  This is somewhat drastic – and no doubt unfeasible. But augmented by the many other reports that exist in the public domain outlining (again and again) research needs addressing nanomaterial safety, this chapter holds the seed of an approach that enables federal agencies to work together to address a common set of goals in response to these needs.  And it is an approach that has the potential of working within the constraints of an interagency initiative.

But this still begs the question – would this be enough? Using such an approach, could the NEHI enable the federal government to make substantial progress in ensuring the safety of engineered nanomaterials and the products they are used in – to get to where they want to be?  As the document stands, I think the answer is still no.  But there is promise here.

So what would it take to craft a federal strategy that enabled agencies to work together more effectively in ensuring the safe use of nanomaterials?  I’m not sure that this is entirely possible – an internal strategy will always be constrained by the system in ways that an externally-crafted strategy isn’t.  But I do think that there are three areas in particular that could be built on here:

1. Principles. The idea of establishing principles to which agencies sign up to is a powerful one, and could be extended further.  For instance, they could include a commitment to working closely and cooperatively with other agencies, to working toward a common set of aims, and to critically reviewing progress towards these aims on a regular basis.
2. Accountability. The implementation and coordination framework set out in chapter 8 of the draft strategy contains a number of items that, with a bit of work, some group within the federal government could be held accountable to.  Formally, the NNCO would seem to be the most appropriate organization to be held responsible for progress here.  With accountability for actions that support the implementation and coordination of the strategy, a basis could be built for an actionable strategy, rather than wishful thinking.
3. Innovation. So often in documents like this, there is a sense of defeatism – “this is the system, and there’s nothing we can do to change it”.  Yet there are always innovative ways to circumvent institutional barriers in order to achieve specific ends.  I would strongly encourage the NEHI to start from the question “where to we want to go, and how are we going to get there”, rather than “what are we allowed to do”, and from this starting point explore innovative ways of making substantive and measurable progress towards the stated mission of the strategy.  Just one possibility here is to use the model of the Signature Initiatives being developed elsewhere within the NNI – which overcome institutional barriers to encourage agencies to focus on a common challenge.  Something similar to a Signature Initiative focused on predictive modeling, or personal exposure measurement, or nanomaterial characterization, could enable highly coordinated and integrated cross-agency programs that accelerate progress toward specific goals.  But this is just one possibility – there are surely many more ways of getting round the system!

In conclusion, the draft strategy is constrained by the challenges of working across federal agencies, contains a lot of information that doesn’t necessarily add tremendous value to addressing the stated mission, yet holds the seed of an effective strategy that could succeed within the constraints the NEHI is working under.

A few weeks ago, I gave a talk at the Contemporary Arts Center in Cincinnati under the slightly provocative title “Small Gods and the Art of Technology Innovation”.  The talk is now available on-line (slides and audio at least) – and viewable below – through the excellent work of the folk at CAC.

Rather sneakily, I used the opportunity to talk to a (mainly) lay audience about risk science in the 21st century – did I get away with it I wonder…?

Which were the most popular 2020 Science blogs of 2010?  In reverse order, based on page views, here are the ten most-read posts:

10.  Just how risky can nanoparticles in sunscreens be? Friends of the Earth respond

A guest blog from Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato at Friends of the Earth, responding to a challenge I set them on addressing the safety of nanomaterials in sunscreens. http://2020science.org/2010/06/15/just-how-risky-can-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens-be-friends-of-the-earth-respond/ The post responds to this blog, and I respond in turn here.

9.  Have iPad, will travel – 48 hours on the road with Apple’s iPad

Celebrating the launch of Apple’s iPad, I try and justify its use as a serious productivity tool.  I must have bought into my own hype, because I ended up purchasing my own later in the year.  So far – no regrets!  http://2020science.org/2010/04/17/have-ipad-will-travel/

8.  Texas Instruments Graphing calculators – essential math teaching aid, or a scam?

A piece on my continuing unease over the use of graphing calculators in US middle schools.  http://2020science.org/2010/07/11/texas-instruments-graphing-calculators-essential-math-teaching-aid-or-a-scam/

7.  Lost in the Maize – First Person Shooter video games

My son’s justification as to why he should be allowed to play first person shooters (in response to this, I relented and lifted the ban!) http://2020science.org/2010/12/10/lost-in-the-maize-13/

6.  Knitting science

A slightly whimsical piece about the surprisingly rich intersection between knitting and science.  http://2020science.org/2010/07/25/knitting-science/

5.  UK House of Lords scrutinizes nanotechnology and food

British Lords apply their insight and common sense to the use of nanotechnology in food products. http://2020science.org/2010/01/07/uk-house-of-lords-scrutinizes-nanotechnology-and-food/

4.  Engaging the public on science? Surely you’re joking!

Some excellent publications from Research Councils UK on science and public engagement. http://2020science.org/2010/03/10/engaging-the-public-on-science-surely-youre-joking/

3.  Ben Goldacre, what were you thinking?!

I question some of sound science-champion Ben Goldacre’s remarks – he questions my comments, and a rare old flame-fight ensues! http://2020science.org/2010/05/01/ben-goldacre-what-were-you-thinking/

2.  Nanotechnology researchers at sea when it comes to safety

Rather than being about the safe handling of nanomaterials, this blog examined a paper in the journal Nature Nanotechnology on safe working practices, and found it somewhat wanting. http://2020science.org/2010/02/02/nanotechnology-researchers-at-sea-on-safety-issues/

1.  The secrets of engaging teens with science

Sophia Collins’ guest post on I’m A Scientist, Get Me Out of Here.  http://2020science.org/2010/04/13/im-a-scientist-get-me-out-of-here/ Interested in participating in the most exciting and innovative science engagement event of 2011? – you can still sign up for the next rounds of I’m A Scientist here.

More information on top blogs and viewing figures can be found on the 2020 Science Facebook page.

Hegswarm – what a great word!  Far more elegant and versatile than the “Gray Goo” that has nibbled at the heels of nanotechnology for the past decade.

Over the holiday break, I’ve escaped academia for the relative sanity of family reunions and mince pies, and have been catching up on some reading.  Currently I’m in the middle of Iain M. Banks’ latest novel Surface Detail – which presents a disturbing yet compelling vision of a future where mind-states can be moved between biological (i.e. gray matter) and digital (i.e. computer) media, and the idea of an afterlife becomes an engineered reality.  However, what grabbed my attention yesterday while reading the book was Banks’ concept of a “hegenomising swarm,” or “hegswarm”.

These he describes as outbreaks where

“…by accident or design – a set of self-replicating entities ran out of control somewhere and started trying to turn the totality of the galaxy’s matter into nothing but copies of themselves.”

He adds

“It was a problem as old as life in the galaxy, and arguably hegswarms were just that; another legitimate – if rather overenthusiastic – galactic form of life.”

Passing over his rather delicious allusion to questionable human traits, this seemed the perfect extension of the idea of self-replicating nanobots – the mythical constructions that turn everything in their path into copies of themselves.

Maybe as the nanotechnology is re-invented under the “Nano2” banner we need another nano-bogeyman to help it along – in which case, I nominate the nano-hegswarm as the number one contender.

But, I must confess, all this is really just an excuse to pull out one of my favorite nanotech videos for the holiday season – Ransom Riggs‘ rather excellent if entirely fictitious short “Destroy Civilization with Nanotechnology… in Just Six Amazing Steps.”

Enjoy, have  great holiday, and watch out for those hegswarms!

Getting an unbiased perspective on nanotechnology is probably as close to impossible as you can get.  Governments invest in nanotech because they believe in its ability to inspire new research and stimulate economies and social change.  Corporations invest in nanotech because they think it will give them an edge in a hyper-competitive world.  Neither is likely to tell you that nanotechnology is not a good thing, without having very strong reasons to do so.  And NGO’s?  Non Government Organizations come in so many flavors that about the only generality that can be made is that they exist for a purpose – and that purpose is rarely based on an unbiased world-view.

One of the more vocal NGO’s in the nanotechnology arena has been the Canadian-based ETC Group. Formerly the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, ETC is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.  To this end they often cast a critical eye on big-government and big-business-driven technology developments which – in their estimation – threaten to undermine the cultural, environmental and human rights values they adhere to.

Back in 2002, ETC called for a mandatory moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in products, based on growing concerns over the uncertain health impacts of some nanomaterials.  The call didn’t win them many friends in government or industry, and established the group as having an aggressive social agenda as they raised questions about the emerging field.

Then in 2005, the ETC Group surveyed the political landscape of nanotechnology (through their eyes) in a special report on “nanogeopolitics”.  They concluded

“With public confidence in both private and government science at an all-time low, full societal dialogue on nano-scale technological convergence is critical. It is not for scientists to “educate” the public but for society to determine the goals and processes for the technologies they finance. There is no need for a sui generis (and inevitably voluntary) code of conduct for nanotech, but there is need for a much broader and legally-binding International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). South governments negotiating commodity and manufacturing trade-offs at the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong in December will be asked to give away sovereignty in exchange for market access for raw materials or finished goods that may quickly become irrelevant with nanotechnology’s development.”

Now, ETC have revisited the nanogeopolitical landscape with a follow-up report: The Big Downturn?

This is clearly an assessment with an agenda – the ideology behind it is that technology development doesn’t by default enhance cultural and ecological diversity and human rights, that the actions of big-government and big-business need to be held up to close scrutiny, and that those with a vested interest in developing new technologies cannot be trusted to develop them responsibly without the support of a strong international regulatory framework.

That said, it is a well-researched report that is worth taking seriously – especially because it provides a worthy counterweight to pro-nano assessments.

Don’t get me wrong, this is not an unbiased report.  Evidence is weighed on the scales of social and environmental justice, with an eye to confirming what was already assumed.  Because of this, some pieces of information are missing, and others are given a somewhat less negative assessment than they perhaps warrant.  And there is often what I would consider a naive perspective on what nanotechnology actually is, or the effectiveness of hard regulation in ensuring safe and socially beneficial technology development.

Yet many of the evaluations in areas that I am familiar with do the source material justice, and reflect concerns that have been articulated by others.  The information presented in the report – backed up by over 400 citations – is informative, and is delivered in a style – intentionally I’m sure – not too dissimilar from a number of frequently quoted commercial nanotech analyses.  In some cases, the report doesn’t even go as far as I would have expected.  For instance, it stops short of examining the socioeconomic ramifications to developing economies of trying to keep up with the US/EU/Russia/Asia nanotech machine – perhaps more out of fear of being left behind rather than the certainty of social and economic growth.

Ultimately, this is a report that is a foil to assessments coming from pro-nanotechnology sources, which are almost always biased in the opposite direction, and in this role it is a useful resource.

If you have a vested interest in nanotechnology succeeding commercially, or are dependent on nanotechnology-related funding, or are ideologically-committed to the concept of technology-driven social development, you tend to think more carefully about writing stuff that could undermine a nanotechnology-future than you do about writing stuff that might support it. This is a bias that infuses government and industry reports.  It’s also a bias that I admit appears in the stuff that I write – I do adhere to the idea that technology-based solutions can help address pressing issues.  And that’s OK – it’s the way things work.

But it is important to recognize this bias.  And to balance it out by considering alternative perspectives.

This latest nanotech report from ETC does need to be read with open eyes.  But it does present an important counter-view that should be taken seriously as technologies such as nanotechnology are developed and deployed.

In reading it, you probably won’t agree with everything, and may occasionally find yourself having to resist the urge hit something – or someone.  But it does provide a comprehensive and important perspective on the broader social and political ramifications of the push to develop nanotechnology.

But that’s just my opinion – you might want to read it for yourself, just to check how off the mark I am!

I’m feeling a little lazy today, so this is a cross-posting from the University of Michigan Risk Science Center newsletter.  It draws in part on the talk I gave at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center this past weekend as part of their “where do we go from here?” series.  The whole setup at CAC by the way was excellent – engaged audience, great space, and wonderful staff.

Slow exposure of a complex pendulum, used to illustrate the challenges of addressing risks in a technology-dependent and integrated world.

In early December, I found myself in the bizarre position of giving a public lecture on risk science at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center. Despite the seemingly strange juxtaposition of art, risk and science, together with my wife’s admonitions of “what do you know about art anyway?!” it was an immensely gratifying event – not least because it forced me to think about what risk science means to people who aren’t in the risk business.

The question of what risk science is was one that I had tackled a couple of weeks previously at the inaugural Charles and Rita Gelman Risk Science Professorship lecture. Here, I argued that in a complex world, blindly following our instincts can actually increase the chances of people being harmed. What we need is a systematic and unbiased way of addressing human health risks. Science provides a great solution here – by focusing on prediction, evidence and correction, it factors human foibles out of the decision-making process; at least in principle.    Hence “risk science” as a basis for evidence-driven decision-making.

But then I asked – is this vision of risk science enough to keep us healthy, wealthy and wise in the 21st century? The answer was no. Hard data are clearly critical to informed decision-making. But the numbers just aren’t aren’t enough when it comes to making decisions within increasingly complex and highly interconnected systems. In today’s society, we also need to understand and respond to a whole host of other factors that influence the effects associated with certain courses of action. In other words, if we are to make effective decisions on human health risks in the 21st century, our concept of “science” in “risk science” needs to expand to cover expertise in the social, economic and political sciences and beyond.

As you might imagine, this was the starting point for some interesting conversations at the Contemporary Arts Center. And one that particularly intrigued me was the question of how you help people make good decisions on risk in the face of all this complexity and interconnectedness? How do you forge connections between people that increase the chances of them making evidence- based and socially-responsive decision-making? One of the answers was – unsurprisingly given the setting – through art. Where facts fail, art enables connections to be made and understanding to flow between people in ways that circumvent our struggle to make sense of cold numbers.

Which begs the question – is “risk science” broad enough to embrace the arts as well, or do we need to start thinking about a complimentary field of “risk arts?”

The Risk Science Center newsletter with the original piece can be read here.

The US National Nanotechnology Initiative’s latest iteration of its Environmental, Health and Safety Research Strategy has just been posted on-line for public comment.  Between now and January 6, anyone who is interested is encouraged to read the draft and comment on the on-line portal – hopefully sparking a dialogue which will strengthen the final document.

You may remember that the previous strategy was given a bit of a hard time by the National Academies of Science – less for its substance than for the way it was – or wasn’t – brought together in a research strategy.  It’ll be interesting to see how things have evolved over the past couple of years or so.

I haven’t read the draft strategy yet, but I’m hopeful that this will be a stronger document.  For one thing, it builds on input from a wide range of non-government experts.  For another, the feds have taken the bold but extremely welcome step of initiating a public review period.  This makes a lot of sense – it provides another chance to iron out those niggling mistakes that everyone makes while writing documents, and it helps a broader community to be a part of the process, rather than just passive recipients.

I’ll be posting comments on the draft over the next few weeks – within the constraint that I am currently also working on the National Academies panel developing a complementary strategy.  But in the meantime, I would encourage anyone with the slightest interest in the potential health and environmental impacts of engineered nanomaterials to read the report, and join the conversation.

The on-line portal can be accessed here.

And before I go, I can’t resist noting that, once again, comments are restricted to 4000 characters.  I am so tempted to tweet my comments, just to get into the spirit of things!  The good news is that multiple posts are allowed!

There’s something rather liberating about being asked to give a no-holds talk on your perspective on life, the universe and everything.  So when the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center asked if I would speak as part of their “Where do we go from here?” series, I jumped at it.

No holds barred is probably an exaggeration – I’ve been asked to talk about my perspective on what we face in the future and how we re going to handle it.  And I should probably be mindful of the audience’s sensibilities.  But even so, that’s a pretty large almost-blank canvas to work with.

And to fill this canvas, I’m going to talk about “small gods”.

Actually, I’m going to talk about risk – which is at least something I know a bit about.  But the central question here is whether we are up to handling the future.  Are we sufficiently aware of our limitations that we are able to build a better future through partnerships and humility?  Or are we merely “small gods” – people with a smidgen of power who mistakenly think they rule the world?

And as you would expect, I will be grounding this in technology innovation.  Of course, tech innovation is only one factor influencing the future.  But it is a pretty important one – there aren’t many global issues that either haven’t been enabled or exacerbated by technology innovation (WikiLeaks comes to mind as the issue of the moment), or couldn’t be handled better through a more effective use of tech innovation.

Here’s the official blurb:

Some believe human ingenuity can solve all ills. Some believe technology will transform the world. Some believe we are on the verge of creating life and bending it to our will. Some people believe we are gods. But what if we are small gods–knowing just enough to be dangerous as we flex our technological muscles? Looking to the future, we are facing some of the greatest challenges in human history. We will turn to technology as we strive to build a sustainable future–we already are. But how do we ensure the technologies we embrace do more good than harm? As we ‘go from here’ into an uncertain future, how do we avoid the temptation to act like small gods and learn to harness the power of technology for good?

And just in case you are interested, here’s the slightly longer (but not half so catchy) summary that I’ll use as my starting point:

We are at a turning point in human history.  People are more technologically capable than they have ever been. Scientists and engineers are developing a unsurpassed mastery over the building blocks of everything around us – from atoms and molecules to the DNA that defines every living organism.  Yet as a species we face unprecedented challenges – ensuring upward of seven billion people can live comfortably in a shrinking and interconnected world where food, water and energy are increasingly precious resources.  As our technological prowess is matched by the growing challenges we face, it is by no means clear over whether our actions will take us to a future heaven or hell.

How we navigate this uncertain future depends on one small, four letter word – “risk”.  In the 21st century, risk – and how we handle it – will influence everything from curing cancer to putting food on the table to enhancing human abilities.  Technologies that are just over the horizon have the potential to profoundly change our lives.  Designer life forms; while-you-wait personal genome sequencing; climate-engineering; drugs designed to make you smarter; batteries made by viruses -  these and other innovations are on their way – some are happening now.  Each has the potential to make our lives better.  But the consequences of getting them wrong are far from certain.  As we develop them, we need to ask: Are we truly masters of our universe, or are we merely small gods – with just enough knowledge to cause a lot of damage?

How we deal with risk makes all the difference.  Business as usual – and we run the danger of becoming small gods. Thinking – and acting – differently about risk, and we have the chance to build a better world.

As we move on from here into a technologically complex future, which will it be?

The talk is at 4:00 PM on December 11, at the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center.

Update 12/6/10:  Got the time wrong!!  Talk starts at 4:00 PM on the 11th.

As you’ll have gathered from last week’s Lost in the Maize, I’ve been on the road this week.  In fact, I am writing this on the plane back to Detroit, looking forward to a quick wash, shave, sleep, and catch-up with family, before heading off to the Society for Risk Analysis annual meeting in Salt Lake City next week.  It’s been a long, busy week, but overall a good one.  I succeeded in getting in and out of London, despite the snow.  I had the luxury of expanding a 20 minute talk to a 40 minute lecture at the British Thoracic Society (we were two speakers down due to the weather).  I even managed to get a bit of real work done.

But the highlight of the trip was probably the World Economic Forum Summit on the Global Agenda in Dubai.

This is a rather unique meeting. Every year, the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils bring together several hundred of the world’s foremost thinkers, decision-makers and decision-influencers to grapple with some of the biggest challenges facing global society – ranging from poverty to financial and political stability to organized crime to social justice and equity.  Within this eclectic mix, I chair the Global Agenda Council on Emerging Technologies – a council focused on addressing the potential of emerging technologies to address global issues, and the dangers of getting technology innovation wrong.  We have around a dozen experts on the council from industry, government and academia, and meet via teleconference through the year to identify and address key global issues associated with emerging technologies.

And once a year, we meet in person with all the other Global Agenda Councils in the United Arab Emirates – for the past three years we have been in Dubai.
As you can imagine, it’s quite a meeting:  Around 600 leading thinkers brought together for two and a half days, with the express purpose of mixing it up and exchanging ideas and perspectives – stimulating new insights into tough global challenges.

The format is split between individual council sessions, formal cross-council dialogues, and networking opportunities – with a few plenaries and summing-up sessions thrown in.  Of course, the council sessions are where the hard work gets done.  But it’s the networking and cross-council meetings where the fun stuff happens.

There’s something rather invigorating about talking with senior policy makers, corporate executives, civil society and religious leaders, and some rather smart academics.  Especially when they are interested in what you have to say.  I’m not sure whether it’s the seniority of the participants or the fact that we come from such diverse backgrounds, but there is remarkably little ego at this meeting – on the whole, participants readily acknowledge the limits of their own knowledge, and are eager to discover how they can work with others to address complex issues.

This becomes particularly apparent outside the formal meetings.  There is a unique willingness at the summit for people to strike up conversations with strangers – over lunch or drinks, or just because you happen to be standing next to each other.  And given the rather broad range of expertise floating around, conversations can be both enlightening and serendipitous.  There aren’t too many other meetings I know of where you can talk international financing, religion, technology innovation and space tourism over dinner with the foremost experts in each area!

But of course all this activity also makes it a pretty demanding meeting – especially if you are chairing a council.  On the two full days of the summit, I was working flat out between 6 in the morning and 10 at night on council business.  And after that, I had the “day job” to do – making sure that the Risk Science Center was running smoothly, compiling material for upcoming presentations and keeping up with the usual flood of emails – finally falling into bed between 1 and 2 each morning.

Nevertheless, it was worth it.  Beyond the stimulation of meeting with such an interesting bunch of people, the Council on Emerging Technologies has the potential to make an impact – visibility, and access to senior decision-makers is one of the great advantages of working with the World Economic Forum.  Don’t get me wrong – we are only a small council and so have to choose what we focus on carefully.  But we do have an opportunity to push the opportunities and challenges of developing responsible and responsive new technologies up the political and corporate agenda.  And in a world that is increasingly technology-dependent, that’s kind of important.

But I must confess, after all the excitement, I am looking forward to a bit of sleep.

Before the next round of meeting madness!

In an interconnected world, global issues demand integrative solutions.  It’s a statement that many people would agree with – in systems where associations between cause and effect are complex, you ignore synergistic inter-relationships between factors at your peril.

But when it comes to technology innovation, it seems that the rules don’t apply.

This week I am at the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils meeting in Dubai – I’m chairing the Council on Emerging Technologies.   Our task is deceptively simple: How do we as a society ensure emerging technologies support responsive, sustainable and resilient solutions to global issues, without them leading to new problems? But as we are learning, finding answers is not easy.  And the first hurdle we face is convincing people of the need to think holistically about emerging technologies.

It seems that all too often, for all the talk of integrative solutions to global issues, when it comes to technology innovation integration is the last thing on people’s minds.

I was forcibly reminded of the uphill struggle we face this afternoon, listening to BBC World News presenter Nik Gowing.  Gowing was moderating a debate on natural resource scarcity, to be broadcast on the BBC World Service in a few days’ time.  The debate addressed a specific question: As global population rises toward 9 billion people and the demand for natural resources such as water, food, oil and minerals increases, how do we meet the challenge of making diminishing resources go further?  On the panel were Louise Arbour, President and Chief Executive Officer of the International Crisis Group (ICG); James Cameron, Vice-chairman of Climate Change Capital; He Yafel, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the United Nations; Malini Mehra, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Social Markets (CSM) and Kevin Rudd, Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs.

I was interested to see how systemic the panel’s thinking was on potential solutions, and in particular what their take was on the role of technology innovation.  So I was just a little surprised when the “technology count” – the number of times that technology was raised as part of the solution to dwindling resources – came out as a resounding zero.  This was a discussion on issues that are deeply influenced by technology innovation, which revolved exclusively around social, political and economic perspectives.

I was left wondering whether technology was not on the table simply because it is seen as too complex, or whether there was a naive assumption that, as crises arise, scientists and engineers will simply pull a metaphorical white rabbit out of their technology magic hat.

To be fair, the debate was specifically framed in terms of social, political and economic drivers.  But I have to wonder: if integrative solutions are the key to complex and interdependent issues like resource depletion, how can we ensure that technology innovation is part of the conversation, rather than a somewhat optimistic bolt-on?

This concern is fueled by many similar experiences, and is one reason why raising awareness of the need to integrate an understanding of emerging technologies into dialogues on a multitude of global issues is high on the Council on Emerging Technologies’ agenda.

And no-where is this more important than in responses to global risks. As society faces new systemic risks, emerging technologies have three key roles to play.  They can provide tools that enable emergent risks to be monitored, tracked and better-understood; they offer potential solutions to addressing emerging issues; and they can act as agents of change which may lead to a dramatically altered risk-landscape.  But for the positive potential that is nascent in emerging technologies to be realized, integrative approaches to their development are essential.  The danger of neglecting to do this is a potential failure of emerging technologies to lead to workable solutions to pressing issues.  Or worse – the emergence of technologies that instead of reducing risks, lead to greater risks.

Of course, there are many discussions taking place on how emerging technologies might solve global problems.  But they are usually separate from the social, economic and political factors that so often drive decision-making.  And in a technologically complex and interconnected world, this is a recipe for disaster.

In moving forward, emerging technologies need to be brought in from the cold.  They need to be moved up the global agenda.  And they need to take their place alongside social, economic and policy factors in crafting integrative solutions to interconnected issues.  Because the one thing we can be sure of is that if we don’t take an integrative approach to emerging technologies, when we most need a technology “white rabbit,” the hat will be empty!

I should add that even though I am the chair of the Emerging Technologies Council, these are my own views, and do not necessarily reflect those of the council.

Quick update 11/30/10: Tim Harper – fellow Council member – has just posted this helpful piece on the definition of emerging technologies: http://cientifica.eu/blog/2010/11/the-long-journey-from-nanotechnology-to-emerging-technologies/

As Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, it’s probably not surprising that I’m constantly being asked “what on earth is risk science?”  What is surprising is how hard it is to come up with a clear and concise answer.  Which is why I decided to spend a good portion of my “installation” lecture the other week developing the idea of what I think of as being Risk Science.

As the lecture is now available on-line, I thought it worth posting a link to it just in case anyone is interested. But with a huge caveat – the sound quality is abysmal!

Ironically – as the Risk Science Center is very much focused on communication – this is a great example of how not to use on-line videos of lectures to communicate.  In fact, if it wasn’t for the fact that there’s some useful content here, I would bury the video out of shame, and pretend that it never existed.

The AV folk are going to try and clean the sound up (good luck to them!), and if they succeed, I might think about chopping this up into more accessible chunks.  But for now, on the assumption that there may be one person at least out there who might find this of use, here’s the link:

Building a Sustainable Future – The Role of Risk Science

The interesting stuff begins around five minutes in by the way, after all the pomp and ceremony.

And just in case you are interested in a more accessible account of my perspective on risk science, I was pleased with Gwyneth Shaw’s recent write-up in the New Haven Independent, under the headline A Call For Stepping Up “Risk Science”

(The PDF of the slides associated with the lecture are available here, but I’m not sure how useful they are without the accompanying narrative)

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/11/28/risk-science-a-personal-perspective/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2010/11/21/risk-uncertainty-and-sustainable-innovation-feedback-sought-on-symposium-blurb/ http://2020science.org/2010/11/21/risk-uncertainty-and-sustainable-innovation-feedback-sought-on-symposium-blurb/#comments Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:11:24 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3837

Despite the risk of receiving absolutely no comments (please don’t let me down!), I thought I’d try something new and ask for some feedback on the background blurb for a meeting I’ve been working on.

The meeting is a symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation being organized by the Risk Science center next September.  I’ve been struggling with the blurb for this meeting before it goes out – especially striking the balance between something that captures the imagination (and hopefully the attention) of potential speakers, sponsors and attendees, and something that has clarity and substance.

The text below is my latest draft.  What I would love to know – today ideally (knowing that you all are desperate for something to break the boredom of a Sunday afternoon) – is whether in your opinion this works, whether it is fluff without substance, whether it is the perfect insomnia cure, or whatever.

Please, please add your comments below – no matter how brief, or how qualified/unqualified you feel you are to say something.

Thank you!

Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation

New perspectives on emerging challenges

As we strive to build a sustainable future, do we need to rethink the relationship between risk, uncertainty and innovation?  Today’s accelerating rate of technology innovation promises profound personal, social and economic advances. But in an ever-more complex, interconnected and resource-constrained world, sustainable innovation is jeopardized by emergent risks, together with increasing uncertainty over potential benefits and impacts.  And no-where is this more apparent than at the intersection between technology innovation and human health.  Drawing on thought-leaders from a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, this symposium provides a unique forum for exploring new ideas on integrative approaches to health risks, uncertainty and innovation, as we look to develop sustainable solutions to global challenges.

Background: As technologies become more sophisticated, pressures on global resources grow and society becomes ever-more interconnected, governments, businesses and citizens are facing increasingly complex challenges as they strive to build an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future. Over the past century, technology innovation has accelerated to the point where scientists and engineers have greater control over materials, organisms and systems – from the atomic scale to the planetary scale – that ever before.  This has facilitated a radical shift in global communication, leading to an interconnected society where the flow of information, ideas and influence transcends geographical, economic and social boundaries.  At the same time, a growing and increasingly plugged-in world population is placing unprecedented demands on ever-scarcer global resources.

The result is a world where innovation is both a driver of and a potential source of solutions to an increasing number of emerging global challenges.

If we are to adapt and thrive in this changing world, we urgently need to better-enable sustainable innovation – the sustainable development of relevant and responsive new understanding, processes and products that support long-term advances in the quality of human life and the environment.  Yet sustainable innovation is inextricably intertwined with risk – particularly the danger of causing harm to human health – and uncertainty over the consequences of our actions.

Technology innovation leads to emergent risks – the likelihood of causing harm in a manner that is not apparent, assessable or manageable based on current approaches to risk assessment and management.  The more complex and rapid the innovation, the greater the chances of perceived or actual risks emerging that require new and responsive approaches to minimizing their impact.  But as a clear understanding of risks and how to manage them will always lag behind innovation, technology innovation is also dogged by uncertainty – particularly over how a specific course of action may lead to harm, and how this can be avoided.

If innovation is to support sustainable solutions to 21^st century challenges, new and integrative approaches to risk and uncertainty are required.  New insight is needed on the interplay between risk, uncertainty and sustainable innovation.  Methods of moving risk-based decision-making upstream in the innovation cycle need to be explored.  And greater understanding of is needed on enabling collaborative decisions within an increasingly interconnected society in the face of uncertainty.

These are the challenges explored in the 2011 Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation. Drawing on thought-leaders in industry, government, academia, the media and other sectors, the symposium will provide a unique opportunity to explore new ideas on sustainable innovation in the face of growing global challenges, emergent risks to human health, and increasing uncertainty over the potential benefits and consequences of technology innovation.

Friends of the Earth have just released a new report challenging claims that nanotechnology will lead to greener, more energy-efficient technologies, lower-impact technologies.

I’ve only had the chance to skim through the report so far, and so don’t have detailed comments on it.  But on my initial skim a number of things struck me:

• The report is written from a specific perspective that questions the validity of claims made of nanotechnology – especially that it will “deliver energy technologies that are efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sound”
• It is pretty comprehensive, covering nanotechnology and solar energy, wind energy, hydrogen energy, oil and gas extraction, batteries, supercapacitors, nanocoatings and insulators, catalysis and reinforced parts for airplanes and cars.
• However, it doesn’t cover all nano-applications in the energy sector.  Two examples are the use of heterogeneous catalysts in vehicle exhausts and to reduce the energy overheads of a multitude of processes, the use of nanomaterials to develop more efficient power lines.
• The report also tends to focus on areas where it is easier to construct position statements challenging statements on the positive use of nanomaterials.
• Nevertheless, it appears to be a significant and well-written counterbalance to publications that promote the benefits of nanotechnology in the energy sector without deep and critical evaluation of the pros and cons of the technology.

Are the issues raised valid and in need of further exploration?  It’s worth reading for yourself to decide.  I’ve included the executive summary below – the full report (88 pages) is available here. Agree or disagree?  Feel free to comment below!

In a world increasingly concerned about climate change, resource depletion, pollution and water shortages, nanotechnology has been much heralded as a new environmental saviour. Proponents have claimed that nanotechnology will deliver energy technologies that are efficient, inexpensive and environmentally sound. They predict that highly precise nanoman- ufacturing and the use of smaller quantities of potent nanomaterials will break the tie between economic activity and resource use. In short, it is argued that nanotechnology will enable ongoing economic growth and the expansion of consumer culture at a vastly reduced environmental cost.

In this report, for the first time, Friends of the Earth puts the ‘green’ claims of industry under the microscope. Our investigation reveals that the nanotechnology industry has over-promised and under-delivered. Many of the claims made regarding nanotechnology’s environmental performance, and breakthroughs touted by companies claiming to be near market, are not matched by reality. Worse, the energy and environmental costs of the growing nano industry are far higher than expected.

We also reveal that despite their green rhetoric, governments in the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Japan and Saudi Arabia are using public funds to develop nanotechnology to find and extract more oil and gas. The world’s biggest petrochemical companies, including Halliburton, Shell, BP America, Exxon Mobil and Petrobras have established a joint consortium to fund research to increase oil extraction.

The performance of nano-based renewables has been considerably less than predicted. Efficiency of solar energy conversion by nano solar panels is still about 10 percent behind that achieved by silicon panels. The technical challenges of bringing renewable energy laboratory achievements to market have been prohibitive in many instances. The United States President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology states that in 2009 only one percent of global nanotechnology-based products came from the energy and environmental sector.
The energy demands and environmental impacts of manufacturing nanomaterials are unexpectedly high. Manufacturing carbon nanofibers requires 13 to 50 times the energy required to manufacture smelting aluminium, and 95-360 times the energy to make steel, on an equal mass basis. A team of United States researchers has concluded that single walled carbon nanotubes may be “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”.

Due to the large energy demands of manufacturing nanomaterials, even some nano applications in the energy saving sector will come at a net energy cost. For example even though strengthening windmill blades with carbon nanofibers would make the blades lighter, because of the energy required to manufacture the nanoblades, early life cycle analysis shows that it could be more energy efficient to use conventional windmill blades.

Much-touted nano developments in the hydrogen sector are at a very early stage. It is improbable that cars powered by renewable energy generated hydrogen will be on the roads in the next ten or twenty years – the period in which emissions cuts are critical. In the meantime, development of hydrogen cars entrenches reliance on fossil fuels to produce the hydrogen.

Most nanoproducts are not designed for the energy sector and will come at a net energy cost. Super strong nano golf clubs, wrinkle disguising nanocosmetics, and colour-enhanced television screens take a large quantity of energy to produce, while offering no environmental savings. Such nanoproducts greatly outnumber applications in which nano could deliver net energy savings.

The environmental demands of nanomanufacturing are higher than that of conventional materials. Nanomanufacturing is characterised by very high use of water and solvents. Large quantities of hazardous substances are used or generated as byproducts. Only one tenth of one percent of materials used to manufacture nanoproducts found in computers and electronic goods are contained in the final products. That is, 99.9 percent of materials used in manufacturing become waste products.

Despite the serious uncertainties, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that some nanomaterials used in energy generation, storage and efficiency applications can pose health and environmental risks. Carbon nanotubes are touted for use in electronics, energy applications, and specialty car and plane parts. However, early research shows that some forms of nanotubes can cause mesothelioma, the deadly cancer associated with asbestos exposure.

The release of nanomaterials to the environment could also result in accelerated generation of potent greenhouse gas emissions. Antibacterial nano silver is used widely in clothing, textiles, cleaning products, personal care products and surface coatings. Yet preliminary study shows that when nano silver is exposed to sludge, similar to that found in typical waste water treatment plants, four times the typical level of the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide is released

Nanotechnology is not an unqualified environmental saviour nor will its widespread use in everything from socks to face creams enable us to pursue ‘business as usual’ while substantively reducing our environmental footprint. At best, such claims can be interpreted as the result of wishful thinking on the part of proponents; at worst they can be seen as misleading greenwash.

Nanotechnology is a powerful technology that has the potential to deliver novel approaches to the methods by which we harness, use, and store energy. Nevertheless, Friends of the Earth warns that overall, this technology will come at a huge energy and broader environmental cost. Nanotechnology may ultimately facilitate the next wave of expansion of the global economy, deepening our reliance on fossil fuels and existing hazardous chemicals, while introducing a new generation of hazards. Further, it may transform and integrate ever-more parts of nature into our systems of production and consumption.

Update 11/17/10:  Replaced local report links with link to FOE report web-page

Next week I am being “installed” here at the University of Michigan.  Not in the sense of installing a carpet – as one friend suggested – but in the sense of being installed as an endowed professor.  The Charles and Rita Gelman Risk Science Professor to be precise.

To mark the occasion, I’m expected to entertain the crowds here with deep, expansive and probably incomprehensible thoughts on risk science.

Not sure I can deliver that, but here’s the ‘teaser” that was circulated on what I might be touching on:

By 2050, over nine billion people will be placing unprecedented demands on the earth’s resources – a demand that will only be met through developing and using new technologies.  But in today’s complex and interconnected world, the safety and success of technology-based solutions is by no means assured. As we strive to build a sustainable future, we need to think differently about how rapid social and technological change are leading to new risk-challenges, and how they are best addressed.  In effect, we need a new risk science for a new century. Professor Maynard will be talking about the new challenges of enabling sustainable development in a complex, interconnected and risky world.

A more accurate – but substantially more boring – account of what I’m likely to cover is given in the lecture’s abstract:

Risk is intimately intertwined with human life.  From the earliest beginnings of life, risk has been part and parcel of natural selection; forcing evolution along paths that minimize risk while maximizing benefits.

Risk has by turns stimulated and limited our own achievements as a species for thousands of years.  In fact everything we do – or don’t do – as individuals and as a society has the potential to lead to beneficial or adverse consequences.  So it’s not surprising that we have evolved sharp instincts for dealing with possible risks.

These instincts have served us well in the past. But they have proven increasingly unreliable as we have become ever more reliant on complex technologies.  To overcome these limitations, we have turned to science as a means of developing systematic and evidence-based approaches risks that aren’t compromised by human vagaries.  The resulting “risk science” – built on sound scientific principles – has supported the rapid development of many significant technologies over the past hundred years.  But heading into the 21st century, it is increasingly doubtful whether this “old” risk science will continue provide the necessary support to build a sustainable future.

We are entering a unique time in humanity’s history:  We face a future dominated by complex and rapidly developing technologies; unprecedented global interconnectedness; and dwindling natural resources.  These three factors are converging to shake up not only the challenges and opportunities we face as a global society, but also the very methodologies we use to get to where we need to be.  As we embrace this future, we will need a “new” risk science – one that draws on “science” in the broadest possible sense to enable evidence-informed and socially-responsive decision-making in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

Whatever I end up saying, I’m toying around with some new presentation techniques for the talk.  These might work, or they might bomb – either way, it should be entertaining for the audience, if not for me!

The lecture is being held between 3:30 PM – 4:30 PM on Wednesday November 17 in the University of Michigan School of Public Health – feel free to drop in if you are in the area.  There’s a reception afterward – which is never a bad thing!

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/11/12/lost-in-the-maize-9/feed/ 8 http://2020science.org/2010/11/04/international-handbook-on-regulating-nanotechnologies-sneak-peak-of-contents/ http://2020science.org/2010/11/04/international-handbook-on-regulating-nanotechnologies-sneak-peak-of-contents/#comments Thu, 04 Nov 2010 19:49:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3778

Back in the mists of time, I was approached with a crazy proposition – would I help co-edit a book on nanotechnologies regulation!  In a moment of weakness I said yes, and a little more than two and a half years later, the book is finally about to hit the shelves.

I actually think the resulting International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies rather a useful, coherent and engaging collection of chapters – my co-editors Di Bowman and Graeme Hodge did a wonderful job encouraging a bunch of top thinkers in the field to write under occasionally whimsical but always relevant titles.

To whet your appetite prior to the book’s release sometime in November, here’s a sneak peak at the contents:

PART I:    Concepts and Foundations

1.    Introduction: the regulatory challenges for nanotechnologies

Graeme A. Hodge, Diana M. Bowman and Andrew D. Maynard

2.    Philosophy of technoscience in the regime of vigilance

Alfred Nordmann

3.    Tracing and disputing the story of nanotechnology

Chris Toumey

4.    The age of regulatory governance and nanotechnologies

Roger Brownsword

PART II:    Frameworks for Regulating Nanotechnologies

5.    Nanotechnology captured

John Miles

6.    The scientific basis for regulating nanotechnologies

David Williams

7.    The current risk assessment paradigm in relation to the regulation of nanotechnologies

Qasim Chaudhry, Hans Bouwmeester and Rolf F. Hertel

8.    Regulating risk: the bigger picture

Karinne Ludlow and Peter Binks

9.    Producing safety or managing risks? How regulatory paradigms affect insurability

Thomas K. Epprecht

PART III:    Case Studies in Regulating Nanotechnologies and Nano-Products

10.    The evolving nanotechnology environmental, health, and safety landscape: A business perspective

Oliver Tassinari, Jurron Bradley and Michael Holman

11.    Regulation of carbon nanotubes and other high aspect ratio nanoparticles: approaching this challenge from the perspective of asbestos

Robert J. Aitken, Sheona Peters, Alan D Jones and Vicki Stone

12.    Approaching the nanoregulation problem in chemicals legislation in the EU and US

Markus Widmer and Christoph Meili

13.    A good foundation? Regulatory oversight of nanotechnologies using cosmetics as a case study

Geert van Calster and Diana M. Bowman

14.    Therapeutic products: regulating drugs and medical devices

Rogério Sá Gaspar

15.    Regulatory perspectives on nanotechnologies in foods and food contact materials

Anna Gergely, Qasim Chaudhry and Diana M. Bowman

16.    Regulation of nanoscale materials under media-specific environmental laws

Linda Breggin and John Pendergrass

17.    Military applications: special conditions for regulation

Jürgen Altmann

18.    Regulating nanotechnology through intellectual property rights

Gregory N. Mandel

PART IV:    The Future Regulatory Landscape

19.    The role of NGOs in governing nanotechnologies: challenging the ‘benefits versus risks’ framing of nanotech innovation

Georgia Miller and Gyorgy Scrinis

20.    Voluntary measures in nanotechnology risk governance: the difficulty of holding the wolf by the ears

Christoph Meili and Markus Widmer

21.    The role of risk management frameworks and certification bodies

Thorsten Weidl, Gerhard Klein and Rolf Zöllner

22.    Risk governance in the field of nanotechnologies: core challenges of an integrative approach

Ortwin Renn and Antje Grobe

23.    International coordination and cooperation: the next agenda in nanomaterials regulation

Robert Falkner, Linda Breggin, Nico Jaspers, John Pendergrass and Read Porter

24.    Transnational regulation of nanotechnology: reality or romanticism?

Kenneth W. Abbott, Douglas J. Sylvester and Gary E. Marchant

25.    From novel materials to next generation nanotechnology: a new approach to regulating the products of nanotechnology

J. Clarence Davies

PART V:    Conclusion

26.    Conclusions: triggers, gaps, risks and trust

Andrew D. Maynard, Diana M. Bowman and Graeme A. Hodge

More information on the International Handbook on Regulating Technologies can be found here.  The anticipated publication date is late November.

This image from the first US National Science and Engineering Festival attracted my attention this morning:

It’s a wordle constructed from responses to the question “What will be the greatest discoveries and advancements science and engineering will bring us in the 21st century?”

What grabbed my attention was the prominence of nanotechnology in the mix – is awareness of nano finally on the up?

I’m not sure who or how many people responded to the question – it would be interesting to see if the organizers have more information on this.  But assuming that this represents a fair cross-section of people who participated in the Expo, it’s a fascinating snapshot of what is uppermost in people’s minds when it comes to science, technology and engineering.

You can read more about the first USA Science and Engineering Festival here.

Last week while at the NISE Net network-wide meeting, I was fortunate enough to see a preview of part of NOVA’s forthcoming series Making Stuff. The series focuses on the wonders of modern materials science. But rather than coming away enthralled by the ingenuity of scientists, I found myself breaking out in a cold sweat as I watched something that set my science-engagement alarm-bells ringing: New York Times tech reporter and host David Pogue enthusing about splicing spider genes into a goat so it produces silk protein-containing milk, then glibly drinking the milk while joking about transforming into Spider Man.

I was sitting there thinking, “You start with a spider – not everyone’s favorite creature.  And you genetically cross it with a goat – dangerous territory at the best of times.  Then you show a middle aged dude drinking the modified milk from a transgenic animal and having a laugh about it.  And all this without any hint of a question over the wisdom or ramifications of what’s going on?  Man, this is going to go down well!”

But then, after some reflection, I wondered whether I was over-reacting – maybe I’m just over-sensitized to the challenges of grappling with the opportunities and challenges presented by new technologies.  There was also a chance that I had missed something in the delivery – some of the dialogue was admittedly missing in the preview.

So I decided to post last week’s poll on the spider-goat story, just to get a sense of how others might respond to this story line.

The results were surprising, and suggested that NOVA weren’t as far off the mark as I suspected.

Unfortunately, with only 67 votes and a self-selecting pool of respondents, the data are a bit iffy to say the least.  But they do suggest that a fair number of readers (28%) approved of the milk-drinking jocular approach to communicating this research.

However, the majority of the votes (54%) were for a balanced response.

Interestingly, only 2 people responded negatively to the story.

To be honest, this clip still disturbed me – although the producers emphasized to me that this wasn’t necessarily the final sequence that will be aired.  It seemed to hark back to an era of science communication that is more akin to science promotion, with little room for dialogue or engagement.  And to my over-sensitized perceptions, it came across as dismissive of concerns over the ramifications of emerging technologies.

But given people’s response to the question I asked last week, I’m willing to concede that NOVA and David Pogue might be doing a better job here than I initially judged of exploring materials science in this series in an accessible way.

The proof of the pudding of course will be in the eating – Making Stuff debuts on PBS in the US on January 19 2011.

[The goat-spiders silk story has been around for a decade or so by the way, but was given a new lease of life earlier this year through this piece from the NSF]

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/11/02/spiders-silk-and-a-transgenic-goat-the-complex-art-of-science-communication/feed/ 9 http://2020science.org/2010/10/27/what-happens-when-you-cross-a-spider-with-a-goat-complete-the-story/ http://2020science.org/2010/10/27/what-happens-when-you-cross-a-spider-with-a-goat-complete-the-story/#comments Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:43:26 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3740

Complete the following:

Setting:

A well known and sometimes off-beat technology commentator explores new breakthroughs on a popular TV science and tech show.

Story:

1. Spiders’ silk is incredibly strong, but in short supply (ever tried harvesting silk from a spider?).
2. So why not take the gene responsible for making spider silk, and splice it into a goat?
3. The result: goats that produce milk laced with spider silk-protein.
4. All you have to do then is extract the protein from the milk and spin it into silk and hey presto – a plentiful supply of a super-strong, incredibly versatile, “natural” material.

How should the story end?

Take Our Poll

There’s a serious point to this question, which I’ll come back to later.  For now though, I’m intrigued as to how people think the story should conclude – remembering this is a TV show for a broad audience.

The spider/goat stuff is real btw – check out this snippet from the US National Science Foundation.

[Update 11/2/10 - the follow-up blog to this piece has just been posted]

The immediate lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disaster are pretty obvious – we (or at least somebody) messed up!  But what about the less-obvious lessons – especially those concerning technology innovation and how it’s handled?  The Fall 2010 issue of Findings – the University of Michigan School of Public Health Alumni magazine – contains a short piece addressing just this question.  As is increasingly becoming my habit, here’s an earlier draft of that article.  As well as providing a little more information that the published piece does, it allows an interesting comparison between a good draft (what I think works) and an expertly edited final article (what the editor thinks will work).  As usual, I was more than impressed by how a good editor can sharpen a piece up.

In today’s increasingly crowded, interconnected and resource-constrained world, we are more dependent on technology innovation than at any previous time in human history.  By 2050, over nine billion people will be placing unprecedented demands on the earth’s resources – a demand that will only be met through developing and using new technologies.

Yet technology innovation comes with its own challenges.  The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico provides a sobering reminder of what can go wrong when we trust in technology without investing sufficiently in the future.  Devastating as this disaster has been though, it is only one small example of the challenges we will face as a global society as resources become scarcer, demands become greater, and our technological reach threatens to exceed our ability to handle it safely.

If a sustainable future is to be built on the effective development and use of technology innovation, we need to rethink how we reap the benefits of technology.  The full impact of the Deepwater Horizon spill will take years to evaluate.  But underlying the immediate impacts of the disaster is a story of how technology innovation failed, and the lessons that can be learned from this failure; not just so human and environmental disasters of this magnitude can be avoided in the future, but also so that we begin understand more fully how to develop and use new technologies more responsibly.

The technology being used on the Deepwater Horizon rig was at the cutting edge of innovation.  Drilling at depths of 5000 feet below the surface of the sea – far beyond the reach of direct human intervention – the operation was pushing the bounds of the possible.  Until the disaster, this was a story of technology innovation allowing us to tap previously inaccessible oil reserves.  But there is a less obvious story here – one of emerging technologies that could have been used to mitigate the impacts of the spill, if only there had been sufficient forethought and investment to develop them to the point of usability before they were needed.

As it is, the use of advanced technologies associated with the Deepwater Horizon rig failed on three counts:  The potential consequences of using an unproven technology were not explored sufficiently; there was inadequate investment in understanding, avoiding and mitigating risks upstream; and there was a lack of foresight in developing new technologies to manage the consequences of failure.  Greater foresight, investment and upstream action on each of these three counts could have helped avoid or reduce the impact of the ensuing disaster.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the drilling technology being used and the potentially severe consequences of errors, more realistic scenario planning would have helped prepare for low probability but high impact risks.  Coupled to this, more strategic research into the potential risks associated with deepwater drilling, together with greater stakeholder engagement, could have helped industry, regulators and others more effectively manage the consequences of the disaster.  And more proactive up-front investment in remediation technologies could have provided more effective tools for managing the consequences of the disaster.

This last issue sticks out like a sore thumb.  In the face of increasing global challenges, it is all too easy to latch onto the naïve assumption that technology-based solutions will present themselves as and when needed:  The belief that technology innovation will save the day is a pervasive one.  Yet as oil began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, potential new technology-based solutions to managing the spill were conspicuous by their absence – not because the science wasn’t there, but because there had been insufficient investment in developing it into commercially viable technologies.  Technology platforms such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology for instance have the potential to support oil cleanup solutions that are significantly more effective and environmentally benign than existing ones.  But in the absence of concerted efforts to translate cutting edge science into viable commercial products, BP ended up using an established dispersant with questionable environmental and human health impacts, and uncertain consequences when introduced to an oil plume 5000 feet below the sea’s surface.

If we are to benefit from emerging technologies – to ensure that they help address pressing challenges, and do not create more problems than they solve – we clearly need to think differently about how they are developed and used.  There needs to be far greater awareness of the consequences of getting complex and far-reaching technologies wrong, a new willingness for stakeholders to work together to find sustainable solutions, and new thinking on how potential risks can be identified and addressed as early as possible in the development cycle.  Because as emerging technologies become increasingly complex and powerful, the consequences of mis-steps on public health and the environment will only become more catastrophic.

This will require better understanding of how emerging technologies can lead to unexpected impacts on human health.  And it will depend on developing a deeper appreciation of how technology innovation can be nudged along more responsible – and ultimately more sustainable and beneficial – pathways.  In effect, we need a new paradigm that places a science-based understanding of risk at the center of sustainable development.

The Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan is at the forefront of this movement toward a new risk paradigm.  By integrating cutting edge science, multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective communication, the Center is working towards avoiding harm from emerging technologies while ensuring their benefits are fully realized.  It’s an approach that will significantly reduce the chances of future adverse health impacts – but it’s also one that makes sound business sense.

Devastating as the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been, it is a timely wakeup call to the consequences getting technology innovation wrong – one that has relevance far beyond the confines of BP.  As we enter an age where we are more dependent than ever on getting technology innovation right, corporations, policy makers, policy influencers and citizens all need to be a part of a process that supports the emergence of responsible technologies.  But for this process to lead to a sustainable future, it must be built on the best possible information if it is to succeed – which means investing proactively and strategically in the science of identifying, understanding and avoiding potential risks.  The alternative is to take increasingly risky gambles with our technology-supported future.  And as any seasoned gambler knows, the house always wins – eventually.

The version of this piece published in Findings can be accessed here.

New technologies depend on uncommon materials, and society depends on new technologies.  Which means that economies that develop the former and control the latter have something of an upper hand in today’s interconnected and technology-dependent world.

This has clearly not escaped the notice of the Chinese.  China, which controls around 90% of the world’s rare earth minerals – many of which are essential to advanced materials – has being blocking shipments of these materials to Japan for the last month. And now, according to yesterday’s New York Times, it has “quietly halted some shipments of those materials to the United States and Europe”.

At the same time, according to the journal Nature,

“Alternative energy, biotechnology, advanced materials and fuel-efficient vehicles will be promoted in China’s newly mapped 2011–15 development plan, according to a report published by the country’s state council on 18 October.”

In other words, China is simultaneously controlling the flow of materials that are essential to many new technologies, while actively working on the very technologies that exploit these materials.

Rare earth elements aren’t that rare, despite the name.  But in recent years, it has become increasingly unprofitable for economies outside China to mine and process them.  As Technology Review noted a few days ago:

“Rare earths are comprised of 17 elements, such as terbium, which is used to make green phosphors for flat-panel TVs, lasers, and high-efficiency fluorescent lamps. Neodymium is key to the permanent magnets used to make high-efficiency electric motors. Although well over 90 percent of the minerals are produced in China, they are found in many places around the world, and, in spite of their name, are actually abundant in the earth’s crust (the name is a hold-over from a 19^th-century convention). In recent years, low-cost Chinese production and environmental concerns have caused suppliers outside of China to shut down operations.”

One solution to the looming monopoly is to begin extraction processes elsewhere.  Another is to look for alternatives to these increasingly valuable resources.  As Tim Harper of Cientifica noted in a recent report:

“Through the use of nanotechnologies we can now start to develop processes that do not use rare resources, for example using carbon nanotubes and metallic nanoparticles in polymers to make them conducting rather than applying thin layers of indium tin oxide.”

There are difficulties to this approach, as Dexter Johnson at IEEE Spectrum noted.  But one way or another, China’s actions are shining a searing spotlight on some of the hidden dependencies of technology innovation, and some of the less obvious challenges to developing technology-based solutions to problems in what is becoming an increasingly resource-constrained world, no matter how you look at it.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/10/20/limited-resources-and-emerging-technologies-china-does-the-math/feed/ 0 http://2020science.org/2010/10/14/rehabilitating-risk/ http://2020science.org/2010/10/14/rehabilitating-risk/#comments Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:25 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3649

Now that I’ve had some time to get to grips with my new position as Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, I thought it was high time I started letting people know something about where the Center will be heading over the next few years.  Cross-posted on the Risk Science Center’s home page, here’s a flavor of where we’re going:

Risk is often treated as a four-letter word, or an embarrassing relative – something distasteful that shouldn’t be mentioned in polite society. Yet the reality is that a clear understanding of risk and how to deal with it is essential to every aspect of our lives. The past hundred years have left us a horrifying legacy of what goes wrong when people ignore risks, or fail to identify, access and manage them appropriately, or aren’t equipped to make informed decisions as new potential issues arise. And the challenges are only going to get tougher in today’s increasingly technology-dependent, interconnected and resource-constrained world. Without a doubt, if we are to build a sustainable future in the 21st century, we need to rethink our approach to risk. We need integrative, cross-disciplinary approaches to understanding and managing risks that are inclusive of all stakeholders. We need to push the process of identifying and addressing potential risks up-stream in the innovation process. And we need to equip everyone from citizens to CEO’s and journalists to policy makers to make informed decisions in the face of increasing uncertainty and complexity.

When I accepted the directorship of the Risk Science Center earlier this year, it was this forward-looking challenge that was uppermost in my mind… We already have a strong tradition at the University of Michigan and elsewhere of assessing risks to human health through research in areas like toxicology, epidemiology and exposure, and using generated data to drive decisions on risk management and mitigation. But we struggle to deal with emergent risks presented by new technologies (or new ways of using old technologies) in a changing world. Everyone does – there is no manual (yet) for how to address human health risks from increasingly complex technologies, and how to do this in a society where stakeholder and citizen engagement is becoming increasingly important, where uncertainty dominates the decision-making process, and where ill-informed decisions on risks and benefits could be potentially catastrophic.

So my aim is for the Risk Science Center to spearhead the movement toward a new risk paradigm. By integrating cutting edge science, multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective communication, the Center will be working towards avoiding harm from existing and emerging technologies while ensuring their benefits are fully realized. It’s an approach that will significantly reduce the chances of future adverse health impacts – but it’s also one that makes sound business sense.

This is still very much a work in progress. Over the next year the governance structure of the Center will be established, it’s vision, mission, aims and activities will be further developed, and this website will undergo a major overhaul – creating a resource and community nexus for stakeholders, faculty and students engaged in thinking differently about risk.

In the meantime, please check out the Risk Science Center’s about page for further information on how the Center is developing. And keep an eye out for new initiatives coming out of the Center – including next year’s Bernstein Symposium on “Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation: New Perspectives on Emerging Challenges”.

Risk may still be a four-letter word to some, but that’s going to have to change if we as a society are going to tackle the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and come out on top. As the Risk Science Center develops, expect it to be front and center of this change.

For more information, check out the Risk Science Center’s website.

Sometime in the past couple of weeks – I’m not entirely sure when as accounts are conflicting – the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) posted a draft of a new report examining the long-term impacts and research directions of nanotechnology.  The “Nano2″ study was supported by the National Science Foundation under the direction of Mike Roco, and included input from an impressive array of nano-experts from round the world.  What resulted was a 13 chapter behemoth of a report on the current state and next ten years of nanotechnology worldwide.

Having just started to look through the report (I was traveling when it was posted … I think) I can’t really comment on it’s overall relevance and authority.  But if the chapter dealing with environment, health and safety (EHS) issues is anything to go by, this is a report to take seriously…

The EHS chapter (chapter 4) is authored by twelve recognized experts in the field of nano-risks, and presents a comprehensive perspective on near-term research challenges and opportunities.  The chapter is far from perfect – as you would expect, it reflects the perspectives and interests of the authors – but then most reports of this type do.  It also contains some rather jangling statements. For instance on the first page the definition of “the environmental, health and safety (EHS) of nanomaterials” seems to miss out environmental impact beyond “animal health”.  And a rather outmoded focus on educating the public on page 25, where the authors state

“A key issue therefore is for academia, industry and government is to find appropriate mechanisms to reach consensus, and effectively communicate and educate the public on the beneficial implications of nanotechnology, the potential for risk, and what is being done to ensure safe implementation of the technology.”

Mmm, not quite what they are teaching in engagement 101 these days!

But this is a draft, and these and other questionable statements do not detract from the overall usefulness of the chapter.

In many ways, the chapter reflects challenges that have been raised before.  Many of the issues highlighted can be traced back to the 2006 commentary in Nature I co-authored on nanotechnology safety challenges, and a number of reports that preceded it.  So questions surrounding exposure monitoring, toxicity screening, predictive modeling, safety by design and taking a life cycle approach to emerging nanomaterials abound.  But many of these are unpacked and explored in a fresh and useful way in this document. There is also a very welcome tie-in to risk-governance [a topic near and dear to my heart, having just co-edited a forthcoming book on the subject], reflecting the need for integrative approaches to understanding and addressing the challenges presented by engineered nanomaterials.

That said, the report fails to break out of old ruts when it comes to identifying materials of concern.  The old chestnuts are there – carbon nanotubes, zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, nano-silver and the like.  But there’s little mention of the next wave of emerging nanomaterials – nanoscale cellulose for instance, or active nanomaterials.  Neither do prevalent but poorly studied engineered nanomaterials like platinum/palladium nanoparticles in auto catalysts get a look-in.  Granted that the document is only looking forward 10 years, but it would have been good to have seen more thought given to complex nanomaterials, and novel approaches to exploring whether they present emergent risks, and how to handle them.

That aside though, this chapter is a strong addition to the literature on nanomaterial risks, and how we need to start addressing them – from risk identification and assessment through to risk management, mitigation and avoidance.  The areas highlighted for further research/action aren’t comprehensive, but they are important.  These include:

• Developing validated nano-EHS screening methods and harmonized protocols that promote standardized engineered nanomaterials risk assessment at levels commensurate with the growth of nanotechnology.
• Developing risk reduction strategies that can be implemented incrementally through commercial nanoproduct data collection, regulatory activity, and EHS research directly linked to decision-making.
• Developing a clearly defined strategy for nano-EHS governance that is compatible with incremental knowledge generation and stepwise decision-making
• Developing computational analysis methods capable of providing in silico modeling of nano-EHS risk assessment and modeling.
• Developing high-throughput and high-content screening as a universal tool for studying nanomaterial toxicology, ranking hazards, prioritizing animal studies and nano-Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship models, and guiding the safe design of nanomaterials.
• Improving safety screening and safe design of nanomaterials used in therapeutics and diagnostics.
• Developing advanced instrumentation and analytical methods for more competent and reliable engineered nanomaterial characterization, and detection in complex biological and environmental media.
• Development of computational models, algorithms, and multidisciplinary resources for increasingly sophisticated predictive modeling.
• Developing workforce capacity through interdisciplinary education and training, particularly in the nano-EHS field, where a large number of research areas are converging.

If you have an interest in nanotechnology impacts, I would definitely put the chapter on your reading list.  If you are actively involved in the field – it’s a must-read.

I mentioned that this is a draft report, and it’s actually open for public comment – you can sign up to comment here.  But you’d better be fast – just as there is some ambiguity over when the draft was posted, there is also ambiguity over when the comment period closes.  One source suggests it could be the end of this week – but I couldn’t find any confirmation of that.  So the sooner you get reading and commenting, the better!

A guest blog by John Dorr, Vice President of Business Development Nanocomp Technologies Inc.

Despite all the fuss over nanotechnology, it’s surprisingly difficult to get a clear sense of how the technology is contributing to new products.  So when the company Nanocomp Technologies Inc. approached me with an idea of writing a guest blog about what they are doing with carbon nanotubes, I jumped at the chance.  I’ve been aware of Nanocomp’s business for some time now and know the company’s President and CEO Peter Antionette, and have been both impressed and intrigued by their use of carbon nanotube sheets and yarns.  At the same time, I didn’t want 2020 Science turning into an industry PR conduit.  So I agreed to the guest blog with one condition – that it stick to science and technology, and not turn into a corporate publicity piece.  As it turns out, John Dorr’s piece is about as far from the hype that often accompanies nanotech stories as you can get. At the same time, this is clearly a significant and potentially important technology – one to watch I think.  Andrew Maynard

In the early 1990’s, a new form of carbon was discovered with highly unusual properties – it was strong, light, and conducted electricity and heat exceptionally well. Because the material was formed from incredibly thin tubes of carbon atoms, it rapidly became know as carbon nanotubes – or CNT for short.

Since their discovery, researchers and businesses have been working hard to exploit the unusual properties of carbon nanotubes – not as easy a task as many people initially thought. However, new and commercially viable uses for the material are now beginning to emerge.

Because of their shape and format, carbon nanotubes can be used in ways similar to other fibers.  As a result, carbon nanotube sheets, yarns and their derivative products are beginning to be introduced into the marketplace. The most productive and scalable manufacturing method in play today employs a gas phase pyrolysis  process for making very large format CNT non-woven textile sheets directly from the reactor without post processing.  As the process grows, a mesh of interconnected, millimeter length CNTs emerges as opposed to a loose powder of micron-scale CNTs. The result is a product that is fundamentally different from Bucky papers, which are made from short tubes that have been dispersed in solvent and subsequently membrane-filtered into film-like structures. They are similar in appearance only.

Figure 1. A 25-foot roll of double wall CNT material is shown being prepared for a customer.

One example of this difference is in mechanical performance. The mechanical strength of the raw, large format sheets is up to 1 GigaPascal (GPa) — five to twenty times better than buckypaper and in the class of m

etals and alloys. Moreover, their electrical conductivity–typically greater than 2 x 10⁶ Si/m–makes them ideal for replacing copper shielding in weight sensitive applications such as for aerospace.

It is also possible to impregnate rolls of these CNT sheets using commercial equipment with a wide variety of thermoset resins such as bismaleimide toughened epoxy (BMI). Figure 1 shows an example of a roll of these sheets.

In addition to sheet material, in a serendipitous blend of traditional and future industry, CNT yarns can be produced by harvesting carbon nanotubes from the reactor onto spools of finished spun material, much like traditional textile-like threads. These yarns can then be braided on commercial wire braiding machines to produce CNT wires of various gauge sizes, as is seen here:

Although the base CNT material is conductive, it can be post-processed to further increase conductivity using a very basic chemistry. This is particularly useful for applications requiring particularly high conductivity – including for application as a high performance, light weight electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield.

Figure 2. An example of four CNT panels seamed together. The people are shown for scale only!

Today, Nanocomp can fabricate sheets that are about four by eight feet long. The sheets can be easily seamed together into panels (see figure 2) or into rolls of any length desired. Such rolls are the standard form factor needed for pre-pregging or other types of resin infiltration, so the material can be easily integrated into such processes.

There are many applications for these materials generally focused on exploiting the unique electrical, thermal and mechanical properties of carbon nanotube sheets and yarns:

Electrical—applications include lightweight conductors, EMI shielding, ground planes and lightning protection, among others. The excellent shielding quality allows CNT material to be used as a substitute for copper braid in single- or multiple-conductor shielded cable. Weight savings from this step alone may range from 30 to 50 percent as compared to conventional materials. Another application is to replace copper conductors at very high frequencies, where the conductivity of CNT yarns can outperform copper.

Thermal—applications include heat straps, thermal interfaces for Integrated Circuit (IC) cooling and thermal interface materials. The thermal conductivity of individual carbon nanotubes can be very high, exceeding 40,000 Watts per Kelvin per meter (W/m-°K) at the nanoscale. Thermal conductivity at the macroscale, as seen in CNT sheets, is generally around 60 W/m-°K). As a comparison, copper has a thermal conductivity of around 400 W/m-°K. However, CNT sheets have a density of 0.5 g/cc while copper has a density of almost 9. On a weight-for-weight basis the CNT sheets have 3.5 times better thermal conductivity than the metal. The material also acts like a black body at wavelengths in the near-UV to the long IR, meaning that strips of the material can be used very effectively as Joule heaters at very high specific power.

Mechanical—potential applications include hybridized vehicular and body armor solutions as well as structural composites for a wide range of applications.  The lightness and strength of carbon nanotubes makes them particularly attractive for forming lightweight yet strong materials, and the carbon nanotube sheets produced by Nanocomp are particularly versatile in this respect.  Preliminary work in armor has focused on the use of the Company’s CNT sheets in thin, lightweight composites capable of stopping civilian handgun threats while maintaining durability and flexibility. While Nanocomp continues to improve the mechanical properties of our materials, we have achieved tensile strength values ranging from 1.1 – 3.5 GPa with CNT yarn, which compares favorably with Kevlar® and its published value of 2.9 GPa whether in sheet format or as yarn that can be subsequently woven into a hybrid fabric.

As with any advanced material, safety is an obvious concern when creating carbon nanotubes.  As mentioned previously, most CNT manufacturers develop products as a powder of short tubes. They can become easily airborne and pose an inhalation hazard.  Nanocomp does not produce material in this form, in fact it does not produce short CNTs at all.  Instead, its reactors produce sheet and yarn articles into which the company’s long CNTs have been inexorably bound, a property that has been borne out by rigorous testing done in partnership with leading government and academic labs. The sheets and yarn articles do not release nanomaterial under typical industrial processing, handling, and storage, and it is the conclusion of outside authorities that the company’s CNTs are simply too big to become airborne or be respirable.

John Dorr is Vice President of Business Development at Nanocomp Technologies, a manufacturer of CNT sheet and yarn materials and value-added products. Nanocomp is one of the only companies to efficiently manufacture and fill customer-ready orders for such carbon nanotube products, and widescale adoption of the material is really quite feasible. The company is set to expand its manufacturing capabilities within the coming year, in response to growing government and commercial market demand. To learn more see: http://www.nanocomptech.com/

[2020 Science has no commercial involvement with Nanocomp, and did not receive any form of financial support for this guest blog.  And as you would expect, the views expressed here are Nanocomp's, and not necessarily mine - just wanted to make that clear   Andrew Maynard]

You’ve heard the rumors and read the hype – but what really goes on at the Singularity University, based at the NASA Ames campus in Silicon Valley?  Nature’s Nicola Jones recently went along to take a look, and her report has just been posted – it’s well worth reading.

The Singularity University was co-founded in 2008 by Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis – two people not known for being shy and retiring when it comes to new ideas.  The mission is to

“assemble, educate and inspire leaders who strive to understand and facilitate the development of exponentially advancing technologies in order to address humanity’s grand challenges”

Each year the University runs an intense ten-week summer school for graduates, leading to something that Nicola – from a brief visit this August – describes as a “think tank mashed with a geek adventure camp and a business-networking cocktail party”.

When Nicola was writing her piece, she contacted a number of people – including me – for opinions and insight into the Singularity University. This is what I wrote:

Hi Nicola,

This is a bit of a tough assignment for me as I can only assess the SU from what I read on the web, and what I know of various people involved.  I’m actually quite envious of you spending some time there – would love to hear how it comes across on the ground.

From what I know and have read about the SU, I am a little conflicted in my thoughts.  On the one hand, I don’t buy into the vision that some of the people involved preach – I think that Kurzweil’s concept of the singularity is naive for instance, and that a number of the people involved in the SU – while extremely bright – have a somewhat narrow perspective on how science, technology and society work.  But…

…that said, there are two aspects of the SU that excite and intrigue me:  First is the idea of bringing innovative and imaginative thinkers together in a high intensity environment.  Academia is notoriously conservative, and this often has a limiting influence on research and its application that can hold back innovation.  This isn’t necessarily a bad thing – it means that progress is often slow and steady, but is more likely to be grounded on tested truths.  Yet there are occasions where less constrained thinking could lead to significant innovation – this is becoming increasingly the case I suspect as different technologies begin to converge and open up possibilities of synergistic and non-linear advances.  It’s even possible to argue that disruptive or non-linear innovation – new advances that make a break from previous ones, rather than being evolutionary – are only really possible within a system that encourages intellectual risk-taking.  Over the past 50 to 100 years, science fiction writing has been the stimulus for many scientists to follow unconventional lines of thought.  I’m not sure how acceptable it is these days though for scientists to claim they were inspired by fiction – it certainly doesn’t fit the mould of how kids are taught science works!  So maybe there is a need for opportunities that allow scientists and engineers to let their imaginations run a little wild.  And just as science fiction can stimulate sound science and technology, maybe we shouldn’t get too hung up about how realistic or grounded some of the ideas floating around in the SU are.

The second aspect that excites and intrigues me is the idea of encouraging new and innovative thinking on technology-based solutions to pressing problems.  I’m a firm believer in the importance of science and technology in delivering solutions to global problems in today’s increasingly interconnected and resource-constrained world.  Looking to a future where nine billion people plus are struggling to survive and thrive on a planet where energy, water and other natural resources are increasingly at a premium, it is hard to imagine solutions that don’t rely on new applications of science and technology.  Yet the conventional ways that we use science and technology almost definitely are not up to the job of ensuring a sustainable future.  We have a naive trust in science and technology to deliver innovative solutions to problems, but we still struggle to invest with foresight in technology innovation.  We haven’t yet cracked how to ensure technology innovation solves the problems we need it to solve, rather than the problems it can solve (we are good at creating devices we never knew we needed, while people still die of disease, starve and go without water).  And we struggle to ensure the responsible development and application of innovation, in ways that benefit people without causing undue harm.  Part of the problem is that we are trapped on outmoded ways of doing things – we need a shakeup in how science and technology are developed and used to benefit society.  And this is where the SU seems to remove some of the constraints on thinking about what is possible that have limited our effective use of science and technology.

I still have my reservations about a program that runs the risk of running close to pseudoscience at times.  But without the benefit of experience, I would be prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt as a generator of innovative thinking that might possibly help ensure the effective use of science and technology in improving society around the world – as long as there are checks and balances to ensure imaginations are grounded at some point in the possible, rather than fantasy.

Inevitably, it’s my reservations about the Singularity University that come out in Nicola’s piece more than my excitement.  But that’s how these things go.

Having read the Nature piece, I still have my concerns over some aspects of the Singularity University.  But I must confess, if the call came asking me to head out there to help out – even if it was just making the tea – you wouldn’t  see my feet for dust! This is a place that calls out to my inner-geek – big time!

Without a doubt, the world needs spaces where people can inspire each other to think big ideas and to think about what it would take to make them work – without the constraints of pedants, skeptics and naysayers.  The Singularity University is one of those spaces.

Yet at some point, we also need spaces where people can inspire each other to think big and innovative ideas about how technology and society can come together to build a sustainable future – not just an exciting one.

I’m not sure that space exists yet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/09/15/ten-weeks-to-save-the-world-nature-does-the-singularity-university/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2010/08/30/rethinking-nanotechnology-responding-to-a-request-for-information-on-the-us-nanotechnology-strategic-plan/ http://2020science.org/2010/08/30/rethinking-nanotechnology-responding-to-a-request-for-information-on-the-us-nanotechnology-strategic-plan/#comments Mon, 30 Aug 2010 20:43:03 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3536

Back in July, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) posted a Request For Information in the Federal Register for input to the next NNI strategic plan – to be published later this year.  The closing date for comments was a couple of weeks ago now.  I got mine in in the nick of time.  My responses to the seemingly endless questions asked by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy are probably of interest to relatively few people (although if you are suffering from insomnia, you can read them here).  But I thought it might be worth posting my preamble to the specific questions and answers, as it begins to get into some of the more complex social, economic and political issues being faces as the National Nanotechnology Initiative heads for its second decade.

Response to: NNI Strategic Plan 2010; Request for Information (FR Doc. 2010–16273) Submitted August 15 2010:

For nearly ten years, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) has set the pace for national and international research and development in nanoscale science and engineering. Without a doubt, increasing our understanding of how matter behaves at the nanometer scale, and using this knowledge to both enhance existing technologies and to create innovative new ones, holds the promise of significant economic and societal benefits. In a world where the needs of a growing population threaten to outstrip increasingly limited resources, and many global challenges – from disease to hunger to renewable energy – remain unresolved, technology innovation is critical to enabling a sustainable future. Yet investing in research and development is just the first step in ensuring responsible, relevant and successful technology solutions. As the NNI enters its second decade, there needs to be an increasing focus on how to translate technology innovations into solutions that work, if the US is to reap the benefits of the considerable investment being made in this area.

The current Request For Information poses twenty-two specific questions regarding the future activities of the NNI in addressing four goals.  In this submission, I will be addressing a number of these questions, based on my experience and knowledge.  However, I would like to preface my comments with some more general observations on nanotechnology, the NNI and the importance of nanoscale science and engineering in underpinning social and economic progress. I add these as, based on many discussions of the importance of emerging technologies and the barriers to their effective development and use, there is a need for an increasingly sophisticated understanding of how nanotechnology fits into a broader innovation, social and economic context.  Looking to the future, I am convinced that we will only fully realize the benefits of nanoscale science and engineering if we learn better how to integrate it with other areas of technology innovation, and with a greater understanding of the evolving social, economic and political dynamics that determine the success or failure of emerging technologies.

The NNI had had a major impact over the past ten years. Beyond facilitating a substantial increase in nanoscale science and engineering R&D funding, the initiative has led to new and innovative collaborative research, has fostered significant technology innovation, and has stimulated interest in science and technology more broadly. It has also provided test case for how an emerging technology might be developed in an increasingly complex and interconnected world.

The roots of the NNI were in supporting new research and development, and in this the initiative has been an unqualified success – over the past ten years, peer review papers and patents associated with nanoscale science and engineering have risen dramatically, and there are now a number of academic journals dedicated to the area that did not exist a few years ago. Yet as the fruits of these efforts have moved into the public and commercial domains, the context within which the NNI operates has changed. There has been a clear shift in recent years from nanotechnology being a driver of research, to it being seen as a significant driver of economic growth and social progress. Expectations have been raised as to what investment in nanotech can do for individuals, for local and national economies, and for solving some of the most pressing challenges faced by global society. With this changing context, it is necessary to consider whether the concepts and expectations embedded within the NNI are still valid, or whether they have become an impediment to progress. This is a tough question to ask of such a well-established and influential initiative. But it is one that needs to be addressed if the efforts of the past ten years are to bear fruit.

The indications are that a rethink is needed. As nanotechnology moves from being primarily a research endeavor and into a broader societal, economic and political landscape, the concepts that were so successful at stimulating new research – and new research funding – are now beginning to generate wicked policy problems; where stakeholders are not sure what the problem is, never mind the solutions that are needed to address it. Following debates over the safety of nanotechnology, its regulation, its commercialization and over public understanding, acceptance and engagement, it is increasingly clear that stakeholders are struggling to understand how the concept of “nanotechnology” fits with the issues they are faced with. There is a sense within stakeholder communities that nanotechnology is important and that they should be making decisions about it – in part because of the emphasis placed on it through the NNI. But the concept often fails to translate into something meaningful and tangible within these contexts. The result – communities who feel that they need to do something about nanotechnology, but without a clear sense of what this “something” might be. An example of this is a well-meaning but confused petition recently sent to the Environmental Protection Agency from a group of Non Government Organizations, calling for the agency not to approve an alleged nanotechnology-based dispersant for use in the Gulf of Mexico – simply because of its association with nanotechnology. This petition was as much a product of naïve framing of nanotechnology promulgated in part by the NNI, as it was a result of a disjointed analysis of a possible human health and environmental risk.

This is not to say that nanoscale science, engineering and innovation are not important. On the contrary, I would argue that increasing our understanding and control over matter at the nanoscale is vital. Over the past fifty years, the increasing dexterity with which we can work with matter at the scale of atoms and molecules has enabled tremendous technological advances. And the nanoscale science of today holds the promise of incredible leaps forward in our abilities over future decades. But nanotechnology is just one of a number of technology platforms, and technology innovations that lead to new products and processes typically emerge from the intersections between these platforms. And to place undue emphasis on one platform – and to allow this emphasis to spill over from research and development into social, economic and policy arenas – is to run the risk of impeding the process of transforming technology innovations into viable technology solutions.

Other emerging technology platforms include synthetic biology, cognitive technology, robotics, computational chemistry, information technology, artificial intelligence and biological/data interfaces. Together with established technology platforms, these are supporting new breakthroughs that have the potential to improve existing products and generate innovative new ones. The resulting products and processes are synergistic amalgams of multiple technologies – not just the product of a single technology. High performance batteries, transparent mineral-based sunscreens, targeted drug delivery systems, high-strength materials, increasingly powerful computers – all depend in some way on working with materials at the nanoscale. But they only do what they do because multiple different technologies are used together. And this in turn means that the broader issues of commercialization, safety, environmental impact, benefits and acceptance must be approached from the context of emerging technologies, and not from perspective of one technology alone.

This issue is central to the need to rethink nanotechnology and the role of the NNI within a broader social, economic and political context, as nanoscale science and engineering move out of the laboratory and into the marketplace. Looking to the next ten years, there is a need to consolidate within the NNI an emphasis on nanoscale science and engineering – generating new knowledge and developing new capabilities through synergistic and collaborative research. But there is also a need to rethink how broader questions of technology transfer and commercialization, human health and environmental impacts, societal and economic benefits, education, policy, stakeholder engagement and ethics fit into a broader emerging technologies landscape. Rather than placing nanotechnology in a silo as it moves out of the laboratory, it needs to be integrated with other technology platforms that together will lead to the innovations that will help build a sustainable future.

This is the only way that the growing wicked problems surrounding how nanotechnology is used and the consequences of its implementation will be resolved in the long run.

The full submission in response to this RFI can be read here.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/08/30/rethinking-nanotechnology-responding-to-a-request-for-information-on-the-us-nanotechnology-strategic-plan/feed/ 8 http://2020science.org/2010/08/26/is-nanotechnology-suffering-from-%e2%80%9csilent-rave%e2%80%9d-syndrome-2/ http://2020science.org/2010/08/26/is-nanotechnology-suffering-from-%e2%80%9csilent-rave%e2%80%9d-syndrome-2/#comments Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:00:32 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3500

I couldn’t resist finishing the August in the Archives series with this piece on “silent rave” syndrome, which I am sad to say still seems to inflict the emerging technologies community!

Originally posted October 5 2008

The silent rave might seem a rather bizarre social phenomenon; a group of strangers converging in a public place and dancing to their own individual iPod soundtracks.  But I have a sneaking suspicion that the emerging technology community has been indulging in the new tech-equivalent of silent raves for some time now.

These suspicions are probably the delusional by-product of jetlag.  But traveling back from the latest in a long line of multi-stakeholder nanotechnology meetings last week, the analogy hit a chord…

Imagine a meeting room where people are plugged into their own personal mental iPods: The scientists immersed in Avril Lavigne’s “Complicated” (apart from the toxicologists, who are playing “Another One Bites the Dust”); the industry folk tuned in to “I Did It My Way”; with the NGO’s rocking along to “Holding Out for a Hero” (with either Bonnie Tyler or Jennifer Saunders taking the lead, depending on how “hip” the group is).  And all the while the policy makers in the room listening to Bob Geldof and “I Don’t Like Mondays”—over and over again…

This is a recipe for a great time (for some), little progress, and a lot of noise.  And it seems to be one that is followed at many meetings designed to address the broader social, health and environmental issues of emerging technologies.

The problem is twofold I suspect:  People in different discipline and with different agendas find it hard to listen to and understand other perspectives. And in the absence of a clear focus for dialogue, it is near-impossible to find a common language to facilitate communication.  In the silent rave analogy: People find it really hard to unplug their mental iPods and listen to other tunes; especially if there isn’t a strong communal tune to replace their personal soundtracks.

This is hardly a blinding revelation.  But the point is nevertheless an important one if real progress is to be made in developing sustainable emerging technologies.  The question is: how can people be encouraged to unplug and join the conversation?

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I’m pretty sure one of the first steps will be to find that clear focus for dialogue—not just a woolly desire to talk about ill-defined implications of emerging technologies, but a clear statement of what the challenges are to making progress.  And that might mean dropping pre-conceived ideas of what defines any particular emerging technology (like nanotechnology), and focusing instead on what the science is revealing—and how this challenges conventional approaches to ensuring safe, environmentally sound and socially acceptable use.  Perhaps if this focus is found, it will lead to a communal tune so irresistible that people will start turning off their mental iPods, and tuning in to the group conversation.

In fairness, the meeting that sparked off these thoughts was more productive than many I have participated in.  But more is needed if we (as stakeholders in getting emerging technologies right) are to stop going round in circles and start making some serious headway into a technologically secure future.

And as for what is playing on my mental iPod:  Fortunately, I unplugged myself a long time back.  Funny thing though, no matter which meeting I’m at, I keep hearing strains of Pink Floyd’s “Is There Anybody  Out There?” Strange that!

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

The more the debate over what precisely nanotechnology is goes on, the more inclined I am to think that it’s something of an illusion.  Sure, nanoscale science is real.  And there are clearly technologies that exploit this.  But are they nanotechnologies, or are they simply clever uses of science, technology and engineering across multiple length scales to do something different?  In other words, does nanoscale science simply lead to… technology?  This piece from September 2008 hints at this line of thinking as it grapples with what “nanotechnology” actually means.

Originally posted September 3 2008.

Amidst the cacophony of debate swirling around the true meaning of nanotechnology, I head a voice or reason last week.  The voice was that of Dr. Bernd Sachweh of BASF, speaking at the European Aerosol Conference in Thessoloniki.

I paraphrase, but the essence of Bernd’s point was this:

‘Nano’ is not a thing or a product.  It has no intrinsic value.  Rather, ‘nano’ adds value; it changes the properties and the worth of something that already exists.

I must confess, I rather like the idea of ‘nano’ as adding value, rather than being an entity in and of itself.  It’s hard to come up with of an example where engineering something at the nanoscale leads to behaviour or functionality that is independent of the starting material.  Rather, the great potential of nanotechnology would seem to be in taking raw materials and engineering them in ways that lead to the emergence of novel scale-related properties, which can then be used in new and innovative ways.

But what I really like about the concept of added-value is that it provides insight into how nanotechnology might be approached from an oversight perspective.

Just as ‘nano’ adds value to products and processes, it can also be seen as changing the potential of something to cause harm; an “added-risk” to counterbalance the “added-value.”

As soon as ‘nano’ is seen in terms of both added-value and added-risk, it becomes easier to think through some of the more knotty questions associated with using nanomaterials and nano-products safely.

First off is the question of whether all products of nanotechnology are uniquely harmful.

Unique nanoscale-related functionality features in many definitions of nanotechnology—this is where the added value comes from.  And it is often assumed that this unique functionality will always equate to unique risks.  Yet unlike added-value, added-risk is not intentionally built into the products of nanotechnology.  Rather, it is a by-product of the technology.

As a result, added-risk may be significant in some cases, while in others it may be negligible.  It is even conceivable that engineering a material at the nanoscale could reduce the risk it presents to human health and the environment—leading to negative added-risk.  From an oversight perspective, functionality and potential to cause harm sometimes need to be disentangled—something that the concepts of added-value and added-risk might help to achieve.

Following this line of thought, effective nanotechnology oversight will depend on identifying whether engineering a material at the nanoscale results in added-risk.  And implementing such oversight will mean identifying, measuring and controlling those aspects of a new product or material that add to the risk—whether they are related to particle size, material surface area, surface chemistry, or other nano-relevant characteristics.

But does nanotechnology demand a brand new set of regulations, or can the existing ones cope?  Where existing regulations work for conventional materials and products, the concept of added-risk would seem to support developing new rules on applying current regs to nanotech materials and products, rather than formulating a new set of nanotechnology regulations.  After all, if ‘nano’ has no intrinsic value or risk, what will a brand new set of regulations actually regulate?

The caveat here of course is that the existing regulations need to be sufficiently robust yet flexible to address the added-risk that some nanotechnology applications will embody.  And the evidence is that this isn’t the case for every material or product out there! (See for instance, “Managing the effects of Nanotechnology” by J. Clarence Davies)

Sticking with existing regulations, the concept of added-risk is useful when it comes to defining what is ‘nano’ and what is not from an oversight perspective.

If the aim is for regulations (in the broadest sense) to address the added-risk rather than the added-value of nanotech materials and products, should definitions of nanotechnology be used that emphasize added-value?  Probably not.  Definitions that depend on the uniqueness and “added-value” of nanotechnology are great for guiding and inspiring research and investment that will lead to new nanotechnology-based products.  But where they do not embody the concept of “added-risk,” they are at best inadequate and at worst seriously misleading when it comes to ensuring the safety of new nanotechnologies.  For instance, gold nanoparticles can bring significant added-value to products when incorporated into heterogeneous catalysts, but if release and exposure are low, added-risk is likely to be minimal.  On the other hand, reducing the size of silver particles to 20 nanometers brings only marginal added-value from a nanotechnology perspective (the physical and chemical properties of the silver do not alter appreciably from the bulk material at this size), yet the increased possibility for release, dispersion and exposure most likely leads to significant added-risk in some cases.

For regulatory purposes, something else is needed—a point hammered home by Mike Taylor in his 2006 assessment of the US Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate the products of nanotechnology.  In this respect, it would be far more useful to have a definition of nanotechnology that incorporates the idea that nanoscale engineering can lead to significant changes in the potential risks associated with a material.  Something like:

For regulatory and oversight purposes, nanotechnology is the control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nm, where the behaviour of the resulting material or product differs sufficiently from the component materials to lead to significant changes in potential risks to human health and the environment.

This is a definition that is based on added-risk, not added-value.  And unlike the more commonly used definitions of nanotechnology, it would encompass engineered nanomaterials where the predominant change in moving from the macroscale (or molecular scale) to the nanoscale is an increased potential for release, transport, accumulation, exposure dose, and biological impact.

Developing an added-risk based definition along these lines (and this is just an example of what a definition might look like) would include a broad range of materials and products that have an altered risk profile because of how they have been engineered; not just those that lie within the somewhat artificial boundaries of 1 to 100 nm.  In effect, there would be no more need for lengthy arguments about whether a 99 nm particle is a nanoparticle for regulatory purposes but a 101 is not; or whether large molecules should be treated as nanomaterials.  Under such a definition, the determiner of relevance would be added-risk, NOT size.

This all sounds great.  But I do have one niggling concern about this idea of added-risk.  And that is how will it apply to the more esoteric products of nanotechnology that are coming along—the increasingly complex second, third and even fourth generation materials that have multiple components, multiple functionalities, and can respond and adapt to their environments and other stimuli.  Here we are moving from adding value to existing materials and technologies, to building brand new materials and technologies.  Will we still be able to think of oversight in terms of added-risk, or will we need to go back to the drawing board?

That’s a tricky one and I’m not sure the answer is clear yet.  But given the current rate of progress being made in nanotechnology, we could do with some answers sooner rather than later.  In the meantime, seeing nanotechnology in terms of the added-value and added-risk it brings to materials, processes and products might just help deal with the nanotech which is out there now.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

In February 2008, the National Academy of Engineering launched 14 grand challenges for engineering.  These were the inspiration for this post, but rather than focus on the challenges themselves, I thought it would be interesting to consider how science and technology are going to help address them.  Over two years on, the ideas I was writing about here seem more relevant than ever – as I write this, I am putting the finishing touches to a World Economic Forum report that echoes many of the challenges I outlined back in March 2008.

Originally posted March 6 2008

Can current approaches to doing science sustain us over the next one hundred years?  An increasing reliance on technological fixes to global challenges — including nanotechnology — demands a radical rethink of how we use science in the service of society.

Over the next century we will perhaps be facing the greatest challenge in the history of humanity: sustaining six billion plus people on a planet where natural resources are running scarce and our every action results in a palpable environmental reaction.  Progress towards sustainability will only come through integrating relevant science with socially-responsible decision making.  Yet the science policy dogmas of the 20th century may be stretched to breaking point in the face of 21st century challenges.

And these challenges are immense. The U.S. National Academy of Engineering recently published 14 “grand challenges for engineering” — the culmination of a year-long project exploring and reviewing the greatest technological challenges facing us in the 21st century.  At the top of the list is development of economical solar energy and fusion-energy, followed by crafting carbon sequestration methods, improving access to clean water, creating improved medicines, preventing nuclear terror, and eight other pressing needs.  The challenges are a stark reminder of the limitations of our current capabilities, and what needs to change if we are to continue growing as a society in harmony with our surroundings.

The solutions to many of these challenges will come from emerging areas of science and technology that include nanotechnology, as well as areas such as synthetic biology and cognitive science — the science of how we use our mind to think and learn.  These are not the physics, chemistry and biology of 20th century science.  Rather, they represent a blurring of the boundaries between conventional disciplines — a mixing-up of ideas and concepts that has the potential to stimulate tremendous innovation.

For example, nanotechnology combines elements of physics and chemistry to find new solutions to old problems.  Cheap, efficient solar cells and access to clean water are just two areas that this emerging technology is showing promise in.  But combine the ideas of nanotechnology with molecular biology and you open the door to playing with the building blocks of life itself — DNA.  Imagine what we could achieve by inventing new organisms that harvest energy, clean up pollution, and build new materials atom by atom.  Sounds like science fiction, but simple nanotechnologies are already being used in daily life; and synthetic biology is rapidly becoming a reality, with the first artificially constructed bacterium genome reported in January of this year.

In addressing the major challenges of the 21st century, it is the convergence of these new technologies that will deliver the solutions.  But policymakers, scientists and engineers will only be able to transform the new knowledge from research to practice if strong policies and frameworks are in place to support and nurture these emerging technologies. 20th century science and technology thrived on the twin dogmas of partitioned disciplines and knowledge diffusion.  Vast investment in basic research was thought to lead — eventually — to technological solutions; a Darwinian natural selection of the best ideas generated by self-absorbed researchers.  And while “interdisciplinary collaboration” was the mantra of many a grant proposal, few ventured far from the comfort of their particular disciplinary caste.

But if 21st century solutions are to be found to 21st century challenges, we need a new way of doing science.  This “smart science” must train future practitioners to work across conventional boundaries and remove the barriers to interdisciplinary research that continue to persist.  It must be socially relevant.  And it must engage citizens at every level — with the recognition that scientists need to be socially literate, as much as citizens need to be scientifically literate.

It is no exaggeration to say the state of the world our children’s children inherit will depend on the choices we make now, and one of the critical choices will be how we will develop and use science in the service of society. As we approach the 2008 U.S. presidential election, there is a ground-swell within the American scientific community in support of a presidential science debate.  While the idea of politicians talking science might have minority appeal, the consequences of bad science policy will have a major impact — and one that will be felt much sooner than the end of the century or even the end of the next term of office.

The end of the 21st century might look a long way off.  But it is the choices we make now that will determine the consequences our grandchildren and their children are faced with.  20th century approaches to science got us a long way, but they lack what it takes to address the challenges now facing us.  Nanotechnology and other emerging technologies that hold the seeds of future will not and cannot be sustained by 20th century thinking.  Instead, we need a 21st century approach to science to get us through the next one hundred years — and we need it sooner rather than later.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

A few weeks ago, I set Friends of the Earth a challenge - What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?

The challenge came out of an article from FoE on nanomaterials and sunscreens, which I subsequently critiqued on 2020 Science.  Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminto from FoE kindly responded to my challenge – not by rising to it as such, but by fleshing out the justification for the position that they take on nanomaterials and sunscreens.

That post led to a useful discussion on the issues, with comments from the NGO community, regulators and respected scientists – it’s one that I would highly recommend anyone interested in nanomaterials and sunscreens reading.

To wrap things up (for the time being), I thought it would be worth reflecting on some of the issues raised by Georgia and Ian in their response, and the ensuing discussion:

Getting nanomaterials’ use in context. First, Georgia and Ian, very appropriately in my opinion, brought up the societal context within which new technologies and products are developed and used:

“why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit.”

This is a legitimate issue, and one that is touched on by a number of people in the comments.  Decisions on what is developed, what people are exposed to, who decides what is appropriate and what is not, and who pays the consequences while who reaps the benefits, go far beyond the science and technology itself.  This is touched on by Jennifer Sass from NRDC:

I strongly support a dialogue that has space for both scientific calculations and values and perceptions of risk. We need to make that dialogue public, inclusive, transparent, and thoughtful. Risk is more than a number – its a face, a person, a community.

Guillermo Foladorio also touches on this broader societal context:

We have here 2 kind of issues. One is the “scientific” knowledge (are nano-sunscreens harmful?). This is a never endend issue. Science is a process and not a fact. The other issue, although hidden, is of great importance: focusing on a never ended scientific discussion is the field that corporations like, in the meanwhile the market of such products grows and consolidates, aside from any wondering of the needs for such new stuff; or better which percentage of the population will benefit in the case.

I would suggest that forcing a technology on society has never been acceptable behavior.  But it has certainly been easier to do in the past.  These days though, we live in a much more crowded, resource-constrained and interconnected world than ever before.  Which means that the consequences of ill-conceived technology implementation are magnified, and the dynamics of introducing new – and possibly beneficial – technologies – are far more complex than they were in the past.

This means that we need to think critically about the broader societal issues associated with technology innovation, and we need to push the dialogue further upstream in the development process – a point Jeff Morris from EPA makes.  This means rethinking how we make decisions in partnership across society, and how we begin to apply ideas like the precautionary principle in a complex world – a point eloquently made by Richard Jones.

But it also means that we need to think carefully about how we use scientific knowledge and data – “evidence” – in making decisions.

Evidence-informed decision-making. At some point, decisions need to be based on information, and in the long run you cannot get away with making that information up!  It’s one thing to evaluate critically the current state of evidence in making decisions, but quite another to preferentially select evidence that supports a predetermined position.  Yet the latter is often the default position when it comes to influencing decisions – whether by policymakers or consumers.

Having worked at the heart of science-based policy in the US for a number of years, I’m all too familiar with the line of argument that goes “what do we want to achieve?” followed by “what evidence can we find that supports us?”.  Yet this is an approach that ultimately devalues the importance of evidence in making decisions, one that can have serious adverse consequences when decisions are made on dodgy information, and one that is patently unsustainable in the long run.

My original critique of FoE’s article challenged their use of “evidence” in supporting the position they took.  To me, they showed a tendency to use selective pieces of information to sow seeds of doubt in the mind of the reader, rather than to empower the reader to make informed decisions. The social agenda was a laudable one – the use of selective science sound-bytes, less so.

This begins to come out when you read the comments on Georgia and Ian’s response from three scientists who have worked on nanoscale materials on the skin.  Despite FoE’s implications that nanoparticles in sunscreens might cause cancer because they are photoactive, Peter Dobson points out that there are nanomaterials used in sunscreens that are designed not to be photoactive. Brian Gulson, who’s work on zinc skin penetration was cited by FoE, points out that his studies only show conclusively that zinc atoms or ions can pass through the skin, not that nanoparticles can pass through.  He also notes that the amount of zinc penetration from zinc-based sunscreens is very much lower than the level of zinc people have in their body in the first place.  Tilman Butz, who led one of the largest projects on nanoparticle penetration through skin to date, points out that – based on current understanding – the nanoparticles used in sunscreens are too large to penetrate through the skin.

These three comments alone begin to cast the potential risks associated with nanomaterials in sunscreens in a very different light to that presented by FoE.  Certainly there are still uncertainties about the possible consequences of using these materials – no-one is denying that.  But the weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterials within sunscreens – if engineered and used appropriately – do not present a clear and present threat to human health.

Yet, because there are uncertainties still, we cannot afford to be complacent here.

Handling uncertainty. And this brings me to the thorny issue of uncertainty.  When we are lacking absolute evidence on safety or risk, what do we do – do we halt progress until we are sure about how safe something is, or do we muddle along until more information is available?

This question is becoming increasingly important as the rate of technology innovation – and the complexity of emerging technologies – accelerates.  Consumers, regulators, businesses and others are being forced more and more to make decisions in the face of increasing uncertainty.  At the same time, we are dependent on technology innovation as a global society – although the idea of “going back to basics” is an attractive one, it’s not going to help the marginalized in an overcrowded and resource-constrained world.  Rather, we need new ideas on how to use science and technology in ways that ensure as many people as possible have an acceptable quality of life.

The question is, how do we do this when we cannot be sure of how safe or dangerous a new technology is?

The Precautionary Principle is one approach – and a very misunderstood and misused one – to addressing this, and one brought up by FoE and others in the context of sunscreens.  It has many formulations – it’s not a hard and fast principle.  But it is currently described in the European Union in this way:

The precautionary principle should be informed by three specific principles:

• implementation of the principle should be based on the fullest possible scientific evaluation. As far as possible this evaluation should determine the degree of scientific uncertainty at each stage;
• any decision to act or not to act pursuant to the precautionary principle must be preceded by a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction;
• once the results of the scientific evaluation and/or the risk evaluation are available, all the interested parties must be given the opportunity to study of the various options available, while ensuring the greatest possible transparency.

Besides these specific principles, the general principles of good risk management remain applicable when the precautionary principle is invoked. These are the following five principles:

• proportionality between the measures taken and the chosen level of protection;
• non-discrimination in application of the measures;
• consistency of the measures with similar measures already taken in similar situations or using similar approaches;
• examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action;
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments.
• The burden of proof

This is a pragmatic principle, that looks to using evidence and an evaluation of consequences in making informed decisions in the face of uncertainty.  It certainly does not preclude the development or implementation of a new technology until there is certainty on safety.

The emphasis on the potential consequences of inaction are particularly relevant to today’s world, where we are stuck on a technological tight-rope, and where the consequences of not doing something may be more harmful than taking action.  Richard Jones picked up on this in his suggestion for a more relevant application of the Precautionary Principle to emerging technologies:

what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?

what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?

what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

This seems a useful place to start from when faced with the reality of having to make the best possible decisions in the face of uncertainty, and where inaction isn’t a option.

But to make decisions – even when there are gaping holes in the data – you need something to go on.

So why did I pose the challenge in the first place? Despite suspicions from some that I was merely being provocative with this question, I asked it in all seriousness.  In the face of uncertainty, playing out different potential scenarios is a powerful tool in helping identify the magnitude and nature of the consequences of different choices.

When it comes to using nanomaterials in sunscreens, I genuinely would like to know whether in the worst case we are looking at mass illness and death, isolated cases of skin rashes, or something in between.  Because the likely implications of the use of such materials in the future have profound implications on the actions we take now.

If decisions are made now on futures that are unlikely to be realized, not only do we waste resources and effort, but we potentially endanger people’s lives through ill-informed choices.  This cuts both ways – if TiO2 and ZnO nanomaterials in sunscreens are likely to harm a significant number of people to a significant degree, action should be taken to avoid this as soon as possible.  But if the benefits are positive and the impacts likely to be inconsequential, inhibiting the use of such materials could cost lives.

Using the best available information to work through possible scenarios provides insight into which futures are more likely, and where efforts are best focused.  This isn’t about setting exposure levels or conducting quantitative risk assessments – it’s about helping people making informed choices.

And who should do this?  I think any group that has a stake in how contemporary decisions affect future outcomes has a part to play.  I focused on FoE because they were pushing the issue.  And I think they have sufficient people they can draw on to make a stab at working through some scenarios and estimating likely impact.

But at the end of the day, this is something that all stakeholders should be involved in.

Because these are decisions that we are all going to have to live with the consequences of.

The global financial crisis of 2008-09 laid bare the inadequacies of global systems in an increasingly interdependent world, and highlighted the need to rethink the “architecture of global cooperation” – the idea at the core of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Initiative.  As the World Economic Forum publishes and discusses the outcomes of this intensive twelve month initiative, the critical need for up-front and integrated investment in sustainable technology innovation cannot afford to be overlooked.

If anyone is still in doubt that sustainable technology innovation depends on up-front investment in responsible development, just take a look at the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.  With strategic investment in planning for plausible outcomes, the unfolding environmental and human disaster could have been avoided, or at least substantially reduced.  Yet the failure to plan for the future and invest in technologies and strategies that would underpin safe and sustainable operations is indicative of a naive mindset within corporate and policy circles – that when problems occur, science and technology will deliver timely and effective solutions. 

Sadly, this is not the case.  In the face of high impact and increasingly complex technologies, new approaches are needed to developing the science, policies and tools that will underpin sustainable innovation.  This is at the center of a new proposal coming out of the World Economic Forum Global Redesign Agenda to develop a Global Center for Emerging Technology Intelligence – or CETI.  The proposed Center aims to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

CETI is just one of many proposals in the recently-published World Economic Forum Report of the Global Redesign Agenda – Everybody’s Business: Strengthening International Cooperation in a More Interdependent World.

As Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum writes in the report’s preface,

“Our purpose has been to stimulate a strategic thought process among all stakeholders about ways in which international institutions and arrangements should be adapted to contemporary challenges. This report summarizes and interprets the significance of the proposals that the Forum’s many communities have developed in response to this challenge.”

The ideas and proposals presented in the report are essential reading for anyone concerned about sustainable growth in a changing world.  But, just as the recent financial collapse and the current disaster in the Gulf of Mexico were caused in part by a lack of foresight and investment in the future, many of the ideas here assume that science and technology will underpin proposed actions.  The reality is though that this will only happen with strategic investment in sustainable technology innovation on a scale that, as yet, does not occur.

And this is where the Global Center for Emerging Technologies Intelligence comes in.

The full CETI proposal can be read here.  But the main details of the proposed Center are outlined below:

Context

Emerging technologies are critical to long-term global prosperity. They represent the innovation that adds necessary economic and social value to materials, products and processes. And they provide potential solutions to a wide range of pressing global challenges including energy generation and storage, health care, climate change, food security and access to clean water. Yet without better global cooperation on technology innovation, many potential emerging technologies will not mature to the point at which they can be used effectively.

Government and corporate decision-makers are foundering in a world dominated by rapid and unprecedented social and technological developments. They are limited in their ability to anticipate and respond to new developments and they lack the mechanisms necessary to work with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups.

Proposal

The Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will directly address this need. A neutral, transparent and authoritative organization, the Centre’s leaders and staff will work with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations in ensuring the best possible tools are available to support the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The mission of the Centre is to ensure that governments, businesses and other stakeholder organizations are equipped to make the most effective use of science and technology innovation in addressing the global challenges of the 21st Century.

Explanation/Rationale

Why a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence Is Necessary

Science and technology have been at the heart of economic growth, social prosperity and improvements in quality of life for close to ten thousand years. From the agricultural revolution to the information revolution, advances in society around the globe have been underpinned by new discoveries, and their innovative use in new products and processes. Nearly 250 years ago, the invention of the Spinning Jenny vastly increased speed with which cotton could be turned into yarn, revolutionizing the textile industry and helping usher in the industrial revolution. The discovery of penicillin in the early 1900’s allowed previously fatal infections to be treated, opening the door to modern surgical procedures. In the mid twentieth century, the invention and subsequent development of the transistor initiated a technology revolution that is still driving economic and social growth. And more recently, innovations in global communication, social networking and information processing have begun to empower global communities in ways unimaginable a few years ago.

Yet despite the clear impact of these and other examples, the continued success of science and technology as an engine for economic and social growth is not guaranteed. Over the past few decades, global economic and social landscapes have shifted radically, leading to new thinking on how to tap into the potential offered by emerging technologies. A growing global population, coupled with a widespread desire for a first-world quality of life, is placing unprecedented demands on resources around the world. Humanity’s actions are becoming uniquely entwined in environmental reactions, redefining our relationship with the planet on which we live and depend. And modern communications are making a mockery of geographical and institutional boundaries that have endured for hundreds and thousands of years. These three factors not only place new demands on how emerging technologies are used; they also rewrite the rules for using them effectively.

Recent attempts to introduce genetically modified foods into commerce in Europe provide a sobering lesson in how easy it is to mishandle emerging technologies. Despite little evidence to the contrary, apparent concerns over health and environmental impacts severely retarded the implementation of a technology that could save and improve millions of lives around the world. Yet these concerns were grounded in a backlash against corporate control that cut consumers out of the decision-making process. And through a socially-savvy media, people were galvanized to say “no” to “frankenfoods” – not because of the science and technology, but because of the way they were handled.

Missteps over the development of genetically modified foods are a prominent case among many where the trajectory of a technology has been dictated by social concerns as much as scientific evidence. It is becoming increasingly clear that hierarchical, evidence-based decision-making is not sufficient on its own to ensure the success of new technologies. In part, the situation is exacerbated by peer to peer global communications, where virtual groups can be informed about, motivated by and empowered to take action on emerging issues before institutional decision-makers are even aware there is an issue to respond to. We now live in a world where an incident in China, or the Middle East, can influence attitudes and actions in regions like Europe and the Americas in a matter of minutes through media like FaceBook and Twitter.

The impact on realizing the social and economic potential of new technologies is potentially profound. Established approaches to government and corporate policy-making founder in the new social order, and are limited in their ability to anticipate and guide new developments effectively. They lack the responsiveness, adaptability and foresight to anticipate hurdles to progress, or to work through partnership with non-traditional but increasingly influential stakeholder groups – including consumers.

Yet this disconnect between established policy mechanisms and new approaches to implementing emerging technologies is occurring at a point where future global prosperity is more dependent than ever on new science-based solutions to pressing problems.

Providing people with access to healthy food and clean water; managing climate change and its impacts; treating disease; generating and using energy wisely; coping with pollution—over the next fifty years, global challenges in these and similar areas will reach an unprecedented level. Without rapid and targeted advances in science and technology, humanity will not be able to face them without paying a large price. Now, perhaps more than at any time in history, we need the tools that science and technology provide to face an uncertain future. And just as the challenges are global in scope, so the solutions will need to be global in reach.

In emerging areas such as nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geoengineering, there is growing awareness that a new paradigm is needed if the technologies are to be developed effectively—one that predicts and avoids potential hurdles, develops and implements new technologies in partnership with multiple stakeholders, identifies and addresses possible health and environmental impacts before they occur, and responds rapidly to new developments. Yet there is a gaping chasm between the knowledge that a different approach to policy-making is needed, and an understanding of what this new approach should look like.

This is the gap that the Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence will fill. Working with decision-makers at the highest level in industry, government and other organizations, it will aim to ensure that decision-makers have the best possible tools at their disposal to ensure the successful and sustainable development and implementation of new technologies.

The Goals of a Global Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence

Be an authoritative and neutral source of intelligence on emerging technologies and the opportunities and challenges they raise

The Centre will work towards becoming the premier go-to source of information on emerging technologies for decision-makers, the media and the public. This will be achieved through developing a global network of experts on emerging technology policy, potential and risks, building in-house expertise, producing high value/high impact products and working closely with the media. The Centre will also promote accessibility, inclusiveness and strategic partnerships in an attempt to bridge divides that can characteristic advance technologies.

Provide timely information on emerging opportunities and challenges

The Centre will develop in-house expertise in identifying, evaluating and assessing new opportunities and challenges related to emerging technologies. Assessments of emerging issues will be published and made publicly available on a regular basis.

Bring senior stakeholders together to identify emerging issues

The Centre will bring high-level experts and decision-makers together on an annual basis to identify emerging issues and inform a rolling two-year programme of targeted projects.

Publish targeted research, analysis and recommendations

Based on a two-year strategic plan, the Centre will publish analyses and recommendations on key emerging technology issues.

The bottom line here is that sustainable technology innovation doesn’t just happen – it requires sustained, strategic and substantial up-front investment in the knowledge, frameworks and policies that will allow innovation to address global challenges without creating new problems.  CETI is one approach to addressing this need.  But whether this proposal is developed or something else is adopted in its place, one thing is very clear – global redesign will not happen unless we rethink sustainable technology innovation.  And for that to happen, science and technology need to be pushed much further up the global agenda.

Last week’s announcement from the J. Craig Venter Institute that scientists had created the first-ever synthetic cell was a profoundly significant point in human history, and marked a turning point in our quest to control the natural world.  But the ability to use this emerging technology wisely is already being dogged by fears that we have embarked down a dangerous and morally dubious path.

It’s no surprise therefore that, hot on the heels of last week’s announcement, President Obama called for an urgent study to identify appropriate ethical boundaries and minimize possible risks associated with the breakthrough.

This was a bold and important move on the part of the White House.  But its success will lie in ensuring the debate over risks in particular is based on sound science, and not sidetracked by groundless speculation.

The new “synthetic biology” epitomized by the Venter Institute’s work – in essence the ability to design new genetic code on computers and then “download” it into living organisms – heralds a new era of potentially transformative technology innovation.  As if to underline this, the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce will be hearing testimony from Craig Venter and others on the technology’s potential on May 27th – just days after last week’s announcement.  But the technology also raises serious ethical and safety concerns: Is it right and proper to meddle with the fundamental basis of life?  What happens if the technology gets into the wrong hands? And what might occur when synthetic life meets the natural world?

Questions like these have challenged scientists, ethicists and decision makers for many years, and with good reason – our headlong charge into advanced genetic manipulation is taking us into uncharted and uncertain territory.  But the breakthroughs made by Craig Venter and his team place a new urgency on developing policies, ethics and research strategies in support of safe and acceptable synthetic biology.

The ethics in particular surrounding synthetic biology are far from clear; the ability to custom-design the genetic code that resides in and defines all living organisms challenges our very notions of what is right and what is acceptable.  Which is no doubt why President Obama wasted no time in charging the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to look into the technology.

But in placing ethics so high up the agenda, my fear is that more immediate safety issues might end up being overlooked.

It’s not that safety isn’t on the radar – there is already tremendous speculation over the potential impacts of synthetic biology.  But with one or two exceptions (including work from the J. Craig Venter Institute), there seems little science behind many of these conjectures.  And actions based on speculation alone may endanger the tremendous good that could come from this rapidly emerging technology, while potentially opening the door to unintended consequences.

Rather, scientists, policy makers and developers urgently need to consider how synthetic biology might legitimately lead to people and the environment being endangered, and how this is best avoided.

What we need is a science-based dialogue on potential emergent risks that present new challenges, the plausibility of these risks leading to adverse impacts, and the magnitude and nature of the possible harm that might result.  Only then will we be able to develop a science-based foundation on which to build a safe technology.

Synthetic biology is still too young to second-guess whether artificial microbes will present new risks; whether bio-terror or bio-error will result in harmful new pathogens; or whether blinkered short-cuts will precipitate catastrophic failure. But the sheer momentum and audacity of the technology will inevitably lead to new and unusual risks emerging.

And this is precisely why the safety dialogue needs to be grounded in science now, before it becomes entrenched in speculation.

In six months’ time, the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues will be presenting President Obama with its findings and recommendations on the implications of synthetic biology.  Hopefully as well as grappling with the ethics of nanotechnology, their recommendations will also address the potential and plausible risks associated with the technology, and the science that is needed to ensure its safe development and use.

Because without sound science guiding the safety dialogue, there is every chance that synthetic biology will be derailed by mistrust, misinformation and misunderstanding.

And if this happens, it’s hard to see how anyone can win.

Does the US need more public participation in assessing technologies and their potential impact on society, and informing decisions on their development and use?  Richard Sclove – author of a new report on technology assessment – thinks yes; but only as part of a new paradigm for technology assessment.  The report, published today by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Science & Technology Innovation Program, announces plans for a new Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology Network (ECAST), which would compliment expert input with participatory technology assessment to help inform decisions on developing new and emerging technologies.

I’m currently reading Robert Winston’s new book “Bad Ideas? An arresting history of our inventions” (slowly, as regular followers of 2020 Science will realize!).  Starting from the earliest indications of innovation amongst humans – from tool-making and the development of language – and ending up at the present day, he takes a hard look at what innovation has cost us over the ages, as well as what we have gained from it.  Reading it, one can’t help ask the question (as I suspect the author intended) – are we slaves to innovation, or can we control the process?

Technology Assessment in all its guises is a rejection of the former, and an attempt to embrace the latter.  It is based on the assumption that, if only we can get some insight into where a particular technology innovation is going and what the broader social and economic consequences might be, we should be able to tweak the system to increase the benefits and decrease the downsides.

As an idea, it’s an attractive one.  Having the foresight to identify potential hurdles to progress ahead of time and make decisions that help overcome them at an early stage makes sound sense.  If businesses wants to develop products that are sustainable over long periods, governments want to craft policies that have long-reaching positive consequences and citizens want to support actions that will benefit them and  their children, any intelligence on the potential benefits and pitfalls associated with a new technology is invaluable to informed decision-making.

The trouble is, making sense of a complex future where technology, social issues, politics, economics and sheer human irrationality collide, is anything but straight forward.

Back in 1972, the US Congress established the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to handle exactly this type of challenge.  For 23 years , OTA took a relatively formal and meticulous approach to assessing emerging technologies for Congress, based on expert input and analysis.  When the Office was closed in 1995, many considered it a blow to informed policy on science and technology within the US.  Ironically, as the US (along with the rest of the world) now squares up to some of the most complex science and technology-based issues and opportunities ever to face humanity, the tools that might help inform forward-looking decisions on how to navigate this technology-driven future are rather conspicuously lacking.

Into this void comes today’s report from Dr. Richard Sclove – founder and senior Fellow of the Loka Institute.  Sclove argues that we need to take a proactive role in determining the trajectory of technology for the good of society, but that a changing world demands new approaches – the OTA of 1972 (he suggests) would look conspicuously out of place in today’s fast pace, interconnected world.  Specifically, he argues that citizens need a place at the table – not instead of experts, but as a valuable voice alongside those of others in evaluating how technology-driven futures might most appropriately evolve.

Richard makes a strong case for what he terms participatory Technology Assessment – or pTA.  He argues that in a democracy, citizens should have the right to help decide how technology is developed and used; that citizens bring a range of social values to the table which are critical to determining technology trajectories and can help select potentially more sustainable ways forward; that engaging a broad base of people expands the knowledge base on which decisions are made; that citizen involvement can improve the effectiveness of decisions that are made, and help avoid costly mis-steps; and that pTA can even lead to expedited conclusions (although I am still struggling to see how asking more people for their perspectives and input can lead to a faster process).

The challenge is, how to make this work – and work in a way where citizens are fully engaged in the process of decision making, rather than just being a token presence.

Sclove quickly dismisses the option of re-instating the OTA (or a similar institutionalized body) as being outdated, unlikely to embrace pTA (the OTA did not engage citizens in technology assessment generally), and too focused on serving institutions within government rather than society as a whole.   He also challenges the suggestion that sufficient technology assessment is already carried out by a range of government offices, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Instead, an alternative is offered – an independent network of institutions that work together to carry out a combination of expert and participatory technology assessment.

The result is ECAST – the Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology Network; a proposed independent network of organizations that can facilitate and conduct technology assessments that are not only responsive to 21st century challenges, but also make full use of 21st century opportunities.

As presented in the report, ECAST is in the initial stages of formation, supported by the Woodrow Wilson  International Center for Scholars, the Boston Museum of Science, the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science CheerLeader, and The Loka Institute.  However, there are clearly plans to expand this network.

The model as it stands is based on working through science museums (as a direct link to citizens), universities (bringing innovative ideas and research and analysis capabilities to the table) and non-partisan policy research organizations (providing policy relevance, and interfacing with decision makers).  While at an early stage of development, it clearly draws on the ideas of independence, input from experts and laypersons, and strong connections to policymakers (the report stresses the need for a physical presence in Washington DC).

Does the idea have legs?  I’m not sure yet, although I would be the first to agree that movement along these lines is desperately needed if the US is to develop strategic and sustainable technology innovation policies.  Looking to the future, it’s hard to justify letting innovation run its course without any form of intervention – if the recent economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that.  As advances in science and technology, global communications and coupling between humanity and the environment in which we live continue to converge together, there is a social and economic imperative to help ensure technology innovation leads to long-term progress.  And assuming that everything will fall out in the wash without proactive intervention is both naive and short sighted.  The only real question is how to go about controlling the future.

I would argue strongly that, as stakeholders in the future, citizens have a right and a responsibility to be a part the process.  Richard’s proposal is definitely a significant move in this direction.  It’s not perfect – I have questions over the legitimacy of the process, sources of funding, the ability of the proposed network to make a difference, and translating academic ideals into practical reality.  Nevertheless, it’s an exciting and innovative step forward, and one that I will be following with interest.

I don’t particularly like the thought that we are slaves to innovation – I may be overly optimistic, but I would like to believe that humanity has the ability to choose future courses that are more likely to improve people’s lives.  But as our “inventions” get increasingly more sophisticated, it’s going to take more than luck and good intentions to ensure that what looks good on paper doesn’t turn out to be yet another “bad idea.” Hopefully, innovations like ECAST will help empower people to work together towards a future in which technology innovation is more likely to solve problems, than create new ones.

_______________________________________

I feel I should add a disclaimer to this post, as Richard Sclove’s report was published by an organization I was a part of until recently – the Science & Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center.  However, I was not in any way associated with the development and writing of the report, and indeed the first time I saw it was earlier today when it was publicly released.

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) plans to form a new interagency group on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and synthetic biology.  The announcement was make by Tom Kalil, deputy director for policy at OSTP, at a government-organized workshop on Risk Management Methods and Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology held last week.  The AAAS policy alert (not available on the web yet available here) noted that the group is intended to provide research funding agencies and regulatory agencies an opportunity to discuss emerging policy issues.

Unfortunately I wasn’t at the workshop in Washington DC where Kalil made his remarks, and so don’t know any more about this than was included in the brief note from AAAS.  However, from what was reported, this seems a sensible move – if carried through thoughtfully.

Nanotechnology – arguably the US government’s flagship emerging technology – has highlighted the need for smart policy decisions when developing new technologies.  What started as a science-based initiative to promote new research, stimulate innovation and create new jobs, has increasingly become entangled in the social, political and economic impacts of science and technology promotion.  Ten years after President Clinton established the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) – the initiative that coordinates nanotechnology activities across federal agencies – there remains an uneasy relationship between the desire to drive science discovery and technology innovation, and the need to understand and manage the potential safety, societal and economic impacts of this push.

At the heart of this uneasy relationship is a built-in resistance to asking “un-askable” questions.

The NNI’s vision is “a future in which the ability to understand and control matter at the nanoscale leads to a revolution in technology and industry that benefits society.” The vision is built on a belief that increasing our ability to control matter at the nanoscale is essential, that this will lead to a technology revolution, and that this revolution will benefit society. This is a powerful driver, and has contributed largely to the success of the NNI specifically and nanotechnology more broadly.  But it does mean that people who ask difficult questions tend to be tarred by a brush that’s reserved for whistle blowers and inconvenient activists.

This has been seen in the slow and sometimes reluctant inclusion of research into potential health and environmental impacts under the NNI umbrella; a resistance to developing government-wide policies on developing nanotechnology responsibly (a resistance usually justified by the NNI being a science initiative, not a policy initiative); and negligible efforts to include citizens who stand to gain or loose from nanotechnology as partners in the process (see David Guston’s piece on this for instance).  There has also been a surprising lack of analysis of the broader economic impacts of nanotechnology promotion – as opposed to the economic benefits.  How many companies and economies have invested in nanotechnology simply because the US set an aggressive lead – and what has been the economic impact of this “follow the leader” mentality?

The reality is that in any initiative dedicated to promoting a given technology, people and organizations that raise issues and recommend actions that threaten to undermine this promotion risk being marginalized.  And this ends up playing into personal and agency self-interest – why give up a position of influence and the promise of funding for the sake of asking difficult questions? I can only imagine what the response to a NNI member who suggested the usefulness of the initiative should be re-examined would be – I suspect it would not be pretty!  Yet if sound and strategic policies are to be developed that benefit citizens, the “un-askable” questions are often the most important ones.

Looking forward, there is a need to develop emerging technology-related policies that are balanced by considerations other than technology promotion. alone  But on top of this, there is a need to develop more holistic approaches to emerging technologies in general.  Nanotechnology is not the only new technology on the block – technologies emerging under the banners of synthetic biology,  robotics, geoengineering, cognitive enhancement and a plethora of others are coming up fast.  Then there are the gray areas between these where convergence leads to increasingly complex and ill-defined technologies.  In the face of accelerating innovation, should policies be developed for each and every new technology that comes along?  This would be exceedingly difficult to achieve now, and an impossible task I suspect a few years down the line.

One solution – and the one the White House seems to be pursuing – is to take a high-level approach to emerging technology policy that ensures cross-agency coordination, identifies emerging hot-spots and enables a balanced and socially-responsible approach to emerging opportunities and issues.  In some ways this is a role that the long-defunct Office of Technology Assessment within the US Congress played.  But looking to an increasingly technologically-complex future, I suspect that a complete rethink of how to ensure the benefits of new technologies are realized and the dangers avoided is needed.

Depending on how it develops, the new White House interagency group could well lead to coordinated action on emerging technologies that ensures policies are responsive to the needs of citizens – not just those who have a vested interest in technology promotion.  But I can guarantee it will hit resistance from agencies, organizations and individuals who stand to loose out from this move – including those who stand to loose funding or influence as a result. of it  Yet if the US government is to embrace technology development that benefits society as a whole – especially in light of President Obama’s Innovation Strategy – it surely must create a policy forum where the “un-askable” questions can be asked; where no one interest group within the government can dominate proceedings; and where hurdles to social and economic prosperity can be identified, assessed and addressed without fear of agencies and individuals being marginalized.

Done right, this could be a critical step toward the US developing a 21st century approach to 21st century technologies.

_______________________________________

In order to ensure the new group’s effectiveness, OSTP are going to have to grapple with some tough issues.  These will include, amongst others:

Links to technology-specific initiatives. I would imagine that the new group will function best as  a complementary activity to initiatives such as the NNI.  There is clearly benefit to having strong technology-promotion initiatives like the NNI, and it would seem foolish to diminish these.  And initiatives like this are essential for intelligence on where emerging technologies are going.  Yet at the same time it is important that policy decisions are decoupled somewhat from technology promotion.  One way to do this is to ensure strong links between initiatives such as the NNI and the new group.

Agency-engagement at a senior level. To avoid yet another talking-shop, the new group will need to engage agencies at a senior level – ensuring that participants have decision-making authority.

Balance of interest. To the extent that it is possible across federal agencies, the group is more likely to be effective if there is balance between different interests – including science, business, economic growth, social development and prosperity, and oversight.

Funding. One fear of establishing a group like this is that it will undermine efforts to fund oversight and social impacts-related research through initiatives such as the NNI.  This is a serious concern, although it would be dangerous to place research funding interests within specific sectors ahead of sound policy formulation.  Nevertheless, it would be prudent to both ensure the new group does not adversely impact on current funding into the challenges and potential impacts of emerging technologies, and to develop mechanisms to support and stimulate new funding to address strategically important issues.

Stakeholder input. It is hard to imagine how the planned interagency group will function effectively without non-government stakeholder input.  In the absence of balanced input from different stakeholder groups – representatives of business, citizens and academia in particular – cross-government policies on emerging technologies are unlikely to be relevant, responsive or effective.  This will almost definitely mean setting up a Federal Advisory Committee to the group  to ensure informed and representative input.

To coincide with my move to the University of Michigan, Seed Magazine has just published a series of ten questions and answers on what I do and what motivates me as a scientist.  You can read how well I fared (or didn’t, as the case may be) with questions as diverse as “How do you explain your job at cocktail parties?” to “Why do you do science?” on the Seed Magazine website.

I was surprised to hear that Seed sometimes have to hard-sell the idea of this series to scientists – who doesn’t want to pontificate about what they are reading, or who they would most like to meet?  But I must confess, answering questions like “Why do you do science?” and “What inspires you?” was tougher than I imagined.

Previous articles in Seed’s “10 Questions” series include:

• James Kasting on the odds of finding another earth-like planet and the power of science fiction;
• Kirsten Bomblies on the immune system of plants and how young scientists can keep inspiration alive;
• John Rinn onwhy we should dumpster-dive in our genomes and the inspiration of a middle-distance runner; and
• Amy Cannon on low-energy solar cells, training scientists to weed out toxicity, and what makes benign chemistry such a good business proposition.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/04/06/cultivating-ingenuity-humility-in-an-increasingly-complex-world/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/03/08/new-report-on-science-and-trust-emphasizes-acknowledging-risk-and-uncertainty/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/08/new-report-on-science-and-trust-emphasizes-acknowledging-risk-and-uncertainty/#comments Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:14:59 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2947

A new report released today from the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Expert Group on Science and Trust emphasizes the need to address risk and uncertainty in developing and using science and technology within society.  “Acknowledging risk and uncertainty” is the second of eight broad aspirations from the independent group, established to develop a UK action plan to “enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “license to operate” is socially robust.”

The report “Starting a National Conversation about Good Science” [PDF, 478 KB] is a rich, informative and insightful document, that demands careful consideration.  It comes out of a group assembled to consider new mechanisms to increase public trust in science and engineering; review the impact of the existing science-related ethical code of practice; examine how movement of knowledge and people across the different sectors can be facilitated in order to maximize the benefits and impacts of science and society activities; and think about better ways to evaluate the impacts of science and society initiatives.  Despite this being a purely British affair, many of the recommendations are relevant far beyond the confines of a UK-centered “national conversation,”  and will hopefully stimulate a global dialogue on what is a global challenge.

Amidst the eight “broad aspirations” of the group, which span public judgment about science and awareness of the scientific process, to underpinning science-informed decision-making and good science governance, I was particularly struck by an emphasis on risk and uncertainty.  This may be because in a few weeks I will becoming increasingly involved in risk, uncertainty and science-informed decision-making, as I take over as Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan.  But beyond this, I was struck by the group’s recognition that, from the publics’ various perspectives, uncertainties surrounding science and technology – their implications in particular – are often more important than the science and technology themselves.

The overarching aim of the Science and Trust Expert Group -  and of this report – was

“To enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “licence to operate” is socially robust.”

In this context,the group recommended that

“Expert advice to Government should identify and characterize uncertainties; policy makers should communicate clearly actions that take account of inevitable uncertainties; efforts should be made to support public judgements about risks and uncertainties.”

In particular, the report emphasizes the need to address uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts and benefits of emerging technologies “in the wider context of science and society relations.”

This emphasis on uncertainty is particularly welcome, and closely aligns with where I hope to be taking the University of Michigan Risk Science Center over the next few years.  New technologies – or innovative ways of using existing technologies for that matter – lead to inherently uncertain futures.  There is a great danger of mistaking this uncertainty for risk (risk is a reasonably well-understood chance of something bad happening; uncertainty is a poor understanding of whether good or bad will come out of a course of action) – with the result that there is a tendency to shy away from potentially beneficial technologies, simply because we don’t know how they are going to unfold.  On the other hand, uncertainty means that we do need to move forward carefully, in case there are very real and relevant risks lurking in the shadows.  The trick is to develop better ways of handling uncertainty so that the best possible choices are made.

Being up-front about uncertainty and potential risks associated with science and technology is a critical step toward developing conversations and actions that underpin a science-informed approach to minimizing and otherwise handling uncertainty and risk.  One particularly good resource that the report recommends is A Worriers’s Guide to Risk [PDF, 222 KB] – a one-pager intended to help everyone make more sense of the seemingly unending series of stories on risk.

In its specific recommendations and actions, the Science and Trust Expert Group includes:

• Support Government to take better account of risks and uncertainties in policy making;
• Support public judgements about risks and uncertainties inherent in the scientific advisory process;
• Support policy makers to take better account of public attitudes and values to the risks, benefits and uncertainties in the governance of emerging technologies;
• Enable wider discussions in the media and elsewhere on uncertainty inherent in the scientific process; and
• Enable greater discussion of risk.

Although these are aimed fair and square at the UK, they provide a valuable template for a global conversation about good science, and its role within society.  Hopefully, now that the UK has set the pace, we will see this develop as an International conversation about good science.

A lot of things keep me up at night – everything from the trivial (“did I remember to brush my teeth?”) to the to the profound (“does it matter?” ).  But recently, I’ve been plagued more than usual in the wee small hours by the challenge of developing sustainable and resilient technologies.

Blame it on reading about too many fictional futures where post-apocalyptic dystopias dominate, but I do worry about how to ensure a secure future that depends on highly complex and specialized technologies.

Here’s my problem:  Technologies – or rather, the understanding and skills to use specific technologies – can just as easily be lost as gained.  Just because we as a global society can do something clever now, doesn’t mean that people 10, 20, 50 years down the line will still be able to do it.  Securing and maintaining technological advances requires effort – take our eyes off the ball, and the technology innovation-equivalent of entropy begins to eat away at progress.  And the more dependent we become on complex technologies, the more effort it seems we need to expend to support this dependency.

Which all makes me wonder: Are we are destined to hit a point where our global intellectual capacity is so taken up with maintaining the technological status quo, that we will loose the capacity for further technological innovation?  Or even worse; are we heading for a technology innovation impasse ends up degenerating into an uncertain and unenlightened future?

I have to say, I’m not an optimist here – that is, unless we learn how to build effective technology ratchets.

A mechanical ratchet, as everyone knows, is a device that allows movement in one direction only. By comparison, a technology ratchet can be considered as something that allows technology development to move forward, but prevents or inhibits it from moving backward.  The idea is to find ways to hold onto ground gained through technology innovation, without having to constantly expend huge amounts of effort in doing so.

This is a significant challenge.  Up until the point that we started using our heads and creating our own destiny, the progress of humans – and our evolutionary precursors – was underpinned by a rather robust biological ratchet: evolution.  Evolution is a well-honed ratchet mechanisms that ensures the successes of one generation are passed on to the next though random mutation and natural selection. In effect, progress is hard-wired into an organism’s genetic code, meaning that each subsequent generation is spared the hassle of learning the rules of survival from scratch.  But when we humans started to think for ourselves, we left this biological ratchet behind, leaving us dependent on “soft-wired” technologies that each new generation needs to be taught.

Fortunately, we’ve managed to develop some technology ratchets that have made the process of transferring knowledge from one generation to the next a little easier.  Skills like making fire, using wheels and growing crops have propagated successfully from generation to generation for thousands of years, so we must be doing something right.  But how effective are these ratchets, and are they up to the task of sustaining technology innovation in the 21st century?  The history of technology development has been “lumpy” to say the least – as civilizations have come and gone, technological ground has been lost as well as gained – suggesting that the technology ratchets of the past might be a little creaky, to say the least.

Living in what is probably the most technologically advanced and technology-dependent age of humanity to date, I’m not sure we can rely fully on old and worn technology ratchets – if we are to prevent a precarious technology-dependent society collapsing like a pack of cards at the slightest provocation, we need to proactively develop effective technology ratchets that underpin sustainable and resilient progress.

So what sort of technology ratchets should we be building?  Here are four ideas for starters:

Open-access knowledge-repositories. These used to be called libraries!  Whether stored on paper, digitally, or within cultural and social memories, widespread access to resilient and durable knowledge-bases is an important technology ratchet.  Where knowledge is privileged, easily corrupted, or temporal, it becomes increasingly hard to ensure its endurance across generations.  Ironically, while we now have access to more information than ever before, the resilience and accessibility of the “knowledge” associated within this information is by no means certain.

Skills transfer mechanisms. I was tempted to say “education” here, but what most people consider as education is part of a broader technology ratchet that ensures the skills of one generation are passed on to successive ones.  This includes knowledge transfer.  But it also includes the ability to use this knowledge.  Skills transfer mechanisms will depend on formal education – including “book-learning” and-on-the job training.  But they will also depend on learning in less formal situations – skills passed on by parents and peers, or through social interactions.  I suspect sustainable technology innovation will require more people to acquire and pass on more skills than ever before in order to succeed – and we are going to have to find new ways to achieve this.

Redundancy. Biology works so well because it has built-in redundancy.  The same information is carried by billions of cells, and there are often multiple pathways to achieving the same end.  The result is incredible resilience – throw a curve-ball at biology, and it adjusts and adapts.  It’s something that we could learn from in ensuring resilient technology innovation – redundancy as another technology ratchet.  It’s somewhat counter-intuitive, but developing multiple technology approaches to the same end lessens the chances of loosing critical knowledge and skills.  The way technology innovation currently works, redundancy often falls by the wayside (think technology monopolies for instance).  I suspect we will need to find ways to  overcome this in developing resilient and sustainable technology solutions in the future.

Cultural integration of science and technology. How can technologies be sustained in a society where those dependent on the technology haven’t the first idea of how it works – or what to do if it goes wrong?  When everything is going okay, the current model is one that works well.  But its a model with very little resilience – meaning that when things go wrong (as they are sure to do), things quickly degenerate into a mess.  The alternative is to embed an understanding and appreciation of technology – and the underlying science – within society itself.  Cultural integration of science and technology  provides an effective technology ratchet for preventing slippage in the face of new challenges.  As well as facilitating the passing-on of knowledge and skills across generations, it disperses understanding throughout society and enables informed decision-making in the face of emerging issues.  Unfortunately, many of today’s cultures do not respect science and technology to the degree that is necessary for this technology ratchet to be effective.

Astute readers might spot that these are not new ideas.  But framing them in the context of technology ratchets possibly is.  And maybe – just maybe – by framing them in this way, new light will be shed on how to use them to underpin sustainable and resilient technological progress.

Of course, there’s always the possibility that all this talk of technology ratchets is the product of chronic insomnia, and I ought to stick to safer ground in the early hours – like teeth, for instance.

But I suspect that there’s mileage in the concept.  It seems painfully inefficient to have to support each advance in technology with a sustained and long-term effort to maintain the advance – not to say precarious.  Wouldn’t it be better to develop more effective ways for each generation to lay a solid technological foundation for the following generation to build on – one that isn’t high maintenance?

That, to me, sounds like a technology ratchet.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/07/why-we-need-technology-ratchets/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2010/03/02/nanotechnology-and-cancer-treatment-do-we-need-a-reality-check/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/02/nanotechnology-and-cancer-treatment-do-we-need-a-reality-check/#comments Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:41:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2929

Cancer treatment has been a poster-child for nanotechnology for almost as long as I’ve been involved with the field.  As far back as in 1999, a brochure on nanotechnology published by the US government described future “synthetic anti-body-like nanoscale drugs or devices that might seek out and destroy malignant cells wherever they might be in the body.”  Over the intervening decade, nanotechnology has become a cornerstone of the National Cancer Institute’s fight against cancer, and has featured prominently in the US government’s support for nanotechnology research and development.  And for good reason – nanotechnology holds the promise of treatments that can diagnose cancer earlier in the disease’s development than ever before; treat tumors using lower concentrations of chemotherapy agents, and target malignant cells while leaving healthy cells untouched.  Like many of my colleagues, I have used emerging nanotechnology-based cancer treatments as a compelling example of what is possible when we gain mastery over materials at the scale of the atoms and molecules they are made of.

So I was somewhat surprised to see the eminent chemist and nano-scientist George Whitesides questioning how much progress we’ve made in developing nanotechnology-based cancer treatments, in an article published in the Columbia Chronicle.

According to the article,

George Whitesides, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard University, said that while the technology sounds impressive, he thinks the focus should be on using nanoparticles in imaging and diagnosing, not treatment.

The problem lies in being able to deliver the treatment to the right cells, and Whitesides said this has proven difficult. “Cancer cells are abnormal cells, but they’re still us,” he said.

Whitesides went on to comment that

“It’s easy to say that one is going to have a particle that’s going to recognize the tumor once it gets there and will do something that triggers the death of the cell, it’s just that we don’t know how to do either one of these parts”

This got me thinking – because George is a smart guy and well worth paying attention to – have we somehow got so caught up in the possibilities of nanotechnology in treating cancer, that we have lost sight of the realities?

To get a better sense of where we are on nanotech-enabled approaches to treating cancer, I asked a handful of experts working in the field the following question: “What are some of the more significant science challenges researchers face in developing nanotechnology-based cancer treatments?” The responses were cautious, and clearly cognizant of the hurdles to taking scientific and technological breakthroughs out of the lab and into the market.  Yet despite this, there was an over-riding sense of optimism running through them.

Steve Rosen, Director of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center at Northwestern University commented:

“I feel nanotechnology has the possibility of revolutionizing both in vitro and in vivo cancer diagnostics.  Therapy always remains a greater challenge and in the short term I see nanotechnology as a vehicle to enhanced delivery. The long term prospects are substantial and limited only by the creativity of individuals involve in this area of investigation.”

This was echoed by Tyler Jacks, Director, David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research at MIT:

“Nanotechnology holds great promise for cancer therapy, in my view. That said, there is need for more research to learn the best strategies to specifically direct the nanomaterials to cancer cells following systemic administration. This will require overcoming the body’s natural filtration systems as well as optimizing the methods for tumor-specific targeting. It may be that truly tumor-specific targeting will require combinatorial approaches.”

The difficulties of overcoming biological barriers to using nanoparticles effectively in treating cancers were expanded on by Martin Philbert, Senior Associate Dean at School of Public Health, University of Michigan:

“The body’s immune system is primed to recognize particles of the size range encompassed by most therapeutic and imaging nanotechnologies.  Since elements of the immune system are coordinated and disseminated throughout the body, a major challenge is the design and fabrication of nanotechnologies that will either avoid immune cells or use them to achieve appropriate targeting without activation or suppression of immune function.

A second major hurdle is elimination from the body.  Many of the newer nanoparticles are designed to be eliminated from the body by either being ‘small’, i.e., less than 8 nm in diameter to facilitate passage with the urine out of the kidneys, or to dissolve to a size that allows for elimination through the urinary flow.  Nevertheless, the kinetics of elimination are invariably altered by the ability of the reticuloendothelial portion of the immune system to take up these materials and sequester them in lymphatic organs or interstitial spaces for longer periods than anticipated.”

Yet despite thee challenges, progress is clearly being made.  Piotr Grodzinsky, Director, Nanotechnology Cancer Programs at the National Cancer Institute noted that

“Nanotechnologies for medical applications have been maturing. Several therapeutic formulations entered clinical trials and are expected to have an impact on how cancer treatment is done in the future. Similarly, multiplex diagnostic platforms with high sensitivity and specificity are proving themselves in testing of clinical specimens and will contribute to early disease detection.”

Scott McNeil, Director of the Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory cautioned that

“Developers of nanotech-based therapeutics face preclinical challenges that may be more involved than development of small molecule drugs…”

but went on to add

“…the payoffs are now being demonstrated in clinical trials by several companies. We are observing a consistent trend towards decreased toxicity for nanodrugs compared to their small molecule counterparts.”

And in responding specifically to Whitesides’ comments, Jim Baker, Director of the Michigan Nanotechnology Institute for Medicine and the Biological Sciences, observed that

“[George Whitesides] is correct that this is a very complex problem, with cancer as a variation of self being a central issue.  In addition, the concept of some in the material science community that nanoscale materials would be inherently better ignores potential problems related to biocompatibility and the necessity of this material to function in a wet environment.  Additionally, the concept of a “nanomachine” is fundamentally flawed because having mechanical devices of this size violates the laws of physics.  What is moving forward are bio-inspired materials that will provide incremental improvements in drug delivery and imaging that could not be accomplished with traditional materials.  Each one will be unique, however, and require its own evaluation for efficacy and toxicity, just like any other drug.  This provides a difficult hurdle, given the costs and clinical evaluations that are involved.”

Reading through these comments, I get the sense that we’re only beginning to scratch the surface of what working at the nanoscale can do for cancer treatment.  Certainly there are hurdles to be overcome – some of them significant.  And it’s important to remember that the road between lab-based discoveries and real-world treatments is a long and arduous one – even the most promising therapies can take years or even decades to get to the point where they are widely available.  Yet it’s hard to avoid being caught up in the enthusiasm of scientists working on nanotechnology-enabled cancer treatments, or not to  be inspired by what might be achieved through engineering increasingly sophisticated therapeutics at the nanoscale.

That said, expectations on how nanotechnology will impact cancer treatment clearly need to be tempered.  In this respect, I thought that the comments from Jennifer West, the Isabel C. Cameron Professor of Bioengineering at Rice University, were particularly well-grounded:

“Nanotechnology isn’t a magic solution to cancer, but provides additional tools in the arsenal, some with new and unique properties.  As with any cancer therapy, the key issue is to get the therapeutic agent to tumor sites and metastases at high concentrations, then destroy cancerous cells while minimizing damage to normal cells.”

Nanotechnology is clearly not a panacea.  It provides exciting new opportunities for treating cancer.  But its use also faces many scientific, economic and regulatory hurdles.  Yet the idea of crafting more effective cancer treatments by engineering matter at the nanoscale remains a compelling one – if only we can work out how to translate the idea into practical solutions.

As one of my sources – who preferred not to be named – commented:

“I don’t think that the field needs a reality check but rather ways to move more of the discoveries and developments into humans”

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/02/nanotechnology-and-cancer-treatment-do-we-need-a-reality-check/feed/ 16 http://2020science.org/2010/01/29/technology-innovation-davos/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/29/technology-innovation-davos/#comments Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:32:04 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2850

There’s been something of a theme running through my day at The World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos today – getting from A to B.  The “A” in this case is technology innovation, and the “B” the problems we hope it will solve – the big ones like world hunger and disease, as well as some of the smaller ones like making life a little easier and more comfortable for ourselves.  But rather than write directly about the challenge of translating technology innovation into action, I thought I would give you a sense of how things work here – at least in the outer layers of the Davos onion I’m privileged to inhabit – using getting from A to B as an example.

Having skipped the early sessions I got to the Convention Center in Davos mid-morning, to find a message from a BBC World Service reporter waiting for me. After homing in on each other across a crowded floor using the time honored mobile phone “can you see me yet…” method, it transpired he was interested in a few words on a few word on emerging economies and emerging technologies – in particular on how countries like India and China are doing compared to the US.  We did a quick interview there and then, in which I said precisely nothing of note – for which I was kicking myself afterward.  Not because I failed to say all the smart things I could have said about emerging economies (being somewhat dazed and jetlagged, I forgot that I actually knew some interesting stuff here until after the interview), but because today’s the day I’ve been focusing on a new proposal to address global issues surrounding emerging technologies; and I failed completely and utterly to get this into the conversation.  My media gurus would have been in tears had they been there.

So the day started with an opportunity – sadly blown.  Following shortly after this I met with a senior representative from a petrochemicals company – he was interested in talking about technology innovations strategies for the company.  Fortunately, having woken up a bit at this point, I was able to talk about the work we’re doing in the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Councils on our new emerging technologies proposal – which is designed precisely to help companies, governments, and other groups and institutions get from A to B more effectively when it comes to technology innovation.  So far, one opportunity lost, one grasped.

But the big event of the day was a Global Redesign Initiative ideasLab, where I had the opportunity to present the “big idea” to a bunch of folk who, in principle, would help hone it to perfection.  It was a format I’m not terrifically comfortable with – timed comments addressing five specific questions.  As the proposal coming out of the Global Agenda Council I work with was somewhat complex, I resorted to scripting my comments – it kills the spontaneity, but it’s the only way I know to prevent me launching into a 20 minute lecture, or spouting pure drivel (or both, simultaneously).  The presentation went okay – not brilliant, but adequate.  But then came the quickfire questions, which were supposedly to prime the following 30 minutes of discussion.  To my horror, the challenge of connecting tech innovation to social need – so clear to me – was brought into questioned by my listeners.  The message they left me with was that innovation works very well thank you very much, and who wants a cumbersome global center helping people get from A to B anyway?

Had I misjudged things that badly?

There was worse to come though.  After six five-minute presentations, the group of about 30 people broke into six discussion groups – one for each idea.  Now you know that feeling when you’re the unpopular kid and teams are being picked?  That was me.  I had no-one interested in talking about making technology innovation work.  Not a single soul.  Clearly emerging technology is the unpopular kid on the block when it comes to meetings of senior decision makers.  That, or there was something else no one was telling me about…

I’m pretty sure the lack of interest stemmed from a number of things – a fear of the unfamiliar, blind faith in tech innovation to solve problems as and when they arise, and a certain degree of masking of the difficulties of getting form A to B by retrospective success stories (masking being where a technology inadvertently solves a problem no-one has heard of, and is heralded as a great success – I’m being a tad facetious, but you get the point).

I had the chance to test these suspicions out in the following session – a panel discussion on rethinking how to feed the world, with a highly distinguished group of people.  Luckily, the discussion turned to the role of technology innovation in agriculture and food early on, and at the first opportunity I got my question in: “we talk a lot about the problems we face, and about new innovations, but how do we most effectively get from A to B?”

Bill Gates took up the challenge, and spoke about a very neat use of of synthetic biology (or something approaching it) to create drought and flood-resistant rice plants.  It’s a great example of how innovation has helped create a better product.  But it didn’t answer the question – which was how can we do better than we are doing.  Bill actually answered very intelligently.  But at the same time he seemed to confirm my fear that our success stories so often detract from where we are not doing well, and need to do better.  Especially where they lead to complacency.  (Here I should be very clear that, while Bill Gates confirmed my growing fears that getting people to see the A to B problem is a major challenge in itself, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is doing a tremendous amount to support the innovation side of the equation.)

I was a little more heartened by Ellen Kullman, CEO of DuPont, who circled back to the question later on.  She touched on the problem of finding workable solutions to developing more effective food supplies, acknowledging that you need tech innovation and ways to make it work.  The example she cited was DuPont’s approach to working with local farming communities in Africa, so there is local “ownership” of the innovation.

Maybe I wasn’t as off-track as I was beginning to fear.

The day ended with a private dinner of World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council members.  I sat next to three prominent thought-leaders – a neurologist, an economist and a priest.  And I took the opportunity to burden them with my A to B problem.  Not only did they take me seriously, but we had an excellent discussion about where the ideas behind the proposal made sense, where perhaps they didn’t.  The economist was worried about constraining innovation by trying to match it to needs.  The neurologist on the other hand feared that the process of innovation isn’t driven by social need – so there is a real danger of solving challenges that aren’t problems, while leaving the ones that are untouched.  I forget what the priest said – at some point the conversation got on to the far more entertaining topic of religious jokes.

At the end of the day, maybe I hadn’t convinced someone with deep pockets and influence that the A to B problem is of utmost importance.  But I had had a string of unique opportunities to test the concept out, to refine my own thoughts and ideas, and to develop links that will be of lasting value.  And this more than anything is what Davos is about perhaps – grasping opportunities, making connections, being exposed to new ideas and having your own challenged.

I still believe that we have a real problem on our hands in working out how to get from A to B in translating technology innovation into socially responsive action.  But I now have a far better sense of where the possible solutions lie, and how to help people see not only the challenge, but the possible ways forward.

All in all, not a bad day.

This evening I was invited to talk to a group of industry leaders on alternative solutions to the “carbon” problem at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.  The brief was to be one of three “firestarters” – a bit of a dangerous one if you ask me.  Given the informal setting (this was all off the record and over dinner), my comments were aimed at being provocative and challenging, and were probably more full of holes than the proverbial sieve – perfect material in other words for a blog!

For past 100 years—from the tail end of the industrial revolution, through the chemicals revolution and into the digital revolution—we have been passive observers of our effects on the planet.  Over the next 100 years, we will need to take an active role in managing these effects if we are to avoid potentially catastrophic impacts on large numbers of the world’s population.

Top of the immediate agenda (but by no means the only item on it) is global warming.  We are now so numerous and “industrious” that our actions – in this case the indiscriminate emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases – are leading to planet-wide re-actions that threaten the lives and livelihood of millions of people around the globe.  Building a sustainable future will mean actively managing our role in global warming.  And critical to this is controlling the impact of carbon emissions.  We need to get a better handle on where carbon comes from, where it goes, and what it does in between.

In effect, we need to “own” the carbon cycle

The question is, how?  I’d like to suggest that owning the carbon cycle – or at least getting better at managing it – will depend on two apparently contradictory approaches: slowing down, and speeding up.

Slowing down

The carbon cycle is a slow cycle.  It takes tens to thousands of years for carbon to cycle between being released into the atmosphere, absorbed by plants and oceans, and eventually being re-released—this balloons to millennia when you include the sequestration of carbon in rocks and sediment.  And the last thing you want to do to a slow cycle is push it too hard and too fast.  The consequences are unpredictable, could be long lasting, and may well be catastrophic.

If we are to get a better handle on atmospheric carbon and its impact on global warming, we need to learn to match our “carbon speed” to the carbon cycle – to slow down our part in the process.  Not surprisingly, this means using less energy, using alternate sources of energy, and doing more with the energy we have.

The challenge is how to slow down enough to make a difference.  In part, this will depend on finding technology-based solutions to how we generate and use energy.

Conventional technologies get us some of the way to managing our energy-use and carbon emissions.  But not all the way.  We still depend in the main on non-renewable and “dirty” energy sources, and are incredibly wasteful in how we use what we have – convenience still trumps efficiency it would seem.  Emerging technologies on the other hand provide a number of solutions to slowing down our part in the carbon cycle.  For instance, we are developing LED lights that use a fraction of the energy of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs to provide the same levels illumination.  We are learning to modify the genetic code of bacteria in ways that enable them to produce biofuels from renewable and sustainable resources.  And we are constructing lighter materials, better batteries and smart energy grids that allow us to do more with the energy we generate.

Many of these emerging technologies depend on manipulating the world at the scale of atoms and molecules – the building blocks of matter.  It’s a trick we’ve been getting increasingly good at in recent years.  This area of technology often goes under the banner of nanotechnology – the science and technology of doing stuff at the near-atomic scale.  More recently synthetic biology – the science and technology of manipulating living systems at the atomic scale – has been getting increasing press.  In these and related areas, we’re making good progress.

But if we are to succeed in slowing down our part in the carbon cycle we also need new economic and social frameworks in which to operate. We need to think differently about how to develop and use science and technology effectively, and how to predict and overcome potential hurdles to progress.

Speeding up

Then there is speeding up.  It sounds contradictory, but in parallel with slowing down as we take charge of the carbon cycle, we also need to go faster.

We have already pushed the carbon cycle out of equilibrium.  This was not a smart move, as we have started a chain of events that are going to be tough to control. As a result, we need to move fast to mitigate the potential consequences of our current actions if we are to avoid long-term impacts.  Amongst other things, this means developing and implementing strategies for actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Carbon sequestration, like other forms of active global climate intervention, is a dicey long-term strategy.  It treats a symptom rather than a cause.  Yet we are going to have to triage the planet and mitigate some of the more severe symptoms of our presence, before we can begin working on long term solutions to owning the carbon cycle.

Approaches to removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere range from planting more trees, to absorbing carbon dioxide in new materials, to accelerating parts of the carbon cycle such as carbon accumulation and subsequent sequestration in marine algae.  Some of the technologies being discussed are reasonably well established; others are still over the horizon.  Many of them rely on engineering materials at the atomic and molecular scale; another reason we need to invest intelligently in developing and using nanoscale technologies.

But there are also big questions here that go beyond the science and technology: What would it take to make carbon sequestration economically viable? What are the risks—the short and long term consequences?  And what are the social and political barriers that need to be addressed to make carbon sequestration effective?  The bottom line is that although the idea of carbon sequestration is attractive, we still don’t know whether it is viable.

Part of the issue is that the challenges of intervening in planetary-scale processes are immense.  We don’t have a good sense of the consequences of scaling up attempts to actively modify the atmosphere on a global scale.  We have no idea how to do a risk analysis on a one-shot planet-wide experiment.  And we are struggling to find solutions to social, economic and political issues that transcend normally rigid boundaries.

Nevertheless, speeding up the process of managing the impacts of carbon emissions is essential if we are to ultimately develop long-term sustainable solutions to managing the carbon cycle itself.

Looking to the future

I’ve tried to be a little provocative here – I don’t think we will ever fully “own” the carbon cycle.  But I do think we need a mindset-change, where we begin to think about taking an active role in planetary management, if we are to pave the way for a sustainable future.

This mindset change must embrace slowing down—learning how to work with cycles like the carbon cycle rather than against them.

But it must also enable some speeding up – the planet needs some rapid and drastic first aid if we are going to be around long enough to implement long-term strategies.

In both cases, we won’t get very far if we don’t invest more – far more – in supporting new science and developing new technologies, and understanding how to use these in an increasingly complex global social, economic and political environment.

The bad news is that we’re not very good at using new technologies to solve global problems.  The good news is that we are fast learners when we want to be.

The question is – are we smart enough to learn how to own the carbon cycle?  Or are we destined to remain passive observers as we face an increasingly precarious future?

Having just got back to the hotel at some unseemly hour (at least according to my body clock) from the first full day of meetings at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, I’m trying my best to be disciplined and write some of my impressions up.  As it’s late, I’ll be brief:

Scenery: Stunning (I’ll try for some photos later in the week).

Security: High.

Meeting: Steep learning curve to work out where everything is, never mind how to get to where I’m supposed to be

People: Surprisingly normal (apart from a tendency to spontaneously “network” – my theory is they have no idea whether who they are speaking to is someone important or a nobody, so they hedge their bets and go with the former.  Pity them when they encounter me!)

Celebs: Was too busy to to notice.  Okay so I did pass Bill Clinton in the corridor, almost had the chance to talk to Margaret Atwood, and shook Lang Lang’s hand.  But that’s all…

Sessions: Stimulating.  Interesting session with folks fro MIT on intelligence – a lot to assimilate there (must confess to being shocked at the idea of using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation – TMS – on kids.  Need to think more about this).  Sarkozy was riveting, whether you agree with him or not.  Dinner with Technology Review’s Jason Pontin was thought provoking and entertaining.  What was particularly interesting was that while the dinner was focused on technology breakthroughs, the discussion gravitated rapidly to talking about broader social, ethical and political issues.  I didn’t even have to prompt them!

And the mitts? Jason asked me to entertain to dinner and I took him literally, illustrating that the gloves are off when it comes to engineering matter at the atomic scale.   The point being that we now have far greater dexterity than ever before in how we engineer matter at the nanometer scale, and this is helping us to make things that work better.  Not too many people complained about the theatrics

More tomorrow, if I can stand the pace.

I‘m sitting here at Dulles Airport waiting for my flight to Zurich and the annual World Economic Forum Meeting in Davos, so I thought I’d dash off a quick blog.  If you’re on the ball, you will realize that by arriving tomorrow, I will be missing most of the first day of the meeting.  This is intentional – I’m doing Davos on a budget (which is why I am also flying on frequent flier miles – but more of that later in the week possibly.  In the meantime, I’m crossing my fingers that they don’t place me in the dreaded toilet seat!).

In preparation, I’ve spent the day pulling my talking points together.  I’m supposed to be speaking at four events, in addition to sampling the delights of the rest of the meeting.

To kick off, I’m talking about science and technology breakthroughs at a dinner hosted by Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief of Technology Review.  With my usual impeccable timing, this is in the evening of the day I arrive, so it’s touch and go whether I will actually be awake and coherent when speaking.  Always a sucker for cheap theatrics, this is where I will be using a just-purchased pair of faux sheepskin mittens for visual impact (at least that’s the intention, as long as I can get them on.  A last minute purchase, I had to settle for a rather narrow pair of woman’s mitts).

Thursday I’m talking emerging technologies and climate change management/mitigation with a bunch of industry leaders.  Again it’s a dinner event, so the chances of me eating a square meal that evening are slim.  The main aim here is to finish in time to hear James Cameron talking about Avatar later that evening.

Friday I’m pitching an idea for a new global center on emerging technologies intelligence, as part of the Davos IdeasLab series.  Should be interesting – I have five minutes to pitch the idea to a group of folk, against a backdrop of five text-less timed Powerpoint slides.  It’s a bit like a sudden death presentation…

Saturday I’m a free agent – unless someone finds out, in which case I could well find myself dragged into something at the last minute.

Sunday I join what looks like scores of presenters in a large brainstorming session on the “Global Agenda 2010″ – not sure what to expect here.

Then it’s party time, before heading back next Monday – again hoping that I avoid that seat especially reserved for frequent flier users and other undesirables.

That’s it for now.  See you on the other side of the Atlantic.

This week I’m heading out to the World Economic Forum jamboree in Davos, Switzerland.  I’d like to play this cool – as if rubbing shoulders with politicians, business leaders and celebs is something I do all the time.  But the reality is that this is my first time to what is probably the biggest annual gathering of world thought-leaders and decision-makers, and I’m just a little star-struck!

The World Economic Forum has been gathering world leaders together to address emerging challenges and opportunities in an informal and intimate setting for four decades now – this year’s Annual Meeting is the fortieth.  It’s a unique forum, where political and business leaders rub shoulders with academics, activists and celebrities as they get a handle on the major issues facing society around the world.  This is one of the few places where you run the chance of bumping into people like Bono, Bill Gates and Al Gore as you get your morning coffee.

Held in the Swiss Ski resort of Davos, a mix of formal, informal and private meetings brings a diverse group of people together to not only discuss the issues facing the world, but to craft workable solutions.  In the 2500 people at this year’s meeting, there will over 900 chief executives from a wide range of business sectors, government representatives from the world’s top 25 economies and fast-growing small countries (including heads of state and government), civil society leaders, academics, thought-leaders and media representatives.

Within this rather eclectic mix, I will be talking to people about emerging technologies, and their place in 21st century global society.  It’s an area that fits glove-in-hand with this year’s theme – “Improve the State of the World: Rethink, Redesign, Rebuild” – but is often overlooked in the social, economic and policy debates.  There’s a tendency to simply assume that science and technology will come up with solutions to pressing problems – my job is to disabuse people of this fancy, and get some concerted action on how we are going to actively ensure science and technology help improve people’s lives without creating more problems than they solve.

Over the next few days, I’ll be blogging and tweeting from Davos (assuming I have any time in a schedule that starts early in the morning, and seems to extend to early the next morning).  Just to avoid disappointment, I won’t be dishing the dirt on off the record meetings – there are rules to respect here.  I will try and provide a sense of my experiences here though, and in particular how emerging technologies seem to be fitting in to the grand scheme of things.

But back to being just a little star-struck.  Glimpsing through the program (I’m still filling my dance card) I see that Lang Lang (the pianist) will be performing, Margaret Atwood will be talking about After the Flood and James Cameron will be discussing Avator – and that’s before I’ve even got to the serious socioeconomic stuff.

I wonder if any of them are interested in talking emerging tech over an espresso…

_______________________________________

As well as posting the occasional blog from Davos, I will be posting short comments on Twitter and the 2020 Science Facebook Page.  I also see that Jason Pontin – Editor in Chief and publisher of Technology Review – will be tweeting from the event (I’ll be talking with Jason and a few others on science and technology breakthroughs next Wednesday).

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/01/24/from-davos-with-love/feed/ 6 http://2020science.org/2010/01/18/no-small-matter-taster/ http://2020science.org/2010/01/18/no-small-matter-taster/#comments Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:28:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2826

To accompany the review just posted of Felice Frankel and George Whitesides’ book “No Small Matter: Science on the Nanoscale” the authors kindly allowed me to post this series of excerpts.  What I wanted to capture here was the synergy between the images and the prose – and how together they pull the reader in.

This is just a small taste (bad pun – sorry) of what the book offers.  If you enjoyed it and want to see more – I’m sure you know your way to a good bookstore by now.

As people seem to expect this these days, I should be clear that this is an independent review, using a copy of No Small Matter purchased from my own hard earned cash!

How do you write a book about something few people have heard off, and less seem interested in?  The answer, it seems, is to write about something else.

Felice Frankel and George Whitesides have clearly taken this lesson to heart. Judged by the cover alone, their new book “No Small Matter:  Science at the Nanoscale” is all about science in the Twilight zone of the nanoscale – where stuff doesn’t behave in the way intuition says it should.  Open the cover, and you are drawn into a seductive world of stunning images and poetic prose, that reveal as much about the authors’ passions and delights as the science that drives them. Finish the book, and you will have a far more sophisticated grasp of nanotechnology than most of your friends and, dare I say it, many of the people currently working in the field.  Because this is the sleight of hand that Frankel and Whitesides pull – by not writing about nanotechnology, they have published what is perhaps the best book on the subject to date!

But all this is besides the point.  Because more than anything, No Small Matter is about the delight of understanding and appreciating better the world in which we find ourselves.  This is a book that is simple enough for a child to appreciate, and subtle enough to keep the most cynical intellectual engaged.  It’s the sort of book I would strongly recommend you read (and read again) – not because I think you should, but because I think you’ll enjoy it.

The key to this remarkable book – and I choose my words carefully here – is the synergy between Frankel’s images and Whitesides prose (see these excerpts for an example).  Whitesides’ writing is poetic, engaging – it draws you in.  Even re-reading the book for this review, I find myself savoring the lines.  It’s not that Whitesides avoids long words and complex ideas – try this one for size for instance: “Anthropomorphizing capillarity into affection or avarice is misleading but unavoidably appealing.”  But he writes with an openness, enthusiasm and deceptive simplicity that pulls the reader in – you can almost see the glint in his eye as you read.  Take this passage for example from the book’s introduction:

“This book is about small things.  They’re different – sometimes really, and enthrallingly, different.  We humans have always been fascinated by “small”: the gears and springs of a fine watch, embroidery, a jumping spider – each is a distinct kind of marvel.  We think of ourselves as master artisans, and we have a connoisseur’s appreciation of delicate work.”

Rather than lecturing, Whitesides seeks to help you see the world through his eyes.

But the prose – beautiful as they are – are only part of the equation here.  The real genius of the book is the merging of Whitesides’ writing with Frankel’s images.  On their own, many of the images appear mundane (although the skill behind them is far from trivial).  Placed alongside Whitesides’ writing, something special happens.  The images draw out the full flavor of the prose, seasoning them to perfection.  Take this description of combustion:

“The smallest flames share features in common with the largest: a burning candle tells the story as well as a coal-fired electrical power plant; only details are different in a coal fire and a diesel engine.  Here, the heat from the flame melts the hydrocarbon candle wax; the liquid wax climbs up the wick; heat radiated from the flame vaporizes the wax; the vapor mixes with air; a complex series of chemical reactions in the hot region – the flame – convert wax and oxygen to carbon dioxide and water.  At an intermediate point in the flame zone, small particles of unburned carbon – at a temperature of approximately 1000 C – glow yellow.  When combustion is incomplete, unburned carbon particles cool to smoke or soot.”

The story is elegantly told.  But it is Frankel’s exquisite photograph of a candle flame beside it that connects the description to reality, and helps you appreciate the intricate science involved in an apparently simple process.

Another wonderful example comes in Whitesides’ discussion of wave-particle duality, which is dominated by his thoughts on math and poetry:

“We’re burdened by a curious conditioning that blinds us to one of the greatest—perhaps the greatest—of art forms. We live for poetry; we live in terror of equations.

We see a poem, and we try it on for size: we read a line or two; we roll it around in our mind; we see how it fits and tastes and sounds. We may not like it, and let it drop, but we enjoy the encounter and look forward to the next. We seen an equation, and it is as if we’d glimpsed a tarantula in the baby’s crib. We panic.

Equations are the poetry that we use to describe the behavior of electrons and atoms, just as we use poems to describe ourselves…

Poetry describes humanity with a human voice; equations describe a reality beyond the reach of words. Playing a fugue, and tasting fresh summer tomatoes, and writing poetry, and falling in love all ultimately dissolve into molecules and electrons, but we cannot yet (and perhaps, ever) trace the path from one end (from molecules) to the other (us). Not with poetry, not with equations. But each guides us part way.

Of course, not all equations are things of beauty: some are porcupines, some are plumber’s helpers, and some are tarantulas.”

And the accompanying image?  A photograph of Louis de Broglie’s wave equation – hand written.

But I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the images are merely an illumination for the text.  Some of them  capture perfectly the world of the nanoscale.  Others are cleverly crafted metaphors – a glass apple with a cubic shadow for instance; a metaphor for quantum objects that have attributes that seem irreconcilably at odds.

The heart of the book is sixty short essays, accompanied by images.  These are divided into seven sections, loosely covering “smallness;” strange behavior at the nanoscale; living things; why science at the nanoscale matters; dangers and challenges; and whether this is all the next big thing, or merely a storm in a teacup.  The essays are loosely linked, but each stands on its own.  Taken together, they seem at first to follow a random walk through Whitesides’ imagination – a comfortable mix of personal reflection and science on subjects that pique his curiosity.  But rather cleverly, they coalesce to provide a coherent sense of nanoscience.  And in doing so, provide what is perhaps the most honest and clear sense of nanotechnology that I have read.

The challenge here is that nanotechnology is not back and white – it’s not easy to say “this is nanotechnology; that is not.”  Other writers have tried to draw clear lines around the technology.  But in doing so, they have come perilously close to diminishing the wonder of seeing how the world works at the nanoscale, or the innovation that comes from using this knowledge.  Frankel and Whitesides on the other hand don’t draw boundaries – they are content with talking about stuff that is small, and different, and exciting, and awe inspiring.  They are happy working in gray areas that defy clear definition.  And they set out to enlighten, not instruct.

The result is a book that will delight anyone with an interest in the material world and an appreciation of poetic prose and eye catching images.

A series of image and text from the book can be seen here.

__________________________

As people seem to expect this these days, I should be clear that this is an independent review, using a copy of No Small Matter purchased from my own hard earned cash!

For more information on the book and the review, check out the 2020 Science Facebook page

Back in February of 2009, the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee launched an inquiry into the use of nanotechnology in food products and the food industry.  Chaired by Lord Krebs (the son of Hans Adolf Krebs – best known for describing the mechanisms of energy uptake and release in cells), a small group of peers was assembled to address the potential benefits and use of nanotechnology in the food sector, arising health and safety issues, regulation, communication and public engagement.  On January 8 2010, the subcommittee’s much-anticipated report was published.  Concluding with 32 recommendations covering nanotechnology and food commercialization, potential risks, regulation and public communication and engagement, it is perhaps the most comprehensive and authoritative report on the subject to be published to date.

The UK House of Lords has, on occasion, been depicted as an anachronistic institution full of political has-beens who enjoy nothing more than a quiet snooze, lulled to sleep by the interminable droning of their peers.  Of course, reforms brought in over the past decade have done a lot to shatter this illusion.  But if there are any lingering doubts, this report should dispel them.   Under the expert guidance of Lord Krebs, this group of sharp minded and well-informed members of the House of Lords has provided an insightful and balanced perspective on the opportunities and challenges of using nanotechnology (or “nanotechnologies” as they more appropriately refer to them) in the food industry.

The process was helped enormously by an extensive consultation process.  Fifty written submissions from a wide range of stakeholders, a number of oral testimonies and meetings with experts and stakeholders in Washington DC all helped to support the committee in its assessment.  The final document reflects the input of these stakeholders, frequently citing input from industry, academics, government agencies and Non-Government Organizations.  Yet despite the breadth of information submitted, there is a strong sense that these inputs were carefully weighed and evaluated by the committee before they drew their conclusions and recommendations.

The report is clearly written and accessible, and I would recommend strongly anyone working with nanotechnology and food to read it in its entirety.  I suspect that it is going to become a significant and influential factor in the development of responsible and acceptable uses of nanotechnology in food products.

For those with less time and interest, I would recommend reading the summary at least, which captures the essence of the report in a couple of pages.

Just to whet your appetite though, here’s my initial impression of the report and its recommendations in four areas – Nanotechnology and food, knowledge gaps, regulation, and communication & outreach.

Nanotechnology and Food

The report shows a remarkable level of sophistication in its evaluation of nanotechnology and food.  It recognizes the long history of using technologies to modify food, recognizes consumer caution over the scientific manipulation of food products, and acknowledges the complexities surrounding the introduction of potentially beneficial new technologies.  It also highlights the rather indistinct lines between nanoscale materials that have been present in foods forever (such as protein nanoparticles in ricotta cheese) compared to those more recently and intentionally introduced, and new materials that behave in unusual ways compared to those that are just small.  This clarity of perception underpins many of the report’s recommendations.

The potential of nanomaterials to add value to food products is readily acknowledged in the report:

“Nanomaterials have a range of potential applications in the food sector that may offer benefits to both consumers and industry.  These include creating foods with unaltered taste but lower fat, salt or sugar levels, or improved packaging that keeps food fresher for longer or tells consumers if the food inside is spoiled.”

But the authors go on to note that the number of nanotechnology-based food products on the market is currently small.  To help ensure the responsible development of nanotechnologies in the food sector, recommendations are made on government actions to “ensure the potential benefits to consumers and society are supported,”  including improving the effectiveness of technology transfer between researchers and industry.

Counterbalancing the technological promise of nanotechnology, the report’s authors are also highly aware of the broader social issues surrounding the use of emerging technologies in food.  And as a result, the majority of the report’s recommendations are focused on addressing and responding to these issues.

Knowledge gaps

Despite the promise of nanotechnology in the food sector, the report highlights a number of critical knowledge gaps to developing safe and trusted nanotech-enabled food products.  Again, the discussion is informed and comprehensive.

At the outset, the report notes that the subcommittee “received no evidence, however, of instances where ingested nanomaterials have harmed human health,” dispelling fears of speculative scaremongering (although I see that early press coverage is focusing on risks and uncertainties). At the same time the report’s authors acknowledge that the

“novel properties of engineered nanomaterials may affect how such materials interact with the body and the risks they present to human health.”

Six areas of concern are flagged where novel nanomaterials might cause unexpected harm, covering the influence of particle size, solubility & persistence, chemical & catalytic reactivity, material shape, anti-microbial effects and agglomeration & aggregation.  Despite these concerns – which have been raised repeatedly by researchers and others over the past few years – the report notes a dearth of research on the “impact, behaviour and interactions of nanomaterials in the [gastrointestinal] tract, including their effect on gut flora.”

Targeted research to fill this knowledge gap is a key recommendation of the report.

Regulation

The report’s authors devote a large chunk of space to the issue of regulation – addressing regulatory coverage and regulatory enforcement.  Although somewhat dry for a lay reader, these sections of the report tackle directly a number of issues that have plagued discussions of nanomaterial regulation for some time, including definitions, working with mixtures and labeling.

The report’s authors are very clear that a regulatory definition of nanomaterials is essential.  But they are also clear that any definition should be based on functionality rather than size – throwing out the idea that there is anything special about the traditional 100 nm cut point for nanomaterials.

The argument is made that, from a regulatory perspective, what is important is when a material starts to behave differently from what is expected – when the way that it interacts with the body is no longer the same as what is observed with a larger lump of material with the same chemistry.  This may happen at very small particle diameters with some materials – just tens of nanomaters.  But it may also occur at relatively large particle diameters for other materials.  As a result, the report recommends that regulatory definitions of nanomaterials

“should not include a size limit of 100 nm but instead refer to the ‘nanoscale’ to ensure that all materials with a dimension under 1000 nm are considered.”

This placement of the upper limit of the nanoscale at 1000 nm may well be the most controversial aspect of the report.  But the emphasis on functionality is a welcome one – as long as we can define what functionality means!

In the report’s recommendations it is also very clear that, for regulatory purposes, any definition of ‘nanomaterials’ should exclude those created from natural substances, “except for nanomaterials that have been deliberately chosen or engineered to take advantage of their nanoscale properties.”

The report also touches on the contentious issue of mixtures – powders that contain some fraction of particles which are nanometer-sized.  What do you do if you use a powder in a food product that also contains a small number of nanometer-scale particles (as most powders invariably will)?  There isn’t much insight into how to resolve this issue in the report (or elsewhere for that matter), but the report’s authors do recommend that the UK Government develops guidelines that clearly state what fraction of a powder needs to be at the nanoscale before nano-specific regulatory oversight is triggered.  This is critical to the effective regulation of nanomaterials in food products if products are not to be inappropriately under- or over-regulated.  (Imagine a scenario where a manufacturer could claim exemption from nano regs because a small fraction of a material was larger than the nanoscale, or a regulator over-zealously  applied regulations by insisting that a conventional material containing a small fraction of nanoparticles was a nanomaterial. The only thing worse would be a complete lack of clarity on when a product containing a range of particle sizes was considered nano and when it was not – which unfortunately is where we are at the moment!)

On labeling, the report states

“Consumers can expect to have access to information about the food they eat.  But blanket labeling of nanomaterials on packages is not, in our view, the right approach to providing information about the application of nanotechnologies.”

Rather, the report’s authors recommend a public registry of foods containing nanomaterials.

Communication & Outreach

Six of the report’s recommendations deal directly with effective communication and public engagement.  From the outset, the report’s authors recognize the importance of public attitudes towards food, and the need to engage consumers in the use of nanotechnologies in food products.  The report’s summary opens

“People are understandably sensitive about changes to the food they eat.  In the past the introduction of novel technologies in the food sector has sometimes met with resistance or even holstility.  The public’s attitude toward food is influenced by a number of considerations including a fear of novel risks, the level of trust in the effectiveness of regulation, and other wider social and psychological factors (shaped by views on health, the environment and science).  The development of nanotechnologies in the food sector may well elicit some of these concerns.”

Later on, the report states that “our witnesses confirmed that public attitudes towards the use of nanotechnologies were among the most important factors in determining their future in the food sector.”

Transparency within the industry was seen as critical to addressing potential public fears and concerns.  Yet after talking with stakeholders, the subcommittee came to the conclusion that the food industry are being far from transparent at the moment, and that this may potentially damage the responsible use of nanotechnologies in foods in the long run.  They “found it regrettable that evidence indicated that, far from being transparent about its activities, the food industry was refusing to talk about work in this area.”

A number of witnesses stressed the reticence of food companies to talk about nanotechnology openly, for fear of a loss of consumer confidence.  Franz Kampers from Wageningen University told the subcommittee

“the industry is very, very reluctant to communicate that they are using nanotechnology in food … because they are very much afraid oof the reaction of consumers to the product.”

Yet after hearing evidence from a number of quarters, the subcommittee concluded that

“this is exactly the type of behaviour which may bring about the public reaction which it is trying to avert.”

As a result the subcommittee recommended that the UK Government work with the industry to ensure greater openness and transparency about what they are developing, and what their plans are for using nanotechnology in food products.

The subcommittee also stressed the need for a robust Government communication strategy.  They praised the Government for establishing the Nano & Me website, which provides anyone who is interested with accessible information on nanotechnology – including its use in food.  Unfortunately, they failed to note that Nano & Me is under threat because the UK government isn’t stumping up paltry sums of money to ensure its upkeep!

Finally, the report emphasizes the need for public engagement, which provides people with the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes.  They acknowledge that this is a complex task, and have some interesting perspectives on how to proceed here.  In particular, the suggest that the provision of engagement opportunities might in itself be sufficient – that people will be reassured that someone has the opportunity to engaging on their behalf – and that the voice of the public”is often most effectively mediated by representative groups such as consumer groups, non governmental organisations (NGO’s) and individuals with a particular interest in this topic.”

I’m not sure how far I agree with these suggestions.  But perhaps the most important thing here is that the subcommittee recognize that engagement is about giving people a voice and a place at the table, not just about communication.

These are just some of the things that jumped out at me as I read through this report today.  There are many other aspects to it which deserve greater attention.  Not all of the comments and recommendations will meet with universal approval I am sure.  But without a doubt, this is the most thoughtful, informed and insightful piece on nanotechnology and food I have read in a long time.

The full House of Lords Nanotechnologies and Food report is available here.

Ten years ago at the close of the 20th century, people the world over were obsessing about the millennium bug – an unanticipated glitch arising from an earlier technology.  I wonder how clear it was then that, despite this storm in what turned out to be a rather small teacup, the following decade would see unprecedented advances in technology – the mapping of the human genome, social media, nanotechnology, space-tourism, face transplants, hybrid cars, global communications, digital storage, and more.  Looking back, it’s clear that despite a few hiccups, emerging technologies are on a roll – one that’s showing no sign of slowing down.

So what can we expect as we enter the second decade of the twenty first century?  What are the emerging technology trends that are going to be hitting the headlines over the next ten years?

Here’s my list of the top ten technologies I think are worth watching. I’m afraid that, as with all crystal ball gazing, it’s bound to be flawed. Yet as I work on the opportunities and challenges of emerging technologies, these do seem to be areas that are ripe for prime time.

Geoengineering

2009 was the year that geoengineering moved from the fringe to the mainstream.  The idea of engineering the climate on a global scale has been around for a while. But as the penny has dropped that we may be unable – or unwilling – to curb carbon dioxide emissions sufficiently to manage global warming, geoengineering has risen up the political agenda.  My guess is that the next decade will see the debate over geoengineering intensify.  Research will lead to increasingly plausible and economically feasible ways to tinker with the environment.  At the same time, political and social pressure will grow – both to put plans into action (whether multi- or unilaterally), and to limit the use of geoengineering.  The big question is whether globally-coordinated efforts to develop and use the technology in a socially and politically responsible way emerge, or whether we end up with an ugly – and potentially disastrous – free for all.

Smart grids

It may not be that apparent to the average consumer, but the way that electricity is generated, stored and transmitted is under immense strain.  As demand for electrical power grows, a radical rethink of the power grid is needed if we are to get electricity to where it is needed, when it is needed.  And the solution most likely to emerge as the way forward over the next ten years is the Smart Grid.  Smart grids connect producers of electricity to users through an interconnected “intelligent” network.  They allow centralized power stations to be augmented with – and even replaced by – distributed sources such as small-scale wind farms and domestic solar panels.  They route power from where there is excess being generated to where there is excess demand.  And they allow individuals to become providers as well as consumers – feeding power into the grid from home-installed generators, while drawing from the grid when they can’t meet their own demands.  The result is a vastly more efficient, responsive and resilient way of generating and supplying electricity.  As energy demands and limits on greenhouse gas emissions hit conventional electricity grids over the next decade, expect to see smart grids get increasing attention.

Radical materials

Good as they are, most of the materials we use these days are flawed – they don’t work as well as they could.  And usually, the fault lies in how the materials are structured at the atomic and molecular scale.  The past decade has seen some amazing advances in our ability to engineer materials with increasing precision at this scale.  The result is radical materials – materials that far outperform conventional materials in their strength, lightness, conductivity, ability to transmit heat, and a whole host of other characteristics.  Many of these are still at the research stage.  But as demands for high performance materials continue to increase everywhere from medical devices to advanced microprocessors and safe, efficient cars to space flight, radical materials will become increasingly common.  In particular, watch out for products based on carbon nanotubes.  Commercial use of this unique material has had it’s fair share of challenges over the past decade.  But I’m anticipating many of these will be overcome over the next ten years, allowing the material to achieve at least some of it’s long-anticipated promise.

Synthetic biology

Ten years ago, few people had heard of the term “synthetic biology.”  Now, scientists are able to synthesize the genome of a new organism from scratch, and are on the brink of using it to create a living bacteria.  Synthetic biology is about taking control of DNA – the genetic code of life – and engineering it, much in the same way a computer programmer engineers digital code.  It’s arisen in part as the cost of reading and synthesizing DNA sequences has plummeted.  But it is also being driven by scientists and engineers  who believe that living systems can be engineered in the same way as other systems.  In many ways, synthetic biology represents the digitization of biology.  We can now “upload” genetic sequences into a computer, where they can be manipulated like any other digital data.  But we can also “download” them back into reality when we have finished playing with them – creating new genetic code to be inserted into existing – or entirely new – organisms.  This is still expensive, and not as simple as many people would like to believe – we’re really just scratching the surface of the rules that govern how genetic code works.  But as the cost of DNA sequencing and synthesis continues to fall, expect to see the field advance in huge leaps and bounds over the next decade.  I’m not that optimistic about us cracking how the genetic code works in great detail by 2020 – the more we learn at the moment, the more we realize we don’t know.  However, I have no doubt that what we do learn will be enough to ensure synthetic biology is a hot topic over the next decade.  In particular, look out for synthesis of the first artificial organism, the development and use of “BioBricks” – the biological equivalent of electronic components – and the rise of DIY-biotechnology.

Personal genomics

Closely related to the developments underpinning synthetic biology, personal genomics relies on rapid sequencing and interpretation of an individual’s genetic sequence.  The Human Genome Project – completed in 2001 – cost taxpayers around $2.7 billion dollars, and took 13 years to complete.  In 2007, James Watson’s genome was sequenced in 2 months, at a cost of $2 million.  In 2009, Complete Genomics were sequencing personal genomes at less than $5000 a shot.  $1000 personal genomes are now on the cards for the near future – with the possibility of substantially faster/cheaper services by the end of the decade.  What exactly people are going to do with all these data is anyone’s guess at this point – especially as we still have a long way to go before we can make sense of huge sections of the human genome.  Add to this the complication of epigenetics, where external factors lead to changes in how genetic information is decoded which can pass from generation to generation, and and it’s uncertain how far personal genomics will progress over the next decade.  What aren’t in doubt though are the personal, social and economic driving forces behind generating and using this information. These are likely to underpin a growing market for personal genetic information over the next decade – and a growing number of businesses looking to capitalize on the data.

Bio-interfaces

Blurring the boundaries between individuals and machines has long held our fascination. Whether it’s building human-machine hybrids, engineering high performance body parts or interfacing directly with computers, bio-interfaces are the stuff of our wildest dreams and worst nightmares.  Fortunately, we’re still a world away from some of the more extreme imaginings of science fiction – we won’t be constructing the prototype of Star Trek Voyager’s Seven of Nine anytime soon.  But the sophistication with which we can interface with the human body is fast reaching the point where rapid developments should be anticipated.  As a hint of things to come, check out the Luke Arm from Deka (founded by Dean Kamen).  Or Honda’s work on Brain Machine Interfaces.  Over the next decade, the convergence of technologies like Information Technology, nanoscale engineering, biotechnology and neurotechnology are likely to lead to highly sophisticated bio-interfaces.  Expect to see advances in sensors that plug into the brain, prosthetic limbs that are controlled from the brain, and even implants that directly interface with the brain.  My guess is that some of the more radical developments in bio-interfaces will probably occur after 2020.  But a lot of the groundwork will be laid over the next ten years.

Data interfaces

The amount of information available through the internet has exploded over the past decade.  Advances in data storage, transmission and processing have transformed the internet from a geek’s paradise to a supporting pillar of 21st century society.  But while the last ten years have been about access to information, I suspect that the next ten will be dominated by how to make sense of it all.  Without the means to find what we want in this vast sea of information, we are quite literally drowning in data.  And useful as search engines like Google are, they still struggle to separate the meaningful from the meaningless.  As a result, my sense is that over the next decade we will see some significant changes in how we interact with the internet.  We’re already seeing the beginnings of this in websites like Wolfram Alpha that “computes” answers to queries rather than simply returning search hits,  or Microsoft’s Bing, which helps take some of the guesswork out of searches.  Then we have ideas like The Sixth Sense project at the MIT Media Lab, which uses an interactive interface to tap into context-relevant web information.  As devices like phones, cameras, projectors, TV’s, computers, cars, shopping trolleys, you name it, become increasingly integrated and connected, be prepared to see rapid and radical changes in how we interface with and make sense of the web.

Solar power

Is the next decade going to be the one where solar power fulfills its promise?  Quite possibly.  Apart from increased political and social pressure to move towards sustainable energy sources, there are a couple of solar technologies that could well deliver over the next few years.  The first of these is printable solar cells.  They won’t be significantly more efficient than conventional solar cells.  But if the technology can be scaled up and some teething difficulties resolved, they could lead to the cost of solar power plummeting.  The technology is simple in concept – using relatively conventional printing processes and special inks, solar cells could be printed onto cheap, flexible substrates; roll to roll solar panels at a fraction of the cost of conventional silicon-based units.  And this opens the door to widespread use.  The second technology to watch is solar-assisted reactors.  Combining mirror-concentrated solar radiation with some nifty catalysts, it is becoming increasingly feasible to convert sunlight into other forms of energy at extremely high efficiencies.  Imagine being able to split water into hydrogen and oxygen using sunlight and an appropriate catalyst for instance, then recombine them to reclaim the energy on-demand – all at minimal energy loss.  Both of these solar technologies are poised to make a big impact over the next decade.

Nootropics

Drugs that enhance mental ability – increasingly referred to as nootropics – are not new.  But their use patterns are.  Drugs like ritalin, donepezil and modafinil are increasingly being used by students, academics and others to give them a mental edge.  What is startling though is a general sense that this is acceptable practice.  Back in June I ran a straw poll on 2020 Science to gauge attitudes to using nootropics.  Out of 207 respondents, 153 people (74%) either used nootropics, or would consider using them on a regular or occasional basis.  In April 2009, an article in the New Yorker reported on the growing use of “neuroenhancing drugs” to enhance performance. And in an informal poll run by Nature in April 2008, 1 in 5 respondents claimed “they had used drugs for non-medical reasons to stimulate their focus, concentration or memory.” Unlike physical performance-enhancing drugs, it seems that the social rules for nootropics are different.  There are even some who suggest that it is perhaps unethical not to take them – that operating to the best of our mental ability is a personal social obligation.  Of course this leads to a potentially explosive social/technological mix, that won’t be diffused easily.  Over the next ten years, I expect the issue of nootropics will become huge.  There will be questions on whether people should be free to take these drugs, whether the social advantages outweigh the personal advantages, and whether they confer an unfair advantage to users by leading to higher grades, better jobs, more money.  But there’s also the issue of drugs development.  If a strong market for nootropics emerges, there is every chance that new, more effective drugs will follow.  Then the question arises – who gets the “good” stuff, and who suffers as a result?  Whichever way you look at it, the 2010′s are set to be an interesting decade for mind-enhancing substances.

Cosmeceuticals

Cosmetics and pharmaceuticals inhabit very different worlds at the moment.  Pharmaceuticals typically treat or prevent disease, while cosmetics simply make you look better.  But why keep the two separate?  Why not develop products that make you look good by working with your body, rather than simply covering it?  The answer is largely due to regulation – drugs have to be put through a far more stringent set of checks and balances that cosmetics before entering the market, and rightly so.  But beyond this, there is enormous commercial potential in combining the two, especially as new science is paving the way for externally applied substances to do more than just beautify.  Products that blur the line are already available – in the US for instance, sunscreens and anti dandruff shampoos are considered drugs.  And the cosmetics industry regularly use the term “cosmeceutical” to describe products with medicinal or drug-like properties.  Yet with advances in synthetic chemistry and nanoscale engineering, it’s becoming increasingly possible to develop products that do more than just lead to “cosmetic” changes.  Imagine products that make you look younger, fresher, more beautiful, by changing your body rather than just covering up flaws and imperfections.  It’s a cosmetics company’s dream – one shared by many of their customers I suspect.  The dam that’s preventing many such products at the moment is regulation.  But if the pressure becomes too great – and there’s a fair chance it will over the next ten years – this dam is likely to burst.  And when it does, cosmeceuticals are going to hit the scene big-time.

So those are my ten emerging technology trends to watch over the next decade.  But what happened to nanotechnology, and what other technologies were on my shortlist?

Nanotech has been a dominant emerging technology over the past ten years.  But in many ways, it’s a fake.  Advances in the science of understanding and manipulating matter at the nanoscale are indisputable, as are the early technology outcomes of this science.  But nanotechnology is really just a convenient shorthand for a whole raft of emerging technologies that span semiconductors to sunscreens, and often share nothing more than an engineered structure that is somewhere between 1 – 100 nanometers in scale.  So rather than focus on nanotech, I decided to look at specific technologies which I think will make a significant impact over the next decade.  Perhaps not surprisingly though, many of them depend in some way on working with matter at nanometer scales.

In terms of the emerging technologies shortlist, it was tough to whittle this down to ten trends. My initial list included batteries, decentralized computing, biofuels, stem cells, cloning, artificial intelligence, robotics, low earth orbit flights, clean tech, neuroscience and memristors – there are many others that no doubt could and should have been on it.  Some of these I felt were likely to reach their prime sometime after the next decade.  Others I felt didn’t have as much potential to shake things up and make headlines as the ones I chose.  But this was a highly subjective and personal process.  I’m sure if someone else were writing this, the top ten list would be different.

And one final word.  Many of the technologies I’ve highlighted reflect an overarching trend: convergence.  Although not a technology in itself, synergistic convergence between different areas of knowledge and expertise will likely dominate emerging technology trends over the next decade.  Which means that confident as I am in my predictions, the chances of something completely different, unusual and amazing happening are…  pretty high!

Update, 12/27/09  Something’s been bugging me, and I’ve just realized what it is – in my original list of ten, I had smart drugs, but in the editing process they somehow got left by the wayside!  As I don’t want to go back and change the ten emerging technology trends I ended up posting, they will have to be a bonus.  As it is, drug delivery timelines are so long that I’m not sure how many smart drugs will hit the market before 2020.  But when they do, they will surely mark a turning point in therapeutics.  These are drugs that are programmed to behave in various ways.  The simplest are designed to accumulate around disease sites, then destroy the disease on command – gold shell nanoparticles fit the bill here, preferentially accumulating around tumors then destroying them by heating up when irradiated with infrared radiation.  More sophisticated smart drugs are in the pipeline though that are designed to seek out diseased cells, provide local diagnostics, then release therapeutic agents on demand.  The result is targeted disease treatment that leads to significantly greater efficacy at substantially lower doses.  Whether or not these make a significant impact over the next decade, they are definitely a technology to watch.

Update 12/29/09  Which emerging technologies do you thing will trend over the next decade?  Join the discussion on the 2020 Science Facebook page.

By Jim Thomas, ETC Group

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

For a fresh perspective on how to do technology governance consider starting somewhere else. I suggest York Castle in Northern England – a stark stone tower from the thirteenth century.

It was here in 1812 that the English state first executed fifteen men for the newly established crime of machine-breaking. They were Luddites – the original kind: artisan weavers who saw the factory system as an assault on their livelihoods and communities. At the time England was convulsed by the ‘machine question’ – with fiery debates in parliament and hundreds of fiery attacks on cloth mills by followers of the mythical Ned Ludd. As the first industrial revolution gathered steam, literally, the political class made a deliberate decision to side with the new industrialists. 12,000 Soldiers were deployed to quell the Luddite uprising – more than were abroad fighting Napoleon. The Frame Breaking Act made Luddism punishable by death and in time the word Luddite itself was transformed into a term of contempt and abuse that lasted all the way to 21^st century science debates. Its fair to say the Luddites lost – big time.

I should admit right now that I’m a big fan of the Luddites – Not that its much fun supporting an extinct political movement. Unlike sports teams there’s neither merchandise to buy nor Facebook groups to join (not unless you count this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ye-Luddites/121981285761?v=info ). But I like Ned Ludd and his gang for two reasons.

Firstly I think they were right in ways they didn’t even know at the time. Our contemporary crises of climate change, overproduction and industrial pollution trace back in obvious ways to the industrial revolution as do the emergence of  urban and labour problems that flowed from the factory system and the urbanization that it gave rise to. The new cloth factories made possible a level of demand that justified establishing cotton plantations and a vicious slave trade setting in motion cycles of violence and racism that still persist today. Did the industrial revolution also bring benefits to society – of course it did although those benefits remain very unevenly distributed. Did the Luddites know they were fighting the roots of future racism. No – but their instincts were good.

Secondly I admire the Luddites for their success (albeit brief) in creating  a large-scale truly popular debate about emerging technologies. The widespread uprising of 1811-16 was more than just a wave of hysterics. Popular geek culture casts a ‘Luddite’ as a technologically inept dunce, fearful of change. Historical accounts reveal nothing of the sort. Real Luddites were adept users of complex hand weaving looms. They often espoused nuanced views on the technological revolution happening around them. They were not uniformly anti-technology: Their grievances, as recorded in song and declarations , were specifically with technologies that were “harmful to the common good” – as good a standard as any against which to asses technological appropriateness.  In their night time raids they would break some mechanical frames that they considered unjust while leaving others untouched that they considered benign. They recognised technological power as political, entwined with monopoly power and responsible for a lowering of standards and production of shoddy goods. They even practiced a radical form of democratic  technology assessment that we haven’t seen the like of since: dragging bulky mechanical looms to the market place to hold public trials in which all the community could pass judgement on the new machines – a public consultation process of the most inclusive kind.

I was once involved in organizing such a Luddite-style technology trial – at York Castle no less. A group of fellow activists dragged a motor car to the old stone tower and we set up public court, inviting bystanders to testify for or against the impact of the internal combustion engine on all our lives. Road kill, asthma, community destruction and climate change were weighed against the increased mobility and economic opportunities provided by four fast wheels. Everyone who happened to pass by became the jury.  On balance the car was found guilty of being ‘harmful to the common good’ but received a lighter sentence than the Luddites had on the same spot. This symbolic exercise in popular assessment of technology was exactly 100 years too late to influence the relevant innovation policy. Nonetheless it set me thinking: What if we weren’t too late? What if we could drag emerging technologies into a modern court of public deliberation and democratic oversight. What might that look like?

I’ve been turning over that question for about 15 years now while active in global debates on emerging technologies –  particularly GM Crops, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  Geo-engineering – Debates in which I’ve encountered the term Luddite, meant as a slur, more times than I care to count. Language like this tumbles carelessly out of history .. but I find the parallels striking. Once again we are in the early phases of a new industrial revolution. Once again powerful technologies (Converging Technologies ) are physically remaking and sometimes disintegrating our societies. Those  of us in civil society carrying out bit-part campaigns, issuing press releases and launching legal challenges are in a sense attempting to drag technology governance away from the darkness of narrow expert committees and into the sunny court of public deliberation for a broader hearing.. It seems a perfectly reasonable and democratic urge. But there’s got to be a better and more systematic way to do that?

So far I’ve found three sets of proposals that might begin to put technology oversight into the open and back in the hands of a wider public:

• Public Engagement: Citizens Juries, Knowledge exchanges, People’s Commissions.

No don’t yawn. I grant you that science policy types (and the rest of us) have every reason to groan when they hear the term “Public engagement in Science”. Like other  empty buzz phrases (“sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility” come to mind) its too easily appropriated – but there is still (just about) some value in imagining and practicing what actual involvement mechanisms we could craft to enable a more democratic form of innovation governance.  Citizen’s Juries in places as diverse as Andra Pradesh, Mali and Brazil have enabled marginalized groups such as farmers to at least take a place alongside seed companies and biotech giants in policy processes. While People’s Commissions (investigation processes run by citizens groups) may get short shrift from a condescending political establishment yet can often exhibit excellent foresight, drawing on sources of grassroots knowledge  that closetted self-referential science committees might never open up to. These days my faith in public engagement  is waning having watched several governments employ such processes as a thinly disguised public relations ploy or to tie up the energies of civil society. Unless a public engagement process has a clear promise by those in power that they will listen, respond and demonstrably act on reccomendations its likely to lose the interest of the participants too.

• Global Oversight: ICENT.

ICENT stands for the International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies – a UN level body for foresighting emerging technology trends and then applying a wide-ranging assessment process that will consider the social, environmental and justice implications of the innovation being scrutinised. It doesn’t exist yet and maybe it never will but at ETC Group we have dedicated a lot of time to imagining what such a body could look like (we even have some nifty organagrams – see pg 36-40 of this) For example there would be bodies scanning the technological horizon and others making a rough reckoning of whether a new technology needed a strong oversight framework or not. Others tasked with bringing in a broad range of knowledge (what do the indigenous folks say?) or identifying exactly the right place in the system of global governance to begin regulatory moves. At a time when tech governance is several decades late each time we find a new platform emerging (Nanotech? Synthetic Biology? Geoengineering?) An ICENT–like body could maybe get international machinery in gear a bit quicker – ideally before industrial interests have already written those technologies into next quarter’s earning sheets and are shipping them to market.

• Popular assessment : Technopedia?

The only governance and regulations that work are those where somebody is paying attention – so  rather than hide technology assessment in rarefied committees why not hand it to the wisdom of the crowds. Wikipedia may not be the most perfectly accurate source of all knowledge but it is comprehensive, up to date and flexible and provides an interesting model. Actually Wikipedia entries are often not a bad place to start if you want to suss out the societal and environmental issues raised by the zeitgeist regarding new technologies. How about a dedicated wiki site for collaborative monitoring and judging of emerging technologies? Such a site could be structured so that, unlike the halls of power, marginal voices have a space and are welcome. A grassroots army of  volunteer technology assessors could help fill out the questions that Brussels or Washington never asks: What is the feminist take on this technology? How does it impact indigenous or disabled groups? What livelihood issues does this raise for the poor? Will the global commodities trade be affected? Perhaps an extended social media approach to technology assessment could convene online juries, host global conference calls and draft peoples reports for input into policy deliberations.

Don’t get me wrong.. approaches like these are not panaceas .. Adopt them all and some of us in civil society  might still feel there are a few metaphorical mechanical frames that would still need breaking. For example I’m not sure a modern day Ned Ludd would be content to spend his whole time writing wiki entries.

Then again, at least he might participate in his own facebook group…

______________________________

Jim Thomas is a Research Programme Manager and Writer with the ETC Group based in Montreal, Canada. His background is in communications, writing on emerging technologies and international campaigning.

Formerly an organiser with grassroots direct action movements in Europe and North America, Jim spent seven years with  Greenpeace International as a campaigner on food and genetic  engineering issues before joining ETC Group in 2002. Jim organised the  first international meeting on the societal impacts of Nanotechnology (held in the European Parliament), speaks around the world on  emerging technology issues and has authored several reports, chapters and press  articles on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  GeoEngineering.  He writes a regular ‘Tech Reckoning’ column for The Ecologist Magazine exploring the  politics of next generation technologies.

Trained as a historian to look back at the history of technology, Jim is now proccupied with the future of technology. Once upon a time he was an award winning slam poet but then he had children…

ETC Group have a blog too…