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/2012/05/03/nanoparticles-cosmetics-and-sunscreens-again/ http://2020science.org/2012/05/03/nanoparticles-cosmetics-and-sunscreens-again/#comments Thu, 03 May 2012 17:08:52 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4647

Robin Erb has a good piece on cosmetics and safe ingredients in the Detroit Free Press this week – it tackles the very limited regulation over what goes into cosmetics, but balances this with a useful perspective on consumer choice and how this in turn can drive business decisions on what is used and how.  I mention it because the issue of nanoparticles in sunscreens comes up briefly, and I am quoted on the matter.

Regular readers of this blog will know that I have been fairly vocal about the safety of nanoparticles in sunscreens.  I still contend that the weight of published evidence suggests that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens do not present a significant when the relevant products are developed and used responsibly – and that the benefits of using this technology over others may in fact outweigh any residual risk.  But I’m also aware that this isn’t a closed issue – there are niggling questions on the use of photoactive particles, on nanoparticle sunscreen applications on delicate or compromised skin, and on dermal penetration of chemicals within the nanoparticles, that all need further research.  So I was surprised to read that my mind is apparently made up here!

After talking with Robin about cosmetics, sunscreen and nanoparticles, she sent me draft of my comments to check for factual accuracy before the piece went to press.  The original text read:

“…Agreed Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health: “The industry seems reasonably well self-regulating.”

In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecular-sized particles that ease the lotion into our skin pores – are dangerous. His conclusion: They’re not.

“It was really surprising, to be honest,” he said.”

This was uncommonly generous of Robin by the way – many reporters will not do this (for good reason – they don’t want people interfering with the story), and in general I don’t expect it.

My response:

Hi Robin, and thanks for letting me see this – Scott’s comments are great here btw.

If you are able, could I just change one thing: instead of “In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecular-sized particles that ease the lotion into our skin pores – are dangerous. His conclusion: They’re not.”, is it possible to have something along the lines of “In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecular-sized particles that protect the skin from the sun – are dangerous. His conclusion: Not if they’re used responsibly”

It’s not as black and white admittedly, but there are still niggling uncertainties associated with the use of nanoparticles that I am on record as highlighting (as there are with other sunscreen ingredients), and it would look odd if I was quoted as saying something that seemed to contradict my usual message.

I should note at this point that, under these circumstances, my policy is to treat the reporter’s work with respect, and refrain from editing the text unless there is a compelling reason to do so.  But in this case I was concerned about the overstatement of my position on nanoparticle safety, and I thought that the technical error on the purpose of the nanoparticles being to ease the lotion into the skin pores should be addressed (in sunscreen the particles coat the skin and protect against UV exposure.  In some cosmetics, nanoparticles are used to help penetrate through the outer dead layers of skin cells – there may have been some confusion between the two here).

Robin responded back:

“Thanks for the response. No problem on tweaking the wording. I want it correct, of course.

Let me just ask this though: What would be an “irresponsible” use of sunscreen? I’m not trying to be funny – I just want to make sure the qualifier “if used responsibly” really translates for consumers.”

To which I replied:

“Understand – “responsible” can be a bit of an irresponsible blanket term

Here, I mean using nanoparticles after giving possible health and environmental impacts due consideration, and doing everything possible to ensure minimal impacts and significant benefits. A bit of a mouthful, but feel free to tweak the quote. I won’t be able to respond as I’m about to board a plane back to Michigan from Denmark (hence the delay with this response) – but am sure whatever you arrive at will be fine.”

I may have been a bit generous with that last statement, as what was published on Monday came out as:

“Andrew Maynard, director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, agreed. “The industry seems to be reasonably well self-regulating.”

In his research, Maynard asked whether nanomaterials in sunscreen — the nearly molecule-sized particles that ease the lotion into our skin pores — are dangerous. His conclusion: They’re not.

“It was really surprising, to be honest,” he said.”

The adherence to the original text isn’t a particularly big deal, and to be fair I almost definitely didn’t express myself as clearly as I could have in the original phone interview.  But just in case you read this and thought that the book was closed on nano-sunscreens from my perspective – it’s not!

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/05/03/nanoparticles-cosmetics-and-sunscreens-again/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2012/04/20/nano-mms/ http://2020science.org/2012/04/20/nano-mms/#comments Fri, 20 Apr 2012 15:40:27 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4641

Not in the technical sense I’m afraid, but thought it would be fun to post this image of nano-branded M&Ms.  They were used as part of a recent NanoDays session with local school kids exploring the broader implications of nanotechnology.

The only substantive link they have with real nano-enabled products as far as I can tell is the cost – they’re not cheap!

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]

This has just landed in my email in box from Craig Cormick at the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education in Australia, and I thought I would pass it on given the string of posts on nanoparticles in sunscreens on 2020 Science over the past few years:

At Australia’s International Conference on Nanoscience and Nanotechnology (ICONN 2012) earlier this month, the results of a public perception study were released that indicate some Australian consumers would rather risk skin cancer by not using sunscreen than use a product containing nanoparticles.  This despite increasing evidence that nanoparticles in sunscreens do not present a significant risk to health. The study was complimented by tests conducted by Australia’s National Measurement Institute that suggest some sunscreens labeled as “nano free” contain nanostructured material.

According to the media release on the public perceptions study,

“An online poll of 1,000 people, conducted in January this year, shows that one in three Australians had heard or read stories about the risks of using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them,” Dr Cormick said.

“Thirteen percent of this group were concerned or confused enough that they would be less likely to use any sunscreen, whether or not it contained nanoparticles, putting them selves at increased risk of developing potentially deadly skin cancers.

“The study also found that while one in five respondents stated they would go out of their way to avoid using sunscreens with nanoparticles in them, over three in five would need to know more information before deciding.”

A news release sent out a couple of weeks ago to coincide with ICONN 2012 also noted

While early questions concerning the possible dangers of using nanoparticle-containing sunscreens were legitimate given the state of science ten years ago, research over the intervening years has failed to substantiate concerns (see this review for example). Despite this, this latest opinions survey indicates that people may be at risk of placing themselves in greater danger because of concerns that continue to be articulated.  Although it’s always hard to estimate how answers to questions like the ones asked here translate into actual actions, the survey does beg the questions – at what point does asking questions stimulate actions that lead to greater risks; and how should the public dialogue around a speculative risk respond to new evidence as it emerges?

Full details of the sunscreen perceptions and awareness survey can be found here.

Also worth reading: The safety of nanotechnology-based sunscreens – some reflections

]]> http://2020science.org/2012/02/20/are-consumers-risking-skin-cancer-because-of-fears-over-nanoparticles-in-sunscreens/feed/ 7 http://2020science.org/2012/02/19/wonders-and-worries-retro-nano-at-its-best/ http://2020science.org/2012/02/19/wonders-and-worries-retro-nano-at-its-best/#comments Sun, 19 Feb 2012 23:02:26 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4611

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.

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

I picked up a new toy this weekend. (If you want to cut to the chase and see what I’ve been doing with it, please head straight to the end of the post).

I’m fascinated by the combination of old tech (essentially “chalk and talk”) and new media that Sal Kahn has been successfully using to teach mathematics and science on-line.  The basic approach he uses of writing and drawing while talking is as old as the hills.  But he successfully enhances this through “debundling” topics (breaking things down into small digestible chunks) and making his digitized chalk and talk lessons freely available as short online videos.

Chalk and talk is a way of teaching I still find effective, as it forces me to develop ideas at a measured pace, while allowing my students to follow the thought process and take notes. But it’s an approach that is increasingly out of vogue as educators feel they have to pander to today’s tech-savvy and social media-immersed students.  So inspired by Sol Kahn, I’ve been looking at ways of combining this approach with new online tools to provide teaching resources that extend what can be achieved in the classroom.

My first approach was to look at Kahn’s setup – essentially using a drawing tablet and software as a digital blackboard, and recording short videos to teach specific concepts and skills.  But after just a few minutes, I realized that this was a learning curve that was too steep for me (put it down to age!) – tablets have a remarkable ability to make everything look like it was drawn by a 3 year old, until you get the hang of it!

Then I came across pencasts.

Imagine working through a maths or science problem with a student, and sketching out your workings on a sheet of paper as you do.  Now imagine that you can give that student a digital document that replays your scribbles and your verbal commentary on their computer in real time.  And finally, imagine that the student can skip to any part of the document to see and hear how a particular step was developed, and replay this until they get it.

This is a pencast.  Using a Livescribe Smartpen and a dedicated notebook, it’s possible to develop concepts or work through problems using pen and paper, and then to create a dynamic digital document from this that replays the pen strokes and the accompanying commentary.  The resulting pencasts can be viewed online.  But the real beauty is that they can saved as PDFs, and replayed using the latest version of Adobe Acrobat – so, for instance, it’s possible to email someone a solution to a maths problem as a PDF that takes them through it step by step, as if they were working through it with you by their side – apart that they can rewind and repeat the hard bits.

I was intrigued – is this the ideal combination of old tech “chalk and talk” with new tech “digital replay”?  To explore further, I grabbed myself a Smartpen and started to play.

My first attempts at using the technology are basic to say the least (see below).  But the learning curve is shallow compared to using tablets and YouTube videos, and the resulting file format potentially much more versatile.  Having got to grips with some of the possibilities and limitations (the software for pencasts only works effectively on PC’s at the moment for instance, and the audio quality isn’t that great), I think I will be experimenting with augmenting next semester’s lectures with pencast documents.

But in the meantime, I would be extremely interested in comments and feedback on the technology.

Nanomaterial specific surface area and number concentration – three crude explorations of using pencasts to explain concepts

To play each pencast, simply click on the “play” button.  They typically look better displayed full screen.  By default, you can see all of the material on the page but it is greyed out until those pen strokes are reached.  When in full screen mode though, you can choose to hide stuff until the pen strokes are reached, using the button in the bottom left hand corner.

A guest blog by Craig Cormick.

Over the past decade there has been a significant growth in public engagement activities relating to nanotechnology and when you look across all the data being generated you can learn a lot about how the public view the risks and benefits of the technology. That’s probably not news for anybody who follows this blog. But what might be news is to look closely at who is driving these engagements. Is it the public? Generally no.

The majority of the public are still rather unengaged on nanotechnology, and tend to think it’s all rather good (not including food). Media coverage is predominantly positive and concern-stories don’t get much traction. And yet there is a lot of funding going into public engagement of nanotechnology – so engagement has to happen.

The premise behind most government funding of nanotechnology engagement world-wide is that we need to avoid a replication of what happened with Genetically Modified Foods, and so the errors of that public debate need to be addressed early in the nanotechnology debate. But is that a valid premise? Nanotechnologies and Genetic Modification (GM) technologies, while similar in some ways, are significantly different too. Most importantly GM technology was a “black hat technology” (which was its starting position in the publics’ eyes, as a risky thing, and there was little impact that positive information and engagement campaigns had on that) while nanotechnology is a “white hat technology” (and likewise negative information campaigns are having little impact on changing its initial perception of being more beneficial than risky).

So now let’s look at the engagements that are happening and who attends them. The majority of activities involve bringing a range of experts and the public together in some manner, or bringing lay publics together, to discuss nanotechnology issues, with research being conducted into what and how and why the public react to the engagement activity. That’s all good, and activities are getting better and better at developing two-way learnings. But there are publics and there are publics, and most engagement activities recruit people who self-select to attend, and as a result are more likely to represent those with some interest in the technology or its impacts already. So you could argue that a lot of activities are engaging with those people who least need to be engaged with, as they are already engaged.

So issue number 1: Most engagement activities favour the engaged, and there are not enough methodologies to engage with the broader unengaged people in our communities.

That brings us to the types of engagement activities happening. A useful GM analogy to use here is the difference between laboratory trials, greenhouse trials and field trials. Many nanotechnology engagements are the equivalent of laboratory trials – being conducted in artificial environments (focus groups, deliberative dialogues and citizens juries) that, while providing useful data, might not be easily transferable to the real world.

There are other engagements that we might consider greenhouse trials, such as online forums, café scientifics and so on, that are much closer to the real world that most people live in, but still aren’t quite it.

Then there are some good examples of engagements that are what we might call field trials (community group meetings and shopping center interviews), but not many.

Issue number 2 is the need to find engagements that replicate real world experiences as much as possible for the broad unengaged publics, both to allow research into real world experiences, and to provide modelling that people might be able to transfer to their homes and work places etc.

And this raises issue number 3, which is that while there is an expectation that people who take part in engagement activities – whether they be laboratory experiments, greenhouse trials or field trials – they will take their new knowledge or attitudes and go forth and multiply it within the broader community, there is very little data to demonstrate whether this actually happens or not.

So while it is useful to pool all the research data being obtained and make meta-analysis of the findings, as happens regularly, it might be more helpful at the moment to look for gaps in the data and then find ways to fill them. And that, I suggest, is the next major challenge not just for those undertaking public engagement activities, but for anyone seeking an effective way to come to good understandings of how the broad public actually relate to the risks and benefits of new technologies.

Dr Craig Cormick is Manager of Public Awareness and Community Engagement within the National Enabling Technologies Strategy in the Australian Department of Innovation.

]]> http://2020science.org/2011/11/25/a-few-small-issues-about-public-engagement-on-nanotechnology/feed/ 3 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/2011/10/20/new-us-federal-strategy-for-nanotechnology-safety-research-released/ http://2020science.org/2011/10/20/new-us-federal-strategy-for-nanotechnology-safety-research-released/#comments Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:01:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4444

The latest iteration of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative’s Environmental, Health and Safety Research Strategy was released today – downloadable from nano.gov. A draft of the document has been on the streets since last December – this version was compiled after a public comment period on that draft that closed earlier this year (the key comments received are listed here).

Given the comments received, I was interested to see how much they had influenced the final strategy.  If you take the time to comment on a federal document, it’s always nice to know that someone has paid attention.  Unfortunately, it isn’t usual practice for the federal government to respond directly to public comments, so I had the arduous task of carrying out a side by side comparison of the draft, and today’s document.

As it turns out, there are extremely few differences between the draft and the final strategy, and even fewer of these alter the substance of the document.  Which means that, by on large, my assessment of the document at the beginning of the year still stands.

Perhaps the most significant changes were on chapter 6 – Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods. The final strategy presents a substantially revised set of current research needs, that more accurately and appropriately (in my opinion) reflect the current state of knowledge and uncertainty (page 66).  This is accompanied by an updated analysis of current projects (page 73), and additional text on page 77 stating

“Risk communication should also be appropriately tailored to the targeted audience. As a result, different approaches may be used to communicate risk(s) by Federal and state agencies, academia, and industry stakeholders with the goal of fostering the development of an effective risk management framework.”

There is also an additional bullet in the section on Implementation and Coordination of the NNI EHS Research Strategy (page 94):

“Refocus NEHI. Through consultation with agency representatives, the leadership of the NEHI Working Group adapted its meeting format to ensure better coordination of research to achieve the goals of the NNI EHS Research Strategy. Four priority areas were identified: ongoing updates on agency nanoEHS activities; new opportunities for collaboration; research strategy implementation, coordination, and evaluation; and planning and outreach.”

But these are the most significant changes I could find.

Below, I’ve listed the key changes I came across reading through the document.  I’ve also looked at how some of the most specific public comments received – from Günter Oberdörster – have been addressed, as an indicator of how seriously the NNI took the comments received.

Looking at these differences – and where Günter’s comments have and have not been responded to – I can’t but help conclude that minimal attention was paid to the public comments. Even where very specific page and line comments were made, only the most trivial to respond to have been addressed.

This doesn’t worry me too much – for a federal document, the strategy isn’t bad, and certainly has the potential to help focus nanotechnology safety research efforts.  But I do wonder whether the federal government needs to get its public engagement act together, and either not bother with public consultation if it is simply a box-checking exercise, or have the courtesy of responding to comments – even if they aren’t acted on – if they do take them seriously.

_________________________________________

Specific significant changes between the draft and final strategies. 

I have probably missed some – but these are the ones that jumped out at me.

Vision

There was a subtle change in wording here:

Draft version: “In support of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the vision for environmental, health, and safety research in nanotechnology is a future in which nanotechnology provides maximum benefit to human social and economic well-being and to the environment.”

Final version: “In support of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the vision for environmental, health, and safety research in nanotechnology is a future in which nanotechnology provides maximum benefit to the environment and to human social and economic well-being.”

1. Introduction to the 2011 NNI Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Strategy

Page 1: Revised text: “… ensuring a clean water supply and remediating soil contamination.” instead of “… ensuring a clean water supply and soil remediation.”

Page 2:  New text added: “Overall priority is given to the EHS research that decreases the uncertainty in assessing and managing risk and that addresses the EHS objectives in the NNI 2011 Strategic Plan.”

Page 2: New text added: “Research and development remain essential to the fundamental understanding and development of tools and materials for nanotechnology. Fundamental research, development of infrastructure, and education will continue to contribute to the knowledge needed for Federal nanoEHS research.”

Pages 3 & 4: Figs 1-2: Figures, and the accompanying text, have been clarified.

Page 5: The figure to fig. 1-3 emphasizes the importance of research management framework underpinning the strategy.

Page 7: New text added: “A draft version was posted at strategy.nano.gov for public comment (Dec. 1, 2010-Jan. 21, 2011). Where appropriate, this strategy was updated in response to comments and new information.”

2. Nanomaterial Measurement Infrastructure

Page 16 of draft report: Deleted text: “Finally, NIST has requested funding in the FY2011 NNI Supplement to the President’s Budget to develop measurement methodologies and models for dynamic physico-chemical properties (e.g., transformations) of key nanomaterials; this funding would greatly accelerate research to address research need #3.”

Page 21: There is a stronger emphasis compared to the original text on the need for more research “More effort is needed for all research in this revised category: research need #5 is a newly defined research need, so no relevant projects were reported in the FY 2009 data call. However, there is work underway at NIST and at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to evaluate ENM release mechanisms from NEPs due to incineration, mechanical degradation, and consumer interactions.”

3. Human Exposure Assessment

Page 24: New text:  “These challenges also make international harmonization of exposure assessment methodologies and international collaboration in conducting health surveillance studies critically important.”

Page 25: Updated text: “Develop quantitative assessment methods appropriate for target population groups and conduct assessments of those population groups most likely to be exposed to engineered nanomaterials”

Page 26: New text: “Development of health surveillance projects with international partners would leverage funding and study populations, thus accelerating our understanding of human exposures and potential adverse health effects.”

Page 28: New text: “and (3) development and international harmoniza-tion of exposure assessment methodologies appropriate for epidemiological studies, studies of the effectiveness of control technologies, and other research areas.”

4. Human Health

Page 36: A new research need added: “ Evaluate the degree to which an in vitro response correlates with an in vivo response”

Page 43: Research need #3 transposed with research need #4, compared to the draft report.

5. Environment

Page 43 of the draft report: Deleted text:  “and to instilling public confidence in the safety of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products that could benefit society.”

Page 58: Clarification that “An additional 9 projects include environmental transport components and are included under “Multiple Research Needs.””

Page 59: New text added “They may also bind to other contaminants in the environment.”

Page 50 of the draft report: Deleted text: “In other words, nanoscale may not be a characteristic that supports assumptions about potential toxicity for all nanomaterials.”

6. Risk Assessment and Risk Management Methods

Page 65: Clarifying text added: “The risk assessment process incorporates the best available data on the potential health effects of a nanomaterial and the exposure potential to humans and to the environment; thus, the data needs described in previous chapters and the quality of the results of studies in measurement, exposure assessment, human health, and the environment directly impact the reliability of risk estimates.”

Page 66: All research needs bullets updated.

Page 73: Significant new text added under Analysis of Current Projects

Page 77: New text: “Risk communication should also be appropriately tailored to the targeted audience. As a result, different approaches may be used to communicate risk(s) by Federal and state agencies, academia, and industry stakeholders with the goal of fostering the development of an effective risk management framework.”

7. Informatics and Modeling for NanoEHS Research

Page 80: New text: “Identifying regions in which small changes in nanomaterial structures lead to large differences in their properties (high sensitivity) and/ or large uncertainty and error in the data or models would provide a quantifiable measure of the need for greater understanding of the underlying mechanisms and help target priority areas for additional research and funding.”

8. The Path Forward

Page 95: Expanded bullet “ Name NNCO EHS Coordinator. Consistent with the PCAST recommendation, OSTP has named an NNCO Coordinator for EHS to assist agencies in integrating research across the nanoEHS continuum to achieve the objectives presented in the NNI 2011 Strategic Plan. The new NNCO EHS Coordinator serves on the NSET/NEHI leadership team; leads the NNCO and NSET Subcommittee’s efforts in identifying and leveraging research collaborations domestically and internationally; serves as the NNI point of contact for stakeholders with nanoEHS concerns; and spearheads the NNI EHS Research Strategy’s implementation, coordination, and evaluation.”

Page 95: New bullet “Refocus NEHI. Through consultation with agency representatives, the leadership of the NEHI Working Group adapted its meeting format to ensure better coordination of research to achieve the goals of the NNI EHS Research Strategy. Four priority areas were identified: ongoing updates on agency nanoEHS activities; new opportunities for collaboration; research strategy implementation, coordination, and evaluation; and planning and outreach.”

Comparing the final strategy to public comments from Günter Oberdörster on the draft document. I decided to do this as Günter provided some of the most specific public comments, and because he is one of the most respected experts in the field.  The specificity of his comments also provided an indication of the extent to which they had been directly addressed in the final strategy.

Comment: 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.

Response: New bullet added.

Comment: 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.

Response: The recommended change made here, but not later on in the strategy.

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

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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).

Response: No obvious response

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: This section was changed substantially.

Comment: 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? [Not addressed, as far as I can tell]

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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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.

Response: Role clarified, but comment not addressed.

Comment: 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?

Response: Text clarified.

Comment: 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.

Response: No obvious response.

Comment: 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….”.

Response: Comment addressed.

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/2011/09/06/define-nanomaterials-for-regulatory-purposes-eu-jrc-says-yes/ http://2020science.org/2011/09/06/define-nanomaterials-for-regulatory-purposes-eu-jrc-says-yes/#comments Tue, 06 Sep 2011 16:27:53 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4380

Cross-posted from The Risk Science Blog:

In a recent letter to the journal Nature (Nature 476; 399), Hermann Stamm of the European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (JRC-IHCP) defended the need to define engineered nanomaterials for regulatory purposes. The letter, titled “Nanomaterials should be defined”, was a direct response to my earlier commentary in Nature “Don’t define nanomaterials”.

Stamm’s letter is behind a paywall and so not easily accessible to many readers. But these are the main points he makes:

• A definition for engineered nanomaterials is required for labeling purposes, and would assist industry and regulators in identifying where specific safety assessments might be necessary.
• This should identify a general class of materials for attention, whether they are benign or hazardous.
• Nanomaterials have many properties not shared by their larger-scale counterparts, some of which have safety implications. And an increasing number of products containing novel nanomaterials are entering the market.
• Engineered nanomaterials are heterogeneous. But, they all have structures on the nanoscale which modify their other properties. Because of this, size is therefore most appropriate parameter to base a regulatory definition on.

Stamm also references a Joint Research Center Reference Report on “Considerations on a Definition of Nanomaterial for Regulatory Purposes”, co-authored by him and published in 2010.

As is probably clear from my Nature commentary (an early draft is freely available here), I have some sympathies with the challenges the JRC and regulators across the world are facing. Without a doubt, sophisticated materials arising from nanoscale science and engineering are presenting safety challenges that are not readily captured by current regulatory regimes. Yet I am increasingly concerned that, with the momentum that has built up behind the field of nanotechnology, it is becoming increasingly difficult to formulate evidence-based questions that will lead to science-justified regulation. And despite policy makers repeatedly stating that any form of nanomaterial regulation should be science-based, I have the sense that they are scrambling to use science to justify a predetermined conclusion – that engineered nanomaterials should be regulated on the basis of a hard and fast definition – rather than using science to guide their actions.

Instead, I would suggest that we need to put aside preconceptions of what is important and what is not here, and start by asking how new generations of sophisticated (or advanced) materials interact with biological systems; where these interactions have the potential to cause harm in ways not captured within current regulatory frameworks; and how these frameworks can be adapted or altered to ensure that an increasing number of unusual substances are developed and used as safely as possible – no matter what label or “brand” is applied to them.

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/2011/08/09/what-was-worrying-us-about-nanotechnology-safety-seven-years-ago/ http://2020science.org/2011/08/09/what-was-worrying-us-about-nanotechnology-safety-seven-years-ago/#comments Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:07:28 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4324

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:

In June 2005, the chairman and CEO of DuPont, together with the President of the Environmental Defense Fund, co-authored an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Let’s Get nanotech Right”.  The piece called for broad multi-stakeholder collaborations to help identify and address potential health, safety and environmental issues arising from the development and commercialization of engineered nanomaterials.  And it laid the groundwork for one of the more significant documents to be produced on working safely with nanomaterials over the past years – the Environmental Defense-DuPont Nano Risk Framework, published in June 2007.

Good as the Nano Risk Framework was, it didn’t escape criticism at the time – some thought it was too complex and onerous; others worried that it didn’t capture the needs and perspectives of the broader manufacturing community – especially small businesses and startups.    So it’s no small deal that, nearly four years after the original framework was released, the International Standards Organization* has just published a Technical Report on nanomaterial risk evaluation that builds on the Nano Risk Framework.

ISO/TR 31321:2011: Nanotechnologies – Nanomaterial risk evaluation is unashamedly based on the Environmental Defense Fund/DuPont Nano Risk Framework.  Much of the structure and content reflects that of the original – a testament to the thought and effort that went into the first document.  But there have been some changes.  Whereas the second step in the Nano Risk Framework described developing three “profile lifecycles”, the ISO document simply refers to “material profiles” and integrates the need for a lifecycle approach to these profiles within the text.  The ISO report is written in a much tighter style than that of the original document, and looses some of the occasionally long-winded expositions on what should be done and why.  And the ISO document is more compact – 66 pages as opposed to 104.  But from a comparative reading, surprisingly little has been changed from the 2007 document.

The result is a clear, tightly focused and highly applicable and adaptable guide for developing strategies for evaluating and handling nanomaterials safely.  It doesn’t come cheap unfortunately – it’ll cost you 158 Swiss Francs for a copy (tempting me to write facetiously about the cost of nano-safety these days) – but for anyone having to make pragmatic decisions on working as safely as possible with engineered nanomaterials, it’s CHF 158 well spent.

The Technical Report is built around a framework of six steps:

Describe materials and applications (establishing a clear sense of the materials being evaluated and their intended uses, including collecting information on analogous materials that might be useful).

Material profiles (profiling the material’s physical and chemical properties, its inherent environmental and health hazards, and its human and environmental exposure potential, across its complete life cycle).

Evaluate risks (estimating the nature and magnitude of risks, based on the profiles established in the previous step).

Assess risk management options (Developing a plan for managing the risks identified in the previous step).

Decide, document and act (Implement a course of action, based on the evaluation of risk and risk management options, that is relevant to each stage of the material or product’s development.  This might include deciding to halt development of a product if the potential risks are deemed to outweigh the benefits, or the costs of reducing the risks to an acceptable level are prohibitive).

Review and adapt (regularly ensure that risk management systems established are working, and revise them as necessary in the light of new information).

Inherent to this framework is the need to make situation-specific decisions that are guided by the Technical Report but not necessarily prescribed by it, and the need to constantly review and revise procedures and decisions.  This built-in flexibility and adaptability makes ISO/TR 31321 a powerful tool for developing tailored nanomaterial management strategies that are responsive to new information as it becomes available.  It also presents an integrative approach to using materials safely, that deals with the need to make decisions under considerable uncertainty by blurring the line between risk assessment and risk management.

The report contains little in the way of background information, assuming that readers already know something about the challenges presented by using engineered nanomaterials safely.  Instead, it provides clear and concise advice on what to consider and options on how to proceed at each stage of the framework.  This includes providing lists of questions that help identify key pieces of useful information in evaluating and making decisions on potential risks, and the adoption of a no-nonsense writing style – the authors tell the reader what they need to know while avoiding inconsequential waffle.

All in all, this is an admirable document, removing much of the mystique of working safely with engineered nanomaterials, and providing a pragmatic and practical framework which can be applied everywhere from a research lab to a full scale production facility.  It’s a shame that it isn’t free, as it also provides a common sense perspective on nanomaterial safety that I think would be valuable to anyone with an interest in the field – not just environment, health and safety professionals.  But as a fall back there is still the original Environmental Defense Fund/DuPont framework, which after four years has lost surprisingly little of its edge.

*Update 5/27/2011 As some of you realized, there is no such organization as the “International Standards Organization” – it’s the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO (not an acronym).  A silly error on my part brought on by writing on the plane and trying to get the blog out before my laptop battery died – and one I shouldn’t have made as I’ve done my time with ISO in the past! But I decided to keep the error in, as ironically, to many readers, “ISO” or “International Organization for Standardization” won’t mean as much to them as “International Standards Organization”.

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.

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.

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!

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/2011/02/19/obamas-2012-budget-does-not-bode-well-for-safe-productive-workplaces/ http://2020science.org/2011/02/19/obamas-2012-budget-does-not-bode-well-for-safe-productive-workplaces/#comments Sat, 19 Feb 2011 20:27:37 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4096

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/2011/01/24/nanotechnology-%e2%80%93-what-web-resources-do-you-find-most-helpful/ http://2020science.org/2011/01/24/nanotechnology-%e2%80%93-what-web-resources-do-you-find-most-helpful/#comments Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:09:48 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4030

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!

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 must have been just a little worked up when I spoke with Gwyneth Shaw at the New Haven Independent a couple of weeks ago on nanotechnology.  I’m usually fairly circumspect with my comments to reporters (OK, so I know some readers have just spattered their coffee across the computer screen, but do try to balance occasionally strong statements within a broader context).  So I was surprised to see a couple of rather robust quotes in Gwyneth’s piece this morning on the big jamboree celebrating 10 years of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

It’s not that the quotes are incorrect – they align with stuff I’ve been saying for years.  But they are rather forthright – and they lack a certain amount of context.  The beauty of blogging though is that I can provide at least some context that might help to clarify where I was coming from.

Here’s the first quote:

“There’s still an awful lot of hype coming out of that group [the NNI], and I have mixed feelings about the initiative,” said Andrew Maynard, director of the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center.

This is true.  The NNI has been groundbreaking in stimulating new research and new innovation over the past ten years, and has enabled federal agencies, research communities and international organizations to work together in new and better ways.  At the same time the NNI has been about more than science and technology – there is a social, economic and political side to the push to support nanotechnology that is not often acknowledged, and as a result has been handled rather naively at times.  Underlying this is an assumption that nanotechnology is necessary for the good of mankind – it’s the kind of assumption that leads to hype and actions in support of an already-decided position.  This is normal for big initiatives.  But it’s not necessarily helpful – hence my mixed feelings.

Next:

Maynard worked at the NNI for a few years. He said that while the NNI has helped “set the pace” for nanotechnology internationally, there have been missed opportunities too. Mostly, he said, they’re in the area of public engagement about the benefits and risks of nanotechnology.

I didn’t strictly speaking work for the NNI – I was part of the NNI while working for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.  But I do think there have been missed opportunities here to engage more effectively with a broader range of stakeholders.  This is slowly changing as the NNI begins to put documents out for public comment.  But ask the questions – where are the go-to NNI-led sources of information on nanotechnology that are accessible and relevant to tens of millions of citizens?  Where are the opportunities for citizens to contribute to the development of nanotechnologies in substantive and influential ways?  Where are the cross-agency initiatives on engagement that allow underlying assumptions to be questioned and modified?  Ten years into a program that aims to change society, I would have hoped for a little more than we have now.

And finally:

The NNI, and the federal government, haven’t been a good source of basic information about nanotechnology, Maynard said. When the average person wants to figure out what’s going on, he said, “there is absolutely nothing coming from the fed government on that level.”

OK so “absolutely nothing” is hyperbole, and I should have been more careful with my words.  There are strong government-funded initiatives that are beginning to connect with “average people” (whoever they may be) – the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network is one that I am closely associated with.  And nanotechnology centers around the country are doing a lot to reach out to local communities.  But the question remains – if someone like my mother, or my daughter, or my neighbor, wants a clear, balanced and accessible source of information on nanotechnology – where do they go?  If the NNI has done something that I’m aware of, please let me know.  If not, why not – if this technology is so important, surely getting information to people in a form that is relevant to them is essential?

The bottom line here is that I have great respect for the NNI, and for the people involved in it.  But that doesn’t mean there are things that couldn’t be done better.  And hopefully over the next ten years, they will be.

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!

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/2010/11/27/reviewing-the-national-nanotechnology-initiative-strategic-plan-twitter-on-steroids/ http://2020science.org/2010/11/27/reviewing-the-national-nanotechnology-initiative-strategic-plan-twitter-on-steroids/#comments Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:59:45 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3851

Here’s a bit of trivia: with the 4000 character limit on comments on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Draft Strategic Plan, you might as well ditch the official portal, and tweet your comments to the Office of Science and Technology Policy – 28 tweets would do it!

As you can probably guess, I’ve just been compiling my response to the request for comments on the current NNI strategic plan, and have been just a little frustrated by the 4000 character limit.  This includes spaces by the way.  And formatting characters – I had to delete any formatting (bold headings for instance) to get below the limit.

However, the comments – brief as they are – are completed and submitted.  If you’re interested, they are posted below – all 3929 characters.

The comment period on the strategic plan closes at 11:59 PM on November 30th – still time to get your voice heard, as long as you can do it in 4000 characters or less.

The draft strategic plan can be downloaded from here, and the comments portal can be accessed here.

____________________________________

My submission:

The draft National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) strategic plan, which was opened up to public comment on November 1 2010, provides an overview of the NNI, outlines agency involvement in the initiative, and sets out four goals that the member-agencies intend to address over the coming years as they work together to support the NNI vision of “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”.  This is a useful strategic plan in that it outlines a number of goals that will help member agencies take steps toward realizing this vision – individually, together, and working in partnership with non-government stakeholders.  However, the draft strategic plan is light on detail, and falls short of providing a plan as to how specific and accountable actions will lead to measurable and efficient progress towards stated goals.

Given the 4000 character limitation on comments, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight just eight specific aspects of the strategic plan:

Specificity: This is a very non-specific strategic plan.  In fact, it is hard to find clear evidence of a plan within the document at all, in terms of measurable and accountable actions (with a few exceptions).  In this respect, it provides non-binding and broad direction to government agencies, with no assurance that anything of substance will be achieved.  More specificity would be helpful.

Goals: Some of the stated goals (specifically goal 2 and its stated objectives) are clear and, to an extent, measurable.  However others are vague, mapping out areas of desired activity in ways that will make it extremely difficult to evaluate progress, and return on time and funding investment.

Signature initiatives: These would seem to be a positive step forward in stimulating targeted and innovative research and development – and are one of the few instances of specific actions within the document.  I look forward to seeing how they are developed, and the outcomes that arise from them.

Engagement: While the plan addresses engagement with stakeholders, there is very little detail as to how this will occur, and how the NNI will be held accountable to stakeholders through engagement processes.  There is remarkably little in the way of a strategy for citizen stakeholder engagement, where citizens are empowered to be part of the process of technology development and commercialization.  This is a critical area if sustainable and responsive technologies are to arise from investment in nanotechnology.

Environmental, health and safety impacts: The forthcoming nanotechnology EHS strategic plan is eagerly awaited.

Accountability: There is a profound lack of accountability within the strategic plan.  If goals are not met, investments do not lead to results, stakeholders are not adequately engaged, information is not disseminated effectively, or nanotechnology-relevant governance frameworks and mechanisms are not developed in a timely manner developed, who is accountable?

Building on the past 10 years: Reading the strategic plan, it is hard to imagine that this builds on ten years of work and over $12 billion worth of federal agency investment.  It would be helpful to see a clear roadmap for the coming years of the NNI that is developed with respect to what has already been achieved.  As just one example: on page 36 of the draft, the need for a web-based information and dissemination hub is mentioned – It would be helpful to know why, after ten years of the NNI this does not currently exist, what has been learned of needs and mechanisms for effective dissemination, and how the NNI specifically intends to address the need.

Agency actions: The strategic plan would be strengthened considerably if it contained more information on what precisely the member agencies will be doing to support the NNI’s goals and objectives.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/11/27/reviewing-the-national-nanotechnology-initiative-strategic-plan-twitter-on-steroids/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2010/11/16/nanotechnology-climate-and-energy-over-heated-promises-and-hot-air/ http://2020science.org/2010/11/16/nanotechnology-climate-and-energy-over-heated-promises-and-hot-air/#comments Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:00:52 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3820

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

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.

A weekly reflection on life in academia

Most of this last week was spent in San Francisco, at the NISE Net (Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network) network-wide meeting – possibly my favorite meeting of the year (I might have mentioned that before).  This year I had the additional pleasure of opening the meeting in a double-act with Kathy Sykes.  Readers in the UK will be familiar with Kathy – for others, she is a rather smart scientist, communicator, broadcaster, science-festival co-director (she helped create and co-directs the Cheltenham Science Festival) and all-round good egg.  She is also a fellow physicist.  Two Brit physicists opening a US conference on informal science education – not bad eh!

One aspect of this meeting that I love – apart from the glorious location right by Fort Mason in San Francisco – is the eclectic and engaging mix of participants.  It’s one of the few meetings I know where artists, performers, teachers, exhibit designers, communicators, “natural” scientists  (bit of a dodgy term), social scientists and others can get together and share their knowledge around a common theme – in this case, nanoscale science and engineering.

I was here as a NISE Net advisor and as a keynote speaker (“Current perspectives on nanotechnology” – in 45 minutes!).  Because of this, I think people were expecting me to enlighten them (apart the person who asked in the bar “so what’s a Risk Science Director doing talking about nanotechnology?” – then sheepishly admitted the next day “I Googled you…”).  I may have said some useful things – it’s always hard to tell.  But what the organizers and participants probably don’t realize is how much I gained myself from the meeting.

As always it seems at this meeting, listening to and talking with other participants ended up influencing my own thinking about nanoscale science and engineering.  I came away with my brain buzzing with new ideas on how to approach and understand nanoscale science and engineering from a social and educational perspective – largely due to stimulating conversations with people having a very different training and perspective to mine.  What is somewhat bizarre but highly gratifying is that I possibly find more inspiration from meetings like this than from scientific meetings where I’m reasonably familiar with much of the material being discussed.  I suspect it’s something to do with being forced to think differently and more imaginatively about things, and having to approach issues from very different perspectives.

This is probably one added value of NISE Net that isn’t sufficiently recognized.  But it’s a tremendously important one.  NISE Net has developed an innovative process to introduce nanoscale science and engineering to people through science museums and other informal science education venues.  But that process is also educating the “educators”.

So I’m extremely grateful to everyone at the meeting who helped me see the world, and the issues I grapple with, in new ways.

Thank you NISE Net!

Of course, the downside is going to be a whole new string of blogs revolving around nanoscale science and engineering.

Sorry!

PS – there’s still time to vote on the Spider-Goat-Milk story I posted the other day.  This is directly related to the NISE Net meeting – a link that I’ll reveal as soon as enough people have contributed to the poll!

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/2010/10/13/nanotechnology-2-0-the-next-ten-years-of-nano-risk-research/ http://2020science.org/2010/10/13/nanotechnology-2-0-the-next-ten-years-of-nano-risk-research/#comments Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:43:57 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3643

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]

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

Most manufacturers of nanomaterial-based sunscreens try to make sure that the material they use doesn’t generate harmful chemicals in the presence of sunlight.  But the paper this piece was based on suggested that some photoactive materials might be slipping through the net.

Originally posted June 21 2008.

Painted metal roofs are cheap, convenient, and usually very durable.  But over the past two years, a rash of accelerated ageng has blighted pre-painted steel roofing in Australia.  And intriguingly the aging—which affects the coating—seems to be localized to small patches, taking on the form of fingerprints, handprints and even footprints.

The culprit it seems is sunscreen that is spilt or otherwise transferred to the roofing by construction workers during installation. And not any old sunscreen—this would appear to be a uniquely nano phenomenon.  But I get ahead of myself…

Pick up a bottle of sunscreen and there is a fair chance these days that it contains nanoparticles, engineered to absorb and reflect away harmful UV radiation.  Many manufacturers are introducing lines of nanoparticle-containing sunscreens as alternatives to those using more conventional organic chemicals, and it’s not hard to see why: the active ingredients in these nano sun blocks are generally more gentle on the skin than their non-nano counterparts; they are made to sit on the surface of the skin rather than penetrate into it; and if designed well, they continue to block UV radiation for several hours after application.  And of course, they go on clear, giving a product that works well and looks good.

But each year as the sun and the sunscreen come out, questions over the safety of nano-formulations are raised.  Can these nanoscale particles penetrate through the outer layers of the skin to the underlying living cells, and even the bloodstream? And if they get there, what harm could they cause?  So far, most studies suggest that nanoparticles in sunscreens stay where they are supposed to—on the skin, not in it.  Yet there is another question that has been bobbing along just under the surface for the past few years: could mixing nanoparticles, sun and moisture lead to a chemically corrosive mix that is bad for the skin?

The issue in question is photocatalytic activity.  Titanium dioxide, and to a lesser extent zinc oxide, are photoactive—they have the ability to absorb UV, and in the presence of moisture convert benign water molecules into chemically active hydroxyl free radicals.  These highly reactive chemicals could spell bad news for sunscreen users if they are generated in large amounts—eating away the components that hold the sunscreen together, and even possibly causing skin damage if they get below the surface and into cells.

Fortunately, manufacturers and users of titanium dioxide have long been aware of this propensity to generate free radicals, and have found ways of suppressing it in sunscreens. Photocatalytic activity depends on the crystalline structure of titanium dioxide.  Anatase and rutile forms of titanium dioxide have the same chemical formula but different crystalline structures. And, as it turns out, different properties. Make nanoparticles from anatase titanium dioxide, or a mix of anatase and rutile, and you have a powerful source of harmful hydroxyl radicals in the presence of water and UV. But make nanoparticles out of rutile titanium dioxide alone, and photocatalytic activity is reduced substantially.

However, even rutile titanium dioxide particles show some photocatalytic activity.  Early uses of rutile titanium dioxide as a white pigment in outdoor paint were plagued by the paint turning chalky after too much sun exposure. The problem was tracked down to hydroxyl radicals being produced and degrading the paint’s binder.  The solution: coat the particles with a material that prevents free radical formation—no more chalky paint, and coatings that will last for years in the fiercest sun.

Makers of titanium dioxide-based sunscreens use a similar trick to retain the functionality of nanoparticles while avoiding the potentially harmful photocatalytic properties. For instance Optisol—a UV blocking agent made by the company Oxonica—incorporates a minute amount of manganese into the crystal lattice of rutile titanium dioxide nanoparticles.  This doping allows the absorbed UV energy to be dissipated while virtually eliminating the formation of free radicals.  Not only does this make sunscreens using Optisol potentially safer; they also last longer in the sun, as there are fewer free radicals to break down other ingredients in the product.

So all looks rosy for nano-enabled sunscreens.  At least, it did until the publication of a recent paper.  And this is where we get back to pre-painted steel roofs. Since mid 2006, researchers in New South Wales Australia have noticed unusual defects developing in newly installed pre-painted steel roofs.  The damage is typically localized to areas of pressure contact, often taking the form of fingerprints or shoe impressions.  And it results in accelerated weathering—in one example, patches of a roof appeared to age an equivalent of 15 years in only 18 months. The culprit?  Nanoparticle-containing sunscreens, which are accidentally transferred to the roof during installation by touching or splashing.

In the paper “The interaction of modern sunscreen formulations with surface coatings,” [Progress in Organic Coatings62: 313:320. 2008] authors Phil Barker and Amos Branch systematically track down the underlying cause behind the unsightly blemishes.  Out of ten sunscreens tested—four containing no nanoparticles, five containing titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and one containing zinc oxide nanoparticles—all but one of the nanoparticle-based sunscreens consistently degraded samples of pre-painted roofing surface exposed to sunlight for 12 weeks.  In contrast, the non-nano products had no obvious deleterious effect.  In the worst case, the roofing lost over 85% of its gloss (a measure of degradation) in just six weeks.

Digging a little deeper, Barker and Branch pinned the effect to nanoparticles in all but one sunscreen acting as photocatalysts, and generating hydroxyl radicals in the presence of UV radiation and water.  Despite assumptions that nanoparticles in sunscreens are engineered not to produce significant amounts of free radicals, these products were generating them fast enough to significantly damage roof coatings in a matter of weeks!

So have we had the wool pulled over our eyes?  Are these supposedly benign nano-sunscreens we are slathering on our skin adding to our wrinkle-count before our time, and perhaps more besides?

Before jumping to conclusions, it is worth taking stock of what is known, and what is not.  While the study showed all but one of the nanoparticle-based sunscreens had some adverse effects on the roofing, these effects varied greatly between products.  The sunscreen using nano-zinc oxide particles led to a 55% reduction in gloss over 12 weeks, while in the worst case, a sunscreen containing 4% titanium dioxide led to a 95% reduction in gloss over 12 weeks.  Assuming that the reduction in gloss is associated with the formation of hydroxyl radicals (and the evidence presented by Barker and Branch arising from a logical sequence of laboratory experiments is pretty convincing), there is still uncertainty over how harmful these would be when generated on the skin of a sunscreen-user.  To cause damage, the hydroxyl radicals would need to penetrate deep into the skin and into cells before loosing their potency, and if the nanoparticles stay on top of the skin where they are supposed to, significant penetration may not occur.

Then there is the anomalous nano-sunscreen that didn’t show an appreciable effect.  A nifty piece of X-ray diffraction analysis in the Barker and Branch paper showed that the titanium dioxide nanoparticles in the roof-damaging sunscreens were an anatase/rutile mix, while the nanoparticles in the benign sunscreen were comprised of rutile titanium dioxide alone.  Clearly crystalline form matters, as Oxonica realized when they selected the less-active rutile form of titanium dioxide as the basis for Optisol.

This study demonstrates that it is possible to create nanoparticle-based sunscreens that do not generate significant amounts of hydroxyl free radicals.  But the bottom line here is that some nano-based sunscreens are being sold (in Australia at least) that contain photoactive nanoparticles which generate hydroxyl radicals in the presence of water and sunlight.  This raises questions about the impact of these products on users over time and, perhaps more significantly, their impact on the environment.  A photocatalytic titanium dioxide particle released into the environment will continue to generate hydroxyl radicals as long as it is exposed to UV radiation—because this is a catalytic process, the particle is not destroyed in the process, but just carries on doing its stuff; day after day, year after year.

But perhaps the biggest question here is one of regulation.  In the US, the Food and Drug Administration does not currently discriminate between anatase and rutile titanium dioxide particles in sunscreens, or doped and un-doped particles [Sunscreen Drug Products For Over-The-Counter Human Use: Final Monograph.  May 21 1999.  PDF, 424 KB].  But in the meantime, what is to stop manufacturers using potentially harmful forms of titanium dioxide in sunscreens?  And how will consumers be able to distinguish between companies that have got it right, and those that have not?

It seems that if we are not careful, nano-sunscreens could be making their mark on more than just pre-painted steel roofing.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

Even though it was written a couple of years ago, this post remains very relevant as people continue to make sense of nanotechnology.  Maybe it’s time to revisit yellow-technology!

Originally posted May 17 2008.

Nanotechnology as an overarching concept is great for sweeping statements and sound bites, but falls short when it comes to real-world decision-making.  As nanoscale technologies are increasingly used in everything from antimicrobial socks to anti-cancer drugs, perhaps its time to rethink how we talk about the myriad diverse technologies that fall, slip or are forcibly squeezed under this all-encompassing banner.

At last year’s Bernstein Symposium, I had the pleasure of listening to National Public Radio science journalist Richard Harris talking about the latest greatest technology-not nanotechnology, but yellowtechnology.  A rather liberal re-interpretation of Richard’s lecture goes something like this:

“Yellowtechnology is the next technological revolution-if you think biotechnology and information technology are cool, just wait until you see what yellowtech can do.  Yellow makes everything faster; smarter; hotter.  Want more powerful power tools?  Just add yellow.  Got to have a faster, sleeker sports car?  Make it yellow.  And everyone knows that yellow is the surest route to making good food great-from M&M’s to mustard.

“The beauty of yellowtech is that it reflects what nature has been doing for millennia.  Daffodils, the sun, canaries-everywhere you look, the natural world is exploiting yellowtech.  In developing this new technology we are simply treading in the footsteps of mother nature, and producing new products that are environmentally friendly to their core.  In the twenty first century, yellow is the new green.

“But care is needed-who hasn’t experienced the dark side of a carelessly discarded banana skin? Yellowtech may be the next best thing, but we need to learn how to use it responsibly.  We need new research to discover where yellow might be harmful.  We need regulations to ensure safe use.  And we need transparency so we know where yellow is being used, and what the consequences might be.  Is your yellow rubber duck safe? If not, how would you know?”

[long pause]

“I’m sorry what was that?  I was supposed to be talking about nanotechnology, not yellowtechnology?  OK, let’s start again…

“Nanotechnology is the next technological revolution-if you thought we could change the world with biotechnology and information technology, just wait until you see what nanotech can do…”

The above delivery is inspired by rather than transcribed from Richard’s lecture (A video of the original lecture can be viewed from here), but it does encapsulate a critical point-a grand idea that is sufficiently broad can be used-or abused-to almost any purpose, and in the end becomes meaningless.

The grand idea of nanotechnology has unquestionably stimulated much new science and technology around the world, and has energized the quest to develop scientific knowledge targeted at improving quality of life.  Yet when it comes to identifying its benefits, addressing its risks and overseeing its safe use, it is as slippery (and some would argue as meaningless) a concept as yellowtechnology.

Under this grand idea, there is the temptation to redefine the most trivial advances as “nanotechnology” in order to emphasize the scale and magnitude of the new technological revolution. But there is also the lure of mixing and matching risks-either to over-stress the dangers of the new technology, or to justify a ragbag of studies as a coherent risk research strategy.  And so it becomes conceivable that consumers might reject new technologies for energy harvesting because a nanotech-based toothpaste gets a bad rap (a hypothetical example), or a multi-million dollar materials characterization facility is justified on the grounds of what it might hypothetically contribute to preventing occupational exposures.

As businesses, governments and consumers are faced with making increasingly sophisticated decisions on how nanotechnology is and is not used, it becomes more important to differentiate between the grand idea, and the products and processes it leads to.

This process of “decoupling” is the only way of ensuring intelligent and informed conversations about product-specific benefits and risks.

By decoupling different expressions of nanotechnology from the overarching concept, it becomes possible to make informed decisions on the resulting nanotechnologies, rather than the idea of nanotechnology.  Focusing on the products of the grand idea, rather than the idea itself, regulators can begin to talk about how a specific substance (like nanoscale silver) might present new challenges, without being sidetracked by other unrelated nanomaterials. Or consumers can begin to have informed conversations about the pros and cons of certain products-say, nanoscale electronics-without being baffled by claims and counter-claims associated with unrelated “nanotech” products.

The grand idea of nanotechnology has taken such firm root around the world that decoupling it into its component technologies and products will not be easy.  But if we are to avoid nanotechnology becoming as farcical asyellowtechnology, it’s something we need to do-the sooner the better.

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

I couldn’t resist reposting this piece, as it captured so well my frustration at the time of spending so much time in meetings – usually for someone else’s benefit.  Sadly, I didn’t learn the error of my ways – my travel schedule has, if anything, got worse since then!

Originally posted May 8 2008.

My worst nightmare—I’m sitting at the back of a small plane (by the bathroom), my knees up round my ears (because someone else with a bigger case got to the overhead storage before me), and a small child screaming its head off two rows down.  But unlike a nightmare, this is reality, and waking up to a better life is not an option!  What did I do to deserve this?  The polite answer—agree to speak at yet another nano-meeting!

Don’t get me wrong, I realize that for most people these events are a welcome break from everyday routine; a chance to catch up with old colleagues, and possibly even learn something new.  But spare a thought for those of us for whom the “nano-meeting” has become an unfortunate way of life!

By my calculation, this will be the fifty-fourth nano-meeting I have spoken at or participated in over the last twelve months.  I think that puts me in the addict category!  Having shared the platform with some esteemed colleagues—again and again and again—I could probably give their talks off pat, as they could probably give mine.  And the really worrying thing—many of these traveling partners have tougher schedules than me.

As I sit here in my cramped seat; twisted most unnaturally in order to type on my laptop’s keyboard, I find myself asking: is the toll this incessant travel is taking on my health, my family and my by-now non-existent social life, the real “risk” of nanotechnology?  And is the nano-meeting-carbon-footprint threatening to overshadow all other environmental impacts?  And I must confess, the answer that comes back to me in my admittedly stressed state ismost assuredly yes!

So here’s my plan:  I am going to call for a moratorium on nano-meetings—just until we know more about the “risks.”  I thought about a voluntary program, with the slogan “just say no to nano-meetings”, and a network of self-help groups for recovering nano-meeting addicts.  But I know the temptation to do just one more meeting would be too strong.  The only solution is legislative action—and soon!

Bliss!  No more working nights and weekends to get ready for the next lecture.  No more burning the midnight oil to answer the day’s cascade of emails.  No more shifting in my seat every thirty seconds as the next incontinent passenger squeezes past to reach the bathroom.  Of course, it might make it kind of difficult to inform, educate and engage people on nanotechnology.  But hey—right now, I’m willing to pay that price.

Later…

Well, having landed and tracked down the obligatory Starbucks, I can feel sanity returning.  These meetings are tough and, contrary to what some think, most of us on the circuit attend them to be of service, rather than to indulge ourselves.  They do hit hard on our families, our jobs and our time.  But I think that most of us feel the effort is worthwhile, if the end result is informed discussion and action on developing nanotechnologies responsibly—as long as we don’t end up substituting meetings for action.  And they do have their compensations…  the leopard-print bath robe I’ve just discovered in my nautically-themed hotel room makes the whole enterprise seem that much more worth while.

Postscript

This was written several months back at a particularly low point on the nano-meeting circuit.  I still travel too much and spend too little time at home—as I write, I am looking out over a cloud-flecked North America from 30,000 feet.  So much for good intentions!  Maybe I’ll decline the next invitation.  Maybe…

______

The full August in the Archives 2010 series can be browsed here

This was based on a piece I originally wrote for Nano Today – the blog was a slightly extended version of what was published.  Although it was written two years ago, it’s still surprising how few people realize that breathing in nanoparticles is an everyday fact of life, and that to make sense of new risks from engineered nanoparticles, we need to understand what we are already experiencing.

Originally posted April 5 2008

Read some accounts of nanotechnology risks, and you might be forgiven for concluding that a single engineered nanoparticle can kill you.  Of course, a little critical thinking soon dispels this notion—we are constantly bombarded with incidental nanoparticles from sources that include cars, incinerators and fires; we have been since birth.  And as critics of “risk extremists” often point out, we seem to be doing just fine in this nano-rich environment.  But does this mean that the potential risks associated with engineered nanoparticles are little more than a myth?

This was the question I faced while writing an opinions piece for the latest issue of Nano Today.  It’s a question that’s constantly popping up, either because someone has forgotten (or never realized) that nanoparticle exposure is a fact of life, or as a justification for not worrying about the engineered varieties of nanoparticles.

As you might expect, the truth is somewhat more complex than either of these extremes, and still remains unclear.  But to get back to the article; as an “ambience-hack” (the literary equivalent of a “character actor”), I felt it important to start off in a place particularly laden with nanoparticles—my local coffee shop.  Armed with a model 3007 portable condensation particle counter, kindly on loan from TSI Incorporated, I resolutely set out to sample the local nano-aerosols over a good cappuccino.

As coffee and breakfast were being prepared, the particle counter indicated I was inhaling somewhere around four billion particles per minute.  That’s not far off one nanoparticle for every man, woman and child on the planet entering my lungs every sixty seconds.  Yet I was feeling fine.  Clearly my body was doing a good job of handling them—thanks to millennia of Darwinian natural selection giving me lungs that know a thing or two about airborne nanoparticles.

But I don’t buy into the idea that my surviving the coffee shop naturally means all nanoparticles are safe. The trouble is; all nanoparticles are not created equal, and to generalize will be to make mistakes—perhaps costly ones.

And the idea that we are perfectly adapted to breathing in particles is somewhat flawed. Consider these rather sobering facts associated with inhaling particles having a range of sizes: Between 1990 and 1999, there were over 30,000 deaths in the U.S. associated with occupational exposure to airborne materials [1]. Estimates of worldwide deaths from asbestos exposure lie between 250,000 and 400,000; and in the U.K., deaths due to asbestos-related mesothelioma are not expected to peak for another ten years—despite imports and use of asbestos peaking in the 1960’s [2].  In the general environment, estimates of the number of people who died from inhaling particles in the London Smog of 1952 are as high as 12,000 [3]. At a more subtle level, exposure to fine airborne particles has been associated with an elevated likelihood of dying, and there is increasing evidence linking nanoscale particle exposure with impacts on the cardiovascular system [4].

The bottom line is that our lungs, incredible as they are at dealing with each day’s dust burden, have their limitations. Our knowledge of airborne particles in general and incidental nanoparticles in particular can illuminate our approaches to engineered nanoparticles.  But just as the health risks from asbestos, vehicle emissions and welding fume differ, we will not be able to derive everything we need to know about engineered nanoparticles just by looking at the incidental varieties.

It’s interesting to push this idea of differences between particle types further.  Clearly our lungs have evolved to handle naturally occurring nanoparticles.  But does this mean we also have the ability to deal with engineered nanoparticles never previously encountered, and as a species have not had the chance to acclimatize to?  We know that our bodies have a hard time dealing with chemicals that do not occur naturally—will the same hold true for engineered nanomaterials?

And then there is the comparison between the veritable cocktail of ambient nanoparticles we all breathe, and the precision of many engineered nanoparticles. Does exposure to a complex mixture of particles cause harm through synergistic interactions, or does the “soup” we breathe dilute the impact of the relatively few dangerous particles that might be present?  And—if a manufacturer hits on a particular combination of physical and chemical properties that is less than compatible with a long and healthy life—how much more dangerous is an aerosol of this “pure nanomaterial” than the nanoparticles you and I are breathing now?

This leads to the tricky issue of dose—how much material is needed to cause damage.  “The dose makes the poison” is the mantra of toxicologists worldwide—acknowledging that the most toxic substances can be harmless (or even beneficial) at low enough doses, while nothing is good for you in excess.  Four billion particles per minute might sound like a lot, but it is a minuscule amount of material when you consider how much mass there probably is in those particles.  Scribbling out some rather crude back-of-the-envelope calculations, I am probably inhaling no more than 50 nanograms of nanoparticles per minute in the coffee shop.  In contrast, a highly toxic dust like crystalline silica has an occupational exposure limit that equates to inhaling around 1,000 nanograms per minute over eight hours, and the equivalent limit for a material like titanium dioxide is a whopping 300,000 nanograms per minute.  Yet which is the appropriate way to measure dose—the mass of particles, their number, or something else; like surface area?

At the end of the day, I can drink my coffee and inhale the local nanoparticles with no obvious ill effects because I’m not exposed for that long and my body knows how to deal with them.  And there are probably plenty of engineered nanomaterials I could do the same with.  I know that a single nanoparticle won’t kill me—probably a few billion wouldn’t be enough to do much damage.  But I’m under no illusion that all engineered nanoparticles will be safe, just because I’m breathing in incidental nanoparticles all the time.  It all comes down to understanding what causes a new material to be harmful, and how to avoid harm—which means we need to get on and do more research if questions like the ones above are going to be answered.

Now, back to my four billion particles a minute with a cappuccino on the side…

______

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.

ASME – the organization that used to be known as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers – has just launched a series of educational podcasts on nanotechnology that are well worth checking out.

Between now and next February, the ASME Nanotechnology Institute will be posting new video and/or audio podcasts on their website every couple of weeks, covering a wide range of nanotechnology topics.

The podcasts are free, but you need to register with the site first before you can access them at http://nano.asme.org/Nano_Educational_Series.cfm However, to give you a feel for series, here’s the introductory video:

You may recognize one of the presenters   I spent a grueling four hours filming with ASME last year for the series – so it’s good to see I don’t look too worn out and exhausted in the video.

I’m not sure where else I will be appearing in the series – we covered a huge range of topics during filming – but expect to see at least one podcast with me addressing some of the environmental and human health aspects of nanotechnology.

Overall, this looks like a well-produced and informative series of podcasts, that should be well worth following if you have an interest in nanoscience and nanotechnology.

Last week, I posed 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?”  Georgia Miller of FoE Australia and Ian Illuminato of FoE in the US have kindly provided a detailed response.  Rather than just keep this as a comment on the original blog, I thought it deserved a wider airing – and so am posting it here.

I will respond to the response in a few days time.  In the meantime, I would be extremely interested in what others think of the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens, based on my original piece and Georgia and Ian’s piece below.  Please do comment – this seems to be an area that desperately needs some good and open discussion.

Andrew – thanks for the invitation to perform some complex risk assessment using several poorly understood variables. However we do have to point out that the world’s best minds don’t yet have enough information even to design reliable nanomaterial risk assessment processes, let alone to come up with a single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for long term health impacts of using nano-sunscreens.

The huge knowledge gaps plaguing nanomaterials toxicity and exposure assessment (along with preliminary studies suggesting the potential for serious harm) are key reasons for calls by Friends of the Earth Australia and United States for a precautionary approach to management of nanotoxicity risks.

We explain below why your risk assessment challenge is impossible given these data gaps. We also point out that given that different people with different skin types are likely to experience different exposure levels, positing any single ‘worst case scenario’ figure is inappropriate. Obviously you are aware of these serious limitations. This does prompt us to question the intent of your challenge.

Further, we strongly suggest that your challenge is directed to the wrong people. Why not demand that the manufacturers of nano-sunscreens provide you with the data to demonstrate that their products are safe? Why not challenge the regulators to explain their failure to keep nanomaterials that behave as extreme photocatalysts out of sunscreens?

Better yet, 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? Transparent micron-particle sized zinc oxide sunscreens are commercially available; a recent article suggests most titanium dioxide nano-sunscreens on the market could be doing more harm than good. No-one need use nanoparticles in order to produce a cosmetically and functionally acceptable sunscreen.

Andrew, we respectfully suggest that someone of your expertise and stature could play a more constructive role in these debates – debates which should not be limited to a question of technical risk assessment.

Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato
Friends of the Earth Australia and United States
http://nano.foe.org.au
http://www.foe.org/healthy-people/nanotechnology-campaign

Why determining a single figure for ‘worst case scenario’ health harm associated with using nano-sunscreens is not possible

In 2004 the UK’s Royal Society recommended that nanoparticles be treated as new chemicals, subject to new safety testing before they could be used in products, and face mandatory labelling. Six years on, none of those things have happened.

The development and validation of nano-specific risk assessment processes may take years. As the European Food Safety Authority pointed out last year in relation to the risk assessment of nano-foods: “Although, case-by-case evaluation of specific ENMs [engineered nanomaterials] may be currently possible, the Scientific Committee wishes to emphasise that the risk assessment processes are still under development with respect to characterisation and analysis of ENMs in food and feed, optimisation of toxicity testing methods for ENMs and interpretation of the resulting data. Under these circumstances, any individual risk assessment is likely to be subject to a high degree of uncertainty. This situation will remain so until more data on and experience with testing of ENMs become available” (EFSA 2009, p2-39).

When it comes to sunscreens, a key component of risk assessment – determining likely exposure – is not yet possible because we do not yet understand what quantities of nanomaterials may be absorbed into the skin from sunscreens and in what circumstances. Skin penetration studies to date have largely failed to look at important variables such as skin condition (including damage through sunburn, injury or eczema, or thin skin present in the young or elderly), skin flexing (eg through exercise) and the role of substances in sunscreens that can act as penetration enhancers by increasing skin permeability. Further, most skin penetration studies have used excised skin in in vitro studies which is likely to underestimate actual penetration.

In your earlier blog you point out that research by Professor Brian Gulson at Macquarie University and by scientists at Australia’s CSIRO which shows radio-isotope labelled zinc from sunscreens in the blood and urine of human volunteers is not yet published. True enough – also that these researchers are not yet able to say whether or not the absorbed zinc they detected is in particle or ionic form. Nonetheless, the results do show that zinc in sunscreens does not simply remain on the outer layers of dead skin cells, as some have claimed. Many questions remain: the one clear answer is that more research is required.

One interesting point about Brian Gulson’s study underscores the impossibility of determining any single ‘worst case scenario’ figure for health harm. Professor Gulson told the ICONN conference in Sydney this year that one woman with sensitive skin suspended her participation in the trial after four days due to an adverse reaction. The levels of isotope labelled zinc in her blood were also substantially greater than that of other people in the trial. Are people with sensitive skin more likely to experience substantially greater skin penetration by nano-ingredients in sunscreens? Could this put a minority of the population at greater health risk? We don’t yet know.

A further constraint on calculating your requested ‘worst case scenario’ figure is the paucity of long-term and multi-generational nanotoxicity studies. This is a very serious limitation. Potential health harm from exposure to many nanomaterials may be more likely to manifest in the long term, rather than immediately. This point was made in 2004 by global reinsurance giant Swiss Re (2004). Swiss Re emphasised that as with asbestos, the significant time lag between exposure to nanomaterials and the onset of health harm is the greatest challenge for insurers attempting to calculate risk.

You ask for a ‘worst case scenario’. One worst case scenario is the accelerated development of skin cancer in people using nano-sunscreens, despite their wearing sunscreens for sun protection. We are copying below an extract of comments made by Dr Maxine McCall of the Australian CSIRO to the ABC’s 7.30 Report in late 2008.

“There’s the concern that there could be free radical generation on the skin, potentially damage, when the nano particles get into cells in the body if they don’t dissolve,” Maxine McCall, head of the CSIRO’s nano safety research, said. “Because they could interact with proteins in the cell or with DNA which codes – which has the genetic information – the worst case scenario, I suspect, could be development of cancer. We don’t know. That’s what we’re trying to find out.”

Dr McCall told the 7.30 Report that it would be two to three years before the CSIRO could reach a conclusion on nano sunscreens. “At the moment, we just don’t have enough information to make informed decisions,” she said.

Nanomaterials that behave as photocatalyts have been found in five of six Australian nano-sunscreens tested by Barker and Branch (2008). Sunscreens containing both nanoparticle titanium dioxide and zinc oxide were demonstrated to have a photocatalytic effect. Some of these photocatalysts were so extreme that they accelerated sun damage to pre-painted steel roofs by up to 100 times. Clearly the effects on human skin of nano-sunscreen use will differ from a pre-painted steel roof. Will these extreme photocatalysts penetrate human skin and persist in particulate form in sufficient quantities to cause long-term health harm? We don’t know.

Another worst case scenario is harm to the developing brains and reproductive systems of unborn babies, following maternal exposure to sunscreens. If nanoparticles from sunscreens are absorbed into a pregnant woman’s bloodstream, it is possible that they could pass across the placenta to the unborn baby. A recent study showed that polystyrene nanoparticles up to 240nm in size can be transported through a human placenta [note to Andrew: in your earlier blog you state that this “research was aimed at working out how to get beneficial drugs to the fetus”. The motivation of the study is arguably irrelevant. However in this instance the study is clearly designed to explore the potential for risky nanoparticle exposure in utero].

Animal studies have found altered gene expression, harm to the brains and reproductive systems and minor neuro-behavioural alterations in mice born to mothers exposed to titanium dioxide nanoparticles. Will nanoparticles of titanium dioxide be absorbed from sunscreens into the bloodstreams of pregnant women in sufficient quantities, and will they persist in particulate form in sufficient quantities, to harm unborn babies? Again, we don’t know. This will require much further research.

In the meantime, regulators faced with substantive knowledge gaps struggle to formulate an appropriate public policy response to uncertain but potentially serious risks. Challenging community groups to calculate the technical risk of a worst-case scenario of wearing nano-sunscreens to justify their asking product manufacturers to undertake basic safety research seems more than a little retrograde.

Following up from my previous post, here’s an open question to Friends of the Earth:

What is your worst case estimate of the human health risk from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens?

What I am interested in is a number – a probability of a specific human health impact being caused by using a given amount of nano-sunscreen over a certain amount of time.  Something like:

“In the worst case, it is estimated that using [number] grams per day of sunscreen comprising [percent] TiO2/ZnO nanoparticles over [number] days could lead to an [percent] risk of the user developing [disease].”

This can be based on an extrapolation of the current state of the science to a worst case scenario.  But it must be plausible.  And the calculations/sources to get to the end number must be transparent.

I’m asking because I am interested to see whether it is possible to place an upper bound on the safety of nanoparticle-based sunscreens, and whether this will be useful in moving the dialogue over nano-enabled sunscreens away from ungrounded speculation, towards evidence-based discussion.

So that’s the challenge.  I’m hoping my good friends at Friends of the Earth will rise to it.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) do not like nanoparticle-based sunscreens.  This has been evident for some years – back in 2006 the organization published the report Nanomaterials, Sunscreens and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks, and every year since then they have had something to say on the subject.

This year’s web-based piece leaves now doubt about FoE’s stance on nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens.  The recently posted article starts:

While you’re planning your summer vacation and thinking about what to pack, don’t forget the sunscreen — but make sure it doesn’t have manufactured nanoparticles in it!

But what is the reasoning behind this stance?  Helpfully, FoE have also posted six cases of what they describe as evidence “of risks from manufactured nanomaterials in sunscreen.”

As these are evidence-based statements, I thought it would be worth while going through them, and taking a look at the evidence they are based on:

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Damage human colon cells: A study from the University of Utah showed that nano zinc oxide is toxic to colon cells even in small amounts. The scientists called for more research and warned that the evidence is especially concerning for children who are more likely to accidently ingest sunscreen. The colon is vital because it eliminates food waste and absorbs important nutrients.”

This was a study that looked at interactions between zinc oxide (ZnO) particles and cells derived from the human colon, and was carried out in vitro (i.e. in a cell culture rather than in animals or people).  It did indeed indicate that nanometer scale ZnO particles were around twice as potent as larger ZnO particles in their ability to kill these cells under idealized conditions.  But the research also emphasized that direct contact with the cells was needed for a nanoscale particle-related effect.  In fact, the title of the paper was “ZnO Particulate Matter Requires Cell Contact for Toxicity in Human Colon Cancer Cells,” emphasizing this point above the higher potency of the more finely structured particles.

The research was interesting, but did not resolve whether zinc oxide particles could survive long enough in the gut to come into contact with cells lining the colon, whether interactions like those observed in the laboratory are plausible under real-world conditions, and what levels of exposure would be needed to cause significant harm.  The research also indicated that larger particles of zinc oxide – similar to particles that have been used in sunscreens and other topical creams for decades – were toxic to cells under the conditions of the study.

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Damage brain stem cells in mice: A study from China found that zinc oxide nanoparticles can damage the brains of mice by killing important brain stem cells. In another study, Japanese scientists injected pregnant mice with nano titanium dioxide and recorded changes in gene expression in the brains of their fetuses. These changes have been associated with autistic disorders, epilepsy and Alzheimer’s disease. Though more studies are necessary to know if this damage to would occur in humans, these studies with mice serve as important warnings. Such studies have encouraged scientists in the United Kingdom to explore the link between manufactured nanomaterials and Alzheimer’s disease. At the end of last summer, scientists at the University of Ulster were funded by the European Union to conduct more research.”

The China study was once again carried out using cell culture rather than in animals, and as a consequence the results are very hard to interpret.  What the researchers did find is that, under rather idealized conditions, it is possible to cause neural stem cells from mice to undergo apoptosis (controlled cell death) if they are exposed to enough zinc-containing material.  Importantly, the study did not indicate that cell death was associated with particle size – large particles, small particles and even dissolved Zinc all gave similar results.

The Japanese study on the other hand injected mice with extremely high concentrations of titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles – way, way higher than levels likely to get into people’s bloodstream.  Researchers saw qualitative changes in gene expression in fetuses and mice pups that are indicative of a number of disorders.  But – and this is important – there is no direct link between gene expression as measured in this study, and the onset of the neurological diseases mentioned above.  All this study indicates is that injecting TiO2 nanoparticles directly into the blood at extremely high levels causes brain cells in fetuses and pups to respond in some way.  Without knowing how those responses translate into disease (if they do at all), and what the relationship between dose and response is, this study does not provide information on the likelihood of TiO2 nanoparticles impacting the brain.

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Penetrate healthy adult skin: Isotope-labeled zinc used in nanosunscreens can potentially reach the blood stream and urine of humans, suggests an Australian study by Macquarie University’s Professor Brian Gulson. This study undermines claims that nanosunscreens will stay on the outer layers of dead skin.”

This study by Brian Gulson and colleagues has yet to be published, and so it is a little premature to draw conclusions from the findings.  However, from what has been discussed in the public sphere, the study does not show conclusively that manufactured nanoparticles used in sunscreens can penetrate healthy adult skin.  The study cleverly used sunscreens containing nanoparticles incorporating a stable isotope of zinc – one that is found naturally at very low concentrations.  This meant that, by applying the specially formulated sunscreens to volunteers and monitoring their blood and urine, researchers could tell conclusively whether the zinc from the sunscreen was getting into the body.  What they could not tell was whether it was particles or dissolved zinc getting through the skin.  And as zinc oxide is soluble, there’s a high chance that the very low levels of sunscreen-related zinc that were found in body fluid samples were associated with the stuff dissolving, rather than the penetration of nanoparticles.

We’ll have to wait for the paper to be published before any firm conclusions can be drawn from this work.  But if dissolution is the dominant mechanism here, it suggests that sunscreens relying on larger ZnO particles (and, coincidentally, recommended by Friends of the Earth), may lead to just as much zinc getting into the body as those using nanoscale ZnO particles.

It should also be noted that the results of this study are specific to ZnO – they cannot be extrapolated to other materials, such as TiO2.

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Travel up the food chain from smaller to larger organisms: A study by researchers at Arizona State University, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and Tsinghua University in China found through a dietary experiment that Daphnia (a “water flea” that provides important nutrition for aquatic life) can transfer nano titanium dioxide to larger organisms (in this case Zebrafish). This study is of great concern because it shows that manufactured nanomaterials with toxic properties could end up in the animal food chain at large.”

This is very true for the material that was the subject of the cited study – nanoscale TiO2 – although the results do not necessarily hold for other nanoscale materials.  At the same time, the study showed that the higher organisms in this case – zebrafish – accumulated more nanoscale TiO2 directly than they did through eating the lower organism – daphnia.

Where nanoscale materials used in sunscreens go in the environment, where they accumulate, and the impact they have, are all important questions.  But without information on toxicity and amounts of material potentially transferred, it is hard to say whether the transfer of these materials up the food chain is significant or not.

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Damage important microbes in the environment: Scientists at the University of Toledo found that nano titanium dioxide inhibited the function of bacteria after just an hour of exposure. Manufactured nanomaterials from sunscreens can easily wash off of the body in the shower and end up in wastewater and the wider environment, which could affect microbes that are helpful to ecosystems and sewage treatment plants.”

The link here is to a report from a presentation at an American Chemical Society meeting in 2009.  The full peer reviewed paper can be found here.  The published research indicates that nanoscale TiO2 can compromise the integrity of some (not all) bacterial cell membranes at certain concentrations under certain (laboratory) conditions.  The consequences of this are unknown, and it certainly isn’t possible to extrapolate from the research what the environmental impacts of nanoscale TiO2 releases might be, or at what concentrations in the environment an impact is likely.  More importantly, the published work showed no impact of nanoscale ZnO on bacteria at the concentrations used. In other words, the research does not show that nanoscale zinc oxide can damage important microbes in the environment.

FoE: “Manufactured nanomaterials used in sunscreens (such as zinc oxide and titanium oxide) can Travel from mothers to unborn fetuses: Nanoparticles up to 240 nm in size can cross into human placentas, meaning that the toxicity of manufactured nanomaterials could extend across generations.”

This is an important study, as it shows that particles of a specific type injected into the bloodstream can potentially cross over the placental barrier and into the fetus.  The research was carried out using human placenta, but outside the body and under laboratory conditions.  The particles used were polystyrene particles.  And the research was aimed at working out how to get beneficial drugs to the fetus.  The authors of the work note that high exposures were used, and that transport fro the placenta may well be influenced by particle composition and surface coating.  They go so far as to say that the research cannot be generalized across different types of nanoparticles.  In fact, while polystyrene particles up to 240 nm were observed to cross over the placental barrier in this study, the authors point out that in another study using the same system, polyethylene glycol coated gold particles up to 30 nm in diameter were not able to cross the placenta.

Each of the studies cited above is scientifically interesting.  But none of them seem to provide clear evidence that TiO2 or ZnO nanoparticles in sunscreens present a plausible risk to human health.  In many cases, they are associated with very artificial test systems that shed light on the science of how nanoparticles behave under certain conditions, but are far removed from real world situations.  Specifically, the studies do not shed light on whether nanoparticles in sunscreens can get into the body (the weight of scientific evidence is that they cannot get through the skin), whether the body’s defense mechanisms deal effectively with any nanoparticles that do get through (the evidence is that they can), and how much stuff is needed in the body to cause disease (a number of these studies indicate rather large quantities of material are needed).

In other words, the science is far from compelling in indicating that nanoparticles in sunscreens are a bad thing.  In fact, the current state of the science suggests that nanoparticles in sunscreens stay on top of the skin rather than penetrating it, are an effective and long lasting barrier against Ultraviolet radiation from the sun if applied correctly, and avoid some of the health concerns associated with non-nano sunscreens.  This is probably why another environment group – the Environmental Working Group (EWG) – recently recommended a range of nanoparticle-based sunscreens.   In fact, in a recent review EWG stated

Our top-rated sunscreens all contain the minerals zinc or titanium. They are the right choice for people who are looking for the best UVA protection without any sunscreen chemical considered to be a potential hormone disruptor. None of the products contain oxybenzone or vitamin A and none are sprayed or powdered.

Part of the problem here is that there is a lot of speculation going on about the pros and cons of nanoscale TiO2 and ZnO in sunscreens, and not a lot of analytical thinking.  What would be really helpful is some numbers on how risky these products might be.  Of course, we don’t have the data to state conclusively what levels of nanoparticles in sunscreens are safe – and there is a compelling case for more research here.  But we should at least be able to guestimate the numbers for a worst case scenario, based on the current state of the science.

So here’s a question back to Friends of the Earth – based on the current state of the science, what number would you put on the risk to human health of using nanoparticle-based sunscreens under a plausible worst-case scenario?

I’ll reiterate this question in a follow-up blog.  But it strikes me that, if we can begin to get some numbers on the table – even if they are just rough estimates, we might be able to cut through some of the speculation here and open up a reasonable discussion on the safety or otherwise of nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/06/08/friends-of-the-earth-come-down-hard-on-nanotechnology-are-they-right/feed/ 11 http://2020science.org/2010/05/28/nano-dispersants-and-nano-hysteria-time-to-think-about-the-science-folks/ http://2020science.org/2010/05/28/nano-dispersants-and-nano-hysteria-time-to-think-about-the-science-folks/#comments Sat, 29 May 2010 00:19:00 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3250

Catching up with my email after a long day off the net, I see that a group of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) are urging EPA not to allow the use of an alleged nanotechnology-based dispersant in the Gulf of Mexico.  The letter from thirteen organizations was covered in a piece by Andrew Schneider on AOL Online earlier today – which had considerable pickup on the web from what I can tell.

Sadly, a combination of limited information from the company – Green Earth Technologies – and poor understanding by others – seems to have led to the situation being dominated by misunderstanding and misinformation.

Green Earth Technologies has been lobbying hard to get their product G-MARINE™ Fuel Spill Clean-UP! used in the Gulf of Mexico for some days now.  According to the company

G-MARINE Fuel Spill Clean-UP! is a unique blend of plant derived, water based and ultimate biodegradable ingredients specifically formulated to quickly emulsify and encapsulate fuel and oil spills. These plant derived ingredients are processed to form a colloidal micelle whose small particle size (1-4 nanometers) enables it to penetrate and breakdown long chain hydrocarbons bonds in oils and grease and holds them in a colloidal suspension when mixed with water. Once oil has been suspended in a nano-colloidal suspension, there is no reverse emulsion; the oil becomes water soluble allowing it to be consumed by resident bacteria in the water. This dispersant formula is protected by trade secrets pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA) Standard CFR-1910 1200. The ingredient list has been reviewed by the US EPA and contains no ingredients considered hazardous by OSHA.

Is seems to have been the “nano” in the above description – leading to the substance being dubbed a “nano-dispersant” – that has raised eyebrows.

The nano here is very small micelles – “particles” of molecules formed from molecules with one end that is attracted to water, and one which repels water.  I place particles in inverted commas as these really very small bubbles of one liquid in another – hardly like particles at all.  And like bubbles, they probably don’t last that long.

Reading the company’s Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), it’s possible to get a good idea what is in the micelles – mainly natural oils, mild detergents and surfactants.  But the MSDS doesn’t go as far as being specific about the physical nature of the micelles.  This is not too surprising perhaps as micelles are commonly used in products, as well as occurring naturally.  They are also transient – they fall apart reasonably fast, just like bubbles.

Now to the letter from the NGOs.  It starts out

It has come to our attention that Green Earth Technologies (GET), Inc. is seeking approval from the EPA to disperse a large quantity of manufactured nanoparticles in the Gulf of Mexico, stating that the dispersal would remedy the oil spill recently suffered by the region. The for-profit company claiming to sell “totally green” products created from nanotechnology, wishes to scatter on land and in water its G- Marine Fuel Spill Clean-UP! (NANO Emulsion Technology) Oil Dispersant in areas affected by the BP rig collapse in the Gulf of Mexico.

The undersigned public-interest organizations respectfully urge the EPA to deny approval of this and similar projects that seek to release nanoscale chemicals or chemicals measuring less than 300 nanometers into the environment. In this case the company claims their product is composed of particles measuring 1-4nm. Manufactured nanoparticles have been shown to be toxic to humans, mammals, and aquatic life.

The argument made is that G-MARINE Fuel Spill Clean-UP! contains a nanoscale component, that nanoscale components have been shown to be toxic, therefore the dispersant should not be used.  The letter goes on to say:

We are not aware at this time of the exact nanoscale particles used in this ‘nano emulsion technology’ because this information is considered a trade secret by the company. Yet, we do know that most chemicals manufactured at the nanoscale hold unique and potentially toxic properties. While some new properties from the nanoscale may seem desirable, materials at this scale can also pose new toxicological risks. Nanoparticles have a very large surface area which typically results in greater chemical reactivity, biological activity and catalytic behavior compared to larger particles of the same chemical composition. Unfortunately, the greater chemical reactivity and bioavailability of nanomaterials may also result in greater toxicity of nanoparticles compared to the same unit of mass of larger particles. Other properties of manufactured nanomaterials that influence toxicity include: chemical composition, shape, surface structure, surface charge, catalytic behavior, extent of particle aggregation or disaggregation, and the presence or absence of other groups of chemicals attached to the nanomaterials.

Unfortunately, the letter falls into the all too common trap of mistaking a relatively unstable cluster of small molecules as a “nanoparticle,” and prejudicially tagging it with properties associated with very specific nanoparticles – many of which are unlikely to have any relevance here.

This is a serious mistake to make, as it undermines any science-based discussion of safety and risk by claiming the ingredient in question is something it is not, then inferring properties on it which it is unlikely to have.  And the danger here is that as soon as the science is taken out of the equation, the real likelihood of harm being caused becomes extremely difficult to address.

Then there is the AOL piece.

In the main, the piece is straight reporting of the situation – albeit with an emphasis on the nano-safety issue.  But one section in particular jumps out:

The report of the possible use of nano-dispersants has outraged Harbut, who heads the Environmental Cancer Initiative at Michigan’s Karmanos Cancer Institute.

“A decision to use nanoparticle-based dispersants in the gulf is less an engineering or environmental decision, but more a public health and individual patient care issue. As does asbestos, nanoparticles have been shown to cause an aggressive cancer called mesothelioma,” he said.

And like asbestos in its early usage, human health effects of exposure, ingestion or breathing of nanoparticles have been rarely observed, let alone studied.

“To dump tons of nanoparticles into the food and respiratory cycle in this manner is irresponsible,” Harbut told AOL News

Here, the conflation between nanoscale micelles, nanoparticles and mesothelioma is wrong and it is irresponsible.  Nanoparticles in general have not been shown to cause mesothelioma, neither is there any theory to suggest that they might – this is pie in the sky speculation.  Carbon nanotubes – a specific form of nanomaterial – might possibly be associated with the disease under some conditions, but this is still uncertain.  But carbon nanotubes are not what may would recognize as nanoparticles, and are certainly not the same as micelles.

Then there is the conflation between micelles and nanoparticles again.  Okay so technically a micelle might be likened to a nanoparticle – but in the same way a soap bubble might be likened to a soccer ball!

So where does this leave us?

The root of the problem here seems to have been Green Earth Technologies’ use of the term “nano” – if they had just talked about micelles, no red flags would have been raised and it’s unlikely that the NGO letter would have found its way to EPA.  This term clearly term led to some confusion amongst organizations sensitized to the word.

Nevertheless, it would be irresponsible to throw the safety concerns out simply because of a definitional technicality.

Nanoscale materials do raise new safety questions – including nanoscale micelles.  But often, these questions can be addressed to a reasonable degree.  I’m not going to defend the safety evaluations that have been made by Green Earth Technologies as I don’t have the data.  In fact the company possibly shoots itself in the foot by being rather optimistic about the safety of their product.  This appeared today in an open letter from the company for instance:

Does G-MARINE OSC-1809 Oil & Fuel Spill Clean-UP! have any adverse affects on humans / animals or the environment?

None whatsoever. G-MARINE OSC-1809 Oil & Fuel Spill Clean-UP! has shown absolutely no adverse effect on humans or animals. All of our Marine products are manufactured from ingredient LISTED ON THE EPA CLEAN INGREDIENTS (1) List. It has a zero OHSA hazard rating and in Lab Tests (2) it has been shown to have no adverse affects whatsoever to nose (inhalation), mouth (ingestion), ears, skin, or eyes. Even if the person is subjected to a concentrated overdose, there has been no noticeable adverse affect. The Micelles BECAUSE of the EXTREMELY SMALL SIZE do NOT persist in the environment and Bio-degrade into harmless elements in 10 days as per EPA guideline in the CLEAN INGREDIENTS list.

“None whatsoever” is a dangerous assertion to make on adverse effects, as it implies every possible test has been done, and every conceivable eventuality accounted for.  And people tend to be suspicious of such absolute statements – better to be honest and admit the bounds of current knowledge.  Yet it is reasonable to assume that small micelles made up of well-evaluated ingredients are unlikely to have long-term environmental impacts that go beyond that of these ingredients – mainly because the micelles will break up and release their constituent components reasonably rapidly.

Could they get to places where they can cause harm in the short term because of their size?  It’s possible – and I would hope that toxicity tests would at least indicate whether this is an issue.  But there is a danger of making up potential yet implausible harm scenarios here because of a misunderstanding of the differences between micelles and other forms of nanomaterials.

And this is perhaps the most important message to come out of this situation.  In the case of the Gulf oil spill, inaction is not an option – but informed action must be based on the best possible information rather than questionable speculation.  This places the onus on companies to get the safety testing on their products right, even if it means going above and beyond what they consider necessary (especially if they decide to use a loaded term like “nano”).  It means that regulators need to ready to move fast when questions like this are asked – delayed action or misinformed action both have the potential to lead to adverse consequences.  And it also means that organizations and individuals influencing the debate and the decisions made must make sure they get the science right – speculative fear can only be divisive.

Making wise choices on the dispersants used in the Gulf of Mexico is vitally important, and bad choices could have lasting consequences.  And it is right and proper that questions should be asked over the use of one product over another.  But if the spill is to be dealt with effectively, these choices must be science-informed – otherwise no-ones interests are served in the long run.

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/05/28/nano-dispersants-and-nano-hysteria-time-to-think-about-the-science-folks/feed/ 24 http://2020science.org/2010/05/04/public-participation-in-nanotechnology-should-we-care/ http://2020science.org/2010/05/04/public-participation-in-nanotechnology-should-we-care/#comments Tue, 04 May 2010 21:15:35 +0000 Barbara Herr Harthorn http://2020science.org/?p=3116

A guest blog by Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of California Santa Barbara.

A couple of weeks back, my colleague David Guston wrote here about engaging the public on nanotechnology.   In his piece he gave an excellent overview of the US government’s activities – or relative lack of them – on public engagement in this area.  But I also felt that some questions on why we should encourage public participation in nanotechnology in the first place – and how the government should think about approaching this – were left unanswered.  So to continue where David left off, I would like to explore these questions a little further.

To start with, why do public deliberation on nanotechnology?  The simplest answers are because it’s the right thing to do, and because it’s a useful thing to do.

Let’s take those one at a time:

Public participation is the right thing to do

Public participation in nanotechnology is the right thing to do because it’s a legal mandate – incorporation of some element of public participation is a required element of the Congressional authorization for the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). It also enables citizens to participate more fully in the democratic process.

The normative view is that within a democracy it is right and proper to have all affected parties involved in decisions that may affect them (Fiorino 1989). Such democratic values may indeed compete with technocratic values, but the “participatory turn” (Whitmarsh 2009) with its resultant legal basis for participation is now an established fact in many countries.

If you accept that potentially affected publics have a right to know, at least about risks, the issue of how to gain their ‘informed consent’ to those risks is a complex ethical matter because nanotechnology involves an entire class of technologies that span almost all industries, and the potentially affected include most of society. Public deliberation is one method for achieving informed consent in this upstream context, although a comprehensive public deliberation effort in the US would necessarily be extensive in scope given the potential ubiquity of distribution of nano materials, products, and waste.

Both Centers for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) established by the National Science Foundation – David’s at Arizona State University (ASU) and the one I direct at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB) – have engaged in public deliberation exercises.  But efforts to date have been on a small scale—they’ve necessarily included a very limited number of participants, and have focused only on a limited subset of the spectrum of applications (CNS-UCSB’s 10 public deliberation workshops in 2007 and 2009 focused on nanotech energy/environment applications or health/enhancement applications; CNS-ASU’s 6 workshops in 2007 looked exclusively at human enhancement technologies). On-line deliberation and the linking of selective face-to-face deliberation results with comprehensive survey data for validating opinions and views in national samples offer some potential methods for future larger scale nano deliberations, as long as diverse publics are included. We are pursuing both strategies on a pilot basis at CNS-UCSB.

In terms of public participation in the NNI, fulfillment of the normative purpose would mean allocating sufficient resources to conduct a meaningful public deliberation effort that is iterative and involves both lay persons and scientists.  Even though this might take some resources away from technological R&D in the short term, this would be in the interest of creating “socially sustainable technologies” (i.e., development of nanotechnologies that will be good for society in the long term).

Public deliberation is a useful thing to do

In addition to the normative reasons cited above, public participation is potentially useful for both instrumental and substantive purposes (Fiorino 1989). Instrumental here means that public participation contributes to other goals – for example, building community support for local development; or creating a basis of trust that will sustain support in the event of risk events.  Substantive contributions refer to the actual knowledge and learning that can take place through deliberative processes, particularly the contribution of local knowledge to successful outcomes – for example, better understanding of more useful applications of multi-purpose devices.

There are two foundational resources that have laid the groundwork for the current state of knowledge about this, both of them publications based on National Research Council panels:

Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (Stern and Fineberg 1996) made the case for how making risks understandable to the public and avoiding risk controversies and conflict involve far more than just translating scientific knowledge (e.g. risk assessment). In it, they set out the main framework for “analytic-deliberative” decision making as a process that includes both analysis and public deliberation, brings lay and scientific experts together in an iterative process that promotes co-learning not just for particular decisions, and, when done well, can lead to better outcomes in terms of a number of important criteria.

Much more recently, in Dec 2008 Dietz and Stern’s National Research Council volume Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, reported on a panel specifically convened to address questions of whether public participation in environmental decision making was beneficial to the process and outcomes or if, as some detractors have argued, involving lay people in complex technical decision making slowed or even derailed the process. They concluded that when conducted properly, public participation as a part of government or private sector organizations for assessment, planning and decision making (i.e., not political participation for voting or forming interest groups) contributes to the quality, legitimacy and capacity of decision making.

Getting back to nanotechnology, the NNI has not yet specified the form that public participation should take.

Key aspects of successful public participation and deliberation have been shown to include:

• “early and often” (meaning that you need to begin the process early in development and continue interaction often);
• procedural fairness (even if publics don’t agree with agencies, if they feel they’ve been treated openly, respectfully and fairly, this leads to demonstrably better outcomes, such as less litigation) (Chess and Purcell 1999);
• well managed process, including a clear purpose, adequate resources, genuine commitment of participants to the process, timely outputs, and a focus on learning; and
• implementation that includes breadth of participants, intensity of interaction (particularly face-to-face), and integration of scientific expertise (Dietz & Stern 2008).

Thus, in addition to the political will to include participation as an element of the NNI, there is considerable basis for asserting that public participation in nanotech R&D can be beneficial to the quality, legitimacy and capacity of the NNI. Public participation in nanotechnology development that:

1. addresses needs and concerns of publics (and publics for this purpose would include businesses, NGOs, and communities, as well as individuals),
2. reduces mistrust between stakeholders (e.g., academic or industry labs and surrounding communities), and
3. results in all participants (including scientists) being better informed about the issues and about one another, and produces meta-learning about participatory processes

would be a highly successful outcome for the NNI. On the other hand, one enduring and detrimental feature of public participation efforts has been the “reluctance of government to grant influence to participatory efforts,” and another common cause of poor public participation outcomes is when participation is aimed at “boosterism” for an agency or program (Chess and Purcell 1999).

Clearly, public deliberation in the NNI, if it is to be effective, needs to take heed of these hard-won lessons, and knowledgeable researchers will be reluctant to take part in an effort that is likely to fail for such predictable reasons.

___________________________________

References

Chess, Caron and Kristen Purcell. 1999. Public participation and the environment: Do we know what works? Env Sci & Tech 33(16): 2685-2692.

Dietz, Thomas and Paul C. Stern, Eds. 2008. Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press.

Fiorino, Daniel. 1989. Environmental risks and democratic process: A critical review. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 14:501-547.

Stern, Paul D. & Harvey V. Fineberg, Eds. 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Characterization, commission on Behavioral and social Sciences and Education. National Research Council. Washington: National Academies Press.

Whitmarsh, Lorraine. 2009. Review of Dietz and Stern, Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Environmental Science & Policy 12:1069-1072.

Marc Saner at Carleton University in Canada sent this timeline of key nanotech policy events to me the other day.  It’s probably the most comprehensive compilation of events influencing the development of nanotech policy in America, Europe and Australia I’ve seen to date – well worth taking a look at if you have any interest whatsoever in what happened when related to the oversight of nanotechnology and engineered nanomaterials.

It also includes hotlinks to web-based documents where they are available, making the timeline a great resource for tracking down elusive reports.

The timeline isn’t inclusive – I’m not sure capturing everything is humanly possible – but it’s pretty good.  It’s also a living document – if you have something you think should be there that isn’t, you can email in your updates.

Language is often seen as a barrier to communication.  But sometimes it provides a valuable buffer between hearing, understanding and responding, and allows unique perspectives that are often drowned out to be heard.

A few weeks ago, I was interviewed by Brazilian TV presenter Luís Fernando Silva Pinto for the TV Globo program Ciência & Tecnologia on nanotechnology’s broader social and scientific implications.  As you would expect, when the documentary came out this week in Brazil, my very English segments were surrounded by a sea of Portuguese.  And having had a very “proper” English upbringing (i.e. I’m appallingly bad with other languages), I was completely at sea when it came to understanding how my comments were being framed.

Looking for some enlightenment, I asked the Brazilian-born Portuguese journalist Andréia Azevedo Soares (currently on sabbatical at Imperial College in London) for some help in getting a sense of what was being said in the program.  What I got back was a wonderfully candid running commentary on her response to the documentary.

Andréia’s notes were never written to be published.  But I found them so interesting that I asked if I could post them here – and she very kindly agreed.  In watching the documentary, she approached it both as a journalist and as a consumer.  And as a result, her comments shed considerable insight on how the story is presented, and how she as a consumer and Brazilian responded to it.

But the real beauty of her notes is that, because the documentary was in Portuguese, I was privileged to see it from her perspective – without the preconceptions, assumptions and biases I would usually bring to such a piece.  Very much a case of the message being found in translation!

The documentary – Nanotecnologia nos alimentos – can be viewed here (Update: thanks to Andréia for letting me know how to embed it):

Watching it, Andréia wrote:

0.0 Luís Fernando Silva Pinto picks the example of warnings on the cigarettes packages to make a parallel with nanotechnologies & food. When you smoke, you are fully aware of the risks you are taking. But what about food? He says: “If there was anything in your food that could be bad for your health, would you like to know? We are entering into the world of nanotechnology.” I understand the point the was trying to make with the parallel between labeling in tobacco industry and nanotechnologies, but putting it at the very beginning made me a bit scared. My body associated the smell of cigarettes with food that can be bad for me, and my head noted that nanotechnologies may have a role in this story. I am not sure about the connection between tobacco/food labeling (“If there was anything in your food that could be bad for your health, would you like to know?”) and the discipline itself in a broad sense (“We are entering into the world of nanotechnology”). The world of nanotechnology is not only about smelly evil foods, is it?

01.00 – 02.20 Luís Fernando says nanotechnology is becoming more and more a part of our lives – shampoo, soap and even equipment like the “electronic tongue.” I loved it! I’m now curious to know more about the electronic tongue. This is truly exciting. A scientist explains that a special layer can protect fruit and make it last longer. Luís Fernando asks questions like: “is it safe?” Andrew answers by explaining the uncertainties in the field (you have a plaster on a finger!) [You noticed!  The result of mishandling another “cutting edge” technology! - AM]. Luís Fernando says that even though we haven’t all the answers now, information provided by science will help us to control of and make informed decisions on our food. (Curious how science appears here as a solution to solve problem created by nanotechnologies – it makes me think about soaps made of greasy materials that clean… grease). I’m feeling more relaxed now. There are solutions in the pipeline. Luís Fernando uses words like “discussion” an “informed decisions,” and I feel empowered as a citizen.

02.20 Footage from Embrapa, in São Paulo [Embrapa is a research center connected to the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply - AM]. They produce new equipment and solutions focused on nanotechnologies applied to the farming business. It is said that this is a unique research centre in the world. I don’t know their work and feel excited about the science being done in Brazil. The reporter Flávio Ventura explains that they receive ground coffee from all over the country and they evaluate the quality of the product. Gustavo de Paula, an engineer (materials), introduces us to the “electronic tongue” and explains how it works. I love it! He says there are nano structures in it that can “taste” the coffee.  They complement the work done by the human taster – one thing is not going to replace the other. Gustavo de Paula explains things very clearly, I think I want to visit Embrapa at some point!

04.50 Details are given on what exactly the nano scale is, how scientists can “see” it, what equipment is required. The reporter says: “We live in a nano world but we simply are not aware of it.” He says that the pollen of flowers has a nano-metric element. He adds: “The proteins that make our body, and the DNA itself, is nano as well”. Then appears the nano specialist Eduardo Caritá, overexcited, saying: “The DNA controls all life in the universe – it is something with [a scale of] 2 nanometers. Do you think nature would have chosen this scale, this form, this structure if it were not the more efficient?” He conveys a lot of information in a very well-packed sentence (TV reporters probably love him), but I’m very very picky with DNA metaphors and get quite annoyed here. DNA is an inert molecule, it doesn’t control anything. Mother nature doesn’t have intentions, she doesn’t choose anything – things evolve. *eyes rolling* I take a deep breath and try to think Brazil is a country with almost 200 millions people and that TV Globo is a mainstream channel – it is amazing having a specialist talking about molecular structures on TV in such a simple and enthusiastic way. Language also evolves according to its context. Ultimately, the objective is to communicate. He does that very well.

06.00 New products. Nano-capsules that release chocolate flavors. Humidifiers that release rejuvenating particles (allegedly). The reporter says a brilliant sentence: “The nano world is becoming less and less invisible.”

07.40 Back to Embrapa. Engineer Gustavo de Paula stresses that *any* technology can do good or harm. “Nanotechnology is no different. We need to understand it at great detail to control the possible risks it might offer.”

08.05 Back to Andrew Maynard! Luís Fernando says you are a physicist, have studied in Cambridge (UK), and specialised a decade ago in this field. He adds that since 2005 you have been an active voice on regulation. And here comes the interview bit… [Andréia declined comment on my bits! - AM]

10.10 Back to Embrapa, focusing on fresh fruit and the film using nano-particles that helps to protect them from oxidation. The Embrapa researcher Odílio Assis explain that in Brazil nearly 50% of fruit are wasted during transportation and storing processes. He claims that this technology would ensure that 80% to 90 % of the crops effectively reach the sellers/consumers. The reporter says that the researchers are already sure about the safety of this anti-aging film for fruit, but they will do further toxicology research on it anyway. The Embraba researcher explains that nanotechnology cannot be understood as a single technology, and mentions that the nature of different particles should be taken into account. In that sense, an organic nano particle is different from a metallic one, he says. At Embrapa, he adds, they deal with natural particles obtained from a corn protein – so there is nothing to fear about, he suggests.

INTERVAL

13.30 Back to Andrew. Luís Fernando says that the lack of information is the main problem now. He adds that you believe that further and serious research is needed. And then comes the interview bit (I like the pink lamp on the desk) [It’s not mine - it belongs to a colleague.  Honest! - AM].

15.00 Fiocruz scientist William Waissmann says that we don’t yet understand all the possible outcomes of nanotechnologies, and adds that a great deal of their impact in humans remains unknown. Waissmann says there is no regulation on this matter in Brazil. He tries to be optimistic nonetheless, underlining that there are good scientists beginning to work in the field.

16.30 Luís Fernando says you believe science is in a position to provide answers. However, he says, you believe further and better research is needed and, therefore,  the  researchcinvestment should be more generous (figures are mentioned). I really enjoy your comments, they make me alert and willing to engage in the debate but not too scared. This is important. Scared people don’t engage in debates – they scream (I do, at least).

18.00 Back to Waissmann (I like the way he conveys the message – he says Brazil is completely unprepared to face nanotechnologies issues and, still, I didn’t panic yet). He says that people form opinions not only by gathering information from scientific sources but mainly from their cultural context (friends, small talk, etc.). He says that not as a problem itself but as someone who is trying to understand reality to better cope/deal with it. It did not escape my notice that all interviewees have good communication skills – and as a Brazilian citizen, I’m happy about this.

18.30 Back to Andrew. The silver Tupperware bit. I realise that there are too many objects behind you, Andrew.  I should not be paying attention to pink lamps and US flags – please try to do an uncluttering operation before giving interviews. You are infinitely more interesting and appealing than an US flag, but absent-minded people like me can get distracted with these details. [I should add in my defense that Luís Fernando decided to film me at a colleagues desk - I don’t normally surround myself with pink lamps and American flags! - AM]

19.30 Back to Waissmann. He underlines the possible effects not only on human health but also on the environment (I love it when someone tries to show things in a less anthropocentric way). He also explains why the same material can act differently depending on its form – the example given is comparing refined salt to coarse sea salt. Why has the latter less “power” than the former? I like the example but I suspect it covers the surface/contact/reaction bit rather than the fact that at the nano-scales particles behave differently (e.g. gold). But I am not the expert – he is and you are. And for the program, the example works brilliantly. He says that, in terms of toxicology, it is a new world we are entering in.

20.50 Andrew again.

22.20 Wrapping up. Luís Fernando says that it is up to us, consumers, to make informed choices. Even though the program finishes leaving me surrounded by uncertainties, I feel fine about the challenges to come. I believe it is difficult to talk about food safety and, at the same time, to leave an optimistic note at the end. I am curious to know more about the electronic tongue. I want to discuss what I’ve learned here with my partner as it is him who’s in charge of the supermarket duties.

I am deeply indebted to Andréia for taking the time to do this, for her candid insight, and for he willingness to allow me to publish notes that were never written for publication – thank you!

__________________________________

Andréia Azevedo Soares blogs at Bordado Inglês – in Portuguese.  She can also be followed on Twitter, where she writes about science, literature  language and the media (amongst other things) – and often in English

Update 4/26/10:  Corrected a few typos (including spelling Andréia’s name wrong – slapped wrists and big apologies!), and embedded the Ciência & Tecnologia video.

A bit of a wonky blog I’m afraid, but having seen relatively little on the recently introduced Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 and its relevance to engineered nanomaterials on the web, I thought I would post something short and sweet here.

Just over a week ago, Senator Lautenberg introduced a bill in the US Senate aimed at a long-overdue reform of toxic substances regulation in the United States – the Safe Chemicals Act of 2010.  At the same time, Congressmen Rush and Waxman released a discussion draft in the House – The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 – covering much of the same ground.  Both documents aim to update substantially the Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA – which has been the mainstay of US chemicals regulation since 1976.

Both the 169-page Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 and the slightly shorter 119 page long Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 aim to bring US chemicals safety regulation into the 21st century.  Richard Denison at EDF has already posted a comprehensive overview of proposed changes to the regulation that I would recommend reading if you are into this stuff.  But here, I thought I would highlight what the proposed changes mean for the engineered nanomaterials – a class of substances that have been a bit of a thorn in TSCA’s side for the past few years.

The problem with TSCA (the old version) is that it is built on a chemicals world-view – substances are regulated based on their unique “molecular identity” – how they are described as chemicals. This works well for substances that do what they do because of their chemistry.  But it runs into problems where something behaves in a certain way because of its physical form, as well as its chemical makeup.  In other words, where you have stuff that is more harmful that molecular identity would suggest because of how the constituent atoms and molecules are put together, you have a problem.

There are workarounds to this within TSCA – a new substance that is chemically identical to an existing one can be regulated under the “Significant New Use Rule” for instance – but it’s a bit of a bootstrap.  And with the emergence of an increasing number of engineered nanomaterials where functionality – and possibly toxicity – depend on physical form as well as molecular identity, this bootstrap has been stretched to breaking point.

So there’s been considerable interest in how the new-look TSCA will handle this.

Fortunately, things are looking good at this stage.  The Senate bill has language that is in effect a substance “get out of jail free” card for EPA.  Section 4 of the bill proposes amending section 3(2) of the original Toxic Substances Control Act with

“Notwithstanding molecular identity, the Administrator may determine, under section 5(a)(6), that a variant of a chemical substance is a new chemical substance.” (page 6)

In other words, EPA can decide when something with the same molecular identity as an existing substance should be treated as a new substance.

And the determiners of when this is justified? The bill proposes that section 3(13) of the 1976 TSCA act is amended with

“(C) SPECIAL SUBSTANCE CHARACTERISTICS.—The term ‘special substance characteristics’ means, such physical, chemical, or biological characteristics, other than molecular identity, that the Administrator determines, by order or rule, may significantly affect the risks posed by substances exhibiting those characteristics. In determining the existence of special substance characteristics, the Administrator may consider—

(A) size or size distribution;

(B) shape and surface structure;

(C) reactivity; and

(D) any other properties that may significantly affect the risks posed.” (page 13)

In other words, the new bill allows many of the characteristics that potentially lead to engineered nanomaterials presenting novel risks to trigger them being treated as new substances.

The House draft document is a little more explicit.  It recommend amending section 3(2) of the original act with:

“(C) For purposes of this Act, such term may include more than 1 form of a substance with a particular molecular identity as described in sub-paragraph (A) if the Administrator has determined such forms to be different substances, based on variations in the substance characteristics. New forms of existing chemical substances so determined shall be considered new chemical substances.” (page 6)

with the clarification that

“The term ‘substance characteristic’ means, with respect to a particular chemical substance, the physical and chemical characteristics that may vary for such substance, and whose variation may bear on the toxicological properties of the chemical substance, including—

(A) chemical structure and composition

(B) size or size distribution

(C) shape

(D) surface structure

(E) reactivity; and

(F) other characteristics and properties that may bear on toxicological properties” (page 11)

Both the Senate bill and the House discussion document provide EPA with the authority to regulate any substance that presents a new or previously unrecognized risk to human health as a new substance.  This is critical to ensuring the safety of engineered nanomaterials, where risk may depend on more than just the chemistry of the substance.  But it also creates a framework for regulating any new material that presents a potential risk – whether it is a new chemical, a relatively simple nanomaterial, a more complex nanomaterial – possibly one that changes behavior in response to its environment, or a novel material that has yet to be invented.  In other words, these provisions effectively future-proof the new regulation.

Of course there’s a long way to go yet.  The final details of the new legislation have to be hashed out between the Senate and the House before they are finally signed off on.  Then the process of interpreting and enacting the new regs starts – including working out how exactly to determine when something should be considered new for regulatory purposes.

But at least things seem on the right track as far as enabling the safe development and use of engineered nanomaterials goes.

_____________________________

The two documents can been downloaded here:

The Safe Chemicals Act of 2010 (US Senate)

The Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010 (US House of Representatives)

The quality’s a bit flaky, but I thought I would upload this video for a bit of fun.  It’s the first – and possibly the last – time I will simultaneously attempt to unravel the mysteries of nanotechnology… while baking a cake!

Filmed at the National Museum of American History as part of Nanodays 2010, the presentation was part of a public dialogue on  nanotechnology.  My task: help set the scene for a discussion on who should oversee the responsible development of nanotechnology.

Wanting to try something a little different, I thought I would play around with cooking as an analogy for nanotechnology.  The analogy is a useful one – I only scrape the surface of where it could be taken here.  But whether it was a wise decision to actually cook in public – well, I’ll leave judgment on that one to you!

One thing the video doesn’t show is how the cake turned out.  I would like to say that it was light, moist and delicious.  However, just in case someone posts pictures of the actual result, I have to be straight with you – it sucked!  Personally, I blame the lab oven provided by the Smithsonian – I can cook, honest!  Perhaps a bonus lesson though is that, even with the best preparations, unanticipated consequences are always possible – whether baking a cake or making the latest nanotech-enabled gizmo!

A guest blog by David H. Guston, Director of the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University.

The President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST) has recently put the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) through its biennial paces.  Launched in 2000 by President Clinton, authorized in 2003 by the 21^st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act, and reviewed in 2005 and 2008 by PCAST (yes, an odd vision of “biennial”), the NNI is now a decade old.  For better and for ill, it is starting to show its age.

First, full disclosure.  I direct a Nano-scale Science and Engineering Center (NSEC), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under the NNI to investigate the societal aspects of nanotechnologies.  So my Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (CNS-ASU) gets a bit more than $1M per year from NNI.  Second, as can be seen in the recent PCAST review document [PDF, 4.8 MB], I also testified before the working group that produced the report.  Third, one of the PCAST members is my college roommate’s mother (but that’s *not* why I was called to testify!).

Whew!

Since the early days of NNI, as well as since the 2003 Act, public engagement with nanotechnology was supposed to be on the agenda.  The early reports by NSF on the societal aspects of nanotechnology refer to the productive role that public engagement can play, and the relevant passage from the 2003 Act 2(B)(10)(d) authorizes:

“public input and outreach to be integrated into the Program by the convening of regular and ongoing public discussions, through mechanisms such as citizens’ panels, consensus conferences, and educational events, as appropriate.”

Bluntly, however, public engagement has not been implemented as robustly as it might have been.

In May 2006, the NNI offered a promising if tardy start with a large workshop on public participation, organized by the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office (NNCO) and sponsored by the Nano-scale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee.  The two-day program generated considerable excitement among the larger-than-expected number of attendees.  Yet, while the presentations from the workshop are available on line, no report on the workshop seems to have ever been finalized for distribution on the NNI website.

The major messages of that meeting, as well as almost all relevant scholarship in public engagement in science and technology over the last decade and a half, are that:

• Communication between the lay-public (which is not monolithic) and the scientific community (which isn’t, either) needs to be two-way.
• Such communication needs to be not just about scientific facts but also about technological applications and social values.
• And the purpose of this communication must not be limited to the faulty formula of “more knowledge on the part of the public will mean more support for research and technological applications.”

Nevertheless, the nanotechnocracy has generally cast public engagement in terms entirely instrumental for the success of, well, nanotechnology.

The first PCAST (2005:38) report [PDF, 4 MB], e.g. argued directly that:

“[t]o sustain this [high level of public] support, the scientific community and the Federal agencies that fund scientific research must communicate more directly with the public, not through surrogates such as the entertainment industry…. Through the NNI website and through outreach activities at the NSF-funded centers and DOE user facilities, the NNI has established channels to communicate with members of various stakeholder groups, including the broader public.”

Similarly, recommendation 6.1 of PCAST (2008:34-35) [PDF, 1.3 MB] was to:

“[d]emonstrate more clearly to the public the value of nanotechnology and NNI-supported research and development.”

The first report (PCAST 2005:38) even attempted a pre-emptive defense of its practices, reporting that its working group “has held open meetings focusing on nanotechnology issues, which have provided the public with several opportunities to provide input.”  But the ability of the general public – as opposed to organized and special interests – to participate substantively in “open meetings” of executive agency committees is highly constrained, which is likely why the passage in the 2003 Act cited above calls for open, interactive public forums like citizens’ panels and consensus conferences.

Taking guidance from this specific language, CNS-ASU has made public engagement a centerpiece of its activities.  In Spring 2008, CNS-ASU organized the most ambitious public engagement activity around nanotechnology in the US, the National Citizens’ Technology Forum (NCTF).  Modeled after the Danish consensus conference but distributed across six locales across the United States, the NCTF on “nanotechnologies and human enhancement” demonstrated that a high-quality deliberative activity can be organized at a national scale in the US, and that a representative selection of lay-citizens can come to discerning judgments about nanotechnologies while they are still emergent (Hamlett et al. 2008, PDF 184 KB).  While there are reasonable concerns about the quality of the particular online component of the process (Delborne et al. 2009, PDF, 160 KB) and the demands that such intensive activities place on citizens (Kleinman et al. 2009), the NCTF process is a sound demonstration upon which to build future citizen deliberations (Philbrick and Barandiaran 2009).

In other words, large-scale public engagement activities around nanotechnology are ready for prime time.  As we move into a next decade of large-scale funding and the first forays of regulation, it is time for the NNI to follow through on the early promise of its vision of public engagement in nanotechnology for the benefit of the public, and not just for the benefit of nanotechnology.

This week, the NNI is holding a workshop on Risk Management Methods & Ethical, Legal, and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology, which includes a 15 minute slot for public comment.  David Guston will not be there – the workshop clashes with Passover – AM

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/30/public-engagement-with-nanotechnology/feed/ 24 http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/the-uk-nanotechnologies-strategy-disappointing/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/the-uk-nanotechnologies-strategy-disappointing/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:59:02 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2964

Ten years ago, President Clinton laid the foundation stone of the current global Nanotechnology Initiative.  In a speech given at at Caltech, he announced the formation of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative, and set a chain of events in motion that has led to economies and businesses around the world investing in the technology of the small.  A decade on, nanotechnology is a multi-billion dollar research and development enterprise, is touted as holding the promise of reviving economies, creating jobs and solving global challenges, and is already adding to the performance and value of innumerable products.

Against this backdrop, the UK Government has just released its first a new strategy for the successful and safe development of nanotechnology – or nanotechnologies to be precise. [See update for why this isn't the first strategy]

I was interested to read the strategy, having just finished helping to review the US National Nanotechnology Initiative for the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (the PCAST review of the NNI is due to be published shortly).  The UK has had a strong presence in the nanotechnology arena for some years, combined with a pragmatic approach to technology development. So I was expectant of a strong and sensible strategy that mapped out how the country planned to be a key player in the “next industrial revolution.”

Sadly, I was disappointed.

At the risk of boring readers, I’m going to include somewhat detailed comments on the strategy below.  But here are my headline reflections:

• Successful nanotechnologies need strategic investment in science. The strategy focuses on three key areas: exploiting nanotechnology breakthroughs commercially, addressing potential health, safety and environmental impacts, and regulating the technology and its products.  However, there is no specific emphasis on exploratory science. The implicit assumption is that the machinery of knowledge generation – funding for exploratory research, and the expertise to generate new knowledge – is in place.  But this is a very rash assumption indeed.  Without strategic investment in funding exploratory nanoscale science, especially at the interface between disciplines, the UK is likely to loose out to other countries that recognize the need to drive innovation through knowledge creation.  The US and China in particular are steaming ahead here – without a clear research strategy, the UK is destined to become marginalized.
• Innovation begets innovation. While the strategy addresses the commercial exploitation of nanotechnology in general terms, it stops short of considering how innovative new approaches can be used to get innovative new technologies to market – including alternative financing models, new ways of enabling technology transfer, and overcoming institutional barriers to change.
• Risk and regulation cannot drive an effective nanotechnologies strategy. I’m a strong advocate of dealing with the potential adverse impacts of nanotechnologies.  But developing a national nanotechnologies strategy that is two thirds-focused on understanding and addressing potential risks seems a little over the top, even to me!  Strategic risk-research and responsive oversight are absolutely essential to the safe and sustained development of nanotechnology-based products and processes.  But in the broader context, they should support the overall aims of improving quality of life, stimulating economic growth and providing jobs – not be the heart and soul of the whole enterprise.
• Nanotechnologies risk research isn’t just about reassuring people that products are safe. Despite a heavy emphasis on risk and regulation, the strategy seems to reflect a somewhat naive understanding of why research into potential risks, handling uncertainty and developing responsive oversight is important.  Repeatedly, the need to reassure “the public” that the products they buy are safe is highlighted as an important driver.  But how about the need of businesses to develop and market products responsibly?  Many businesses that have a culture (or are developing one ) of placing a high priority on producing safe and responsible products are desperate for better information on how to do this with nanotech-enabled products.  Yet it’s telling that the UK strategy has no clear link between environmental, health and safety research and business, industry and innovation.
• Strategies should be built on sound data. There are a number of places in the report where the data are suspect – especially in the section dealing with business, industry and innovation.  At the least, I would expect a Government-level report to get the facts right.  For instance, it is claimed that the UK is fourth in the world in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents applied for, after the US, Japan and Germany.  Yet the latest figures – published last year – show the UK ranking 11th in terms of the number of patents filed in the country (in 2008, 68 nanotechnology patents were filed in the UK, compared to 3,729 in the US and 5,030 in China.  That’s around 0.5% of all nanotechnology patents filed in 2008).  The report also estimates “the global market in nano-enabled products is expected to grow from $2.3 bn in 2007 to $81 bn in 2015,” yet the basis for these figures is not explained (they come from a report that will set you back $6,000 if you want to read it!).  These figures seem very low – especially compared to estimates of between $1 trillion and $3 trillion from other sources for the future worth of products based in some way on nanotechnology.  In effect, the UK Government figures are meaningless without further explanation.  And if they are correct, I have to wonder why governments and industry around the world are investing tens of billions of dollars in a technology that is only going to be worth… tens of billions of dollars!
• If you are going to form a Nanotechnology Research Strategy Group, make sure their scope extends beyond just addressing risks. I have to applaud the UK strategy for listing a sensible set of nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research priorities (Appendix A of the report).  But to make these THE research priorities of the Nanotechnology Research Strategy Group – that just send a message that the UK government is only interested in potential risks.  Changing the name of the group might be a good idea!
• Resist the temptation to include past activities as strategic actions. Call me a pedant, but I do find it frustrating where a strategy includes stuff that has already been done in its list of actions.  It smacks of padding things out, rather than looking forward to what needs to be done, and how.  Actions 3.3 – 3.6, just for example, refer to activities already underway – nothing particularly strategic about that!
• Don’t confuse toxicology with risk science.  There are three action points in the report (3.14 – 3.16) specifically aimed at developing the UK’s toxicology skills base.  This is good – it should be developed.  But so should expertise in exposure assessment, risk assessment, risk management, handling uncertainty and oversight.  Sadly, the strategy seems to assume that toxicology is the be-all and end-all of risk identification, assessment and management, whereas in reality it is only one component.
• If you are going to reach out to members of the public, take it seriously. In 2009 BIS supported what is possibly the best lay source of information on nanotechnologies – Nano & Me.  But rather than praising the initiative and supporting it, the UK strategy is rather less than luke-warm.  According to the strategy, the website has completed its 5 months (5 months?!) trial period, and will now be evaluated – that’s it.  This effort needs to be run longer – much longer.  It needs to be funded better.  And it needs to be promoted by the Government, not treated like an embarrassing relative.

So all in all, not a great strategy.  It’s not all bad – there are strengths in what the UK has done and intends to do in developing safe and successful nanotechnologies.  But as a strategy, this would have been flaky five years ago, and is now positively threadbare.

In a global climate where economies are eying one another up to see who’s going to take the lead in nanotechnology, I’m afraid the strategy sends a clear message – don’t worry about us!

__________________________________________

Some more specific observations

1. In the executive summary (p4), there is no mention of supporting research in nanoscience that will lead to innovation in nanotechnologies.
2. Nanotechnologies are described as being “at a very early stage in their development” (p6).  After a ten-year global push and many previous years’ research into nanoscale science, together with a wealth of nanotech-enabled products on the market, this is a dubious statement at best.
3. I’m wondering when we will see “more compact and powerful computer systems, mobile phones and wiring systems incorporating carbon nanotubes” (p6) – unless it’s just the wiring systems that will use the nanotubes.  Very unclear.
4. I’ve already questioned the projection of the global market in nano-enabled goods as $81 bn in 2015 above.
5. Apparently, the UK also has the third highest number of nanotechnologies companies in the world.  Wow!  Which countries are leading us – the US, China, Japan, Korea, Germany perhaps?  Take your pick – although I’m not sure how you will tell if you are correct, as no source was given for the claim.
6. A tricky point in any report like this is explaining what nanotechnologies are.  I’d love to know what others thought of the explanation in Box 1 (p6), which gets close to mixing and matching nanotechnologies, nanomaterials and nanoparticles.  I was confused!
7. I’ve already addressed the question of nanotechnology patents above.  Why the report didn’t cite Dang et al. I don’t know!
8. On page 7 the report states “At present, it is thought that the greatest level of risk may be posed by nanomaterials which are in the form of free particles, such as in a powder or liquid.”  This was a conclusion of the 2005 Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineers report on nanotechnologies, and is still important.  But over the past five years, perspectives have developed and become a little more sophisticated, recognizing the need to consider how new materials might come into contact with and interact with people and the environment, rather than fixating on nanoparticles.
9. This I found interesting:  On page 9 it is stated that “Above all, it is Government’s role to protect health and the environment during the development and use of nanotechnologies.”  This possibly explains the emphasis on risk and regulation in the strategy.
10. Figure 1 in the report shows the linkages between the four different areas of the strategy.  But as mentioned above, there is no direct linkage between environmental, health and safety research, and business, industry and innovation.  I would argue that two-way links here are absolutely essential to responsible development.
11. Here’s a recurring theme in the strategy. On page 11 one challenge to the commercialization of nanotechnologies listed is “A need for industry to engage with the public in order to raise awareness of the benefits of nanotechnologies-based products, and to counter any negative perceptions or concerns” (emphasis added).  I’m sorry, this is not what public engagement is all about.  In fact, in the light of this, I’m embarrassed to have applauded the UK’s approaches to public engagement and science last week – clearly there are some communication disconnects between departments!
12. On page 15, in reading about a lack of critical mass amongst small nanotech businesses in the UK, and a lack of business leadership, I was wondering where the Nanotechnology Industry Alliance was… Surely these small businesses aren’t voiceless.
13. Page 21 lists some good research into nanotechnology environmental, health and safety issues carried out in the UK. Unless I have missed something, they are all associated with a group of researcher based in Edinburgh. Should this have been called the Scottish Nanotechnologies Strategy?
14. However, on the same page an important study into the the potential health impacts of long carbon nanotubes is credited to Ken Donaldson – Graig Poland, not Ken, was the lead author.  This sort of mistake should not occur in a report like this one!
15. I’ve already mentioned the strange name of the group established to focus on nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research above (p 22) – the Nanotechnologies Research Strategy Group.  Wonder if the UK has a shadow group looking at non-environmental, health and safety research.
16. I’ve also covered the emphasis on toxicology above, but this is so important that it’s worth mentioning again.  On page 26 the report states “A shortage of new toxicologists was identified in RCEP’s report in 2008 as a risk to the nanotechnologies field, as toxicology research is pivotal to the successful development of new materials and products.”  Looking over that RCEP report, it had a strong emphasis on toxicology which at the time was not out of place.  But the UK strategy seems to have taken one recommendation from that report and run with it, to the exclusion of every other aspect of risk identification, assessment and management.  I’m not sure what the opposite of a strategy is, but this would qualify in my books.  Strategic action towards developing safe and responsible nanotechnologies must address all aspects of risk – not just material hazard.
17. On page 27, the strategy sets out the four key areas where “nanomaterials are most likely to come into contact with humans, or the environment”: Food; Cosmetics; Healthcare devices and medicines; and Workplace health and safety.  These are all very reasonable.  But what about all the other strategic areas – products which might shed nanomaterials while being used; products that lead to inadvertent exposure; products that release nanomaterials when disposed of or recycled; products that children might chew on or ingest, and so on.  Restricting the strategy to these four areas seems, well, restrictive.
18. Following up on those medical devices and medicines, there’s no mention of the regulatory challenges presented by combination products – products that act as both a device and a medicine.  Maybe this isn’t an issue in the UK – it’s certainly one in the US.
19. When it comes to the workplace, I was intrigued to see that “there are no current plans for any specific guidance on risk management for materials other than carbon nanotubes.”  Why?  Businesses and researchers are desperate for clear guidance on working safely with nanomaterials, which is why organizations such as NIOSH, ICON and ISO have been so active in the area.  The good news is that, even if the UK government isn’t intending to provide useful information for working with nanomaterials in the immediate future, others are filling the gap.

Update, 3/18/10  When this piece was first posted, I mistakenly referred to the strategy as the UK’s first nanotechnology strategy – a perception that the report itself does nothing to dispel.  However, as Michael Kenward kindly pointed out in the comments, this is in fact the UK’s second nanotechnology strategy (as long as you don’t nit-pick over differences between “nanotechnology” and “nanotechnologies.”).  The original strategy – published in 2002 – is available here Strangely, the current strategy does not acknowledge the existence of its predecessor. [PDF, 422 KB].

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/the-uk-nanotechnologies-strategy-disappointing/feed/ 30 http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/uk-nanotech-strategy-unavailable-due-to-technical-difficulties/ http://2020science.org/2010/03/18/uk-nanotech-strategy-unavailable-due-to-technical-difficulties/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:45:23 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2959

It seems the UK government Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is having a “leaves on the track” moment this morning (a scathing cultural reference, for those of you Brits too young to remember!).  The newly-minted UK nanotechnology strategy – launched today – is unavailable… because of technical difficulties it seems.

Seems to me that if the country wants to lead the world in advanced technologies, it needs to come up to speed with existing technologies first!

I had intended reviewing the strategy today on 2020 Science.  Looks like this will have to wait.  Fortunately a friend of a friend managed to pass on a copy from the bowels of BIS, so I should be able to write about it sooner rather than later.

In the meantime, if you want to try your hand at getting a copy of the new and improved strategy, the link is http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/nano/

Good luck!

Update 3/18/10, 8:55 AM – Frank Swain has kindly uploaded a copy of the UK Nanotechnologies Strategy here [PDF, 2.4 MB]

Update 3/18/10, 9:05 AM – Looks like the BIS website is now up and running again.  Review coming later today…

Update 3/18/10 2:20 PM – review of strategy now posted here.

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/2010/02/18/us-government-kicks-nanotechnology-safety-research-up-a-gear/ http://2020science.org/2010/02/18/us-government-kicks-nanotechnology-safety-research-up-a-gear/#comments Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:04:44 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2912

It looks like the US is heading for some serious action on addressing the safe development and use of nanotechnology-enabled materials, products and processes in 2011.  Reading through the just-released National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Supplement to the President’s 2011 budget [PDF, 1.2 MB], there are some noteworthy inclusions:

• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting $15 million in 2011 to address nanotechnology environment, safety and health issues.  This is the first time that the agency has been listed in the NNI budget supplement as requesting nanotechnology-specific funding.  Previously hobbled in its approach to supporting the responsible development of nanotechnology because of a lack of funding, this should go a long way to help the agency get on top of critical oversight-related questions.  The requested funds will support laboratory and product testing capacity, scientific staff development and training, and collaborative and interdisciplinary research to address product characterization and safety.
• The US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) also joins the FDA in being part of the NNI budget cross-cut for the first time since the NNI was formed.  For 2011, the CPSC is requesting a much-needed $2.2 million to allow it to participate with other agencies in researching safety aspects of nanomaterials use in consumer products.  Planned work includes developing protocols to assess the potential release of airborne nanoparticles from various consumer products and to determine their contributions to human exposure; determining whether nanomaterials can be used for performance improvement in sports safety equipment such as helmets and kneepads without creating other health hazards; and expanding consumer product testing using scientifically credible protocols to evaluate the exposure potential from nanosilver in consumer products, with special emphasis on exposures to young children.
• The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is requesting $16.5 million for nanotechnology safety research in 2011; over 5 times more than the agency’s 2006 nanotech budget, and $7 million above the estimated 2010 budget.  NIOSH has been leading the charge on developing safe workplace practices for handling engineered nanomaterials in recent years – and all on a shoestring budget.  This significant increase in funding should help the agency address critical research needs it been struggling to cover adequately, including much needed work on exposure measurement and characterization.
• The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) budget for nanotechnology safety research is set to double, going from an estimated $3.6 million in 2010 to a requested $7.3 million in 2011.  The agency will target its nanotechnology safety program to measuring the dynamic physico-chemical and toxicological properties of key nanomaterials and the release of these nanomaterials during manufacturing processes and from products throughout full product life cycles.

When requests from other agencies are included, the 2011 budget request for targeted nanotechnology safety research across the federal government for 2011 comes to $116.9 million – three times the amount invested in 2006.

This is an extremely welcome move, and demonstrates that the US government is committed to investing in research that will underpin the development of responsible nanotechnology.

Back in 2006, I estimated that the US government needed to invest at least $106 million per year in research addressing short term nanotechnology safety issues.  More recently in 2008, I set out funding options for addressing critical nanotechnology safety needs – arguing that between $20 million and $100 million per year should be invested over and above existing funding at the time (around $60 million per year).  While I can’t take credit for the apparent convergence between recommendations and budget requests here, it is gratifying to see agency-wide investment come closer to what has been suggested is needed in order to make headway in underpinning responsible nanotechnology.

Interestingly, budget requests for five key agencies align reasonably closely with those 2008 recommendations.

EPA, NIH (specifically, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences) and NIOSH requests are not too far from what I estimated as a compromise research investment option that lay somewhere between the minimum and the ideal.  What is particularly encouraging though is the requests for NIST and FDA, which far exceed these estimated budgets.

Of course, these requests only tell half the story.  The other half concerns how the funds are spent, and whether they will enable significant progress to be made towards developing responsible uses of nanotechnology.  In the past, the NNI has been criticized for not having a robust nanotechnology safety research strategy and for being weak on supporting targeted safety research within mission-driven agencies.  While the jury is still out on the strategy, there is no doubt that the 2011 marks a significant shift towards supporting safety research within mission-driven agencies.  In 2006, 21% of the nanotechnology environment, safety and health federal research budget was associated with EPA, NIOSH and NIST. for instance  In 2011, that figure is projected to rise to 37%.

We’re not out of the woods yet on ensuring we have the information needed to develop and use new nanotechnology-based materials and products safely.  But it looks like the US is making progress.  And that’s good news for anyone hoping to see the emergence of strong nanotechnology-based solutions to a whole host of challenges.

Well I guess I set myself up good and proper – I should have realized that in asking people for their questions on nanotechnology safety last week, they would actually want answers!

Having failed miserably to compile a catalog of websites that provide clear and concise answers to the questions asked in last week’s blog (I gave up after the 6th question),  the least I can do is provide some my own answers.  So here they are…

This being a blog and it only being an hour ’till lunchtime,  the answers are rather brief and off the cuff.  Hopefully they are of more use than not.  But if something doesn’t seem right, please check it out – and let me know.

Before I begin though, I must thank the brave souls who did attempt to provide links to answers in the previous blog – thank you!

The Questions, and some Answers:

1.  What sort of nano budget does FDA have?

If you look at the National Nanotechnology Initiative budget – a compilation of US federal agency investment in nanotechnology – FDA does not have a specific nano budget.  That said, the agency does have a number of people working on regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology in general, and engineered nanomaterials specifically.  FDA also supports the National Toxicology Program in the US, which is investigating the toxicity of a number of engineered nanomaterials, and has its own labs at the National Center for Toxicology Research, which are involved in nanomaterial toxicity studies.  So while it is tough to get a handle on the agency’s nano budget, this doesn’t mean they are not working in the area.

2. With something like nanosilver, is it possible to design out the hazard while keeping the “benefits”?

This is a tough one.  It would be nice to be able to do this, and there may be some possibilities here.  The main way silver kills microbes is to release silver ions, which are toxic to many microbes.  Silver nanoparticles are useful in that they release ions (effectively they dissolve) faster than the same quantity of larger particles, and they can be added to a wide range of products.  There is also some evidence that the nanoparticles themselves might be harmful to microbes.  The big problem here is that you have to have the ions to be effective – and if you are releasing the silver ions into the environment, they could do more than just kill the microbes you want them to.  But if there was a way to limit the rate of release and ensure only the microbes you want to get rid of come into contact with the silver ions, it might be possible to reduce possible risks while increasing benefits.  Some of the smarter uses of silver as an antimicrobial seem to be taking this approach.  The thing we really don’t want to do here is release silver nanoparticles into the environment without much thought, where they will continue to release ions and potentially cause damage.

3. What are some of the most interesting nanoparticles found in nature (not manufactured in the lab)?

I guess it depends what is meant by “interesting.”  Certainly, nanoparticles are a fact of life, and were long before humans were around.  Anything that burns and many things that get very hot release nanoparticles – think fires and volcanoes.  Liquid sprays that contain small amounts of dissolved substances can also produce nanoparticles as they evaporate – sea spray for instance is a great source of nanoparticles.  And then you have reactions between different chemicals in the atmosphere that produce nanoparticles.  Photochemical smog is a great example of man-made atmospheric “nanoparticle factories.”  But nature was there before us – terpenes released by trees can form nanoparticles in the atmosphere (the blue haze associated with the Blue Ridge Mountains is a result of naturally occurring nanoparticles).  These are all certainly interesting nanoparticles.  But they usually differ from engineered nanoparticles in that they are usually complex mixtures of nanoparticles and other stuff.

4. When will we know if it’s safe enough? I understand toxicity eg nanotubes. Do we think we can mitigate? What is safe enough?

I’m afraid that “safe enough” is a question that only policy makers, citizens and others can answer.  Science can provide information on how safe – or how risky – something is.  But then it’s up to others to work out when this is okay, and when it is not.  When it comes to nanotechnology, the first step is dividing nanotech into specific materials and products, as each will present different safety questions – including how safe is safe enough.  For example, safe enough for a cancer treatment will be very different from safe enough for a baseball bat.  We then need to work on where the plausible risks are – the materials and products that are more likely to present safety issues that we are not set up to handle well.  Then, we can start to work out where the knowledge gaps are, and how to fill them.  Governments and industry around the world are a good way along this path, although there is a long way to go still before some products of nanotechnology can be deemed “safe enough.”  For instance, we still don’t have a good handle on how to use carbon nanotubes safely, or what the safety issues around developing nanoscale food ingredients are.  On the other hand, there are nanotech-related products that, on the current balance of evidence, appear to be reasonably safe – I would consider sunscreens using well-engineered nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in this category.  The bottom line though is that we still need to work on defining what is safe enough, and identifying new safety issues that emerge as nanotechnology progresses.

5. Given the nano-size of the particles, are there any effective respirator filters to guard against inhalation?

Yes.  There are some unanswered questions here, but in general, respirator filters are better at capturing nanometer-sized particles from the air than larger particles.  It sounds counter-intuitive, but the secret lies in Brownian motion.  Smaller particles are batted around more than larger particles by air molecules, and as a result are more likely to collide with and stick to the filter fibers or membrane.

6. What do you feel the repercussions are for extended life through utilization of nanotechnology?

Interesting question.  I think there are profound implications associated with the possibility of extending life – especially extending the span of productive/high quality life.  And nanotechnology is one of a suite of technologies that could lead to significant extensions to lifespan. Yet I’m not sure that nanotechnology per se raises questions as much as the implications of extending life – no matter what the technology used.  In thinking about the “repercussions” (I prefer “implications”) of extending life more generally, a lot has been written on this.  The possible implications are both fascinating and challenging – ranging from the possibility of severe planetary over-population, to extreme (and divisive) divides between those with and without access to life-extension technologies, to the possibility of greater environmental and social awareness as people become more aware that they have to live with the consequences of their actions.

7. How are safety tests carried out in nano tech?

There are suites of toxicity tests that are used to determine the hazard associated with chemicals.  Which ones are used depend on the regulations governing the material and how it will be used.  For instance, the toxicology tests on a new drug are substantially more comprehensive than those that would be used on a new cosmetic.  Some of these use cell cultures – in vitro tests.  Some of them are able to provide an indication of hazard without cells, by probing the chemical nature of a substance.  In other cases, computer models are used to get a handle on how toxic a new substance might be.  Most toxicologists agree though that most of these tests only go so far in predicting how a new substance might harm humans, and at some point tests with animals are needed – in vivo tests.  There are moves around the world – and rightly so – to minimize animal testing, and to find alternatives where possible.  Unfortunately, when it comes to brand new materials such as some engineered nanomaterials, it is extremely hard to predict how these materials might behave in a living organism from modeling and cell cultures.  This problem is compounded by some established toxicity tests that have been devised for chemicals not working well for some nanomaterials.  So the toxicologists face a quandary – do they rely on non-animal tests that may not be adequate, and risk allow products on the market that could cause serious harm, or do they test these materials on animals, to minimize the chances of something bad happening?  It’s a tough question.  But the bottom line is that most people involved in ensuring people are not harmed by new products will use the best possible suite of tests to provide them with the best possible information on product safety.

8. Seems that (nano)tech is moving v.fast. Is there a risk that results of safety testing will be out-of-date as soon as printed? How to keep up pace?

This is a challenge for sure.  I don’t think that sound toxicity tests will be quickly out-dated.  But I do think that there is a danger of increasingly sophisticated engineered nanomaterials being produced and used before we have a good handle on how to evaluate their risks, and develop protocols for safe use.  I would argue that in order to keep pace with the technology we need to rethink how we approach safety:  We need to work out how to reduce possible risks before we have all the safety data (by reducing exposures for instance); we need to learn how to predict possible hazards, and work out how to engineer them out of products during development; and we need better ways of tracking new developments so that we can respond quickly to safety issues.  We’re making some progress here.  But we have a heck of a long way to go still.

9. Is it possible/ necessary to regulate the use of materials which don’t yet exist?

It’s tough to regulate something that doesn’t exist!  What we can and probably should do is to use regulation, and other forms of oversight, to create frameworks within which emergent risks will naturally be identified and addressed – more a set of principles than hard command and control regulation.  The trick here is not to think of regulations as a list of “do not’s”, but as sophisticated tools for reducing uncertainty and increasing safety as businesses develop new materials and products.

10. We all want safety decisions to be informed by sound science, yet decisions must be made (indeed are being made) now, in most cases with relatively little useful data. What’s the soundest way to approach such decision making?

The million dollar question, as new materials and products come along faster than the safety science can keep up!  I would argue that we always have to come back to evidence-based decision-making as the foundation of what we do here, but that we desperately need new tools for making decisions in the absence of hard data.  There are a number of approaches to this that are emerging.  Control banding for instance is an approach to reducing risks in the workplace in the absence of good exposure data, and may be extend-able to working with new nanomaterials.  Multi-Criteria Decision-Making is another approach that is being developed to make decisions where data are lacking, or where the data are complex.  Then there are a number of approaches to filling gaps in toxicity and exposure data when trying to develop safety guidelines for new materials.  So we have some tools in the toolbox here for making decisions in the absence of data.  But the reality is that, looking to the future, we are going to be increasingly faced with situations where the data are incomplete, or the evidence is complex, and we are going to have to get increasingly sophisticated with how we make decisions in these cases.

11. Are their any lessons learned (societal/ethical issues) from GM foods that could be applied to the engineering or mechanical manipulation of foods through nanotechnology?

Enough to fill a book is the answer I think.  I’ll just touch on a couple here though.  First, issues associated with nanotechnology is very different from the issues surrounding genetically modified foods, and it is dangerous to compare them too closely.  For one thing, while GM foods are reasonably well-defined, nanotechnology is an umbrella term encompassing a huge diversity of technologies.  But looking to the GM food debate (some would say debacle), two critical issues were perceived heavy-handed tactics from big industry, and a lack of transparency – it seemed that what people really didn’t like was companies making decisions on their behalf, then not telling them about it!  Looking to nanotechnology, there are a number of important lessons to be learned here about how to engage with people when developing and introducing a new technology, to ensure that it is what people want, that they understand the pros and cons, and that they have

12. What should consumers know about nano-foods that labels won’t tell them?

“Should” is a strong word.  But I do think that many people would like to know that they could find out more about how nanotechnology was being used in the foods they were eating – and I’m sure regulators would like a better handle on this as well.  In terms of information that would be useful, I think you have to look at the ingredients list – a simple “nano-inside” sticker is a non-starter as it contains no useful information, while possibly raising speculative and in many cases unsubstantiated concerns.  On that ingredients list, I think it would be useful to identify where something has been specifically engineered at the nanometer scale and added to the food to add value to the product.  This could simply be a case of adding a “n” before the ingredient – nSiO2 for instance.  But this in itself isn’t of much use to the user – without more information, they won’t be able to tell whether that “n” is a good thing, a worrisome thing, or nothing worth fretting about at all.    What I think would be far more helpful is finding a way to link from product labels to more detailed information on the web.  Imagine for instance that you could take a snapshot of the bar code on a product using your smart phone, and be taken to a database that let you know what was in the product and why.  This would be a farm more effective way of providing people who were interested with useful information on the nano in their food – if and when it gets there (and there are remarkably few food products on the streets that clearly and unambiguously contain engineered nanomaterials).  The good news is that this is a technology which is already gaining ground.

13. Nanotech pervades all sectors and there is a huge range in riskiness between the applications. How can we develop a meaningful triage system to prioritize sectors, product classes, products and materials with respect to safety?

Short answer – stop talking about nanotechnology, start talking about specific technologies and the products that use them, and make sure we ask scientifically plausible questions about potential risks, rather than being driven by speculation.  This is a huge issue – not just for nanotechnology – and more thinking is needed on how we begin to identify and address plausible safety issues, without being side tracked by questions that, while interesting, are more speculative than scientifically sound, and run the risk of distracting attention from more important issues.

14. How will we deal with imported nano products and how will we know they are nano?

With great difficulty I think.  Oversight of imported products – whether nano or not – is a major issue in today’s globalized market.  It’s a problem that has got regulators the world over worried.  Add nanotech in, and the problem becomes even greater – because now you have products with components that may lead to new safety issues, that do not have to be identified, and are not easy to detect!  I suspect though that part of the solution is to avoid getting too hung up on nanotechnology, and to start focusing on specific materials that raise new safety issues, and develop ways of detecting and overseeing the use of these materials.

15. What is the risk of NOT developing nanotech (in health care, environmental protection, economic development)?

I suspect that the answer to this question will differ wildly according to who answers it, but my opinion is that we cannot afford not to develop new technologies such as nanotech.  I would argue (and have done so on this blog) that the challenges facing humankind over the next 50 plus years cannot be solved using conventional technologies alone.  Access to nutritious food and clean water; disease treatment and prevention; clean, renewable energy – these are all challenges that we currently do not have the tools to address effectively.  Of course, nanotechnology is one of a number of emerging technologies that can help.  And any emerging technology-based solutions must be integrated with social, economic and conventional technology innovations if we are to ensure the focus remains on solving the problem rather than simply playing with the next new “technology toy.”  That said, I suspect that a failure to develop responsible and sustainable nanotechnologies will have a severe impact on people’s lives and the environment in the future.

16. What is the risk overall? Technology has not made us necessarily healthier and happier – although life expectancy has undeniable risen. Will the advances in 100 sectors be nullified by one “bad sector” (say nano use in weapons)?

I’m not sure you can talk about the overall risk of something as broad as nanotechnology.  Thinking as broadly as possible, there are risks associated with developing nanotechnology without appropriate checks and balances, just as there are risks associated with impeding its development at the expense of people who need food, water, medical treatment, energy…  But it’s far more useful to think about the pros and cons of specific applications of nanotechnology.  Of course, there is always that chance that, because we are working under this “brand” of “nanotechnology”  if something bad happens in one sector – say a new nano drug goes badly wrong – it will have a knock-on effect on other areas where nanotechnology is being used.  This is a possibility as so much has been lumped together under the banner of nanotech.  But I suspect that people are sophisticated enough not to stop using their nanotech baseball bat because the latest nano drug has problems.  Of course, this won’t stop equally sophisticated people from using nano-problems to push other agendas, if they see the opportunity.

17. We may need new bioassays. Can they be designed to simultaneously address animal welfare issues? Can they become models for use in non-nano contexts? Can there development be justified, financed and sped up on that argument?

As new toxicity testing challenges arise with some engineered nanomaterials, I see no reason why this cannot be used to stimulate further research towards minimizing the use of animals in tox testing.  In fact, I would argue that it is important that every opportunity is grasped to find more humane ways to evaluate material and product safety (this was something I highlighted as being important with my colleagues back in 2006 in a commentary in the journal Nature).  Nevertheless, I do feel it is important to ensure whatever assays are used, they lead to the use of products that will not end up inadvertently harming the user.

18. What is the difference between nanotech, biotech and synthetic biology?

Get ten experts in the same room, and they’ll give you at least twenty different answers to this one.  But here’s my take:  Biotechnology is a very broad technology that covers the use of biology in agriculture, food and medicine.  The term often refers to intentionally manipulating the genetic code of organisms – usually at a fairly crude level – to change them in ways that are perceived as being beneficial.  Nanotechnology is about engineering matter at a scale just a little larger than atoms and molecules, and taking advantage of the new and unusual properties that can result from such fine-level engineering.  Nanotechnology is often (but not exclusively) thought of as involving non-living materials.  Synthetic biology on the other hand is all about manipulating the genetic code of organisms at the nanometer scale, to either alter them in useful ways, or to create new organisms.  The truth of the matter is though that each of these terms is a clumsy shorthand for a continuum of science and technology innovation that is providing us with an increasingly sophisticated level of control over matter at the finest level – whether that be in living systems, dead systems, or combinations of the two.

19. Is there sufficient attention to the “soft science” of safety research? Governance, ethics, public relations, process research, organizational research, etc?

I would certainly argue that more need to be done here – much more.  Think about it – we live in a world where not only do we need to make decisions in the absence of information, but the very dynamics of decision-making the world-over are changing.  “Hard” science is not enough on its own to cope in this new world.  We also need to know how it fits in to a complex and shifting social, political and economic environment.  And for this, we need expertise in areas like engagement, governance, social decision-making, and a whole host of other “soft” areas.

20. The problem I have with the whole issue is that nanotech is not a “single” field, like polymers or vaccines, drugs or pesticides, say. Instead it’s a vast area of sci-tech defined rather arbitrarily by the size of the entities/particles involved. We need some way to ensure policy makers are not forced into a corner where they throw a blanket over all nanotech. How can that be achieved?

So true.  I think I touch on this a couple of times above, but somehow we need to decouple the products of nanotechnology from the brand of nanotechnology – so we can have science-informed dialogues on issues that are well-defined.  But how to do this?  We could start making sure that people have access to good information, and that they are fully engaged on the issue for a start.

21. How do we assess long term impacts in short term safety tests & decide it is safe enough?

The unfortunate truth here is that we still struggle to do this with non-nano substances, never mind the products of nanotechnology.  There are ways in which we can get a handle on what some long term impacts might be – the various assays for potential genotoxins, carcinogens etc. are helpful here for instance. But we still have a long way to go.  Maybe we should see this as an opportunity for engineered nanomaterials to stimulate some new ideas and approaches here.

22. Who is accountable if we do miss long term impacts?

Huge question.  I guess, depending on which country you are in, the lawyers would say whoever you can sue is accountable!  But beyond the possibilities of litigation, who is accountable for the impacts of decisions made – or not made – now?  Businesses developing new products are accountable to their shareholders and, perhaps surprisingly to some, their stakeholders in many cases – including customers (a number of businesses have strong value systems and codes of conduct that place stakeholders above shareholders).  This naturally leads to some degree of short to medium term accountability.  On the other hand, looking at government, it is hard to find any true accountability for the medium to long term consequences of actions – especially in an area like nanotechnology which cuts across so many departments and agencies.  Clearly, this is something that needs to be addressed.

23. What % of gov and business budget should be spent on safety?

A few years ago, a number of groups were arguing that 10% of the US nanotechnology research and development strategy should be devoted to health, safety and environmental impact-related research.  These days, I would argue that how the money is spent is at least as important as how much money is spent.  If you don’t start out with the right questions and a reasonable idea of how to get the answers, no amount of funding is going to get you to where you need to be.  That said, once you have a sound strategy, 10% of nanotech R&D is not a bad starting place.  A couple of years ago I was on a congressional testimony panel when a colleague from BASF was asked how much industry invest in ensuring the safety of a new product.  From what I remember, the answer was around 15% of the R&D budget.

24. How do we get companies to share their safety data to add to the body of evidence on safety?

Find mechanisms by which companies can share useful safety data without compromising their business, and develop trust and partnerships between businesses and other stakeholders to make data sharing easier.  This is a tough one though.  Most people in the business think it’s important and should be possible, but no-one’s come up with a viable solution yet.

25. When will 2020 Science learn to count?  (my apologies – realized after posting that I had missed four questions!)

Come off it, I’m a physicist.  Counting’s for engineers!

My apologies for the lack of links and citations here.  Time didn’t allow for more than a quick fire response – maybe this is something that needs to be added in at a later date.

Last Friday I posted 24 questions on nanotechnology safety provided by folks on Twitter and FaceBook, in a naive attempt to see if people could find matching answers on the web.  Predictably perhaps, there weren’t too many responses.  This wasn’t too surprising – I’m beginning to realize that asking for feedback on the web is about as effective as inviting complete strangers at the grocery store to come round and clean your bathroom; not that attractive a proposition.  On top of this though, the questions were tough, and web-based answers scarce.

In posting the questions, I wanted to see how easy it was to get useful information on nanotechnology safety from the web, and whether there were any resources that rose to the top of the pile as being particularly useful.  Unfortunately, I have to conclude that there are remarkably few web sites out there that clearly and directly answer the types of questions people are interested in.  It’s not only the low response rate that led me to this conclusion – I tried finding useful sites myself, and gave up after the 6th question!

It seems that, ten years after the US government launched the multi-billion dollar National Nanotechnology Initiative that put nanotechnology on the map, it’s still nearly impossible to get  straight (and fast) answers to the sorts of questions people are asking…

Of course, there are some decent resources out there if you want a general introduction to nanotechnology.  Nano & me remains one of my favorite*.  And if you are specifically interested in nanotechnology safety, there are a number of Frequently Asked Questions lists – check out the NIOSH FAQ for instance, or the SafeNano FAQ.  But there’s a curious disconnect between these lists of questions, and the ones submitted to 2020 Science.  It almost seems as if these sites are answering the questions they think people are asking, rather than the ones they are.

Whichever way you look at it, despite all the information on nanotechnology safety that you can find floating around on the web, it seems that people are still struggling to find answers to the questions that matter to them.  Rather than FAQs, they are faced with QSAs – Questions you Should Ask.

Maybe it’s time for a true nanotechnology safety FAQ (or wiki or whatever – I suspect FAQ’s are so last decade) that provides answers to the questions people are really asking, rather than the ones “experts” think they should be asking.

Wouldn’t that be a novel idea!

_______________________________

Having thrown the gauntlet down here, I feel I should do something about those 24 questions that are still hanging out there without many good answers.  So I’ll see what I can do about posting some short A’s to the Q’s from my perspective – stay tuned. [Update: link to my answers here]

*To those in the know, The US National Nanotechnology Initiative website – http://www.nano.gov – is deep well of nanotech information.  Sadly, you also need to bring along a long rope, flashlight and other spelunking gear to get anything useful out of it.  The good news is that a major update is planned for the website – maybe the new and improved nano.gov will even have some real Q&A for real people – you never know!

]]> http://2020science.org/2010/02/12/nanotechnology-safety-weve-got-the-answers-now-what-was-the-question/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2010/02/05/twenty-nanotechnology-safety-questions-in-search-of-answers/ http://2020science.org/2010/02/05/twenty-nanotechnology-safety-questions-in-search-of-answers/#comments Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:26:04 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2863

I should warn you in advance – this is an interactive blog – there’s something I want from you!  I have a question – where do ordinary people go to get information on nanotechnology safety?

Feeling a little lazy I thought I would get you – the loyal 2020 Science readership – to help me out here.  Below are twenty questions on nanotechnology safety provided by folks on Twitter and FaceBook (okay so I’m using the term “normal people” in its widest sense).  What I would like is for readers to let me know which websites they feel best answer the questions.  This is how it’s going to work:

1. Pick a question – any question -  from the list below.
2. Do some Googling (you can use another search engine if you fancy).
3. Find a website that provides a decent answer (in your opinion) to the selected question.
4. Post the question number, the link, and anything else you would like to say, in the comments area of this post.
5. Go back to step 1 and repeat until hungry/thirsty/bored.

I’m curious to see whether people really can get satisfactory answers to their questions.  And if they can, which web resources seem to do the best job.  If enough people participate, I’ll post the results later.

So please pitch in – it’ll be fun, honest!

Cheers,

Andrew

And before I go – a big thank you to everyone who send me a question.  Great job.

_________________________

The Questions:

1. What sort of nano budget does FDA have?
2. With something like nanosilver, is it possible to design out the hazard while keeping the “benefits”?
3. What are some of the most interesting nanoparticles found in nature (not manufactured in the lab)?
4. When will we know if it’s safe enough? I understand toxicity eg nanotubes. Do we think we can mitigate? What is safe enough?
5. Given the nano-size of the particles, are there any effective respirator filters to guard against inhalation?
6. What do you feel the repercussions are for extended life through utilization of nanotechnology?
7. How are safety tests carried out in nano tech?
8. Seems that (nano)tech is moving v.fast. Is there a risk that results of safety testing will be out-of-date as soon as printed? How to keep up pace?
9. Is it possible/ necessary to regulate the use of materials which don’t yet exist?
10. We all want safety decisions to be informed by sound science, yet decisions must be made (indeed are being made) now, in most cases with relatively little useful data. What’s the soundest way to approach such decision making?
11. Are their any lessons learned (societal/ethical issues) from GM foods that could be applied to the engineering or mechanical manipulation of foods through nanotechnology?
12. What should consumers know about nano-foods that labels won’t tell them?
13. Nanotech pervades all sectors and there is a huge range in riskiness between the applications. How can we develop a meaningful triage system to prioritize sectors, product classes, products and materials with respect to safety?
14. How will we deal with imported nano products and how will we know they are nano?
15. What is the risk of NOT developing nanotech (in health care, environmental protection, economic development)
16. What is the risk overall? Technology has not made us necessarily healthier and happier – although life expectancy has undeniable risen. Will the advances in 100 sectors be nullified by one “bad sector” (say nano use in weapons)?
17. We may need new bioassays. Can they be designed to simultaneously address animal welfare issues? Can they become models for use in non-nano contexts? Can there development be justified, financed and sped up on that argument?
18. What is the difference between nanotech, biotech and synthetic biology?
19. Is there sufficient attention to the “soft science” of safety research? Governance, ethics, public relations, process research, organizational research, etc?
20. The problem I have with the whole issue is that nanotech is not a “single” field, like polymers or vaccines, drugs or pesticides, say. Instead it’s a vast area of sci-tech defined rather arbitrarily by the size of the entities/particles involved. We need some way to ensure policy makers are not forced into a corner where they throw a blanket over all nanotech. How can that be achieved?
21. How do we assess long term impacts in short term safety tests & decide it is safe enough?
22. Who is accountable if we do miss long term impacts?
23. What % of gov and business budget should be spent on safety?
24. How do we get companies to share their safety data to add to the body of evidence on safety?
25. When will 2020 Science learn to count?  (my apologies – realized after posting that I had missed four questions!)

If you ever wanted proof that the nanotechnology research community is floundering when it comes to safe working practices, look no further than a paper just published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.  The paper, written by researchers at the Nanoscience Institute of Aragon (NIA) in Spain, surveys nanosafety practices in labs around the world.  Sadly, the flaws in the paper make the point that more needs to be done to raise safety awareness far more eloquently than its content.

The paper “Reported nanosafety practices in research laboratories worldwide” by Balas, Arruebo and Santamaria sets out to survey safety practices used in engineered nanomaterials research.  This is a critical area – anecdotal evidence suggests that good work practices are patchy in research labs, and that dismissive attitudes to safety or lack of awareness of recommended safety measures are not uncommon.  A survey of current safety practices that replaced anecdotes with hard data would have been extremely useful in helping raise the bar here.  Unfortunately, this is not that survey.

NIA is a nanotech research lab – its expertise is in creating new stuff, rather than assessing safety.  In fact the paper’s corresponding author Jesus Santamaria is the laboratory’s Vice Director.  In other words, NIA would have been a perfect participant in a safe practices survey.  But whether they have the necessary expertise to conduct such a survey is another matter entirely.

I would love to deconstruct this paper as I did the Daily Mail nanotech story on “Grey Goo” a few weeks ago.  But due to copyright I cannot reproduce it in full here, so that’s out.  Instead, I thought it would be interesting to extract a few of the key statements and recommendations the authors make, and see how they stand up to scrutiny:

“An online survey shows that most researchers do not use suitable personal and laboratory protection equipment when handling nanomaterials that could become airborne”

This is the top-level summary of the paper.  It’s a sub-heading that wouldn’t look out of place in a Tabloid newspaper.  And its impact hinges on two words – “most” and “suitable.”  Unfortunately, neither seem justified.

The paper reports the results of survey of people selected from the authors of nanomaterial-related publications published between 2007 – 2009.  240 surveys were completed – around 10% of those solicited.  Extrapolating these data to the entirety of nanomaterials researchers with that phrase “most researchers” is a large jump.  But more significant is the term “suitable.”

Out of all those researchers surveyed who thought the materials they were using might become airborne at some stage, 21% didn’t use any form of “special protection” and 30% didn’t use respiratory protection.  Yet there is no way of telling from the survey whether “special protection” (the authors’ terminology) was needed, or indeed whether any respiratory protection was needed.  A researcher handling small amounts of fumed silica for example – used as a food additive amongst other places – might well handle it using established lab safety procedures that are entirely adequate and don’t include the use of a respirator – in this survey they would be classed in the category of “most researchers” not using “suitabe personal and laboratory protection.”

“We find that only about 10% of researchers who are working with nanomaterials reported using nano-enabled hoods, and one in four did not use any form of general laboratory protection.”

The survey question associated with this statistic was “General laboratory safety during synthesis and handling: No special protection; local extraction on lab-bench; standard fume hood; fume hood with nanosized filters (i.e. HEPA); special “nano-safe” fume hood; Other.”

The jump from “no special protection” (which I would interpret as general lab safety procedures were used) to “did not use any form of genera laboratory protection” is eye-poppingly large, to say the least.  And without information on material quantities and characteristics, who knows whether “nano-enabled” hoods were in fact needed by all of these researchers?

“Despite knowing the materials they made could become airborne, about 30% of researchers did not use any type of personal respiratory protection.”

The associated survey questions were “May the nanomaterials become airborne at any stage of the synthesis: Yes; no; I don’t know?” and “Personal protection equipment when handling nanomaterials: None; mouth mask w/o filters; respiratory mask w. standard filters; full face shield w. filter; full body protective equipment; other?”

If a material became airborne in an enclosed part of the process, but not where exposure could occur, a respondent could easily answer “yes” to the first question and “none” to the second – placing them amongst the 30% alluded to.  And yet they would not have been acting inappropriately.

Around 90% of the respondents were either not aware of or did not think there were regulations at the local or national levels for handling nanomaterials… This is not surprising because only a few regulations on nanomaterials have been enacted.

Respondents were asked questions like “Are you aware of any international legislation for handling nanomaterials?”, “Is there applicable a State/Local legislation for handling nanomaterials?” and “Is there applicable a Federal/National legislation for handling nanomaterials?” As no such “legislation” for handling nanomaterials safely in laboratories exist, it’s not surprising that most respondents weren’t aware of them, or didn’t think they had been written.  I’m not sure what useful information was expected out of this question.  But it does worry me that the responses are presented to suggest a lack of awareness amongst researchers, rather than a lack of regulations.

“…nearly three quarters of respondents reported not having internal rules to follow regarding the handling of nanomaterials; approximately half did not have rules and 27.1% were not aware of any internal regulations.”

Despite the potentially confusing use of “rules” and “regulations” this is actually a useful piece of information.  The question was “Does your organization have an internal set of rules or handling nanomaterials: Yes; no; I don’t know?” One would hope that the answer was yes in most cases – clearly this is an area where more effort is needed.

“Regarding general laboratory protection measures, 24% of respondents did not use any type of protection, and 15.2% reported only using local extraction on the lab bench… Taken together this means that nearly 40% of researchers working with nanomaterials reported using none or only weak means of general laboratory protection.”

To recap, the question here was “General laboratory safety during synthesis and handling: No special protection; local extraction on lab-bench; standard fume hood; fume hood with nanosized filters (i.e. HEPA); special “nano-safe” fume hood; Other.” Looking at this, the statement made is patently wrong. “No special protection” is not the same as “did not use any type of protection.”  And local extraction on the lab-bench is not necessarily a “weak means” of control.  As a consequence, this statement is misleading at best.

“When it comes to the use of PPE [Personal Protective Equipment], about 48.8% of researchers reported not using any type of respiratory protection and 24.4% used a mouth mask without filters, which is clearly an ineffective form of protection.”

That 48.8% of researchers not using PPE includes researchers using materials unlikely to become airborne (according to the survey) – so it’s perhaps not surprising the figure is so high.  I’m still trying to work out what a “mouth mask without filters” is – not something I have ever come across.  If, as I suspect, the authors were envisaging a N95 respirator, authoritative organizations like NIOSH do not class this as “an ineffective form of protection.”

About 85% of researchers declared disposing of nanomaterials either without a special procedure (24.3%) or with the same procedure as for other chemicals (61.0%).  This seems at odds with the fact that 81% of researchers stated that nanomaterials should be treated as hazardous waste unless they are known to be non-hazardous.”

There is considerable confusion here, and it stems from an assumption that nanomaterials need to be disposed of in some unique way.  The associated question on the survey was “Do you follow a special procedure for disposing of nanomaterials?  No special procedure; the same as for other chemicals; yes, a special procedure designed for disposing nanomaterials; others?” In answering this, anyone who routinely treated nanomaterials as a hazardous material would answer “no special procedure” or “the same as for other chemicals” – which makes perfect sense.  The interpretation of the survey returns as indicating poor practices here does not hold up well to scrutiny.

51.7% of the researchers reported using the same Materials Safety Data Sheet irrespective of whether they were handling bulk or nanosized material”

The trouble is, 60% percent of researchers were synthesizing their own material, and so wouldn’t have associated Materials Safety Data Sheets – unless they wrote their own.

“Until widely accepted exposure levels and monitoring procedures become available, the general guidelines provided by reliable organizations should be immediately implemented.”

This makes sense – although some help on what defines a “reliable” organization would be useful.

“Finally, scientists should self-regulate, because they are the ones who decide how nanomaterials are handled in the laboratory and are ultimately responsible for implementing nanosafety practices.  One effective way to speed-up the adoption of safety precautions would be for journals to require a specific description of nanosafety measures within the methods or experimental section of all papers dealing with nanomaterials”

So, a survey that appears to suggest that scientists are doing a lousy job of working safely with nanomaterials in the lab suggests that self-regulation is the way to go. And to “enforce” this self-regulation, journals should impose a burden on authors that is not necessary when publishing work on a thousand and one other extremely noxious materials.  I’m still trying to get my head round this one!.

I really don’t want to slam this paper – safe lab practices for working with engineered nanomaterials are critical, and greater efforts are urgently needed.  At the same time though, it’s hard to see how questionable research like this will support progress. The trouble is, this survey seems to have been conducted by team who understand little about crafting effective questionnaires, and who have a poor grasp of what is relevant and what is not when it comes to working safely with engineered nanomaterials.

But here’s the irony – the inadequacies of the paper illuminates more eloquently perhaps than the survey itself that researchers in nanotech laboratories are out at sea when it comes to understanding safety issues: This particular group of asked the wrong questions, didn’t ask the right ones, and interpreted what they got back within a questionable framework.

Clearly, they need help.

And this is perhaps the strongest message to come out of the paper, inadvertent as it is – that more is needed and faster from “reliable organizations” on working safely with engineered nanomaterials in the lab – before someone does themselves an injury.

___________________________

I didn’t want to make a big deal of it above, but I found it worrying that on two of the questions in the supplementary information, the questions and answers are transposed.  What you have in is:

“If dry synthesis, please specify method: Co-precipitation; thermal decomposition; sono-chemistry; polymerization; reverse micelles; other”

“If wet synthesis, please specify method: Laser pyrolysis; CVD/PECVD’ mechanical attrition; electrical discharge; laser ablation; other”

Anyone involved in nanomaterial synthesis will spot that the wrong answers have been mateched with the wrong questions.  Hopefully this was just an error in the supplementary information, and the original survey was correct.  But I guess someone should check…

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

Hype, scare mongering, obfuscation and just plain misinformation – the scientific community are reasonably clear about what they think of Tabloid science reporting much of the time.  So I wasn’t too surprised to see the headline “‘Grey goo’ food laced with nanoparticles could swamp Britain” in today’s Daily Mail, following the release of a new report on nanotechnologies and food from the UK House of Lords.  Here we go again I thought – cheap misrepresentation to pull the punters in and never mind the fallout.  But on closer reading, perhaps this piece isn’t as crass and misleading as I initially thought…

Partly as a bit of fun, I thought I would deconstruct the piece, to try and work out whether there is some sense here behind the apparent madness.  But I also have a bit of a soft spot for its author, Fiona Macrae.  Fiona was largely responsible for educating me in the ways of Tabloid reporting a few years ago.  It was the launch of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory, and I was talking with a group of reporters at the UK Science Media Center.  I remember Fiona clearly – she was smart, engaged, asked intelligent questions.  I was effusive in my answers.  And shocked when I saw her story the next day.

Rather than telling my story, she told hers.  Under the banner “‘Hidden danger’ in anti-ageing cream” she appeared to take my carefully considered words and turn them on their head.  Of course, it didn’t help that, in the course of our amiable interview, I had told her “We are using humans as guinea pigs with a lot of this.”  The lesson: she was a skilled reporter, and I was naive!

Having been on the sharp end of her pen, I was interested to read today’s story with a slightly more dispassionate eye.  Here’s what I thought, section by section:

The headline: ‘Grey goo’ food laced with nanoparticles could swamp Britain

What an emotive headline – a new danger, infiltrating our food, and threatening to overcome us!  From a purely literary perspective, the imagery is wonderful – “‘grey goo food’” brings back recollections of old-style British cuisine, while “laced” and “swamp” are loaded with menace.  But is it inaccurate?  Placing grey goo in inverted commas tells us that this is shorthand for something, and not to be taken too literally.  According to the report the piece is based on, food could hit the shelves that contains nanoparticles (and is probably already there) – “laced” is descriptive, but not inaccurate.  Saying Britain could be swamped with these foods is a bit of an exaggeration – but it is possible that in the future significant numbers of food products could use nanomaterials in some way.  So while the headline is attention-grabbing, it avoids being plain wrong.

Britain is on the brink of a massive expansion in foods containing controversial ‘grey goo’ nanoparticles, according to the former head of the Food Standards Agency.

Low-calorie chocolate and beer that doesn’t go flat could be on sale within just five years, Lord Krebs said last night.

Is Britain on the brink of a massive expansion of foods containing nanomaterials – aka “‘grey goo’ nanoparticles”?  Not unless industry and government do something to ensure the safe and successful development of the technology, according to the House of Lords report.  But the statement isn’t too far from the truth.  And the chocolate and beer examples are accurate.

However, he and other peers believe there will be no requirement for the hi-tech products to be labelled as containing nanoparticles – microscopic compounds that can worm their way into the brain, liver and kidneys with unknown consequences.

Here we see the real skill of the Tabloid writer – technically correct writing with worrying embedded subliminal messages.  Sure the Lords writing the report didn’t believe labeling is the way to go – although they did come up with another solution to ensure people had access to relevant information.  And some nanoparticles can get to the brain and kidneys, with unknown consequences.  But by saying they ‘worm their way in’ Macrae conjures up images of slimy parasites and worse – would you want anything “worming” its way into your body?

But critics said the public have the right to know what they are putting into their bodies, and point out that new legislation will mean that cosmetics that contain nanoparticles will have to be clearly labelled.

Correct.  And the full report addressed this.

Once derided by Prince Charles as ‘grey goo’, nanoparticles are tiny particles – 300 million would fit in a pinhead – with powerful properties that make them of interest to food companies.

Although they are small, they have a large surface area at which key chemical reactions can take place. This means that relatively low numbers of sugar nanoparticles can have the same effect as a large amount of normal sugar, creating tasty chocolate or cakes with a fraction of the calories.

The same principle could be applied to fat, allowing the creation of low-fat icecreams and mayonnaise that taste like the real thing.

Nanotechnology-inspired packaging promises to improve food shelf-life, and in the U.S. plastic beer bottles have been lined with ‘nanoclay’ to stop the brew from going flat.

This is all good and useful information.  Having grabbed the Tabloid reader’s attention, Macrae is now feeding them some useful information.

Lord Krebs chaired an inquiry by the House of Lords science and technology committee into the safety of nanotechnology in food, which found that although there is no evidence that the tiny particles are harmful, there are ‘large gaps’ on our knowledge.

The committee called for the Food Standards-Agency to compile a database of nanoproducts that can be accessed by the public. The FSA is not in favour of nanoparticles being declared on food labels, saying they are cluttered enough already.

This is accurate reporting – still on a roll here.

The inquiry also criticised the food industry for being unnecessarily ‘ secretive’ about the products it has in the pipeline. It said this seemed mainly to be because it was concerned about the public’s reaction.

Julian Hunt of the Food and Drink Federation said: ‘Given that nanotechnology is in its infancy in the food and drink sector, and that bringing innovations to market is a long and complex process, we are surprised that the report seems to criticize the food industry for an apparent reluctance to communicate extensively on this subject.

‘There are many questions and unknowns about the potential future uses of nanotechnologies in our sector, and there is much work still to be done by scientists, governments and regulators, as well as the food and drink industry.’

And we finish with the report’s critique of the food industry – which was the main thrust of the associated press release – and a response from an industry representative.

And at the end of the piece, I have to say that it is largely accurate and informative – emotive maybe, but not seriously misleading.  I would actually go further and say that, once the in-your-face headline and opening sentences have pulled readers in, they might actually learn something!

Of course, the fear is that readers will miss the nuances and not read past the headline and, as a result, get completely the wrong end of the stick.  I wonder how likely this is in this case though. Do people really believe in “grey goo” or is the joke on over-sensitive scientists here?

There are obviously major issues surrounding science reporting in the Tabloids, and I don’t for one minute want to give the impression that I am supporting dangerously misleading and disingenuous reporting.  But in this instance, there’s little of substance to complain about once you get beyond the occasionally jarring language.  And it might actually lead to some readers having a better grasp of what nanotech has to do with food… possibly!

Go Fiona!

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 George Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment, and the Center for Food Safety

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

Andrew asked us to write about “how technological innovation should contribute to life in the 21^st century.”  Technological innovation is often blindly referred to as “progress.”  The question is — progress towards what?

We live in the age of technology.  In past generations, most people spent the majority of their time in nature, and then in later years more often in social settings.  In the modern world, most of us spend an ever-increasing amount of time in an interconnected web of machines.  I’d like to say I’m writing this on a riverside, but unfortunately I’m not – I’m in my office typing on my laptop, with my email open on a different web browser.

What currently drives this technological innovation, this technological bubble that defines our age?  In modern society, self-interest, greater productivity, greater consumption, the laws of supply and demand and the commoditization of the world are all drivers.  This economic system, which has now succeeded in global hegemony, dictates all our social interactions. Far from being a natural state of being, it is of course only as old as the United States (Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations was published in 1776) and not based on any natural law. In early societies, the market system was never the method by which basic societal problems were addressed; rather the marketplace was delegated only a limited role by our ancestors compared to their cultural and religious beliefs and social patterns.  Nature (not to mention labor), although treated as such, is not a commodity. Nature does not respond to supply and demand. The old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest will not speed up their growth rate to address increased demand.  More fundamentally, the natural world has intrinsic, incalculable value above and far beyond “market values”.  Even the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) recognizes this truth, in that it prohibits the extermination of species no matter how lucrative the activity  that is causing the killing.

Not only are the current dominant economic systems and their intertwined technological systems at odds with the ecological cycles of the natural world, but they are also actively and quickly eviscerating the planet.  We are exponentially reducing the earth’s capacities in every natural realm: land, air, water, and everything in between, through ozone depletion, acid rain, species extinction, deforestation, and desertification.  By commodifying nature to match our own systems we are threatening the planets’ survival and our own.  Global warming illustrates this conclusion best: Our industrial technologies have created the first global environmental crisis in human history.

We now face what is known as the technological dilemma—the “developed” portion of the world’s population has become dependent on the technological environment. Yet the same technologies that support life for the richest part of human population are threatening the very viability of life on Earth.  Even former President George W. Bush said we are “addicted to oil.”  And this addiction to these unhealthy systems of production is destroying our world.  To paraphrase and apply the wisdom of Rowlf the Dog from the Muppets to market-based mass consumerism: we can’t live with our technologies, and we can’t imagine living without them.

These are not new revelations.  And there are really only two options.  Forty years ago, writers and leaders began urging that we institute “appropriate technologies” in sync with the cycles of nature, rather than the mega-global-techno-systems causing planetary and human peril.  Attorneys and policymakers have succeeded in passing and utilizing laws that would limit the impacts of capital and industrial systems, like the ESA.  Scientists began to develop more holistic visions of their vocations.  This approach/option is a step toward addressing economic development within the context of rather than at the expense of our global environment and the society which depends upon it.

But others too have come to the conclusion that our current technology is not compatible with life.  They have foreseen the growing conflict between globalization, mass consumption, and the laws of nature.  However, their solution to the dilemma is very different.  Rather than change our economics and technology to better comport with the needs of living things, corporations and governments began to engineer life itself to better accommodate the market system and the technologies upon which it is predicated.  Ignoring the constraints of the natural world, living systems are to be remade, engineered at the genetic and molecular level to further the necessities of the technological age.

What’s the result of this worldview?  You probably see where this is going.  Genetic engineering, or recombinant DNA technology, is seen as the tool by which we can alter life at the genetic level to better fit industrial production systems and become a technological commodity.  Cloning is seen as the tool by which we can emulate the factory model of identical production for life forms.  Rather than redesigning industrial agriculture to fit the animal’s natural behavior, we are redesigning the animal to fit industrial agriculture.  Because patent control spurred production for products, we must now patent plants, animals, and human genes and cells.  Nanotechnology is a means by which we can control and manipulate matter at the atomic and molecular level to enhance industrial processes.  Lastly, synthetic biology is a means by which we combine several of these tools to create and design entirely new life forms to perform our industrial tasks. Even Dr. Frankenstein was cautious enough to not make his creature a mate; “synthetic biologists,” on the other hand, want their creatures to reproduce before systems are in place to control them.

Got environmental problems? Global warming does not to be addressed by stopping harmful greenhouse gas emissions and putting in place strictures to address systemic problems; instead, we should geo-engineer the planet to ameliorate the problem, or genetically engineer plants to be more drought- tolerant or trees to grow faster.  Chemical pollution causing environmental and health hazards? We do not need to reduce our use of harmful pesticides; instead, we should engineer production plants to be immune to them.  Pigs and chickens not amenable to horrific close-confinement factory farming?  Don’t encourage organic and humane farming and change the systems by making industrial agriculture internalize the true costs of its production; instead,  genetically alter the animals to withstand extreme confinement and diseases that proliferate therein.  Wild salmon runs dying out?  Don’t remove the dams and stop the pollution, farm them and genetically re-engineer them to grow faster in crowded, polluted ponds.

So where does that leave us?  Well, first, we must recognize and address the underlying philosophy and economy that drives and controls technological innovation. An order of magnitude in change is required; we must institute a paradigm-shift to a system of governance and life that is based on coexistence with and benefit to natural systems: An earth-centered system.  As Thomas Berry explains in The Dream of Earth, we must move from the technological age to the ecological age.  We must begin treating ourselves and the natural world as part of an interconnected web; stop thinking in straight lines and start thinking in circles.  “Progress” must include the natural as well as the human world, encouraging mutually enhancing human-earth relationships.  Human technologies should function in an integral relationship with earth technologies, not in a despotic manner.  Nature, over hundreds of millions of years and through an infinite number of experiments, worked out ecosystems that were already flourishing abundantly when we came to exist.  How can technological innovation help us determine how we can best be present in this context?  Modern society must treat life and the natural world as the spiritual force it is.  There must be a mystique of rivers if we are ever going to restore the purity of our rivers.  This is not a new idea, it is actually the oldest.  Is this an idealized vision? Perhaps, but it’s a considerably less naive world vision that that which claims we can sustain our current industrial system.

Can technological innovation help us get there?  If it changes the course current path we’re going down, if it helps stop the bleeding.  If it breaks away from being driven by corporate profits, and instead helps spread knowledge, wisdom, and awareness.  If it helps us flesh out and establish an earth-centered system to replace the current oppressive paradigm.  We must evolve our technological systems so that they are democratic and responsive to us, that we are responsible for them, and so that they comport with nature and with life forms on the earth.  We can dust off the old ways and make them the new again, making them more seductive and more logical than our current destructive ways. Only with these changes will technological innovation properly serve the planet and enhance, as well as extend, a meaningful human experience.

___________________

George A. Kimbrell is a staff attorney for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety (CFS) and its parent organization International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), based in San Francisco, California.  He practices environmental and administrative law with a focus on legal and policy issues related to new and emerging technologies.  For ICTA, he works on matters involving nanotechnology, biotechnology and climate change technologies.  For CFS, he covers genetically engineered food and crops, organic standards, factory farming and aquaculture.

Mr. Kimbrell received his J.D. magna cum laude from Lewis and Clark Law School and has a B.A. from the College of William and Mary.  Prior to joining ICTA and CFS, he completed a clerkship on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

I do not here officially represent my organizations or clients.  The views discussed herein owe much to the ideas and writings of others.  For more detailed discussion of many of these issues, please see, inter alia, Andrew Kimbrell, Salmon Economics (and other lessons), Twenty-Third Annual E.F. Schumacher Lectures, Stockbridge, Mass. (Oct 2003).

By Richard Worthington, Loka Institute

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

My first scholarly engagement with environmental politics was an honor’s thesis written while I was an undergraduate at Berkeley in the early 1970s.  Back then, the term “environmentalist” was frequently deployed to profile someone held to be a naïve, irresponsible and possibly dangerous enemy of the American Way of Life.

The simple fact, however, is that concerns about environmental decay and support for environmental improvement have been consistently voiced by most Americans since the 1970s.  The strategy of branding environmentalists as extremists was therefore eroded by the enduring reality that most people who are active in this arena were and are ordinary folks who are confronted by extraordinary problems.

Seeing that they could not beat environmental sentiments, by the 1990s many industry leaders decided to embrace them.  Their opponents quickly invented terms such as  “greenwash” in order to frame industry’s new environmentalism as a cynical ploy, but in terms of actual outcomes, the polluters clearly won.  More than moving toward ecological balance, the Clinton-Gore years were notable for privatization, deregulation, and revving up industrial growth and consumption.  This despite the publication of Al Gore’s eloquent and even radical Earth in the Balance only a few months before his election as Vice-President. The Bush years only amplified the familiar refrain of growth and conquest (of nature and other countries).

The problem for growth-first  advocates is that ecological disruption and its consequences won’t go away.  Material circumstances thus continue to drive broad-based environmental concern, while the most powerful interests in global society have only begun to talk about action to address the imbalance between the technosphere and the ecosphere.  I write this in Copenhagen, where the largest environmental convention in history is attempting to grapple with the real prospect that the quality of life everywhere is imperiled by a human-induced alteration of the climate.  Practically no one here is questioning the legitimacy of climate concerns, and just about everyone is hailing a new green economy, yet expectations of significant progress toward this goal are low.

What’s nanotechnology got to do with this?  As it turns out, nanotech is central in a discourse where a third framing of “environment” and “ecology” has evolved.  In this version, the system of science-driven innovation that is now at the center of global economic growth strategies is itself considered an ecosystem, even though plants, animals (other than humans) and the other elements normally associated with the term “ecology” are nowhere to be found.

I first encountered this move to conflate new technology and ecology during the 1980s in the works of conservative political economist George Gilder.  Gilder was enthralled with digital information technology, which he credited with delivering “a billion Asians” from penury (in “Telecosm:  The Bandwidth Revolution”, Forbes ASAP, 1994, p. 117).   Perhaps more noteworthy was Gilder’s rhetorical move to describe the digital world in ecological terms.

“More ecosystem than machine, cyberspace is a bioelectronic environment that is literally universal:  It exists everywhere there are telephone wires, coaxial cables, fiber-optic lines or electromagnetic waves.  This environment is ‘inhabited’ by knowledge…existing in electronic form” (Magna Carta for the Knowledge Age, 1994, prepared for the Progress and Freedom Foundation).

Nano has now replaced digital in this genre.  Here’s how no less a figure than Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor for Nanotechnology to the United States National Science Foundation, describes the system for governing nanotechnology:

“IRGC (International Risk Governance Council) views the stakeholder groups involved [in nanogovernance] as operating within a dynamic ecosystem of interlocking dependencies.  The task is therefore to create an adaptive, collaborative environment enabling different parties to play their part in the ecosystem” (ISO Focus, “Guest View“, April 2007, p.6).

Here, a distinctively human artifice is represented as a natural system.

The narrative of ecology and society that now includes nanotech thus goes like this:  at the dawn of the contemporary environmental movement, industry leaders equated environmentalism with extremism in an attempt to undermine its legitimacy.  After this tactic had run its course, they proclaimed their own environmental concern in order to obfuscate a largely unchanged agenda of industrial growth at all costs.  Now, the system of technology-driven economic growth that currently has nanotechnology as its poster child is depicted to actually be an ecosystem.

People and nature, of course, are inextricably interdependent, so there is a sound basis for including human society in a concept of ecology.  But if the distinction between non-human nature and the product of human endeavors is erased from the idea of ecology, our ability to distinguish a manufactured human society from one in which people and nature exist in a dynamic balance will be undermined.  Should it come to pass, this scenario could well make us wish for the good old days when “environmentalist” was an epithet.

___________________________

Rick Worthington is involved in nanotechnology issues by way of volunteer collaborations at  the Loka Institute, whose mission is “Making research, science and technology responsive to democratically-decided social and environmental concerns” (for a summary of and links to Loka’s involvement in nanotech, visit http://www.loka.org/FedNanoPolicy.html).  He is also Professor of Politics and chairs the Program in Public Policy Analysis at Pomona College in Claremont, California.

Rick has written extensively on science, technology and the environment (including in a book, Rethinking Globalization:  Production, Politics, Actions, Peter Lang Publishing, 2000), and currently is U.S. Coordinator of World Wide Views on Global Warming.  WWViews is the first-ever global citizen policy consultation, held September 26, 2009.  In it, nearly 4,000 citizens in 38 countries studied and debated the issues now on the table in Copenhagen (December 7 – 18, 2009) at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (www.wwviews.org).

By Georgia Miller, Friends of the Earth Australia

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

The promise that a given new technology will deliver environmentally benign electricity too cheap to meter, end hunger and poverty, or cure disease is very seductive. That is why the claims are made with many emerging technologies – nuclear power, biotechnology and nanotechnology, to name a few.

However history shows that such optimistic predictions are never achieved in reality. In addition to benefits, new technologies come with social, economic and environmental costs, and sometimes significant political implications.

Still, when it comes to public communication or policy making about nanotechnology, we’re often presented with the limited notion of weighing up predicted ‘benefits’ versus ‘risks’ (e.g. see here, here or here).

This framing ignores the broader costs and transformative potential of new technologies. It suggests that if we can only make nanotechnology ‘safe’, its development will necessarily deliver wealth, health, social opportunities and even environmental gains.

Ensuring technology safety is clearly very important. But simply assuming that ‘safe’ technology will deliver nothing but benefits, and that these benefits will be available to everyone, is – to put it mildly – quite optimistic.

To evaluate whether or not new technologies will help or hinder efforts to address the great ecological and social challenges of our time, we need to dig a little deeper.

The first generation of nano-products on the market attests to the primacy of the profit motive in guiding nanotechnology development, rather than a quest for environmental or social utility. A quick look at the Wilson Center’s Consumer Products Inventory reveals wrinkle-disguising cosmetics, meal-replacement diet milkshakes, stain-repellent ties and high performance golf clubs.

The huge proportion of the United States government’s nanotechnology research and development budget devoted to military applications – nearly a quarter in the 2010 budget – is also as concerning as it is revealing.

But let’s just agree to take a brief flight of fancy and imagine that governments, with public funding, did want to prioritise development of environmentally and socially useful technologies.

A brief survey of the challenges confronting our 21^st century world highlights why such a decision may be warranted.

We are reaching, if not exceeding, our planet’s ecological limits. Climate change is not the only problem – water shortages, loss of arable land, pollution, deforestation, desertification and mass species extinction all point to a looming ecological crisis.

We also face an often unacknowledged justice crisis. Last year’s unprecedented global food shortages, where food riots occurred in many countries, was a stark reminder than hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest citizens struggle to meet their most basic daily needs.

How do we have a mature conversation about the role of technologies in 21^st century innovation when we’re literally at make-or-break time ecologically, and the majority world is demanding an end to gross inequity?

First of all, we’d have to go beyond a superficial tally of ‘benefits’ versus ‘risks’ of new technologies, to ask some more thoughtful and critical questions. These include questions about whether technology – and what sort of technology – could help extract us from the mess we’re in, and whether technology – and what sort of technology – will dig us further in. They would also evaluate the extent to which a technology’s actual (rather than ideal) applications will help or hinder, and the extent to which helpful applications will be accessible to those who need them. Importantly, we’d also ask how decision making about technology could be opened up to those affected – wider publics.

We would have to recognise that some of the problems we face have social or economic causes to which technological fixes are not suited. In some instances greater technical capacity – or greater accessibility of a capacity that exists elsewhere – could certainly make a useful contribution. But in other instances the adoption of new technologies could have a damaging effect.

The last forty years was a period of significant technological innovation in which microelectronics, information technologies, medical treatments, telecommunications and biotechnologies were developed, and mass air travel expanded dramatically. Technologies transformed economies, political structures and daily life for both better and worse.

In this time of rapid technological development, there were winners, losers and a new scale of environmental cost. The per capita ecological footprint of many high income countries grew. The gap between the global rich and the global poor widened.

This is not to imply that technological innovation has been the only factor driving increasing resource use and widening inequities – clearly it hasn’t; a range of social, economic and political factors are relevant. But equally clearly, rapid technological innovation has not been the answer to our global problems.

Our experience demonstrates that technological innovation will not in itself enable us to live within our means – no amount of technology delivered efficiency will enable endless economic growth on a finite planet. Nor will technology reduce the inequities that divide rich and poor – this requires social, economic and political change.

Our experience also teaches us that environmentally or socially promising technologies will not necessarily be adopted, especially if they challenge the status quo. The government of Australia, one of the sunniest countries on earth, has pledged billions of dollars to cushion the coal industry from the effects of a proposed carbon trading system, while offering scant support to the fledgling solar energy sector.

There is a tendency to focus on the potential of new technologies to address our most pressing problems, rather than to seek better deployment of existing technologies, better design of existing systems, or changes in production and consumption. This reflects a preference to avoid systemic change. It also reflects an unfounded optimism that the ‘solution’ lies just over the horizon.

But sometimes ensuring better deployment of existing technologies is the most effective way to deal with a problem. Just as wider accessibility of existing drugs and medical treatments could prevent a huge number of deaths world-wide, improving urban storm water harvesting and re-use, housing insulation and mass transit public transport could go a long way to reducing our ecological footprint – potentially at a lower cost and at lower risk than mooted high tech options.

If evaluating the implementation or performance failures of previous technologies reveals economic or social obstacles or constraints, it’s probably these factors that warrant our attention. There is no reason to believe they will magically disappear once new technologies arrive.

Technological choices have a key part to play in achieving urgently needed environmental and social change. Making the best choices that we can has never been so important. This requires us to look beyond safety to ask bigger questions about new technologies. We must ask what is required to achieve our most critical social and environmental objectives, and be willing to accept that new technology is not always the answer. We must also ask what is required to ensure that those most affected by the outcomes of technology decision making have a voice in that decision making process.

________________________

Georgia Miller coordinates Friends of the Earth Australia’s Nanotechnology Project. Friends of the Earth is an environment and social justice NGO which has national member groups in 77 countries. Georgia is particularly interested in supporting greater public involvement in science policy development and decision making, and in making technology more responsive to social and environmental needs.

More information about FoEA’s work on nanotechnology can be found at: http://nano.foe.org.au

How do you describe nanotechnology in 24 seconds, or even in 7 words?  Tough challenge, but Professor Wade Adams, Director of the Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science & Technology at Rice University rose to it with aplomb at this year’s Ig Nobel awards.

Here’s the transcript of the achievement, from last week’s Science Friday:

Mr. ABRAHAMS: The first 24/7 lecture will be delivered by Wade Adams, director of the Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science & Technology at Rice University. His topic: nanotechnology. First, a complete technical description in 24 seconds. On your mark, get set, go.

Dr. WADE ADAMS (Director, Richard E. Smalley Institute for Nanoscale Science & Technology, Rice University): $2.7 trillion industry by 2015 solutions to the top 10 problems facing humanity in the next 50 years: gold nanoshells, cancer therapy, buckyballs, MRI contrast enhancers, graphene ribbons, oil recovery, carbon nanotubes, ballistic conducting grid wire, nanoelectronics, smaller, faster, cheaper, nanophotonics sensors, nanomembranes, water filtration, ultra-lightweight, strong nanocomposites, the energy-efficient SUVs. Rick Smalley’s challenge…

(Soundbite of whistle)

Dr. ADAMS: …be a scientist, save the world.

Mr. ABRAHAMS: And now, a clear summary that anyone can understand in seven words. On your mark, get set, go.

Dr. ADAMS: Nanotechnology: Making small stuff do big things.

Pretty impressive!

Thanks to Kristen Kulinowski for the twitter heads-up on this landmark achievement.  Never again will I have an excuse for not answering the dreaded  “so what is nanotechnology?” question in a single breath

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/11/30/nanotechnology-in-24-seconds7-words-courtesy-of-wade-adams-and-the-ig-nobels/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2009/11/12/looking-for-the-nanotechnology-in-your-life-theres-an-app-for-that/ http://2020science.org/2009/11/12/looking-for-the-nanotechnology-in-your-life-theres-an-app-for-that/#comments Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:00:07 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2379

Okay so it’s more of a list of nanotech-enabled products than a lifestyle tool, but at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, we’ve just released an iPhone version of our surprisingly successful web-based nanotech Consumer Products Inventory.

With findNano, it’s a piece of cake to search or browse through the 1000+ manufacturer-identified nanotechnology-enabled products in the inventory, directly from an iPhone or iPod Touch.  And the really cool part – if you come across something that isn’t in the inventory that you think should be, you can simply take a photo and email it to us directly from the app.  And if it passes muster, we’ll add it to the list.

The best way to discover what findNano is all about is probably to download it and take it for a spin (it’s free).  But here’s a quick overview for the curious:

The idea behind findNano is simply to give users a sense of where consumer product manufacturers are claiming to use nanotechnology, and how they are using it.  The app relies entirely on manufacturer claims (although claims that are too outlandish are ignored – Nano Ghiacciato didn’t make the cut for instance!), which means that listed products are only allegedly nanotech based – they have not been independently tested.  It also means that there are probably many products out there that are nanotech-enabled that haven’t been included, simply because manufacturers have been backward in being forward about the technology they are using.

That said, findNano does provide some insight into how nanotechnology is appearing in products that people are buying and using – something the US Environmental Protection Agency recognized when they used the web-based version to estimate the the range of engineered nanomaterials being produced (Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program Interim Report, January 2009. Downloadable from here.)

In a nutshell, findNano allows you to do three things from your iPhone (or iPod Touch) – browse nanotech-enabled products, search for particular products, or submit products for possible inclusion in the inventory.

Selecting “Browse Products” allows you to scan through all 1000+ products currently listed, or to browse products by category, country or company.

The “Search” function allows products with specific terms in their names to be found – either from the whole inventory, or within specific categories.

“Submit a Product” is perhaps the most innovative part of the app, and allows users to take a snap of new nanotech-enabled products they stumble across, and send it to the Product on Emerging Technologies for possible inclusion in the inventory.  Nanotech product crowd-sourcing, using a nanotech-enabled product! (Yes, the iPhone does what it does because several of its components are engineered at the nanoscale).

How useful users find findNano remains to be seen.  But even if it’s just searching for the most bizarre use of nanotechnology that’s hit the streets so far, the app’s certainly a lot of fun to play around with.

And my contender for the most bizarre use so far?  Quite possibly The Handler.  What’s yours?

________________________

For more information on the Consumer Products Inventory, check out the web-based version at www.nanotechproject.org/consumer

More information on the findNano iPhone app can be found at http://nanotechproject.org/iphone

A new paper published on-line today in Nature Nanotechnology hints that some nanoparticles could cause damage to cells on the other side of normally tight barriers – such as the blood brain barrier or the placenta – without actually crossing the barriers.  It’s a study that could raise concerns over the safe  medical use of nanoparticles, at a time when the first human trials of “smart nanoparticle” therapeutics are being discussed.

Using an artificial system designed to investigate cellular barriers, Gevdeep Bhaba and co-authors show that high concentrations of Cobalt-Chromium alloy nanoparticles on one side of a tightly meshed layer of cells can cause measurable DNA damage to cells on the other side.  And they seem to do this without actually crossing the cellular barrier.

I’m not sure how much attention this paper will get, but given its apparent relevance to harm occurring across the placental barrier, there could be some pickup beyond the usual scientific outlets.  And interestingly, it is being published at the same time as the first human trials for a “smart nanoparticle” based cancer therapy are being reported – that’s a juxtaposition that could drive a substantial amount of interest in the research.

As I was asked to comment on it prior to its release, I thought it worth jotting some notes down here on the work, just in case anyone’s interested (I’ll be in the thick of a workshop on emerging technologies and emerging economies when the paper is published on-line, so this post is being written some time ahead of it going live).

In brief, the paper (Nanoparticles can cause DNA damage across a cellular barrier, by Gevdeep Bhaba et al., Nature Nanotechnology. DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2009.313) describes a set of experiments carried out using an artificially grown layer of cells on a porous support.  The cells (BeWo cells for the interested, derived from a human trophoblast choriocarcinoma cell line) were grown as a multi-layered barrier, to simulate tight barriers in the body like the placental barrier.  On one side of this layer of cells were placed human fibroblast cells.  On the other side, Cobalt-Chromium alloy particles (CoCr particles) were placed.  Following introduction of the particles, the fibroblasts were checked for DNA damage using an alkaline comet assay.

Schematic of the system used by Bhabra and colleagues to investigate the potential for CoCr particles to cause DNA damage across tight cellular barriers (Nature Nanotechnology, DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2009.313)

As you would expect in a good study, DNA damage was measured under a number of conditions, to identify what was going on.  Nanometer-scale and larger CoCr particles were used to see whether size was important.  Cobalt and Chromium ions were also used, to see whether the presence of dissolved metals was significant.  Particles were also introduced directly to the fibroblasts, to see what happened in the absence of the cellular barrier.  In addition, the concentration of Cobalt and Chromium was measured below the cellular barrier to see how much stuff (if any) got through.  And the barrier cells were treated with agents designed to block different transmission routes for certain substances, to get a handle on whether DNA damage was being caused by stuff penetrating through the barrier, or being generated (and subsequently released) from within the barrier.

The upshot of all this was that the researchers found evidence that placing Cobalt or Chromium one one side of the barrier caused measurable DNA damage in the fibroblasts on the other side, and that the damage seemed to be associated with chemicals generated within the cellular barrier by the metals.  In other words, the combination of CoCr particles and cellular barrier seemed to lead to DNA damage the other side of the barrier, even though the particles didn’t cross it!

The authors of the paper conclude:

We suggest that an evaluation of nanoparticle safety should not rely on whether they fail to gain access to privileged sites.  Instead there should also be an evaluation of their genotoxic potential for both direct and indirect effects to avoid any potential risks to targets on the distal [far] side of cellular barriers.

However, while this is an interesting paper, it wold be dangerous to speculate too far on what its relevance to nanoparticle safety.  When asked to comment briefly on the paper by the Science Media Center in the UK, this is what I wrote:

This is a study that raises an intriguing question – can foreign materials in the body cause harm across barriers like the placenta and the blood-brain barrier without actually crossing the barriers?  Evidence is presented that suggests there is some possibility of this occurring.  But the results should be treated with a high degree of caution until more is known.  In particular:

The effects seen are do not seem to be confined to nanoparticles alone.  There is some evidence that even large particles containing Cobalt and Chromium – the two specific materials studied here – can exert their influence across barriers in the body.

No evidence is presented to suggest that this is a way in which all nanoparticles can cause harm, as opposed to the specific types of nanoparticles tested.

From these results, it is not possible to say whether the observed effects could occur under real-life conditions, or whether harm could be caused at realistic exposure levels.  The concentrations of material used were very high – the equivalent of the placenta in a 9 months pregnant woman being exposed to approximately 4 – 40 grams of material. Whether such high exposures to materials like the ones used will ever occur is questionable.

While the study opens up new avenues of research, and should be of particular interest to scientists developing new nanoparticle-based drugs and medical devices, it is too early to say whether materials in the body – including nanomaterials – are likely to cause damage across normally tight barriers like the placenta.

In other words, a fascinating piece of science that raises the possibility of a novel way in which materials could cause harm, but which sheds little light on the likelihood of this being a significant concern from real products in real people.

The bottom line here is that, while this is a scientifically interesting study, it is far removed from implying that specific types of nanoparticles in the body could actually cause significant harm in this way.  Certainly, it suggests more research is needed in this area – especially as an increasing number of drugs and medical devices are developed that rely on nanoparticles, and as these products enter the human trials phase.  But at the moment, the data do not support nanoparticle-related DNA damage across the placenta (or any other tight biological barrier) as being a probable cause of serious harm.

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/11/05/could-nanoparticles-inflict-harm-across-tight-cellular-barriers/feed/ 9 http://2020science.org/2009/10/14/do-peer-review-journals-need-a-media-code-of-conduct/ http://2020science.org/2009/10/14/do-peer-review-journals-need-a-media-code-of-conduct/#comments Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:40:46 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2317

Since when did peer review journals start to put press hits before published data?

Scientific peer review journals are a cornerstone of modern science – providing an authoritative repository of scientific discovery that researchers and others can examine, test and build upon.  Publication in peer review journals is the primary route by which new science is made available to people, and the “gold standard” against which science coverage in the media is evaluated.

Yet over the past couple of months, I’ve come across two cases where journals were more interested in publicity than publication – releasing information to the media and the public on forthcoming publications before the papers were generally available.  The result is media coverage that cannot be validated against the original research, and a dangerous shift in authority from scientists to journalists and press officers…

This cannot be good for balanced science reporting!

Back in August, the European Respiratory Journal sent out an embargoed press release on a potentially high profile paper associating nanoparticle exposure to seven cases of severe lung disease and two deaths in China.  When the embargo was lifted, the study was covered in the media (including a suite of articles on 2020 Science) – but the paper remained unpublished.

Concerned that this story was being driven by the journal’s press office and journalists, with readers and researchers having no way to check the facts and assess the study for themselves, I contacted the press office.  This is what I said in an email to them:

…I have written about the paper on my blog at http://2020science.org, and have been concerned that the link to the paper is still not live. As well as putting me (and journalists who have also linked to the paper) in an awkward position, it prevents the scientific community from evaluating the paper for themselves.

I will be posting a blog on this apparent disconnect on my blog very shortly. But before I do, I wanted to check whether the ERJ will in fact be posting the paper on-line asap. I also wanted to provide you with the chance to comment on the time delay between the press release and posting the article, before I say something in public.

Unfortunately, I was specifically asked not to quote the reply I got back from the journal.  However, the gist of it was that journalists could access the paper, and the journal would respond more directly to my question… when they had time.

(And believe me, I fully appreciate the irony of not providing the original reply here in a post about not having access to source information!).

The good news in this case is that the journal did respond to my emails and eventually published the paper on-line – but only after pressure had been applied.

Then this morning I received notification of another paper which was preceded by its press release.  Here’s the opening of the Eurekalert press release that was posted by Inderscience Publishers – publishers of the International Journal of Nanotechnology:

Nanotech protection

Current safety equipment may not be adequate for nanoprotection

Writing in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Nanotechnology, Canadian engineers suggest that research is needed into the risks associated with the growing field of nanotechnology manufacture so that appropriate protective equipment can be developed urgently.

Followed by

Dolez and colleagues suggest that as this area of manufacturing grows it would be prudent to develop adequate workplace protection sooner, rather than later. Indeed, those workers most likely to be exposed to nanomaterials will be working in cleaning, bagging and formulation activities as well as surface functionalisation of nanoparticles.

This is a potentially important paper – it questions the adequacy of current safety equipment when working with engineered nanomaterials, and concludes that more work is needed to ensure safe workplaces.

But if you want to know what the authors base their conclusions on, you’ll have to wait – unless you are a journalist that is, in which case you can request a pre-publication copy of the paper.

I emailed the journal this morning to find out when the paper will be available to non-journalists (including scientists and interested members of the public).  The answer?

The issue should be published on 1 December 2009.

In other words, the only information most people will have access to on this study for the next six weeks will come from the journal’s press office, and from science writers!

These aren’t isolated cases.  It seems that, in the push to survive the digital revolution, some peer review journals are putting publicity ahead of integrity – encouraging science reporting that cannot be verified against the source, and preventing readers from assessing the validity of the studies they read about.

At a time when the soundness of science coverage in old and new media is already under scrutiny, surely this type of behavior is tantamount to the scientific community shooting itself in the foot!

Not every journal is guilty of playing the publicity card.  But to prevent the bad players from giving science reporting a bad name, perhaps it’s time for a peer review journal code of conduct that establishes principles of responsible behavior.  Amongst those principles, I would suggest a commitment to the integrity of the scientific process, and an agreement not to put out  media “teasers” ahead of publications.

The alternative is the spectacle of a once-respected tradition dissolving into disrespect, while further compromising the already-tenuous authority of science reporting.

And this cannot be good for science, or the society it aims to serve.

Postscript

I should be clear that I have no beef with embargoed press releases that are sent out ahead of a publication – as long as the respective paper is made generally available at the same time as the embargo is lifted.  This approach – used by some journals – gives journalists the opportunity to digest new research and write informed pieces, without the pressure of being scooped by less thorough colleagues. And in many cases it strengthens the integrity of science reporting.  What is unconscionable in my opinion though is issuing a statement or lifting a press release embargo without publishing the original study.  This can surely only be a cynical move to increase publicity for the journal, rather than disseminating the science.

Twenty years ago, Don Eigler became the first person to manipulate and position individual atoms, making the breakthrough that many consider a pivotal moment in modern nanotechnology.  Unknown to Don and the rest of IBM team though (I assume), they were pipped to the “nano” post a full ten years earlier… by an Italian sparkling wine…

Yes, “Nano Ghiacciato” – a Prosecco sparkling wine from San Pellegrino – was launched on the Italian market in 1979, a full decade before Eigler’s atom-moving experiments – and it’s still available!

The first "nano" product? Kees Brekelmans holding a bottle of "Nano Ghiacciato"

Having received an extensively researched account of “Nano Ghiacciato” from Cornelis  (Kees) Brekelmans this week, I couldn’t resist posting his account of the earliest “nano” product he’s come across – especially given the dual anniversary with Don Eigler’s work.

As Brekelmans notes,

San Pellegrino “Nano” is a white, sparkling wine, “Prosecco,” to be drunk “Ghiaciatto,” i.e. ice cold

It was launched in Italy in 1979, with an advertising campaign featuring the singer Amanda Lear. (scroll to the end of this post to see her in all her “nano” glory!)

In the presentation Kees emailed to me (“Nano – what’s in the name?”), he writes:

As Amanda explains, « nano è l’aperitivo ghiacciato per te » and « nano è il mio aperitivo con te »

“Nano is the iced drink for you” and “nano is the drink I’ll have with you” (a rather loose translation I’m afraid!)

And as she further elaborates,

« Il tuo nuovo aperitivo … grande come te,fresco con tefrizzante naturale, come te »

or “your new appetizer … big as you, naturally sparkling fresh with you, like you” (okay, so it’s a Google translation – my Italian’s a little rusty!).

To cap things off, Kees notes

“Nano Ghiacciato” does not figure in the Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory of the Woodrow Wilson Institute.  And neither does Amanda.

Guess we have some work to do – Italy and Amanda Lear, here we come!

Sadly, unlike Don’s work, “Nano Ghiacciato” isn’t nanotechnology – it’s just a small bottle of wine.

But it did spawn what is quite possibly the first “nano” song.  Amanda, play us out please…

(The video can also be viewed here)

Update 10/13/09:  At Cornelis’ request, I’ve revised his details in the post, and added the name of the presentation he sent through to me (“Nano – what’s in the name?”)

Curious, concerned or just plain confused about nanotechnology?  The new website Nano & Me might be just what you are looking for.

Nano & Me - a new website for everything nanotech

Funded in part by the UK department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and developed by the Responsible Nano Forum, Nano & Me is aimed at providing clear and balanced information on an emerging technology more usually associated with hype and speculation.  I’ve been aware of the pending website for some time, but it’s only recently that I’ve had the chance to test-drive it.  And I must confess, I am impressed – Nano & Me is quite possibly the best one-stop-shop for down to earth information on nanotech around.  Whether you simply heard about nanotech on the radio and want to know more, were wondering why your tennis racquet was nanotech-enabled, or are scratching your head over the latest nanotechnology claims and counter-claims, there’s something here for you…

There’s been tremendous investment in nanotechnology over the past ten years or so – for instance, in 2008 a whopping $18 billion was invested in nanotech R&D by governments businesses and others around the world according to Lux Research. Not surprisingly, a certain level of “marketing” has accompanied this investment—we’re told nanotechnology will transform our lives, solve global problems, stimulate economies and create jobs.  On the flip side, there are plenty of groups—researchers even—warning that the new technology could cause more problems than it solves if we don’t get our act together.

So you’ve heard that nanotech is the next big thing, that it is important, that it could be dangerous, what’s your next step—where can you get an honest perspective that cuts through the hype and tells you want you need to know?

Surprisingly, your options are remarkably limited.  You could pick up a popular book on nanotechnology – Nanotechnology for Dummies say, or Richard Jones’ Soft Machines.  But these are not for the faint hearted—you need to be pretty dedicated to learning about the science of the small to get through them.  Alternatively, you could check out the various websites dedicated to nanotech—the US National Nanotechnology Initiative website for instance, or Nanotechnology Now.  But most of these sources present nanotechnology in a certain light —even if it’s simply a desire to tell you how great nanotech is.  And to be honest, most of them are impenetrable unless you know exactly what you’re looking for.

The sad fact is that if you have a passing interest in nanotechnology, you don’t have an advanced degree in science or technology, and you have no stomach for hype, your options are limited.

It’s this void that Nano & Me attempts to fill.

Nano & Me was established through funding from the UK Government and the Esme Fairbairn Foundation to be an information hub for nanotechnology, and a focus of debate for anyone interested in its development, its use and its implications.  Quoting from the website,

“Nanoandme.org is a website for anyone who wants to know more about nanotechnology. You might have heard something on the news you wanted to check out, or be a small business thinking about using a nanomaterial and want to know about regulation or safety issues. You could be a school child needing information for a project or just be curious to know what on earth it is.”

On opening the website, you are faced with an attractive scene of urban and rural bliss, dominated by a central signpost directing you to different areas on the site.  Despite its seeming simplicity, this opening screen is deceptively sophisticated.

First off—and admittedly this may be a cultural thing—it draws you into the site.  This looks like a welcoming and comfortable space to find out about nanotech in.

Secondly, the central signpost directs users to where they would like to go in an intuitively clear way—whether you are interested in what nanotech is, where it’s being used, safety issues, regulation, or social and ethical issues.

But here’s the clever bit—pass your cursor over the hospital, the cosmetics commercial, the flowers, and a hundred and one other parts of the opening screen, and you are provided with access to more information on how nanotechnology relates to these areas.  Here’s an example:  Place the cursor on the bottle of sunscreen and you get:

“High factor nano sunscreens are transparent, not white and gloopy.”

along with a link to more information.  Or select the river, and a bubble appears telling you that when it comes to water treatment,

“nanoparticles bind with pollutants in contaminated water and help to clean it up.”

I like this interface.  It’s attractive.  It’s engaging.  And it provides a fast and intuitive portal to more information in areas that users are likely to be interested in.

Clicking on the signpost takes users to one of six areas on the website: What is nano? Nano products;  Nano safety; Social & ethical; Regulation; and The nano debate.  Each area follows a similar format:  The right side of the page list the various topics covered, “chapter-style,” while the center of the page provides clear and concise information on the current topic.  The left of the page provides links to more in-depth information on the topic selected.  While surrounding the main content are links to other related resources, and relevant nano-factoids.

To give you a feel for how this works, this is a screenshot of the “Nano products” page:

Nano and Me products page

Down the right hand side of the page are the chapters—twelve areas where nanotechnology is making a difference to the products we use.  Clicking on one – Environment, say—brings up basic information on how nanotechnology is being used in that area, and what the pros and cons are.

Nano and Me environmental products page

To the left of the screen are links to further information, including future directions of nanotechnology uses in the environment, and safety issues.  While to the right is a link to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory—a free web-based inventory of consumer products allegedly based on nanotechnology.

While the content changes according to which area of the website is being viewed, the format is similar—starting off with simple information, but allowing viewers to delve deeper into it if they want.  This is an approach that seems to work well.  You don’t feel overwhelmed with information.  But you are given the option of finding out more if you want.

Rather than go through each section, it’s far better if I leave you to explore the website yourself.  I think you will be pleasantly surprised at both how easy it is to navigate, and how relevant the information is—whether you are a complete nano-novice, or have been interested in the field for some time.

This is an impressive website from a number of angles.  For one, it seems to avoid the trap of either hyping up nanotechnology’s promise, or placing undue focus on possible risks.  Rather, it provides an honest perspective of where we’re going with this, what the possibilities are, and where the speed bumps might be.  But it also does all of this in an incredibly intuitive way.  I can imagine young kids having no problem using the site and learning something.  At the same time—and this is really smart of the website designers—Nano & Me is sophisticated enough to appeal to adults.  And not only those with a passing interest in nanotech—I have a sneaking suspicion this will find its way onto the bookmark list of policy makers, researchers and non-government organizations engaged in nanotech as well!

The bottom line here is that nanotechnology isn’t the most significant thing happening in the world, but it is important—and more and more people are trying to work out what on earth it’s all about and what it means to them.  Nano & Me fills a vital gap here.  For anyone who struggles with science and technology, it’s the perfect way of learning about nanotechnology without being intimidated.  But it also has enough depth to satisfy anyone faced with making tough decisions on nanotech—from whether to buy the latest nano-cosmetic to whether to regulate the next nano-material.

And—importantly—it provides a forum for anyone – anyone – to get involved with the nano debate.  If you are excited, concerned, or just plain confused about nanotech—this is the place for you to make your voice heard.

The Nano & Me website is a work in progress, and users are encouraged to chip in their thoughts on where it can be improved.  But even so, it’s pretty slick.  It may not be perfect.  But at this point, it’s the best all-round go-to place for information on nanotechnology.

My recommendation: Use it!

Okay, so I’ve been letting work interfere with my blogging life over the past few weeks, which has led to an interminable series of impenetrable blogs on nanotechnology.  I promise I’ll try and lighten up over the next few weeks (although I’m afraid there are still a couple of nano blogs to come over the next week or so).

However, since I have been on a bit of a nanotech roll, I thought I would slip in this additional short blog about a couple of things that metaphorically whacked me over the head on recent travels – before they fade into the mists of my middle aged brain.

Nanotechnology as a brand

The first comes from Graeme Hodge – a law professor at Monash University in Australia.  Or to be more specific, something he said at a recent meeting on nanotech regulation in London.  In amidst the discussions around similarities between US and European approaches to regulating nanotechnologies (thrilling stuff – don’t you wish you were there?), Graeme made what I thought was a profound observation: Nanotechnology is a brand.

Now of course nanotechnology is associated with all sorts of very concrete advances in working with matter at a nanometer-scale, and is backed up with some rather cool science.  But it’s always been hard to pin down exactly what it is, and why people get so excited about it.  And it’s been even harder to work out what the implications of this new technology are, and how to handle them.

However thinking of nanotech as a brand rather than a technology per se might help resolve many of the problems we’ve been grappling with in making sense of the technology.  Brands are usually based on something tangible, but also incorporate loyalties, perceptions, emotions etc. that add value to them in ways that are compelling while not quite tangible.

This sounds very much like nanotechnology – a grand idea that has stimulated new research funding, motivated renewed interest in science and technology and led to innovations that go beyond the sum of their contributing parts.  Sure there’s some really interesting stuff going on at the nanoscale.  But the real value here seems to reside the power of the idea – the brand of nanotechnology.

On the flip side, if nanotechnology is as much a brand as a technology, talking about possible health and environmental impacts can get a little complex. The intangible values that branding brings to a product cannot be assessed in toxicology studies, or measured in the environment.  Perhaps this is why discussions of nanotechnology safety have floundered so often.

Maybe reframing nanotechnology as a brand will help unravel some of the knots we’ve got ourselves into over the technology, and enable faster progress on developing responsible products based on nanoscale engineering.  I’m looking forward to hearing more on the idea from Graeme in the future.

Stimulating stakeholder dialogue through drama

I had the good fortune to spend this last week at the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) annual meeting.  Always a stimulating conference, I was particularly struck by a reading of a short play.

Anyone with a passing interest in drama will know that actors and plays can enable a powerful and very public airing of thoughts and ideas that people often find hard to share.  I’ve rarely seen this used to great effect in bringing stakeholders together in grappling with complex science and technology-based issues.  But this particular reading left me wondering whether there is an important role for drama in multi-stakeholder forums addressing the development and implications of nanotechnology.

The reading in question was given by two actors from the Science Museum of Minnesota, and involved a sometimes heated discussion between two sisters on the possible pros and cons of nanotechnology.  Both were passionate about the technology and aware of the current state of the science. But while one was working for a company to ensure the safety of new  products, the other was worried about the use of the technology in the absence of hard safety data.  The result was a compelling and complex dialogue between the siblings that effectively articulated fears and hopes that many stakeholders have, but few are brave enough to share in public.

While watching the reading, it struck me that this merging of science, technology and art is powerful in two ways.  First, it enables strong and valid but opposing opinions to be explored by proxy – stakeholders watching the drama would be likely to end up with a sense what others thought and felt, without the emotional baggage of those (sometimes impassioned) opinions coming directly from colleague sitting across the room from them.  Secondly, it acts as a bridge between people coming from very different perspectives – providing a shared experience and understanding that could form the basis of a fruitful dialogue.

Could drama be used in this way at multi-stakeholder nanotech meetings?  I don’t know, but I am dying to try it out.  It might just break us out of the repetitive circles many of these meetings end up go round in.  Just so you are forewarned therefore – expect to see the odd nanotechnology meeting organized by me with a rather unconventional agenda in the future…

Nano for kids

And finally, I was reminded while traveling back to the airport in San Francisco after the NISE Net meeting that Dragonfly TV has a great series on nanotechnology – accompanied by a really good web resource.  If you’ve got kids or teach kids, this is an excellent source of stuff on nanotechnology – from video clips from the programs to a huge selection of nanotech resources.  And if you’re not a kid?  I highly recommend you close the door, turn down the sound and browse the sight while no-one’s looking.  But be warned – it’s addictive!

Addendum:  After playing around some more with the Dragonfly TV website, I just had to add this link.  Regulators, NGO’s industry folk and others out there – want a mature perspective on nano-labeling?  Check out these comments… from kids!

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/09/18/enough-with-the-nano-already/feed/ 3 http://2020science.org/2009/09/14/nanotechnology-safety-ten-useful-resources/ http://2020science.org/2009/09/14/nanotechnology-safety-ten-useful-resources/#comments Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:31:10 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2192

Where’s the best place to look for down to earth information on nanotechnology safety?  Surprisingly, given how much time I spend speaking and writing about the subject, I don’t think I have ever sat down and compiled such a list.  But while preparing for this year’s annual meeting of the Nanotechnology Informal Science Education Network (NISE Net) (surely the coolest nanotech meeting around by the way!) it struck me that such a list might actually be useful.

So here’s my first cut at some places you might want to look if you are interested in nanotech safety.

It’s by no means exhaustive, and it was compiled primarily to support my talk at the NISE Net annual meeting this week.  But it might be of some use – especially if you are interested in the subject, but don’t know where to start.

In putting the list together, I’ve tried to focus on papers and websites that are informative and trustworthy (in my opinion), that you don’t need a PhD in nanotoxicology to get something out of, and that are freely available. In each case, I have tried to provide some idea of what each resource covers, and who might find it useful.

There are bags more good resources out there – this is just a start.  But hopefully, it’s a useful one.

Nano & Me

Nano & Me

What is it? A website targeted at providing readers with clear and accessible information on nanotechnology.  Created by the UK-based Responsible Nano Forum and the Together Agency, and supported by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), it covers everything from what nanotech is, to where it’s being used.  The website’s coverage of safety issues is simple, clear and balanced.

Who should use it? Anyone who wants to know more about nanotechnology, but especially newbie’s to the subject.  No science required.

What I like about it: A slick website that puts the information you are looking for at your fingertips, without being condescending or confusing.  Highly recommended.

Link: http://www.nanoandme.org

Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties

Royal Society

What is it? An influential 2004 review of the opportunities and challenges of nanotechnology, from the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Chapter 5 provides an excellent overview of the potential risks presented by some products of nanotechnology, and is still relevant five years on.

Who should read it? The report was written for the UK government, but you don’t need a degree in science to understand it.  A slightly meatier read than the Nano & Me website.

What I like about it: Informed, authoritative, relevant and readable.

Link: http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm

Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnology (SCENIHR)

SCENIHR

What is it? A detailed technical report on the current state of the science on nanotechnology safety from SCENIHR – the European Directorate General for Health and Consumers Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

Who should read it? This is a technical document, and will probably be more soporific than stimulating to anyone not steeped in nanotechnology safety research and policy.  But if you can get over this barrier, it contains a wealth of information.  There is also a lay version of the report available online though, that is well worth checking out.

What I like about it: Its depth and relevance.

Link: http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_023.pdf [PDF, 500 KB]

Nanotoxicology:  An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.

Oberdörster, Oberdörster and Oberdörster,

What is it? A review paper on “nanotoxicology” written in 2005 by the father, daughter and son team of Günter, Eva and Jan Oberdörster.

Who should read it? Researchers, regulators, decision makers and anyone else interested in nanoparticle toxicity.  This is an academic review paper, so you probably wouldn’t want to read it if you only had a passing interest in nanotechnology safety.  But for anyone who isn’t scared of a bit of science, it provides an excellent review of the field that is still relevant four years on.

What I like about it: Günter Oberdörster is one of the foremost authorities on nanoparticle toxicity, and this paper expertly sets out the important questions surrounding nanoparticle toxicology.  Highly recommended reading.

Link: http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/7339/abstract.html

Nanoparticles, human health hazard and regulation

Seaton et al.

What is it? A recent review paper by Anthony Seaton, Lang Tran, Rob Aitken and Ken Donaldson that provides a unique and highly informative overview of nanoparticle safety from the perspective of the workplace.

Who should read it? Anyone trying to make sense of the possible risks presented by engineered nanoparticles, and how to avoid them.

What I like about it: Well-presented arguments that frame engineered/manufactured nanoparticle risks in the context of what is already known, and what still needs to be known.

Link: http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/31/rsif.2009.0252.focus.full

Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An information exchange with NIOSH

Approaches to Safety Nanotechnology

What is it? A compendium of information on nanotechnology safety in the workplace, from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Who should read it? Anyone responsible workplace safety. The report is also a mine of information for readers of all backgrounds who are interested in the safety of engineered nanomaterials.

What I like about it: A comprehensive and periodically updated evaluation of the state of the science on nanomaterial safety, from one of the world’s foremost workplace safety research organizations.

Link: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/safenano/

National Nanotechnology Initiative website

National Nanotechnology Initiative

What is it? The official website of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  The website includes a section on environmental, safety and health aspects of nanotechnology.

Who should read it? Anyone interested in the US government’s take on nanotechnology safety.

What I like about it: It’s a window into what the US government – one of the leading funders of nanotechnology research and development – are doing in this area.

Link: http://www.nano.gov/html/society/EHS.html

International Council On Nanotechnology website

ICON

What is it? A multi-stakeholder organization set up by the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University.  For info. on nanotechnology safety, check out the backgrounders, the news feed (also on Twitter) and the ICON blog.

Who should use it? The ICON backgrounders, blog and news feed are relevant to anyone interested in the latest developments in nanotech safety.

What I like about it: Comprehensive news on nanotechnology safety, and background papers that explain complex science in a simple way.

Link: http://icon.rice.edu/

SAFENANO website

SAFENANO

What is it? An information resource on nanotechnology safety, from the UK-based Institute for Occupational Medicine.  A great source of news, analysis and opinions.

Who should use it? Anyone interested in the latest on nanotechnology safety, with a focus on the workplace.

What I like about it: Down to earth information.  I also contribute to the SAFENANO blog though, so I might be biased!

Link: http://www.safenano.org/

2020 Science website

2020 Science

What is it? OK so this is a little self-serving, but I write so much about nanotechnology safety that I thought I should include 2020 Science here.  For a list of nanotech safety-related blogs, check these out, or start off with Ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety.

Who should use it? Anyone who wants to find out more about issues around nanotechnology safety.

What I like about it: Mmm, I don’t think I’m the best qualified person to answer that.

Link: http://2020science.org

In restricting myself to ten resources here, I’m sure I have failed to mention many that others would have included.  So if you have a publicly accessible website, paper or other resource on nanotechnology safety you think people would find useful, please do mention it in the comments below.

Update 09/15/09:  Linked screenshots to respective websites

Regulators around the world are currently grappling with how to manage the possible risks associated with first generation nanotechnologies.  But increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based products are coming – will the old regulations still cover these emerging nanotechnologies, or is a re-think in how substances are regulated in order?  These are some rough notes I prepared for a short talk given at Chatham House in the UK, on some of the possible challenges to regulating next generation nanotechnologies.

Nanotechnology is oft-heralded as the next industrial revolution—something that will transform our lives.  But despite this lofty vision, many of the nano-driven products that consumers and regulators are grappling with at the moment seem rather mundane.  Nanotechnology promoters talk about smart drugs, super-strong materials and science fiction-like invisibility cloaks. Yet for most people, the nanotechnology of the hear-and-now doesn’t extend much beyond sunscreens and stain-resistant pants.

Okay, so this is something of an oversimplification.  But it’s fair to say that regulatory agencies charged with protecting people and the environment  have so far been faced with rather simple and crude nanotech-enabled products.  These early products of engineering matter at the nanoscale have raised plenty of challenges of their own when it comes to ensuring safe use—like how a material that can cause harm because of its size as well as its chemistry should be regulated, or which of the current battery of toxicity tests applied to new substances work for nanomaterials, and which do not.  However, with some creative thinking, a dash of new research and a bit of hand waving, there’s a general (although by no means universal) feeling that existing regulatory frameworks can just about stretch to cover many of the current products of nanotechnology.

But will this always be the case?

What are the chances of future developments in nanotechnology throwing up products that are so unusual, that existing regulatory frameworks are stressed to the point of breaking?

Looking into the emerging technologies crystal ball is always a dangerous business—there’s often a gaping chasm between the seeds of new technologies and those that eventually make it to market.  Development timescales are inevitably longer than predicted.  And more often than not, the most successful new technologies are the ones that sneak under the radar – taking everyone unawares.

Yet even with these limitations, we probably know enough about where nanotechnology is heading to gain some insight into whether existing regulatory frameworks are likely to suffice, or whether, at some point, new approaches need to be considered.

In tackling the question of future regulatory challenges from emerging nanotechnologies, it seems important to ask “what is different about nanotech?”  It’s where new materials and products deviate from established norms that regulatory frameworks will be most likely be stressed. Some emerging products of nanotechnology will quite conceivably look very conventional from a regulatory perspective – these shouldn’t cause too many problems.  But where a new product’s ability to cause harm doesn’t fit with current understanding, alarm bells should start to ring.

In working out what (if anything) is different about nanotech, there is a tendency to fall back on generally accepted definitions of nanotechnology, such as the one crafted by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  But this is a temptation that needs to be resisted.  The NNI definition of nanotechnology is one of expedience, not science. It serves the purpose of stimulating new research and technology innovation in an exciting new area—and does this brilliantly.  But it doesn’t clearly define a set of products and processes that have common and specific safety issues; and it was never intended to.

Instead, it is more helpful to ask how materials engineered at a nanometer scale might behave differently to more conventional materials, and how this might affect their safe use.

In asking “what is different?” it is useful to distinguish between the intrinsic and extrinsic properties of material that has been engineered at the nanoscale.  In essence, to differentiate between what it is, and what it does. Again, this is something of a simplification, but is useful for getting a handle on what might be important here.

Intrinsic properties can be seen as those that associated with the material itself, rather than how it is being used.  For instance, chemical composition leads to intrinsic properties. Size and shape can also underpin some intrinsic properties.

Some materials begin to show novel intrinsic chemical and biological properties when formed as nanometer-sized particles, or are engineered with nanometer-scale structures.  Some materials that are engineered at the nanometer scale can be used in different ways—and get to different places—simply by nature of their small size – this can also be seen as an intrinsic property of the nano-engineered material.

Much of nanotechnology is about tapping into and exploiting these novel, scale-specific intrinsic properties.

From a regulatory perspective, it becomes important to know when these novel intrinsic properties lead to enhanced or new risks to people and the environment—in other words, when does engineering a substance at the nanoscale leads to a deviation in its conventionally established risk profile?  This is very much the challenge presented by the first wave of engineered nanomaterials that regulators are currently facing.

These challenges are not insignificant.  It is clear that the potential impact from nanomaterials can no longer be predicted by chemistry alone, and regulators are having to adjust to a world where physical form and chemical composition potentially determine risk.  But there are a number of organizations that believe that with the right research, and appropriate interpretation of existing regulations, these challenges are not insurmountable—at least for many types of nanomaterials currently being used.

The situation is not so simple though when it comes to addressing the extrinsic properties of engineered nanomaterials.

But what is the nature of these extrinsic properties?

An important characteristic of nanotechnology is the sophistication it brings to working with matter at the level of atoms and molecules.  Advances in tools and understanding are making it possible to precisely engineer the structure of matter at the finest possible level.  As a result, we are beginning to create materials that are unique—not only do they have properties never before available to scientists, engineers and technologists; they also potentially present human health and environmental risks never before encountered.

This sophistication brings within our grasp the ability to build complex “devices” that are mere nanometers in size.  Using atoms and molecules (or small clusters of them) as our building blocks, we can start to engineer matter at a nanometer scale, and in the words of the late Richard Smalley, “build stuff that does stuff.”

At this point, the extrinsic properties of the “stuff” that we build become critical—the functionality associated with a carefully engineered collection of chemicals and components (what it does) becomes more than just the sum of its parts.

It is these extrinsic properties that may end up stressing established regulatory frameworks to breaking point.

At this point, it is worth clarifying what I mean by “device.”  I’m thinking here of something engineered to do something. From this perspective, a lever or a fork is a simple device.  So is a chair.  Or a car.  At the nanoscale, a device is anything that has been engineered to do something that goes beyond the intrinsic properties of its individual components. So a nanoparticle engineered with just the right size and shape to target and penetrate a tumor is a simple device.  So is a material engineered to bend light or transmit electrons in a specific way.

This is intuitive when working with objects at the human scale.  The difference in functionality between a lump of iron, a knife, and a car, is blindingly obvious.  So are the relative risks.  Once engineered, the extrinsic properties of the resulting device become critical in determining how it is used, and how it might cause harm.

This holds true at the nanoscale as much as it does at the human scale.  But here we face a conceptual hurdle that regulators will need to overcome if the products of emerging nanotechnologies are to be handled safely.  There is a natural tendency to assume that, if we can’t see the physical form and complexity of something, its form and complexity don’t matter.  As a consequence, most substance-related regulations—irrespective of the country or region they apply to—focus on the intrinsic properties of materials—which usually means focusing on their chemical composition.

To be fair, this chemistry world-view has been reasonably effective in reducing the impact of materials on people and the environment over the past fifty years or so.  But nanotechnology is increasingly pushing us into a post-chemistry world, where knowing what something is made of is no guarantee that we know how to handle it safely.

So assuming that nanotechnology is going to lead to increasingly sophisticated materials and “devices” that may present significant challenges to existing regulatory frameworks in the future, do we have an idea of what these emerging technologies will look like?

I’m not sure how far we can predict specific products that are likely to hit the market over the next decade or so.  But it should be possible to get a handle on emerging nanotechnology trends that could help inform future regulatory decisions. Here, the key is sophistication – how will our increasing dexterity at the nanoscale change things?

Mike Roco – one of the instigators of the modern nanotechnology movement –famously mapped out a series of nanotechnology “generations” that try to capture this idea of increasing sophistication.  These progress from passive nanostructures through active nanostructures to systems of nanosystems and molecular nanosystems.  However, as J. Clarence Davies notes in his 2009 report Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology,

“Even knowledgeable experts have expressed difficulty distinguishing among Roco’s last three generations and understanding some of the applications he describes.”

An alternative perspective is given by Jim Tour of Rice University, who divides the nano-universe up into passive nanotechnologies, active nanotechnologies and hybrid nanotechnologies.  This is slightly easier to work with than Roco’s “generations,” and makes sense in terms of what increasing sophistication will lead to.

From both of these perspectives, regulators are currently grappling with passive nanotechnologies—simple engineered nanomaterials that may have novel properties which typically do not change according to what is going on around them .  It is the products of these first generation nanotechnologies that are stretching regulations, but apparently not breaking them. However, active nanotechnologies (and beyond) – the nanotechnologies that are just around the corner – are the ones that I suspect are going to require far more thought as to how nano-stuff is regulated in terms of what it does, rather than what it is.

But what exactly is an “active” nanotechnology?

Recently, Vrishali Subramanian at the Georgia Institute of Technology and colleagues took a stab at describing more fully what “active” nanotechnologies are, and came up a scheme that not only makes a lot of sense, but also helps give a feel for what some of the coming next generation nanotechnologies might look like.

Starting from an analysis of the scientific literature between 1995 and 2008, Subramanian came up with five different types of active nanotechnology.  From a regulatory perspective, these are particular useful because they provide a framework for classifying emerging technologies by what they do, rather than what they are.

The five categories she ended up with are:

Remote actuated active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies whose active principle is remotely activated or sensed. In other words, materials or “devices” that are either nano-scale or nano-structured, that change what they do in response to an external signal—a laser pulse say, or a high frequency radio signal.

Environmentally responsive active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies that are sensitive to stimuli like pH, temperature, light, oxidation–reduction, certain chemicals etc.  These are nanomaterials and devices that change what they do according to the environment they find themselves in.  Subramarian gives examples of smart drugs, molecular motors and other devices that respond to changes in their local environment with physical actions.

Miniaturized active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies which are a conceptual scaling down of larger devices and technologies to the nanoscale. This category captures the relatively conventional technologies (including semiconductor electronics and Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems or MEMS – lab-on-a-chip technologies) and how nanotechnology is enabling their construction on an ever-smaller scale.  It also includes the synthesis of new molecules that are designed for a specific purpose—essentially engineering chemistry at the nanoscale.

Hybrid active nanostructures: Nanotechnologies that involve uncommon combinations (biotic–abiotic, organic–inorganic) of materials. These include the fusion of living and non-living systems (biotic-abiotic hybrids) and the interfacing of semiconductors with organic materials.  The resulting technologies not only lead to functional nanoscale devices; they also blur the boundary between biological and non-biological systems.

Transforming active nanostructures: Products of nanotechnology that change irreversibly during some stage of their use or life. These are nanomaterials that undergo a significant change in what they do, and thus might appear as different materials or products, depending on when they are assessed.  Subramanian gives the example of self-healing materials that may undergo a one-off transformation when damaged.

This framework for thinking about emerging nanotechnologies still doesn’t shed too much light on the precise nature of the products regulators are going to be faced with over the coming 5, 10 or 20 years.  But it does underline the shift from nanotechnology products that can be squeezed into an intrinsic properties-based regulatory framework, to those that will almost definitely demand a new way of thinking about potential risks, and how to manage them.

And this brings me back to the question that is central to regulating emerging nanotechnologies effectively – “what is different about nanotech?”  From a risk perspective, there will undoubtedly be new and novel nanotechnologies that do not present unusual regulatory challenges, and it will be important not to fall into the trap of assuming new means different by default.  On the other hand, it does seem that increasingly sophisticated nanotechnologies are going to present a major challenge to regulations that are built on assessing and managing risk associated with what they are made of, rather than what they do.

In the post-chemistry world of nanotechnology, this is a challenge that isn’t going to go away.

End Notes

These notes were prepared for a short talk at the launch of a new report on transatlantic regulation cooperation and nanotechnology, prepared by the London School of Economics, Chatham House, the Environmental Law Institute and the project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.  They are something of a work in progress!

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties is a useful one I feel for tackling emerging nanotechnologies and potential risks.  But the distinctions probably aren’t as black and white as I infer above – either in terms of the materials and products themselves, or the regulations that are and will be used to ensure their safe use.  Likewise, I suspect that there will be some overlap between the five categories of active nanotechnologies (or more accurately, nanostructures) identified by Subramanian.

Some existing regulations do focus on what a product does, rather than what it is—regulations applying to pharmaceuticals in particular would apply here.  But many of these regulations still come down to characterizing and assessing the product in question in terms of its chemical identity.

Many regulators think that existing regulations are sufficiently robust to cover first generation nanotechnologies.  Not everyone agrees with this perspective though.

And finally, there are moves to work out how to interpret regulations so they are responsive to physical form as well as chemistry – in the US, Europe and elsewhere.  Whether these will simply enable regulations to address first generation nanotechnologies effectively, or whether they will extend to emerging technologies, remains to be seen.

There’s an absolute killer of a nanotechnology blog post over on placescope, if you are looking for something to brighten your day.  It appears to be based on some old Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) press releases.  But the process of translation and re-translation has rendered them so wonderfully bizarre as to make any connection with the original piece entirely coincidental.

Some of the resulting turns of phrase are surely destined to become classics in nanotechnology circles.  But there’s plenty for non-nano affectionados to enjoy here as well, such is the genius of the writer.

The original article can be found here.  But rather than leaving you to plough through it on your own, here’s a guided tour of the juicy bits…

First though, a bit of context.  The piece addresses the regulation of engineered nanomaterials by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  It harks back to a program the EPA started a couple of years back to encourage industry to provide information on the nanomaterials they are working on. Key characters in the piece (apart from EPA and TSCA) are J. Clarence (Terry) Davies, one of the original authors of TSCA and an expert on nanotechnology regulation, and David Rejeski, Director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.  And then there’s nanotechnology itself – but more of that later.  (I also make a cameo appearance, but much to my disappointment, I come across as reasonably sane).

All emphases in the quotes below are mine by the way.

The piece starts off on an positive note, referring to the EPA regulation formerly known as the Toxic Substances Control Act:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Medium (EPA) has published in the Federal Manifest its method for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under the Toxic Substances Hold back Act (TSCA).

This is followed by a decisive quote from the “Captain” of PEN, David Rejeski:

According to Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) Captain David Rejeski, “The information obtained under the stewardship program could help government officials develop a cured understanding of the risks and benefits posed by the story materials.

Pondering how to help regulators cure their understanding (hopefully as in developing a better understanding, rather than treating a diseased one), Terry Davies adds:

Starting the stewardship program is a positive step toward padding in some of the news gaps facing the mechanism.

But then he throws caution to the wind, stating:

A sequential chat up advances will bugger off nanomaterials unregulated fitted afar too long, and choose also be less fruitful than if the two efforts proceed in tandem.

Strong stuff Terry!

The piece then moves back to EPA, and tackles the tricky issue of chemical ripeness:

In its announcement of the voluntary program, EPA also notes that it will not change its policy on what constitutes a unripe chemical under TSCA.

Reading this, I realize I have been under a misapprehension for years.  I thought that nanotechnology brought into question what constitutes a new chemical.  No wonder progress has been slow – I should have been talking to the agency about unripe chemicals all this time.  Doh!

The main article ends by summarizing the conclusions of a report published by PEN back in 2007:

The record recommends more than 25 actions that need to be entranced – by EPA, Congress, the President, the Public Nanotechnology Hustle, and the nanotech industry – to improve the blunder of nanotechnologies.

I’m still trying to work out what the Public Nanotechnology Hustle is – whatever it is, it better get on with improving those nanotechnology blunders!

To round things off, the piece includes some background information under the heading “Helter-skelter Nanotechnology,”  including a definition of nanotech that is worthy of the most exalted international standards committees:

Nanotechnology is the ability to measure, walk, manipulate and manufacture things usually between limerick and 100 nanometers. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter; a soul hair is roughly 100,000 nanometers wide.

It then has this to say about David Rejeski, who you will remember is the “Captain” of PEN, as well as director of the Foresight and Governance Project:

David Rejeski directs PEN and for the past four years he has been the Director of the Perspicacity and Governance Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center. He was a Visiting Fellow at Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and an agency representative (from EPA) to the White Dynasty Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) … Earlier emotional to OSTP, he was head of the Future Studies Entity at EPA.

I must confess, I’m a little worried about the sound of this White Dynasty!

And what about the two organizations principally involved in the report I think is being reported on here – the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars?

The Pew Well-wishing Trusts … is driven by the power of discernment to solve today’s most challenging problems.

What a delightfully quaint re-interpretation of Pew’s name, although I’m not sure they would see it that way!  And finally:

The Woodrow Wilson Cosmopolitan Center over the extent of Scholars … is the living, national memorial to President Wilson established by Congress in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center establishes and maintains a noncommittal forum for free, undefended, and informed dialogue. It is a nonpartisan sanatorium, supported by public and private funds and engaged in the reflect on of national and global affairs.

Magical stuff!

Enjoy more from placescope here.