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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And to cap it all, the US Food and Drug Administration released Draft Guidance for Industry on Considering Whether an FDA-Regulated Product Involves the Application of Nanotechnology.

A busy week for nanotechnology regulation!

White House Memo on Nanotechnology Regulation Policy Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Draft Pesticides and Nanomaterials Policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FDA Draft Guidance for Industry on Products and Nanotechnology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The guidance goes on to state

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

FDA is clearly aiming for responsive and adaptive regulation here.

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

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

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

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

_____________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Friends of the Earth Safe Sunscreen Guide recommends:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plausible I suspect, but extremely time consuming and cumbersome.

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

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

Plausible?

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

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

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

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.

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/2011/02/09/the-new-toxicology-of-sophisticated-materials-nanotoxicology-and-beyond/ http://2020science.org/2011/02/09/the-new-toxicology-of-sophisticated-materials-nanotoxicology-and-beyond/#comments Wed, 09 Feb 2011 15:28:38 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=4084

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/2010/12/06/us-nanotechnology-environmental-health-safety-research-strategy-open-for-comment/ http://2020science.org/2010/12/06/us-nanotechnology-environmental-health-safety-research-strategy-open-for-comment/#comments Mon, 06 Dec 2010 23:24:49 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=3889

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!

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]

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

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.

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.

There’s a bit of a brouhaha over nanotechnology safety brewing over at AOL Online.  A few weeks ago, investigative reporter Andrew Schneider posted a series of articles questioning both the safety of nanotechnology-enabled products entering the market, and the US government’s response to the emerging challenge.  Today, Clayton Teague – Director of the US National Nanotechnology Coordination Office – hit back with an opinion piece calling Schneider to task…

I mention this because earlier today, Andrew Schneider posted a new article in his nanotechnology series that examined a recent report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology – a report which Teague describes in his op-ed as “Perhaps the best and most impartial review of the nation’s efforts in the realm of nanotechnology safety and oversight.” In this new piece, Schneider quotes me on yet another document that is germane to this debate.

Confused yet?  Let me try and explain.

When Schneider’s original series – “The Nanotech Gamble: Bold Science.  Big Money. Growing Risks” – came out, the feds were understandably upset; they didn’t fare too well in the assessment, and felt that they – not to mention the science – were a little hard done by.  So they set to work on developing a strategy to counter the pieces.

As it happens, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative was due to hold a public workshop on nanotechnology risk and ethical issues a few days after the AOL series was published.  At this meeting were a number of invited speakers and guests from academia, business and elsewhere – a perfect venue for public questions about nanotechnology-related risks, but also a potential opportunity to put some misunderstandings and misconceptions to bed.

I’m not privy to the events between the publication of the AOL pieces and the so-called Capstone meeting, but I do know that they resulted in some (not all) of the invited speakers and guests being issued with “response points” – just in case they were asked some tricky questions.

These response points were circulated widely, and as a result copies of them landed in my email box – this wasn’t a restricted document.  I mention this because Andrew Schneider’s latest piece not only refers to them, but also quotes my response to reading them (I’m not going to cite myself – you can read what I had to say here).

However, as their existence is now out in the open, I thought it only fair that I let others see what Schneider was referring to:

AOL Story about Nanotech – Some Response Points

• AOL Web site is running a three-day series on nanotechnology by a reporter who has spent months reporting the story, including interviews with many agency scientists.
• Takes an alarmist perspective: Despite the lack of evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by an engineered nano product, it presumes that nanotechnology (wrongly construed to be a singular entity) is inherently dangerous until proven safe, ignoring reality that nanotech encompasses an enormous range of materials and products whose risk—if any—depends on where and how they are made and used.
• Uses irrelevant examples, for example: Cites a study finding DNA damage in mice fed nano-TiO2 (used in paint and sunscreens), but no studies have shown a convincing link between this widely used chemical and human illness and the story does not mention (but we have checked and learned) that exposures in the study were more than 10 times those allowed in food by FDA regs.
• Claims that “most federal agencies “are doing little to nothing to ensure public safety” and are “ignoring warning signs.” Truth is the U.S. is the global leader in research into nanotech’s potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks.
  • Between FY 2005 and FY 2009 the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) will have invested $254 million in research whose primary function is to understand EHS issues—more than all other countries in the world combined. And that does not count the large amounts of research that contribute to health and safety knowledge indirectly, such as basic research on how to measure the stuff in the first place.
  • Federal research dedicated to nano-related EHS research has grown substantially from $34.8 million in FY 2005 to $74.5 million in FY 2009 and an estimated $91.6 million for FY 2010. The FY 2011 request is a record $116.9 million.
• Risk must be balanced against benefits, and the essentially theoretical risk that has so far been identified should be balanced against the benefits in terms of sophisticated products and economic growth and jobs created by this expanding industry.
• Just yesterday (Thurs) PCAST released its report on the National Nanotechnology Initiative—the the 10-year-old, multiagency initiative that has supported this fledgling science of the extremely small to the tune of about $12 billion over the past decade—finding that the U.S. is the global leader in nanotech by any number of measures (including patent filings, scientific journal citations, and investments in R&D).  This is a young and promising industry we can still own as a Nation, so we should not let fear overtake common sense, even as safety studies and regulatory updates continue.

(Circulated by the federal government to some external guests and speakers at the March 30-31 NNI Capstone meeting on March 26)

Great fodder for a case study on how a government initiative investing in a new technology responds to public criticism, don’t you think?

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 Jennifer Sass Ph.D. Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

We need make sure that harmful or untested nano-scale chemicals are not manufactured or commercialized in ways that may lead to human exposures or environmental releases. I know, I know, I sound like a Luddite. Well, I’m okay with that.

The Luddites were an organized social movement of skilled textile artisans that gained notoriety in early 19^th century Britain for their protestations against mechanized weaving looms. The Luddites correctly predicted that their jobs would be replaced by industrial factories, cheap labor, and dehumanizing working conditions.

The term Luddite or Neo-Luddite is now a disparaging tag slapped on anyone that opposes new technologies. But the socioeconomic and geopolitical impacts associated with such changes – the real concern of the original Luddites – are rarely adequately addressed.

Is there a role for technology in progressive social movements? Sure.

It wasn’t until the mechanization of cotton harvesting in the 1980′s that Missouri Mississippi enacted compulsory education laws. New technology meant children were no longer needed in the field.

Lead wasn’t forced out of auto fuel when it was shown to destroy kid’s brains (known by the 1920s). It was removed when it was found to destroy catalytic converters introduced in the mid-1970′s. Technology not only saved future generations from leaded gasoline, but it reduced other harmful pollution from auto exhaust.

Nano-scale chemicals, intentionally designed to take advantage of unique properties at the small scale, are already offering social benefits, but at what costs?

Traditional treatment of hazardous waste sites is predominantly done with technologies such as carbon adsorption, chemical precipitation, filtration, steam, or bioremediation. Nanoremediation (can you believe there is already a new word for this?) can mean treatment with nanoscale metal oxides, carbon nanotubes, enzymes, or the already popular nanoscale zero-valent iron. The advantage is that the nano particles are more chemically-reactive and so may be designed to be more effective with less material. (see for example “Nanotechnology and in Situ Remediation: A Review of the Benefits and Potential Risks” by Karn et al., Environ. Health Perspect. 117, pp1823-1831. PDF,  1.2 MB)

But, what happens to the nanoparticles in the treated groundwater once they’ve completed their intended task? Do they just go away? Poof?

Carbon nanotubes are 100 times stronger than steel and six times lighter. Research to weave them into protective clothing is already underway, although nothing is on the market yet. Wearing a nano-carbon vest could make our soldiers bullet-proof, stab-proof, and still be light-weight.

But, what happens when the nanotubes are freed from the material, such as during the manufacturing of the textiles, fabrication of the clothing, or when it is damaged or destroyed in an explosion? Breathable nanotubes can be like asbestos fibers, causing deadly lung diseases.

If nano-scale elements are used extensively in electronics and computers, does this mean that most of the hazardous exposures associated with manufacturing and end-of-life stripping will fall to workers in the global south, whereas most of the advantages of improved technology will be reaped by the global north?

I’m not against new technologies per se. In fact, as a scientist I favor innovation. I love cool new stuff. But, will it make jobs more hazardous? Will it contaminate the environment? Will it contribute to social and economic injustices by distributing the risks and benefits unequally?

Let’s take some time to consider a thoughtful Luddite perspective by putting the brakes on applications of nano-scale chemicals that are untested, unsafe, unnecessary, or just unwise.

___________________

Dr. Sass is a Senior Scientist in the Health and Environment program of the NRDC, an environmental non-profit organization. She oversees the U.S. government regulations of industrial chemicals and pesticides, and assesses the data underlying the regulatory decisions. Dr. Sass is well versed in the health sciences, with degrees in Anatomy and Cell Biology, and Toxicology, and has published over three dozen articles in peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Sass has presented testimony in the U.S. Congress and participated in U.S. government scientific advisory committees and the National Academies. She collaborates with scientists in the U.S. and internationally, working towards regulations that are as protective as possible of human and environmental health.

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.

Asked to conclude the Fourth International Conference on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health in Helsinki this year, I rather rashly came up with the above title for my talk—thinking that I would find inspiration in the multitude of new research on nanotech safety being presented at the meeting.

As it turns out, events conspired against me and I ended up unavoidably missing most of the conference!

Faced with the tricky task of wrapping up a meeting that I had been embarrassingly absent from, I decided to share a rather more personal perspective on nanotechnology safety—my own reflections on things I think people should know.

This list is far from complete, and is heavily biased towards workplace safety.  And given that it was prepared for a crowd of conference attendees who were most likely maxed out on nano and more interested in where the nearest bar was, it’s a little light on detail.

Nevertheless, it is hopefully interesting and informative, and causes at least one person other than myself to stop and think afresh about how to ensure safety in the face of a new and rapidly developing technology.

So without further ado, and in reverse order, here is my highly subjective list of ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety…

10.  There’s no such thing as “nanotechnology safety”

Actually, this isn’t quite true.  Nanotechnology safety is clearly an important and legitimate goal.  It’s just that when you get down to the business of protecting people and the environment, the big idea of “nanotechnology” can become more of a hindrance than a help.

These are just two traps that discussing “nanotechnology safety” can open up:

First, we have the problem of definitions.  If we are going to discuss “nanotechnology safety,” we need to know what we are talking about.  Unfortunately, the generally accepted definition of nanotechnology—“the understanding and control of matter at dimensions between approximately 1 and 100 nanometers, where unique phenomena enable novel applications” is what the US National Nanotechnology Initiative uses—is one of expedience, not of science.  It serves the purpose of stimulating new research and technology innovation in an exciting new area 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.

As a result, attempts to apply the generally accepted definition of nanotechnology to material and product safety ends up in a messy mismatch.  Materials that are probably benign come under suspicion, while others that we should be worried about potentially slip the net.

Second, there is the problem of generalities.  The products of nanotechnology are infinitely varied; each behaves in a different way and potentially presents a different set of risks.  This is obvious when we think about it.  Comparing the potential benefits and risks of scanning tunneling microscopes, semiconductor chips and smart drugs (for instance) is nonsensical, even though each can legitimately be claimed as a product of nanotechnology.  The trouble is, focusing on “nanotechnology safety” seems to result in rationality by-pass sometimes, leading to the questionable assumption that nanotechnology presents a common set of safety problems, which can be solved by a common suite of safety solutions.

In the extreme, this type of generalization can lead to experiences with one nanotech product being applied to others—safety concerns over titanium dioxide nanoparticles in sunscreens being driven by inhalation studies using carbon nanotubes for instance; or consumers potentially avoiding “nano” branded goods because they heard that “nanotechnology” isn’t “safe.”

Perhaps more to the point though, nanotechnology—like most technologies—is safety-neutral.  It isn’t the technology so much as what is done with it that is important.  Which means that rather than talking about “nanotechnology safety,” it makes a lot more sense to talk about the safe handling, use and disposal of specific materials, products and processes that arise from its application.

9.  We’re living in a post-chemistry world

Having debunked the idea of “nanotechnology safety,” I should really talk about what might be important when it comes to working with and using the products of nanotechnology as safely as possible—because without a doubt, some of its uses will lead to new safety challenges.

One class of products that raises some interesting safety questions is “nanomaterials”—materials engineered at the nanometer-scale so they exhibit scale-specific properties.  These materials are intentionally designed to do what they do because of their physical form, as well as their chemical makeup.  So it seems reasonable to ask whether what they look like at the nanoscale also leads to new safety issues.

Of course, for physical form to be relevant to human health or the environment, the material first has to get to where it can do harm.  For people, this means that chunks of it need to be small enough to be inhaled, ingested, or penetrate through the skin.  No exposure—no harm.

However, for nanomaterials that can get into the body, there will be some cases where their physical form—their size, shape, physical structure—can lead to them being dangerous above certain concentrations.

But here’s the rub.  Over the past fifty plus years, we’ve got used to assessing the likely risks associated with materials by considering their chemistry alone.  As a result we have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to materials that are potentially harmful because of something more than just their chemical composition.

This is a bit of an oversimplification of course.  In the field of occupational health we have had to deal with asbestos and other fibers that cause harm because of their chemistry and their physical form.  And it’s long been recognized that different sized airborne particles present different risks if inhaled.  But these are the exceptions rather than the rule, and there is still a tendency when assessing risks to ignore physical form, or to struggle with what to do with it.

However, as engineered nanomaterials become increasingly sophisticated, this will need to change if we are to work with them safely.  We are living in a post-chemistry world, where functionality and safety depend on more than just what something is made of.  And if we are to ensure the safety of emerging engineered nanomaterials, we need to learn how to survive and thrive in this world.

8.  Current understanding of nanomaterial risks has more holes than a Swiss cheese

So we know that we might need a new perspective on the potential risks associated with engineered nanomaterials and how to manage them.  But here we hit a problem—when it comes to answering questions that seem to be important, there’s a distinct dearth of information.

Quantifying the human health risks (for example) associated with a material—a normal step in ensuring their safe use—requires answers to many questions, including:

• How can the material enter the body?
• Where does it go and how does it change once it gets there?
• What aspects of the material end up causing harm?
• How much material is needed for serious harm to occur?
• How should the toxicity of the material be assessed?
• How will people end up being exposed to the material?
• How should exposure be measured? And
• Can exposures be adequately controlled?

When it comes to new nanomaterials, these are just some of the questions we still don’t have complete answers to.  And they only address occupational exposures.  What happens when these same nanomaterials get out into the environment?

If we are going to get a good handle on working safely with engineered nanomaterials and other products based on nanotechnology, these holes will eventually need to be filled.  And as the diversity and sophistication of engineered nanomaterials continues to grow, research into assessing and managing their possible risks will need to be well funded and strategically targeted if it is to keep up.

7.  Engineered nanomaterials are accomplished shape-shifters

It is probably something of an exaggeration to refer to nanomaterials as shape-shifters, but without a doubt, one of the big challenges of ensuring the safety of engineered nanomaterials is that their behavior changes depending on where they are, and where they’ve been.  A freshly minted nanoparticle may have a surface that is crammed full of highly active chemicals.  Ten minutes later, these chemicals may have lost their potency—with a resulting reduction in the material’s ability to cause harm.  Small particles may agglomerate with others to form large particles over time.  Or large agglomerates may separate out into smaller ones once inhaled.  Particles moving through the air might pick up a coating of other chemicals in their vicinity and, if inhaled, will behave differently to “naked” particles.  Nanoparticles in the lungs or blood may become shrouded in specific biological molecules that dictate where they go and how the body responds.  Nanoparticles may be suspended in liquids, compressed into pellets, or embedded in plastics.  Nanotechnology-enabled products may shed material that changes as it moves through the environment, and moves through the environment differently as it changes.  And nano-products disposed of at the end of their life may once again liberate nanomaterials that bear little resemblance to the stuff they were originally made of.

In short, the qualities that make a nanomaterial potentially harmful change over the material’s lifetime.

This complicates matters when it comes to ensuring safety.  Just because a nanoparticle in a workplace is considered safe, doesn’t mean that it will still be safe several steps down the road.  The converse is also true—a nanomaterial that needs to be handled with care in the workplace may be relatively benign after it has been incorporated into a product.

There are no easy answers to dealing with this shifting risk profile.  But one thing is certain: If engineered nanomaterials are to be used safely, their potential for causing harm, and the means to manage this, needs to be considered across their life cycle.

6.  The technology’s new, but that doesn’t make old safety practices redundant

In the face of a new and, in some cases, radically different technology, there is a temptation for imaginations to go into overdrive and assume that these new technologies automatically demand new safety measures.

Fortunately, even though we are facing a nanotechnology safety future that is complex and riddled with holes, we do have some tricks at our disposal for helping to ensure the safer handling of nanomaterials.

It seems that established occupational hygiene practices go a long way to preventing exposures and reducing risks.  Guidance from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), BSI, the International Standards Organization (ISO) and others makes it very clear that by taking reasonable precautions with how materials are handled, control measures are established and workers are protected, the chances of something untoward happening are reduced substantially—even if hard data on a new material’s toxicity are lacking.

Undoubtedly there will be situations where conventional practices don’t go all the way to ensuring the safe use of nanomaterials—just one more reason why more research is needed. But we do know that airborne nanoparticles can be removed from the air with conventional local exhaust ventilation systems; that air filters do a good job of reducing exposures; and that bad workplace practices increase the chances of harm occurring, whether the materials being handled are nanoscale or not.

So the good news is that we don’t need to throw out decades of experience with working safely with nanomaterials.

On the other hand, it’s probably not a good idea to be complacent—old tricks may work with new technologies, but probably only up to a point.

And just to be clear, there is a world of difference between safe and safer.

5.  Lower exposures mean lower risks

Continuing the theme of old tricks, reducing risks through controlling exposure does seem to be an area where established wisdom has a role to play with engineered nanomaterials.

As a rule of thumb, lowering exposure levels is likely to reduce potential risks from nanomaterials, even in the absence of hard toxicity data.  With few exceptions, the human health risks of materials tend to follow a general trend of increasing response with increasing dose.  There are subtleties here involving the shape of the relationship between dose and response, the period over which effects occur, how dose is measured and whether a dose exists below which no response is observed.  But these aside, most of our experiences with harmful agents—whether gases, liquids or particles—suggest that less stuff means lower risk.

This is helpful when handling new engineered nanomaterials, because we can be reasonably sure that every step towards lowering exposures is a step in the right direction.  It means that equipped with the most basic exposure control technologies and an instrument capable of measuring some aspect of the nanomaterial concentration, potential risks can be reduced.

But helpful as this approach to reducing risk is, there is a problem: how low is low enough?

4.  Measurement without meaning is like a car without an engine

If you measure the concentration of nanoparticles in a workplace—say you measure the number or mass of particles per cubic meter—what does that measurement mean?  And how can you use it to increase safety without impacting unnecessarily on operating costs?

Exposure measurement is a tricky subject.  Numbers—hard data—can be comforting.  But without a clear idea of their relevance, they can also be misleading. A measurement of airborne nanomaterial concentration can be used to reduce exposure, but how far should it be reduced?  Alternatively, measurements can be used to try and eliminate exposure altogether.  But there’s always that lingering doubt that exposures are occurring below the instrument’s detection threshold.  And rather annoyingly, the lower the concentration of material an instrument will detect, and the harder it will be to get a zero reading.

In other words, measurements without the means to interpret and use them are a bit like a car without an engine—pretty, but useless!

The reality is that without guidance on how to interpret and act on them, measurements can cause more problems than they solve—especially if the cost of reducing exposures to some arbitrary level becomes prohibitively expensive.

What would be helpful here is a benchmark against which exposure measurements can be assessed—a reference that enables measurements to be translated into actions.  Where solid risk-related data are available, these benchmarks are the exposure limits set by governments and other organizations familiar to any occupational hygienist.

But what do you do in the absence of such limits?

One option is to take a stab at estimating reasonable benchmark limits, based on the best available information. For instance, in “Nanotechnologies – Part 2: Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials,” BSI has recommended a series of rules –of-thumb, based on reasonably well-understood materials, which help establish working benchmark levels for new and untested materials.  The idea is that in the absence of any better information, exposure limits for analogous materials are used as a starting point.

The methodology is rough and ready, and doesn’t sit well with every expert.  But at least it provides a useful way of assigning meaning to measurements; as long at the working benchmark levels do not become set in stone.

3.  When the data run out – innovate!

This question of measuring exposure in the absence of well-established exposure limits is just one part of a larger issue—how do you make smart safety decisions in the absence of good information?

Even if we can use established practiced to lower risks, we are still faced with a barrow-load of unknowns and uncertainties that pull the rug out from under conventional approaches to quantifying and managing risks.  And even if did manage to fill in all the current knowledge-holes, the chances are that we would be facing a whole new set of uncertainties sooner rather than later.

So what do we do – apart from panic?

The answer is: Innovate! More than ever in the future, we will have to rely on new and innovative approaches to managing risks; ones that enable decisions to be made in the absence of hard data.  Something of this was seen in the observation that lower exposures mean lower risks—a concept that enables risks to be reduced even in the absence of toxicology data.  Yet more inventive approaches will be needed if engineered nanomaterials are to be used safely in a world where a science-based understanding of the risks looks increasingly like a Swiss cheese, no matter how hard we try.

Vladimir Murashov and John Howard recently highlighted some possible innovations in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. Writing on essential features for proactive risk management, they discussed a number of ways to manage risk in a data-deficient world.  In particular, they stressed the need to consider “soft” (or qualitative) approaches to assessing and managing risks such as using expert judgment, and control banding.

These recommendations are a good start.  But much more is needed if we are to learn to make smart choices in the face of uncertainty.

2.  It’s good to talk

The adage “a problem shared is a problem halved” is rather a trite one, but it does contain a grain of truth.  Where companies and workers face difficult challenges in ensuring the safety of their workplaces, drawing on the collective wisdom of the community can be a great boon.

In their article, Murashov and Howard stressed is the need for global stakeholder cooperation in ensuring the safe use of engineered nanomaterials.  This makes perfect sense.  Safety shouldn’t be a competitive issue—it’s in everyone’s interest to share information and experiences that will prevent harm to people or the environment. Information sharing encourages faster, better solutions to challenges. It allows smaller outfits to tap into a wealth of experience and expertise that would otherwise be beyond their reach. And it reduces the chances of competitors making a mess of “nanotechnology safety” in a way that undermines the credibility of the technology as a whole.

The good news is that people are talking—not as much as they should perhaps, but at least the lines of communication are open.  The NanOEH2009 conferences is a great example of information sharing, and there are many more—ISO and OECD initiatives for instance, and the work of the International Council On Nanotechnology.

But I wanted to highlight one initiative in particular, in part because I had a small hand in the initial idea, but mainly because I think it has great potential to get the global nanotechnology safety community working together to find solutions to the challenges they face.  And that is the Good Nano Guide.

Designed as a community forum and resource, this is developing into an important place for learning about other people’s experiences of working safely with nanomaterials, and for sharing your own.  As people begin to contribute to it and use it, it could turn into an open-access goldmine for know-how on working as safely as possible with engineered nanomaterials.

1.  People matter

And finally my number one thing that everyone should know about nanotechnology safety—people matter.

This may seem simple, or obvious, but it’s something that can get left out of the equation all too easily.

At the end of the day, human risk research is about protecting people from injury, disease and death, and ensuring a high quality of life.  It isn’t about the buzz of new discovery.  It isn’t about getting rich and famous.  It isn’t about making a profit.  And it isn’t about sustaining ideologies.

All of these have their place, and in many cases are good and important.  But the primary focus of risk research should be the people it ultimately impacts.

This is part of the culture of risk-based research professionals who have come up through schools of public health, government research labs and similar institutions.  It may get buried at times.  But generally there is that recognition that the rewards of the work are more safe and healthy people, and fewer injuries, diseases and deaths.

(It goes without saying that a similar ethos exists for environmental risk research)

But when it comes to nanotechnology risk research, I am concerned by the influx of researchers and decision-makers into the field that don’t come from this culture of focusing on people’s health and safety.

This is a very personal perspective, and I may be wrong.  But it seems that with increasing interest in, and funding available, for nanotechnology-related risk research, there has been a shift in emphasis away from traditional risk-research experts and towards researchers with primary expertise in other areas—chemistry, materials science and drug development for example.

This isn’t necessarily a bad thing.  But it does mean that research programs, strategies and policies are increasingly being influenced by people who lack a professional cultural bias toward focusing on the individuals their work and decisions will affect.

That is not to imply that these people do not care—in many cases, they clearly do.  But without that ingrained culture of putting others first, I wonder whether there is a danger of nanotechnology risk research being driven more by political expediency and the promise of economic gain, and less by the need to protect people.

If this isn’t the case, I am willing to stand corrected.  But if it is, we need to work out how to get people back at the center of the nano-risk enterprise.  This may need some careful thought over where research funding goes and how strategic research decisions are made.   But I suspect it will also rely on the willingness of the emerging nanotechnology safety community to rethink and reaffirm its values.

At the end of the day, despite the clear economic and social justifications, getting nanotechnology “right” will be a hollow achievement if we end up neglecting the very people who will make its success possible.  Let’s hope we don’t.

Could using sunscreen lead to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or other neurodegenerative diseases?  The association seems far-fetched – given the amount of sunscreens, creams and lotions used every day, surely someone would noticed a link by now if it existed!  Yet a press release from the University of Ulster suggests the nanoparticles used in some sunscreens could potentially cause or exacerbate these diseases.  Drawing on the release, a number of media outlets are now running stories along the lines of “Sunscreen could cause Alzheimer’s” (this from The Daily Mirror in the UK).

This is a rather unfortunate case of a poorly conceived press release leading to sensationalist – and misleading – headlines… The press release is associated with new research funded under the umbrella of NeuroNano – a European project focused on developing nanoscale neuro-implants that will enhance the functioning of the brain.  However this new project, being led by Professors Vyvyan Howard and Dr. Christian Holscher at the University of Ulster, is focusing on how nanomaterials inadvertently entering the brain could cause damage.

The basis of their research is actually quite reasonable.  There is some evidence that exposure to specific types of nanometer-scale particles could lead to them entering the brain, either by traveling up the nerves connecting the nose to the brain, or by crossing over from the blood.  If insoluble nanoparticles do get into the brain they are likely to stick around for a while, as there are limited ways in which the body is able to get rid of foreign material from here.  While there, they could damage neurons by causing the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) – highly active chemicals.  And there is also research showing that some nanoparticles can cause the type of protein misfolding that has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s – although this was carried out outside the body, under conditions set up to favor misfolding.

These tantalizing snippets of information are like a red rag to a bull as far as scientists go – they suggest there is new knowledge waiting to be discovered; knowledge that could help prevent some forms of brain disease.  Together, they form a sound reason for carrying out more research.

But in no way do they link sunscreens to Alzheimer’s!

The sunscreen link comes about because a number of these lotions use insoluble nanoparticles as the active ingredient.  The thought-process then goes something like this:

The nanoparticles of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in a sunscreen could conceivably get into someone’s body, by passing through the skin, being eaten, or being inhaled.  Once there, they might be able to get into the blood.  From there, there is a chance that they could pass over into the brain.  Or they might even be inhaled and travel straight up the olfactory nerve and into the brain.  And once there, they could cause vital proteins to misfold that then lead to diseases like Alzheimer’s.

But while this makes an interesting story and a compelling grant proposal, it has little bearing on reality as we currently understand it:

• Most research suggests nanoparticles in sunscreens don’t pass through the skin.
• Even if you could snort sunscreens (a feat in itself), studies showing nanoparticles traveling from the nose to the brain have used rodents not humans – and human noses are very different; they don’t offer the same opportunities for significant exposure through this route.
• It takes a very special type of nanoparticle to cross the blood-brain barrier – you can’t get any old junk across it.
• And research into nanoparticle-induced protein misfolding is at a very preliminary stage – any associations between effects seen in test tubes and brain disease are little more than speculative.

More to the point, we are exposed to billions of nanoparticles each day in the air we breathe; from car exhausts, fires, even sea spray.  If any nanoparticles are going to find their way to our brains in large numbers, it will be these – not those used in some sunscreens.

This is not to detract from the importance of this new research project.  If there are links between nanoparticle exposure and neurodegenerative diseases, we need to know.

But linking sunscreens to Alzheimer’s in the absence of any hard scientific data?  Given what we currently know, that just seems irresponsible!

Update, 8/27/09.  Since posting the original press release, the University of Ulster have changed the headline – without, apparently, telling anyone.  What was “Groundbreaking Research Links Sunscreen and Alzheimer’s Disease” is now “Groundbreaking Research Into Nanoparticles And Alzheimer’s Disease.”

Makes you wonder how much of the sensationalist coverage could have been avoided with a bit of forethought, rather than post-thought.

Thanks to @silentypewriter for the archive link

For more information…

Information on the NeuroNano program can be found here

Nanoparticles traveling from the nose to the brain: There have been a number of studies showing that this is possible in rodents, although little is known about how many particles are likely to get to the brain after being inhaled.  Three useful papers are:

Oberdörster, G., Z. Sharp, V. Atudorei, A. Elder, R. Gelein, W. Kreyling and C. Cox (2004). “Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain.” Inhal. Toxicol. 16(6-7): 437-445.

Elder, A., R. Gelein, V. Silva, T. Feikert, L. Opanashuk, J. Carter, R. Potter, A. Maynard, J. Finkelstein and G. Oberdorster (2006). “Translocation of inhaled ultrafine manganese oxide particles to the central nervous system.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114(8): 1172-1178. [PDF]

and

Oberdörster, G., V. Stone and K. Donaldson (2007). “Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective.” Nanotoxicology 1(1): 2 – 25.

For information on nanoparticles and protein misfolding, the following is a key paper:

Linse, S., C. Cabaleiro-Lago, W.-F. Xue, I. Lynch, S. Lindman, E. Thulin, S. E. Radford and K. A. Dawson (2007). “Nucleation of protein fibrillation by nanoparticles.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104: 8691-8696.

The Mexico City study mentioned in the University of Ulster press release is:

Calderon-Garcidueñas, L., B. Azzarelli, H. Acune, R. Garcia, T. M. Gambling, N. Osnaya, S. Monroy, M. R. DEL Tizapantzi, J. L. Carson, A. Villarreal-Calderon and B. Rewcastle (2002). “Air Pollution and Brain Damage.” Toxicol Path 30(3): 373-389.

When it comes to crossing the blood brain barrier, there has been a lot of research on engineering nanoparticles to do exactly this – for delivering drugs.  Most research has shown that fancy materials science and chemistry are needed to engineer nanoparticles to move across the barrier – it’s pretty effective at keeping bad stuff out of the brain.  However, there are indications that small quantities of very small nanoparticles could inadvertently cross over from the blood – more more research is needed to understand whether early findings have any significance though.

Less is known about the possibility of ingested nanoparticles getting into the bloodstream.  Again, the barrier between the guts and the blood is a complex one, and it is unlikely that any old nanoparticle will be able to fool the body into getting where it isn’t wanted.  But this is an area where more research would be useful.

For more info on nanoparticles and sunscreens, check out Industry critics give nanotechnology sunscreens the thumbs up

For more papers on nanoparticles and the brain, check out the nanoEHS Virtual Journal

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/08/25/sunscreens-alzheimers/feed/ 11 http://2020science.org/2009/08/18/new-study-seeks-to-link-seven-cases-of-ocupational-lung-disease-with-nanoparticles-and-nanotechnology/ http://2020science.org/2009/08/18/new-study-seeks-to-link-seven-cases-of-ocupational-lung-disease-with-nanoparticles-and-nanotechnology/#comments Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:16:37 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=2032

A new study about to be published in the European Respiratory Journal links workplace nanoparticle exposure to seven cases of serious and progressive lung disease in China – leading to two patient deaths – and presses a number of “hot” buttons when it comes to the safety of emerging nanotechnologies. To help place the study in context, I have posted separately the following pieces on 2020 Science, and also on the SAFENANO blog:

Nanoparticle exposure and occupational lung disease – six expert perspectives on a new clinical study
Observations from six leading experts on the study, and it’s significance

Is nanotechnology posed for the ride of its life?
A caution against overlooking the study’s true relevance in the rush to use it to justify pre-existing positions on nanotechnology

Further links to useful resources are included at the end of this blog.

Study Overview

In brief, the paper by Song et al. that appears in the European Respiratory Journal is a clinical study of 7 female Chinese workers who were diagnosed with unusual and progressive lung damage. Two of the women died as a result of the damage. All had been working for some months in a facility spraying a polyacrylic ester paste onto a polystyrene substrate that was subsequently heat-cured. The work was carried out in an enclosed space with little natural ventilation. Five months before the lung disease was identified, the local exhaust ventilation in the facility broke down – and from the account given was never mended.

All seven patients were suffering from shortness of breath, and pleural effusions (an excess of liquid in the cavity surrounding the lungs).  Lung tissue samples showed non-specific inflammation, pulmonary fibrosis, and foreign-body granulomas of the pleura – the membrane surrounding the lungs.  Five of the patients were found to have pericardial effusions – an excess of liquid around the heart.

On examination, investigators found ~30 nm diameter particles in fluid surrounding the lungs of the patients, and in the cytoplasm and nucleoplasm of cells lining the inside and outside of the patients’ lungs. They also found evidence of similar sized nanoparticles in the polyacrylic ester paste, and in the (defunct) workplace ventilation system. There were accounts of smoke being produced as the coated polystyrene was heat-cured.

Based on the presence of the nanoparticles in the workplace and the patients, the nature of the disease observed and previously published cell culture and animal exposure studies on the impacts of nanoparticles, the authors speculated that the lung disease – and the two deaths – were a direct result of the nanoparticle exposure. They conclude that

this may be the first study on the clinical toxicity in humans due to long-term exposure to nanoparticles, and so many questions need to be answered, more studies on the possible mechanisms, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of the ‘nano material-related disease’ are needed. These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs. It is impossible to remove nanoparticles that have penetrated the cell and lodged in the cytoplasm and caryoplasm of pulmonary epithelial cells, or that have aggregated around the red blood cell membrane.

In the press release accompanying the paper from the European Respiratory Journal, more explicit associations with the safety of nanotechnology are drawn:

While nanoparticles’ diminutive size means they have unprecedented physical properties (such as diffusion, resistance or flexibility of use) that are invaluable in industrial applications, it also raises the question of their toxicity for consumers and the workforce. Their tiny diameter means that they can penetrate the body’s natural barriers, particularly through contact with damaged skin or by inhalation or ingestion. Moreover, their toxicity has already been established in animals: mice were found to develop symptoms of inflammation and pulmonary fibrosis following application of carbon nanoparticles to the trachea. But until now no cases had been reported in humans. The revelations to be published in the ERJ by a Beijing team will thus break new ground and relaunch the debate on the dangers of nanotechnologies.

Given the buttons this paper and the associated press release hit – including nanoparticle safety, worker deaths and (in the press release) parallels with asbestos, this is a paper that could garner a lot of attention. I suspect that it will refocus attention on what is and isn’t known about the safe use of nanomaterials. Even though the logic is suspect from a purely scientific perspective, the two deaths and their association with nanoparticle exposure will most likely lead to some tough questions being asked by consumers and others on the safety of other nanomaterials. This may not be a bad thing, but at the same time it is important to understand the limitations of the study:

This is a clinical study and not a toxicology study: The investigators did not have the luxury of conducting controlled and well-designed experiments, but were placed in the position of detectives piecing together a series of events after the fact.  Inevitably, this leaves gaps in the information presented, but does not necessarily detract from the usefulness of the study.

The paper adds to the general knowledge base of how nanoparticle exposures might impact on human health. In this respect, it is an important addition to the literature.However, in isolation it tells us very little beyond this particular incident, and great care should be taken in extrapolating the findings to the handling of nanoparticles in general.  It is not possible to draw any general conclusions on the safe use of nanotechnologies from the study.

Interpretation of the study is hampered by a lack of exposure data. Nothing concrete is known about the nature or magnitude of the workplace exposures. It can be speculated (reasonably up to a point) that the workers were exposed to high airborne concentrations of a cocktail of materials that probably contained nanometer-scale particles in some form. What is not known is what the particles were made of of, whether they were inhaled as single particles or as large agglomerates or aggregates, or whether there was anything unusual about their surface–including the presence of adsorbed chemicals.  All of these pieces of information are important in making sense of the health effects seen.

There are no electron microscope images of the nanoparticles found in the workplace. The researchers note the presence of ~30 nm particles in the polyacrylate paste and the ventilation system.  But without images, this information isn’t much help in working out whether the presence of these particles was significant.

There is no chemical analysis of the particles found in the workplace or biological samples. This is a critical data gap – the information is needed to link the workplace material to the material found in the patients, and to establish whether these were polyacrylic particles, an inorganic additive to the paste, or something else.

There is no assessment of other plausible causes of the symptoms seen. The authors are quick to dismiss other possible causes (such as other fumes and vapors from the polyacrylic paste or the polystyrene substrate) and focus in on the nanoparticles.  But without further research, it is difficult to rule out the possibility of other factors playing a role here.

In discussing the relevance of the study, no distinction is made between different types of nanomaterials and their potential impacts. The authors cite the in vitro and in vivo behavior of a range of nanomaterials observed in previous studies and relate these findings to their own observations,.  But they fail to recognize that different nanoparticles behave in very different ways.  For instance, they refer to lung damage associated with inhaling carbon nanotubes in animals as being similar to some of the symptoms observed in their patients, without acknowledging that the particles they observe bear no resemblance to carbon nanotubes.   As a result, the authors propagate the idea that nanoparticles are a generic class of material – which research suggests they are not.

Despite these limitations, this is a strong clinical study, and if viewed appropriately, will most likely help avoid similar incidents in the future.

And as a final observation, it is worth noting that the illnesses and deaths observed would most likely not have occurred if long-accepted occupational practices had been followed.  The tragedy here is that, irrespective of the presence of nanoparticles, the illnesses and deaths could have been prevented if simple steps had been taken to reduce exposures.

Additional resources:

GoodNanoGuide
A community resource for working safely with engineered nanomaterials

SAFENANO
Further information on the Song study

ICON Blog
Further comments and reflections on the study from ICON

[8/20/09: link to paper updated]

The recent tragic account of seven Chinese workers suffering—apparently—from nanoparticle-induced lung disease, is likely to raise serious concerns with anyone potentially exposed to similar particles.  Yet without the benefit of insight from scientists and others working on nanoparticles and their potential health impacts, it’s hard to get a handle on the study’s broader relevance.

When I first found out about the study, I asked six highly regarded experts familiar with the issues to share their thoughts on the work and its broader implications.  Their comments (below) reflect a range of perspectives and opinions, and hopefully provide a deeper insight into an important but far from conclusive piece of research…

[More information on this study and its relevance can be found here]

Professor Anthony Seaton MD

Professor Seaton is a distinguished clinical physician specializing in occupational health, and a highly regarded expert on the potential impacts of inhaling airborne nanoparticles. He is currently emeritus professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Aberdeen.

Although this paper has weaknesses, it contains a number of important messages. Essentially it is tragic story of a fatal industrial accident, from the rather sparse description in the text, consequent upon grossly inadequate health and safety measures in a workplace. A small number of unsophisticated young women and one man were exposed to a toxic mixture of dust and fumes in a small unventilated room and developed a progressive lung condition that has so far killed two of them and seriously disabled most. Similar episodes, almost always involving gases, have occurred in the past, but this one has unique features, notably the effect in causing effusion of fluid into the linings of the lung (the pleura) and heart (the pericardium), the finding of nanoparticles in the workplace and in the lungs and lung fluid of the workers, and the finding of a tissue reaction to particles in the lung lining. Most unfortunately, the authors were unable to obtain or report information on the chemical nature of the particles in the lungs or the workplace. While it remains an open question how far the illnesses reported were due to particles and how far to gases, it is my view that an important component must have been due to particles.

But… the messages:

1. It is not always known that a fume, by definition, comprises nanoparticles generated by heating. This process involved not only spraying of a powder but also heating of a plastic material and fume would undoubtedly have been produced (the authors describe “smoke”).
2. Heating of plastics will produce any number of organic chemicals in particulate and gaseous form, depending on temperature and the chemistry of the plastic. Many of these are very toxic to the lung.
3. In such circumstances, if the particles produced are insoluble, they are likely to be retained in the lung and other tissues. If also they have toxic surfaces, tissue reactions will occur, as apparently in this case.
4. Such dreadful episodes can be prevented (and generally are prevented) by well-established occupational hygiene measures. Those who decry the attitude of governments in the West to “Health and Safety” need to be aware that our attitude results from many similar experiences throughout our own industrial revolution and even occasionally nowadays.

So to me the message of this episode is that fumes and dusts are often toxic and if you ignore this, tragedies like this may occur. Appropriate workplace hygiene will prevent this in the nanotechnology industry as elsewhere. Please take note, and let’s not argue about whether this paper’s conclusions are right or wrong – that is not the message.

Professor Günter Oberdörster

Professor Oberdörster is considered by many to be the “father” of research into the toxicology of inhaled nanoparticles.  His group at the University of Rochester has led global research in this area for over two decades.

This is clearly a case of a very complex exposure to a lethal mixture of reactive gases and particles of different chemistry and sizes, including nano-sized particles. But, even more importantly, this is a case of a tragic accident with fatal outcome due to extremely poor industrial hygiene conditions.  To blame the resulting severe pathology and fatalities categorically on “nanoparticles” that were present in a paint paste is scientifically unjustified.  There are a number of potential mechanisms that may have been at play, including the formation of highly reactive gas phase polymer compounds generated by the heating of the spray painted styrene boards combined with immediate formation of condensation aerosols of ultrafine particles (fume) of different larger agglomeration and aggregation states (smoke was visible).  Such freshly heat-generated condensation aerosols can cause highly toxic acute effects. Well known examples include metal fume fever and polymer fume fever, which are generally of a short-lasting nature, but fatalities have been reported following polymer fume exposures.  Fume exposures can also result in an adaptive state and thereby protect the organism from untoward effects of subsequent exposures, which has been described already in the early part of the last century in human zinc metal fume exposed workers (could this explain the many months long exposure duration, until it was too late for the Chinese workers?). Even seemingly harmless actions such as heating ski wax onto ski surfaces has resulted in severe ARDS [Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome]-like effects due to inhalation of the generated fumes, requiring hospitalization. Thus, fumes of freshly-generated thermodegradation products are clearly a well-recognized occupational hazard, as well as a potential hazard to consumers (e.g., exposure to fumes from heated PTFE in household cooking and other appliances).

In the tragic industrial accident in the Chinese factory reported here, the paint paste was described as a mix of many organic components that contained additionally nanoparticles of polyacrylate (~30nm) as did the collected dust, but neither detailed characterization nor pictures are provided. Are they identical to the nanoparticles found in fluids and tissues of the patients? Unfortunately, there is a complete lack of the characterization of the nanoparticles found in the effusion fluids and lung tissue, and no attempt was made to compare these to those contained in the paint and dust. Conceivably, when inhaled they could act as carriers of reactive gas phase constituents, or otherwise they could just signal a breakdown of epithelial barriers in the lung, which increased their biodistribution to interstitial, pleural and other sites where they were found, if indeed they were the same. Thus, the question:  “Did polyacrylate nanoparticles cause, or contribute to the cause of, the observed severe pathology, or are they just ‘passive bystanders’ in this complex mixed exposure scenario?” cannot be answered.  We simply do not know, but what is obvious is that proper industrial hygiene would have prevented such a horrific accident.  Given this clear message it is not obvious why the authors identify a need for “more studies on … prevention of the ‘nanomaterial related disease’ “. No, we do not need more studies on how to prevent future accidents like this one, just proper well-established common sense industrial hygiene measures will do that. And yes, we need to identify hazardous nanomaterials and the characteristics that make them hazardous; key is, however, to use readily available preventive measures to monitor and avoid exposure until we know better and are able to set scientifically founded safe exposure limits.

This case should not be used to bedevil nanotechnology, and a conclusion that nanoparticles generically are to blame is very unfortunate.  Because of this, the paper is likely to make a big splash in the media. It is important that terrible incidents like this be published, despite the lack of rigorous scientific analysis that should have been included. Such accidents serve as warnings and grim reminders of the need for workers’ protection, whether exposure to nanomaterials is involved or not. Indeed, earlier incidents of severe cases of organising pneumonia including fibrosis resulting in six fatalities in textile paint spraying operations occurred in the early 1990′s in Spain (long before the awareness of media and scientists for “nano”). It should have been a strong message for the necessity of precautionary protective measures in paint spraying industrial applications.

Professor Ken Donaldson

A toxicologist specializing in workplace lung diseases, Professor Donaldson is one of the world’s leading authorities on the health impacts of inhaling airborne nanoparticles.  His group at the University of Edinburgh has conducted extensive research into the potential health impacts of inhaling nanomaterials.

This is a puzzling case. There is no conventional particle exposure that does this kind of damage to the lungs. Not even long-term exposure to high levels of the most toxic dusts known. Even when asbestos affects the pleura it takes tens of years of exposure. In the past there was a report of a highly toxic, hot Teflon particle exposure from overheated frying pans where the particles had highly toxic free radicals on their surface that disappeared rapidly with time; that is a possibility here. The damaging exposure was clearly a toxic cocktail of particles and chemicals and so is a highly unusual case that sheds little light on the hazards from the vast majority of nanoparticles used in workplaces, which do not have a reactive surface. It may yet turn out that the particles are a by-product of the chemical reaction and not the main cause of the injury.  If a very toxic chemical exposure involves the formation of nanoparticles as part of its chemistry, which is quite possible, they may not necessarily be the main toxin; they could be just an epiphenomenon. I notice that the cell that was stuffed with particles seemed to be alive and well.

Chemical exposures in the past might have produced nanoparticles but since no-one looked for them they may never have been implicated. In the current climate of concern over nanoparticles the reverse is true and there may be a rush to judgement implicating the nanoparticles in the adverse effects. I think the paper should never have been published without characterising the exposure and the toxicological reactivity of the nanoparticles before blaming the effects on them. If the effects were due to highly toxic short-lived free radicals on the particle surfaces then it informs a tiny sub-division of nanoparticles that really represent a chemical exposure and certainly no member of the public would ever get a substantial exposure to this material. A well-regulated workplace with proper controls would have prevented this accident. Therefore the paper by Song et al. demonstrates a failure of occupational hygiene and worker protection in the chemical industry, that happened to have involve nanoparticles, rather than a helpful insight into nanoparticle toxicology.

Professor Vicki Stone

Editor of the journal Nanotoxicology and a professor of toxicology at Napier University in Edinburgh, Professor Stone is a foremost expert on the mechanisms by which nanoparticles potentially interact with the body and cause harm.

The publication by Song et al. claims to have identified evidence that nanoparticles can cause adverse health effects, specifically on the lungs of women employed in a poorly ventilated working environment.  Unfortunately the publication contains a number of flaws, which make this conclusion hard to believe or confirm.  Firstly, the cocktail of chemicals and particles to which the women were exposed was very complex, containing many substances which are potentially toxic.  This cocktail was poorly understood as the authors were unable to sample and analyse the actual cocktail mixture directly to determine the real composition.  This is often a problem with studies of this type, but usually authors would acknowledge the limitations that this lack of information imposes when trying to draw conclusions.  These authors do not seem to have fully appreciated these limitations causing them to jump to conclusions.

The authors also showed some interesting pictures of particles within the lungs of these women.  However, they did not provide any evidence to show that these particles were derived from the working environment – this could have been achieved through microscopes that can analyse the particle chemical composition.  Humans constantly inhale particles from a wide variety of sources, including traffic, domestic and industrial pollution.  It is therefore important to confirm that these particles were gained specifically from the working environment before the fumes associated with their employment can be blamed for the health effects observed.

Therefore, at this time, this paper does not effectively illustrate adverse clinical effects of nanoparticles in a worker population, but it does raise the issue that we need to be careful and vigilant in future.

Dr. Rob Aitken

Director of Strategic Consulting at the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh and director of the SAFENANO initiative, Dr. Aitken has a wealth of experience addressing workplace safety and health.  He is a leading international expert in developing safe practices for working with engineered nanomaterials—including nanoparticles.

This tragic event is a shocking example of what can go wrong if a proper care is not taken with basic industrial hygiene. There can be little doubt that these serious health effects have been caused as a result of a workplace exposure. The workplace, where a complex mixture of chemicals was being sprayed, and heating activities producing smoke being carried out, in an closed room with no effective ventilation and entirely inappropriate personal protective equipment seems inexcusable.

However, the key question which remains unanswered at this time is “exposure to what?” The exposure assessment in the study is poorly described. It seems from the information provided that these unfortunate workers were handling a paste composed of a complex mixture including butanoic acid, butyl ester, N-butyl ether, acetic acid, toluene, di-tert-butyl peroxide,1- butanol, acetic acid ethenyl ester, isopropyl alcohol and ethylene dioxide and finally some type of nanoparticle,  30 nm in diameter. Although the authors describe the nanoparticles found as being polyacrylate, the characterisation within the study provides no clear information about either the nanoparticles’ composition or their quantity within the paint paste. The nanoparticles seem to have been found in the dust in the air but again no indication of the airborne concentration, or the proportion of the mass attributable to them.  Likewise, the same nanoparticles seem to have been found in the biological samples, but again there is no indication or estimation of in what quantity.

On the evidence presented is not possible to say with any certainty that the nanoparticles in question caused the effects, and I suspect that on this basis alone the paper will be quickly dismissed by scientific communities.  However neither is it possible to say that they are not responsible, and the alarm that such a paper is capable of raising amongst a broader audience is not to be taken lightly.

There are some parallels with earlier scares, most notably the infamous “magic nano” incident. Where the Chinese incident seems to be different is that there really are nanoparticles here, albeit of apparently unknown composition. However, just like the earlier event, it is not enough to point the finger of blame at other possible culprits, the seriousness of this event demands further investigation, no matter how difficult that is.

Was this event caused by exposure to some type of nanoparticles? I don’t know, but it would certainly be ill advised to be too quick to dismiss the possibility.

Dr. Kristen Kulinowski

Dr. Kulinowski is Director of the International Council On Nanotechnology (ICON) at Rice University, and a global leader in developing safe and responsible nanotechnologies.  Under her direction, ICON has established the foremost on-line database of nanotechnology health and environmental impact research papers, and the GoodNanoGuide—an initiative to enable people share and develop the best possible practices for working safely with engineered nanomaterials.

I was impressed by the exhaustive clinical detail presented by the physicians to support their case that exposures in the workplace resulted in harm to these women. What I would have liked to see is more analysis of the particles themselves and how they were produced. What are the particles made of? Is there any corresponding toxicity literature investigating the same particle types in animal models? Were the particles part of the paste or created by the spraying or drying process? Not clear.

It’s also not clear if the answers to those questions really inform the lessons we might draw from this incident. Whether these were incidental or manufactured nanoparticles is somewhat beside the point. The real tragedy here is that these workers could have been protected if a conventional chemical hygiene plan had been implemented that included a working ventilation system and personal protective equipment. Preventing inhalation of 30-nm nanoparticles can be as simple as the proper use of an inexpensive mask sold by your neighborhood home improvement store. But even this basic protective measure was not employed in this workplace.

We can do better than this. A lot better. The tools are out there; it’s up to us to use them.

(Kristen has posted further comments on the new study on the ICON blog)

In the wake of a new study linking “nanotechnology” to two deaths and five additional cases of lung disease, the emerging technology of the ultra-small could be in for a rough ride.  Yet the real risk is that in the rush to use or even abuse the findings, the science and it’s true relevance are overlooked.

It’s never good news when a new technology is associated with a death.

The emerging area of nanotechnology has had a fairly smooth ride so far.  Sure, there have been questions over possible new health risks associated with some of its more esoteric offerings.  But no one has actually got sick from the technology.

Until now it seems…

A new study to be published in the European Respiratory Journal describes seven cases of unusual and progressive lung disease and two deaths amongst workers at a Chinese factory, and pins the likely cause on nanoparticles—which the authors link inextricably with nanotechnology.

The study presses a number of emotional and political buttons that are likely to elevate its significance—workers died; a new class of material, already under suspicion, is implicated; and in the journal’s press release, parallels are drawn with asbestos—a material that continues to be associated with tens of thousands of deaths around the world each year.

As news coverage surrounding the study gathers momentum, there will be the temptation for opponents and proponents of nanotechnology to either parade it as proof of nanotech’s dangers, or to dismiss it as ill-conceived, flawed and irrelevant.  But either approach would be a serious mistake, and in the long term could jeopardize the safe, successful and beneficial development of nanotechnology.

For years it’s been speculated that nanotechnology-derived materials—including nanoparticles—could present new health risks.  Some materials begin to exhibit novel physical and chemical properties at the nanoscale.  Nanometer-sized particles can get to places inaccessible to larger particles.  And particle size, shape and surface area have been linked to unusual biological behavior for some materials.  Backed by an increasing number of lab studies, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the potential health impact of some nanomaterials depends on more than just chemistry.

But hard data on any actual risks associated with nanomaterials remain tantalizingly elusive.  More to the point, no one has knowingly got sick after being exposed to an engineered nanomaterial yet.  And while proactively avoiding potential nanomaterial-related risks sounds awfully laudable, industry and governments are notoriously loath to take serious action on avoiding possible dangers in the absence of actual bodies.

This presents groups advocating proactive risk management or a precautionary approach to emerging technologies with a dilemma—how do you convince decision-makers to take action before people fall ill, rather than in response to a tragedy?  To some of these groups, this new study could well be seen as just the leverage they need to press for more risk research, stronger regulation, and less rapid nanotechnology commercialization.

On the other hand, industries and governments have a vested interest in ensuring the tens of billions of dollars they have invested in nanotechnology turns a profit—financially, politically and socially.  I may be being over-cynical here, but I can’t see them passively sitting by while a study associating nanotechnology with lung disease threatens to undermine this investment.  At the very least, the scientific integrity of the new study will be examined minutely.  And if it is found wanting, the temptation will be to dismiss it as flawed and irrelevant.

Unfortunately, neither of these approaches will help avoid similar incidents occurring in the future, or support the development of safe nanotechnologies in the long run.

This new study adds to a growing body of research into the potential health impacts of nanoparticles.  Eventually, it will no doubt play a role in helping to understand and avoid the potential dangers associated with some nanomaterials under some conditions. But on its own, it is limited and incomplete.  At the end of the day, the study says little about the potential hazards of nanoparticles in general, and next to nothing about the possible dangers of nanotechnology.  If the sad deaths of the two workers and the lung disease of their five colleagues were used to press home a preordained nanotechnology agenda, it would amount to little more than a cynical misuse of the data—not a move that is likely to encourage evidence-based decisions on either workplace safety or safe nanotechnology.

Yet to dismiss the study as flawed and irrelevant would be equally foolish.  The reality is that two workers died and nanoparticles were implicated, at a time when increasing numbers of nanoparticle-containing products are entering the market.  As the details of the study become known, people are going to want to know what the findings mean for them—whether there are risks associated with emerging nanotechnologies, and what government and industry are doing about it.  If nanotech-promoters downplay or even discredit the work, the move is more likely to engender suspicion than allay fears in many quarters.  And once again, evidence-based decision-making will be in danger of being sacrificed in favor of maintaining a set agenda.

Fortunately, there is a middle way; one that hopefully the proponents and opponents of nanotechnology—and all those in between—will take.  And this is to be science-grounded yet socially responsive in how the study is assessed and acted upon.

This is not a perfect study.  There are key pieces of information missing that prevent its application to nanoparticles more generally.  Yet I believe the questions it raises on the safe development of nanotechnology transcend its limitations.  The study places emerging nanotechnologies in the spotlight, and forces consumers, developers and decision-makers to think afresh about how they might be used safely.  Irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the tragic illnesses and deaths reported, the study will prompt people to ask how safe they are while working with and using products based on nanotechnology.

And where there are no satisfactory answers, these same people are going to want to know why.

Posturing in response to the study will only alienate people and hamper progress towards the science-informed development of safe and beneficial nanotechnology.  Rather, this is a chance for everyone with an interest in safe and beneficial nanotechnologies start working together towards science-grounded progress that ultimately serves everyone’s needs.

Talking together about the way forward is a good start, but to be effective it must lead to informed actions. Given the current lack of knowledge on the potential risks of some nanomaterials, these will depend on well-funded, strategic research that addresses the many existing information gaps.  While this new knowledge is being generated—a process that could take decades—innovative new approaches will be needed for working with and using the products of nanotechnology as safely as possible.  And to cap it all, decision-makers—from manufacturers to workers to policy-makers to consumers—will need access to clear, relevant and understandable information on nanotechnologies, and what they mean to them.

Working together along these lines, the groundwork will be laid for making progress that is based on the best possible science, yet doesn’t ignore the concerns and aspirations of the people it touches.

Tragically, the lung damage experienced by the seven Chinese workers in the European Respiratory Journal study could most likely have been prevented if accepted occupational hygiene practices had been followed. Ultimately, this is a story of a human failing, not an emerging technology.  Yet it does stimulate important questions that will need addressing if the long-term benefits of nanotechnology are to be realized.  The question is, are we prepared to put aside preconceived notions and work together to find effective answers?  I hope we are.

This piece was originally published by the Responsible Nano Forum as a foreword to reflections on the 5th anniversary of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report “Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties.”

Summary of the 2004 RS/RAE report

On July 29th 2004, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering published “Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties.” It was a milestone moment for the emerging field of nanotechnology.  Authored by a panel representing a wide range of expertise and perspectives, the document highlighted the promise of nanoscale-based technologies, delved into the potential hurdles to safe and sustainable development, and eschewing “singular” wisdom, introduced the world to the term “nanotechnologies.”

It also set out a clear path toward realizing the great potential of a significant emerging technology, while avoiding harm.

Five years on, how are we doing?

Back in 2004, I was co-chair of the U.S. government working group addressing the potential implications of nanotechnology and leading nanotech health and safety-related research at NIOSH – the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health… I had previously provided comments to the RS/RAE panel, and was looking forward to the final report with anticipation.  I even cut a trip to Singapore short to be present at the report’s U.S. launch, which was hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center—foreshadowing my move to the organization some months later.

At the time, concerns were mounting over possible new risks associated with creating materials and devices at the nanoscale, and how these would affect the technology’s development.  The previous year, Michael Crichton’s book Prey had sent the nanotech community into a tizzy over a speculative public backlash against the emerging science and technology.  And researchers were beginning to reveal hints that novel nanoscale materials could also affect humans and the environment in unconventional ways—getting to places and causing harm on a scale that belied their small size.

Into this growing tension and hype between the great promise and potential for harm that emerging nanotechnologies seemed to represent, the RS/RAE report came as a clear voice of reason.  The document was authoritative, clear, grounded in science, yet responsive to the broader social, economic and political environment within which nanotechnology was emerging.  It also placed a clear emphasis on the need to engage publics, address safety concerns and regulate emerging technologies successfully if the potential benefits from nanoscale science, engineering and technology were to be fully realized.

The RS/RAE report wasn’t the first to tackle these issues.  But it was the first to provide a clear and overarching perspective on what the opportunities and challenges were, and how to grasp the former while overcoming the latter.  In doing so, it helped to focus the thinking of the time, and illuminated a path forward toward the responsible and effective development of nanotechnology.

If the report had not been written, I cannot imagine we would have seen as much activity as we have over the past five years on developing safe, acceptable and successful nanotechnologies.  Since its publication in 2004, research, publications and discussions on the potential impacts of nanotechnologies have increased dramatically. Various European committees have reviewed the state of the science and recommended actions to underpin safe use and effective regulation.  New pan-European research programs have been funded to tackle specific health, safety and societal issues.  In the U.S. the National Nanotechnology Initiative has consolidated federal approaches to addressing environmental health and safety concerns, and research into human health and environmental impacts of nanotechnologies has increased.  National and international initiatives have brought stakeholders together to explore the development of responsible nanotechnologies.  Standards organizations have been galvanized into writing whole rafts of nanotech reports, guidelines and technical standards.  Awareness has grown over the need to engage the developers and users of nanotechnology-enabled products on the development of emerging technologies.  And moves have been made toward tighter regulation of new nanomaterials in Europe and the U.S.

And, most importantly, no one to our knowledge has been harmed from being exposed to new engineered nanomaterials.

Yet despite all this activity, it’s harder to pin down how much concrete progress has been made.  If the RS/RAE report was published in its current form today, it’s assessment and recommendations would be as relevant as they were five years ago.  A few things have changed over the past five years—the original report didn’t predict the widespread use of nanoscale silver in consumer products for instance, and it shied away from describing increasingly complex developments in nanoscience that are now beginning to translate into viable technologies.

But many of the top-line recommendations in the 2004 report would not be out of place in a 2009 assessment of nanotechnology opportunities and challenges.

Some of the recommendations made by the RS/RAE tackled issues that would never be resolved overnight.  In these cases, it’s not surprising that more still needs to be done.  For instance, life cycle assessments, workplace exposure, developing appropriate measurement methods and engaging the public on emerging technologies, are all areas that will most likely remain important for decades.

In other areas, it’s harder to understand why progress has dragged so.  The U.K. is still lacking a dedicated interdisciplinary center for nanomaterial risk research for example, leaving industry and government decision-makers without a strategically important resource for filling key knowledge gaps.  And research into the potential impacts of carbon nanotubes—highlighted as a critically important issue in the report—has been hampered by a disregard for the RS/RAE recommendations by research funders.

In some cases, actions have been taken that fly in the face of the RS/RAE recommendations.  A recent paper in Environmental Health Perspectives highlighted 45 sites around the world where unbound nanoparticles are being released into the environment for groundwater and soil remediation (a map of the locations is available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/remediation_map/)—in spite the RS/RAE panel recommending that until more is known about their environmental impact, “the use of free nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited.”

But reading through the original report, what strikes me more than anything is how the clarity that the RS/RAE brought to thinking about the responsible development of emerging technologies has been lost.

Over the past five years there have been endless discussions, workshops, reviews and reports on the responsible development of nanotechnology.  In many cases, they demonstrate a disturbingly pre-2004 understanding of the issues.  It’s as if the RS/RAE report is viewed as a landmark, but not a beacon—everyone knows about it, but no one takes the time to read (or re-read) it.

A few weeks ago, the Department for Business Innovation and Skills in the U.K. – BIS – launched a public consultation to inform the Government’s strategy for nanotechnology.  It’s a good idea, and should help the U.K. develop a clear roadmap for developing responsible and successful nanotechnologies.  But it’s ironic that five years after the RS/RAE provided the government with clear advice on what was needed to develop safe nanotechnologies, the occasion is being marked by yet another review.

It’s moves like this that make me wonder whether, despite all the action following publication of the RS/RAE report, there hasn’t been that much progress.

But there is a more serious issue here.  Engineered nanomaterials—which were the primary focus of the RS/RAE report—represent one technology innovation out of many that are likely to emerge over the coming decades.  Scientific knowledge, and the technologies it spawns, are increasing at a geometric rate.  The opportunities and challenges these emerging technologies will present are likely to bear scant resemblance to those experienced in the twentieth century—we are already seeing this in areas like nanotechnology, synthetic biology and information technology.  Yet we seem stuck in a rut, attempting to manage 21st century technologies with a 20th century mindset.

The RS/RAE report pointed the way towards changing this mindset and grappling with new challenges in new ways—ways that brought people together in partnerships to proactively grasp new opportunities while preempting and managing emerging risks.  It provided a template for how to develop emerging technologies responsibly.

Nanotechnologies have had a fairly easy ride so far.  Public awareness remains low. Progress has been incremental and often below the radar.  And no one has died—yet.  We may not be so lucky with the next new technology to come along.  Unless we learn from and build on the broader lessons of the 2004 Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report, we could find ourselves facing opportunities and challenges we are ill-equipped to deal with.

The full retrospective on 5 years after the Royal Society/Royal Acvademies of Engineering Nanotechnologies Report can be found here.

I’m often intrigued by the evolution of an article from its early drafts to the final version.  To complement today’s commentary on nanotechnology regulation in the journal Nature, written jointly with David Rejeski, I thought it would be interesting to post an early draft of the same paper here.  This is what the piece looked like before we started working with the journal’s editors on cleaning it up and squeezing it into an impossibly small number of words (apart from a couple of very small edits to make sure it was up to date and relatively error-free)…

As nanotechnology makes the leap from the lab to the marketplace, regulators are faced with the tough challenge of ensuring safety without stifling innovation.  Get it right and everyone stands to benefit from the economic and technological returns that engineering matter at the nanometer scale promises.  But get it wrong, and people, the environment and business all loose out.  However, developing approaches to effective regulation depends on good science and reliable information—delivered at the right point and at the right time.  In 2006, the UK government initiated a voluntary reporting scheme to collect data from industry on the commercial production, use and handling of engineered nanomaterials as a step towards evidence-based oversight.  Followed shortly after by a similar scheme in the US, both have failed to live up to expectations.  Canada and France are now working on instituting mandatory reporting programs to collect similar information.  This is a welcome move towards the effective oversight of nanotechnology-based products.  But it is only one of many steps that are needed if the promise of this emerging technology is to be realized.

Me handling multi-walled carbon nanotubes some years ago. Data are still needed on how to get the most out of this innovative material while using it safely.

Nearly five years ago, the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering stressed the need for evidence-driven oversight of engineered nanomaterials.(RS/RAE 2004)  Since then, the global investment in nanotechnology R&D by the public and private sectors has risen to over $18 billion annually (Lux Research 2009) and nanotechnology has passed from a scientific curiosity to a market reality, with hundreds of substances and products in commerce. Yet discussions continue to revolve around the safety of the technology rather than the many and varied products it leads to… In 2006, five research challenges were proposed that, if addressed, would help underpin evidence-based decisions on using the products of nanotechnology safely (Maynard, Aitken et al. 2006).  Movement has been made towards addressing all five of challenges, which covered exposure monitoring, toxicity testing, predicting and avoiding harmful behavior, evaluating material impact from cradle to grave, and establishing strategic research programs for addressing possible risks.  Yet developers and regulators are still a long way from understanding how to predict and manage the potential risks associated with new nanomaterials (National Academies 2009; SCENIHR 2009).

In addition to new science-based knowledge, regulators need clear information on engineered nanomaterials already in commerce—what is being produced, in what quantities, how is it being handled and used, and what is known about assessing and managing possible risks?  Without this basic information, they are grappling with ensuring the safety of unknown quantities of unknown materials, being used in unknown ways.  It was exactly this information-vacuum that the UK and US voluntary data collection programs aimed to fill.  Yet by the end of its two-year duration, the UK program had received just thirteen submissions (DEFRA 2009). The US program did not fare much better. Even before it was launched, a number of experts warned that the program would be ineffective because it lacked strong incentives for industry participation and the backup of mandatory measures.  The US Environmental Protection Agency moved forward – slowly – and received only 29 submissions by the end of 2008 (USEPA 2009).  The agency’s own assessment concluded “it appears that approximately 90% of the different nanoscale materials that are likely to be commercially available were not reported under the Basic Program”—an assessment based in comparing submissions with publicly available information on engineered nanomaterials being produced and used (USEPA 2009).

Against this backdrop, Canadian officials announced in January the country’s intentions to make data reporting on the production and use of engineered nanomaterials mandatory (PEN 2009).  The one-time request will be aimed at gathering information to help develop a regulatory framework and will target companies and institutions that manufacture or import more than 1kg of a given nanomaterial.  France is also in the final stages of establishing mandatory data reporting requirements.  In a move that could put the country at odds with its European neighbors, the “Grenelle de l’environnement”—a large piece of environmental legislation working its way through the French political system—includes language covering mandatory reporting on the identity, quantities and uses of engineered nanomaterials (including materials containing nanoparticles) in industry (Assemblée Nationale 2009). While these moves to make data collection mandatory are not necessarily linked directly to the UK and US experiences, there is little doubt that they were influenced by them.  Representatives from all four countries regularly share information on nanotechnology oversight through the auspices of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials.

This move towards mandatory data reporting is a welcome one.  Given the reticence of industry to volunteer information, it will enable regulators to make decisions based on reality rather than speculation.  In principle, such data calls and any resulting evidence-based regulations will benefit industry, reducing uncertainty and providing clear operational guidelines. For instance, a recent report on strategic business issues identified regulatory and compliance risk as its number one risk faced by industry worldwide (Ernst & Young 2008).  And a survey of nanotechnology firms in the US highlighted a “lack of sufficient data to quantify risks.” as a major barrier to understanding and managing nanotechnology risks (Lindberg and Quinn 2007). The current dearth of risk data is even raising eyebrows amongst insurance companies—Lloyd’s of London and Zurich Insurance have both placed nanotechnology in their top tier of emerging risks. Canadian Underwriter 2007; Lloyd’s 2007).

Supporting effective nanotechnology risk management and oversight will require action on a number of fronts.  Well-funded and implemented research strategies are still needed that fill current knowledge gaps and inform evidence-based oversight.  Government and industry partnerships are essential to ensuring access to relevant and trusted data on nanomaterial risks.  Small firms and start-up companies need help to address potential risks and meet regulatory requirements.  Innovative data transfer mechanisms are needed between information producers and information users.  And nanotechnology-relevant regulations need to be streamlined and clarified, reducing unnecessary burdens on industry while ensuring safe use.

Progress is being made on all these fronts, but it is patchy.  Agencies including the US EPA have clarified the regulatory status of substances like carbon nanotubes; a major step towards establishing oversight clarity.  Discussions are ongoing on how new European chemicals policy under REACH applies to nanomaterials (Pelley and Saner 2009).  The OECD is coordinating international efforts to generate toxicity data on 14 nanomaterials currently in use (OECD 2008).  And research addressing specific risk-related information gaps is ramping up around the world.  Yet there is still a large and growing chasm between what is needed for effective regulation, and what current plans will provide.  If the economic and social benefits of nanotechnology are to be realized without unnecessary harm being caused, regulators need to get a move on.

Moves towards mandatory data collection are a step in the right direction.  But in the long term, safe and successful nanotechnologies will depend on strategic research, successful government-industry partnerships and responsive, transparent oversight.

_____

Nature subscribers can compare this draft with what was finally published – an interesting exercise.  I’m more comfortable with how the story develops and flows in this draft.  But I have to say, the final version – helped along by three editors – is much sharper in it’s focus and recommendations, as well as being a good bit shorter!  And on balance, I think that our ideas as presented in the final paper reflect a maturity of thought that is lacking in the draft above.

Always pleasantly surprising what a good editor (or three) can bring to a piece!

References

Assemblée Nationale (2009). Projet de loi [modifie par le Senat] de programmation relatif a la mise en oeuvre du Grenelle de l’environnement, Texte Nº 1442 transmis a l’Assemblee nationale le 10 fevrier 2009.  Paris, France. 2009.

Canadian Underwriter (2007). Nanotechnology, climate change, infrastructure among top risks. Canadian Underwriter.

DEFRA (2009). Peronal communication on the UK Voluntary Reporting Scheme for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. London.

Ernst & Young (2008). Strategic Business Risk 2008 – The Top 10 Risks for Business. Enst & Young (in collaboration with Oxford Analytica).

Lindberg, J. E. and M. Quinn (2007). A Survey of Environmental, Health and Safety Risk Management Information Needs an Practices among Nanotechnology Firms in the Massachusetts Region. Washington DC. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Lloyd’s (2007). Nanotechnology.  Recent developments, risks and opportunities. London, UK. Lloyd’s.

Lux Research (2009). Nanomaterials State of the Market Q1 2009. New York, N.Y. Lux Research Inc.

Maynard, A. D., R. J. Aitken, et al. (2006). “Safe handling of nanotechnology.” Nature 444(16): 267-269.

National Academies (2009). Review of the federal strategy for nanotechnology-related environmental, health, and safety research. Washington DC. The National Academies Press.

OECD (2008). LIST OF MANUFACTURED NANOMATERIALS AND LIST OF ENDPOINTS FOR PHASE ONE OF THE OECD TESTING PROGRAMME. Paris, France. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Pelley, J. and M. Saner (2009). International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology. Regulatory Governance Initiative, Carleton University, Canada.

PEN (2009). World’s First Mandatory National Nanotech Requirement Pending. Washington DC. 2009.
RS/RAE (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies:  Opportunities and uncertainties. London, UK. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering: 113 pp.

SCENIHR (2009). Risk Assessment of Products of Nanotechnologies. Brussels. Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks.

USEPA (2009). Nanoscale materials stewardship program.  Interim report. Washington DC. US Enviromental Protection Agency.

Following up on my last post – Geoengineering the planet with nanotechnology ice-cream? – here’s a short video Zoe Papadopoulou and colleagues put together on The Cloud Project from my visit in June:

Although this was filmed before the finishing touches had been applied to the ice cream van, it give a flavor for how the project is bring artists, scientists and members of the public together to talk about emerging technologies like nanotech and geoengineering.

Many thanks to Zoe for permission to post the clip here.

Photo courtesy Zoe Papadopoulou

Scientists and engineers have their moments. But it they are hard pressed to beat art students when it comes to sheer audacious creativity.

Earlier this year I received an email so intriguing I couldn’t help but follow up on it. The email was from Zoe Papadopoulou, an MA student at the Royal College of Art in London.  It was a request for help with a rather unusual design project she and fellow student Cat Kramer were hatching. Skimming through the message, phrases like “geoengineering,” “ice cream van,” “nanotechnology,” “clouds that taste of ice-cream” peaked my interest.

But then I saw the words “liquid nitrogen,” and I was hooked!

The concept was deceptively simple – use art and design to engage people on nanotechnology and geoengineering in a simple, enjoyable and appealing way. The realization was a little more complex…

The whole idea was sparked off by Professor Richard Jones – author of the Soft Machines blog and former Senior Strategic Advisor for nanotechnology for the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). In a talk to students on the Royal College of Art’s Design Interactions course, he introduced them to the emerging field of nanotechnology. Intrigued by the possibilities and potential hurdles here – and especially the need for public engagement – Zoe and Cat set out to use design, art and science to, in their words,

“frame a debate, and create interactions between people and their possible futures.”

The result?  An ambitious plan to retro-fit a 1980 Sherpa ice cream van to create ice-cream flavored clouds, while acting as a focus for stimulating discussions on nanotechnology and geoengineering.

The idea went something like this:

Making ice-cream using liquid nitrogen is a fun and accessible introduction to nanotechnology – the rapid freezing leads to the ice-cream having a nanoscale structure and a super-smooth texture.  Nanometer scale particles also play a role in cloud formation, and in principle it’s possible to induce clouds to come together by injecting engineered nanoparticles into the atmosphere.  So why not combine the two to get ice-cream flavored clouds?  Why not inject a stream of liquid nitrogen and ice-cream mix into the atmosphere as a fine spray, leading to flavored condensation nuclei that will seed ice-cream clouds? And why not build it all into an old ice-cream van – a mobile fun-flavored cloud machine?

As you might imagine, the gap between technology concept and realization was rather large in this case.  It’ll be a while before you’ll see (taste?) strawberry-clouds over the English countryside – although the van is fully equipped to demonstrate how the cloud machine could work.

But this wasn’t the point of the exercise.  What Zoe and Cat were trying to achieve was using art and design to draw people into conversations about emerging technologies.

And in this they succeeded brilliantly.

My role in all of this – apart from making the odd encouraging noise – was to help out at a trial-run of the van back in June.

Part of the concept here was to use the van as a platform for experts to engage with real people on nanotechnology and geoengineering.  I’m told the idea was to get experts and members of the public talking to each other in an accessible, fun, non-threatening environment.  Fun and non-threatening for the public maybe – I’m not so sure the experts felt that way about it! But then maybe this was part of the process of breaking down barriers between people that know about emerging technologies like nanotech, and those that want to know more.

Actually, I had a blast with the van. Talking about the project, nanotechnology and geoengineering with Zoe’s friends and neighbors, I was fascinated by how easily the conversations flowed amidst demonstrations of the van’s cloud generators and roof-mounted industrial-strength water spray. With the van as a backdrop (and it really is an impressive piece of design-work), people started discussing emerging technologies – and what they might mean for them personally – without having to be forced into it.

Engagement is something that is talked about a lot in science and technology circles, but rarely done well.  Yet here were a couple of arts students effortlessly* bridging the gap between emerging technologies and members of the public, using their imagination, design skills and a bit of fun.

For the past week the van has been on display outside the Royal College of Art and has been attracting plenty of attention by all accounts.  Over the coming year it’s scheduled to make a number of appearances around the country – exactly where and when (and with whom) will be posted on the Cloud Project website (where you can also find out more about the project).

If you get the chance, I’d encourage you to visit it.  It’s a lot of fun.  But it also demonstrates the importance of using art and design together with other skills in bridging the gap between new technologies coming over the horizon, and people who they are potentially going to affect.

And geoengineering the planet with nanotech ice-cream?  I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon.  But it’s certainly something to think about as you munch on your ’99 this summer.**

End Notes

For more information on the Cloud Project, check out the project website.

Read more about the Royal College of Art Design Interactions course here.

*Actually, as Zoe and Cat will tell you, this project was far from effortless when it came to refurbishing the Sherpa van.  This took a tremendous amount of effort over the past several months – but the results are impressive!

**For non-Brits, the ’99 is the peak of British gourmet ice-cream – a whirl of soft-whip with a length of flaky chocolate stuck in it.  Delicious

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/07/05/geoengineering-the-plane-with-nanotechnology-icecream/feed/ 4 http://2020science.org/2009/07/02/nanotechnology-twit-tv/ http://2020science.org/2009/07/02/nanotechnology-twit-tv/#comments Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:47:49 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=1866

Just a quick post (at least, as far as the text goes). Last week, I had the pleasure of appearing on Twit TV’s Dr. Kiki’s Science Hour with Kristen Sanford and Leo Laporte. The conversation covered nanotechnology from every conceivable angle. I should have known with Leo’s opening question – asking what I thought of Eric Drexler’s ideas – that we were in for a fun ride!

As Kiki and Leo managed to get in a whole bunch of questions about what nanotech is (and isn’t), where and how it’s being used, what’s so great about it, and what some of the possible barriers to it’s development are, I thought it worth posting the show here.

I should warn you, it’s long, running just shy of 70 minutes. The full show can be streamed below. But for anyone who wants to fast forward through the boring bits or watch it at their leisure, it can also be downloaded here. [Quicktime, 199 MB]

The show was recorded by the folks at On Demand Twit Video, and is reproduced here under the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada Creatives Commons license:

This month’s issue of the magazine Science & Technology takes a closer look at some of the controversies, dilemmas and decisions that will impact on the future development of the science and technology of working at the nanoscale.  Amongst the commentaries is a short piece I wrote about the importance of safety in underpinning successful and beneficial nano-enabled technologies:

Science & Technology, June 2009, Page 66

Over the past few years, scientists and engineers have made huge strides in their ability to manipulate materials at the nanometer scale.  Tapping into novel properties that emerge when substances are engineered at the nanoscale, they have begun to push conventional technologies further than was previously thought possible.  And with this new-found dexterity, they are beginning to develop innovative new technologies that were unimaginable not so long ago.  The result is a rapidly emerging toolkit of scientific knowledge and technical expertise that could have profound economic and social impacts around the world; creating jobs and wealth while addressing challenges that range from disease treatment and prevention to renewable energy and clean water.

As with any new technology, however, the promise of nanotechnology comes at a price. When materials are engineered at the scale of atoms and molecules they can behave in unconventional ways—in effect, the rules that apply to non-nanoscale materials begin to break down.  This is what makes the technology so powerful.  But it raises the possibility of products that can also cause harm in unconventional ways, which may not be captured by the usual approaches to dealing with human health and environmental risks.  Unless these unconventional risks are understood and addressed, the future of nanotechnology could be dogged by uncertainties over safety and dwindling public trust.

Not every product of nanotechnology will present unconventional risks.  But if a nanoscale substance can get to places in the body or the environment that are normally inaccessible, and is able to elicit a response following exposure that is influenced by shape and form at nanometer dimensions, new questions need to be asked on how harmful the substance is and how it can be used safely.  Five years ago, these concerns were raised by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.  Since then, numerous reports have reiterated and expanded on the challenges being faced to developing safe nanotechnologies.  Sadly, there has been substantially more talk than action.

Fortunately, there have been no documented cases of harm arising from exposure to engineered nanomaterials.  But an increasing body of research indicates that some of these materials are potentially harmful if used without due care.  Yet information is still lacking on what constitutes “due care” in many cases—especially with highly novel substances such as carbon nanotubes.  And while global research into the potential health impacts of engineered nanomaterials is increasing, it still falls far short of what is needed to underpin evidence-based decision-making.

Recently, the US National Academies of Science called for a national research strategy for nanotechnology risk research, drawing on the expertise and perspective of multiple stakeholders.  Coupled with adequate funding, such an approach could help bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers in developing safe nanotechnologies. Yet at the end of the day, even the best risk research strategies will not be of much use if the end users are suspicious of nanotechnology.

Experiences with genetically modified organisms have demonstrated the power of public opinion in determining whether a new technology succeeds or not.  And while the similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs may be slim, it is clear that in today’s hyper-connected world, consumers have an increasingly strong voice.  As a result, it is not sufficient to ensure the safety of nanotechnology-based products; public trust in the technology and the ability of government and industry to manage it safely must also be nurtured.

In many ways nanotechnology is a test-case for other emerging technologies.  Countries and economies around the world are increasingly dependent on technology innovation.  Yet the rules governing success are changing; driven by rapidly evolving global communications, ever-more pressing social and economic challenges, and an increasingly complex knowledge-base.  Proactive risk research and public engagement are key not navigating through this changing landscape.  Get them wrong and we face lost opportunities.  But get them right and there is a chance that nanotechnology—and other emerging technologies—will deliver what they promise.

Originally published in Science & Technology Issue 3, June 2009, pp 66-67

Download the original article [PDF, 312 KB]

Part 6 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

The story so far: We are facing an unprecedented confluence of three factors that are forcing us to rethink how we develop and use science and technology to the benefit of society.  Coupling between our action’s and the Earth’s re-actions is more significant now than at any previous point in human history. Global Communications are dissolving previously rigid boundaries throughout society at a seemingly ever-increasing rate.  And then there’s the third “C” – Control…

Not to put too fine a point on it, control is what science and technology are ultimately about.  Science provides the tools for understanding how the world works; technology puts them to use.  This is how it’s been for the past 10,000 years.  So what’s different now?  The answer is that we are finally getting down to being able to manipulate the basic building blocks of matter – atoms and molecules.  Over the past 50 years we have made tremendous strides in being able to visualize and engineer materials at near-atomic scales.  And by doing so we have opened the door to a vast array of technological advances that were the stuff of dreams just a few decades ago.

In the previous post in this series, I wrote about three defining features of nanoscale control – smallness, strangeness and sophistication.  Here, I want to dwell a little more on the third of those – sophistication – as it is likely to underpin some of the more radical advances in science and technology over the next few years.

Three defining characteristics of controlling matter at the nanoscale

Over the past century, synthetic chemistry has changed the world.  The ability to systematically combine atoms together to make new molecules has revolutionized the way we live – virtually everything we touch depends on synthesized chemicals in some way.  Yet chemists are the first to admit that the number of chemicals that have so far been synthesized is minuscule compared to those just waiting to be discovered and made – although we appear to have had good control over the world of chemicals, we’ve only scratched the surface.

What if we had the tools to splice atoms and molecules together in new and innovative ways?  What if we could go beyond text-book chemistry, and invent new molecules that behaved more like nanoscale machines?  What if we could create systems of molecules that could self-replicate – just like biological systems, only better?  All of these goals are coming within reach as scientists learn how to build new molecules atom by atom.

"Nano car" synthetic molecules, from the lab of Professor Jim Tour at Rice University

A particularly interesting example – more a proof of concept – comes from Professor Jim Tour’s lab at Rice University.  Jim was interested in how some biological molecules carry out very physical tasks – like ferrying molecules from one place to another – and wondered whether totally artificial molecules could be invented that behaved in similar ways.  The result was a molecule dubbed the nano car.  Completely artificial, it consists of four “wheels” made of carbon-60 molecules, attached together with a chassis of  organic molecules.  What is significant is that the nano cars demonstrate thermally-induced directional motion on a surface – i.e. they are able in principle to ferry a payload of other molecules from point A to point B.  Writing in Nanotechnology Law and Business in 2007, Tour noted:

The achievement with the nanocar was significant because it demonstrated for the first time structurally controlled directional movement on a surface due to rolling of the wheels rather than the common non-directional stick-slip motion of molecules on a substrate surface.  The next goal of our project was to construct a nanomachine that can convert energy-inputs into controlled motion on a surface.

The nano car attempts to achieve something that occurs all the time in nature by painstakingly controlling how the various molecules that make it up are pieced together.  But the example begs a question – if we can begin to replicate what living systems – DNA-based systems – do, through nanoscale control, how much more could be achieved by starting with DNA in the first place? The answer is – rather a lot.

One of the more interesting discoveries in biochemistry over the past several years has been that many molecules in living systems do their stuff on a physical as much as a chemical level.  For instance, while the nano cars could potentially move molecules around on a surface, naturally occurring biological molecules exist that do this every day – nature has already evolved incredibly sophisticated systems that operate at the nanoscale.  Knowing that natural “molecular motors” exist, scientists have been working hard to create their own biologically-based and biology-inspired motors.

Cartoon of an autonomous molecular motor, courtesy of Andrew Tuberfield.

One such motor is an autonomous “walker” designed and constructed by Andrew Tuberfield’s group at the University of Oxford.  The molecule – which is DNA based – is designed to walk along a track constructed from DNA for as long as there is a supply of fuel – provided by a second set of engineered molecules.  The idea is similar to that embodied in the nano car – an engineered molecule that mimics some of the features of living systems.  But in this case the building blocks used – DNA-based molecules – allow a far more sophisticated device to be constructed.  The walker consists of two asymmetric feet attached to a DNA track.  Through random thermal motion, these feet are constantly lifting up from the track.  However, because of the asymmetry of the molecule, the left foot is uniquely exposed to the surrounding environment when it becomes elevated.  at this point, the researchers who designed the system engineered in two rather clever features.  First, a purposely designed molecule – H1 in the diagram – attaches to the left foot and removes it from the track as the foot extents.  The same cannot happen to the right foot because it is not accessible.  Then, a second molecule – H2 – attaches to the H1-foot pair and removes the original H1 molecule, leaving just an unattached foot.  At this point, one of two things can happen; the foot either attaches to the left.  Or it re-attaches to the right.  The probability of either happening is random.  But as re-attaching to the left results in the molecule ending up exactly where it started, only re-attachment to the right ends up in the molecule taking a step – and the step is always in the same direction.

By using engineered biological parts and controlling their construction at the nanoscale, the researchers have created a molecule that can move along a predetermined track in a predetermined direction, for as long as track and fuel exist – a Brownian ratchet that converts random motion into directional movement.  It may not seem a lot, but it is a tremendous step towards building nanoscale systems that begin to match what biology already does.

But this research raises a yet more intriguing question:  If we can use biological parts to make non-biological motors through nanoscale engineering, can we get into the very workings of biology itself? Biology, after all, is built on nanoscale processes – from DNA to the proteins it encodes for.  If we could control biology at the atomic and molecular level (and do it well), it would quite possibly one of the most transformative technological moves since the advent of agriculture.

Thirty years ago, the notion of controlling the code of life itself would have been laughable.  Now it seems within reach.

The plummeting time to sequence the human genome

Over the past few years, the ease with which genetic code can be sequenced has plummeted.  It took 13 years for teams of scientists around the globe to first read the human genome – completing the project in 2001.  In 2007, it took 2 months to sequence the genome of DNA-co-discoverer James Watson.  And by 2013 it is likely that your personal genome could be read in the time it takes to boil an egg.

Of course, sequencing just reads the information – it doesn’t tell you how to use it.  But here’s the important thing – sequencing genomes transforms the information from the physical domain to the digital domain, where it can be experimented with and engineered in new ways.  While restricted to the physical world, there were always going to be limitations to how effectively we manipulated and controlled genetic material.  In the digital domain, those limitations are gone.  Cheap affordable sequencing is ushering in the age of digital biology.

Schematic of the "digitization" of biology

However, playing around with genetic information on computers would be little more than a novelty if it weren’t for one further advance – the plummeting cost of DNA synthesis.  This completes the loop between the physical and digital worlds.  Now, once you have uploaded your genome into the computer and digitally enhanced it, the technology exists – or soon will – to download the new genome back into reality.  It’s a technology that promises to enable an incredibly sophisticated level of genetic engineering.  It allows brand new genetic code to be written on the computer, tested out in virtual space, then downloaded back into an organism.  It even allows brand new organisms to be designed and created from scratch.

This possibility was pushed home last year when Craig Venter’s team synthesized the genome of a bacterium – Mycobacterium genitalium – from scratch.  The team has yet to insert the synthesized DNA into a cell, and thus achieve – in effect – the creation of life form laboratory chemicals.  But it seems only a matter of time before this is achieved.

January 2008 - Craig Venter's team synthesize the complete genome of a new organism from scratch

We’re not quite there yet with the technology that will allow us to manipulate biology at the nanoscale.  But it’s coming.  And when it does, the level of control we have had over matter for the past ten centuries will seem like child’s play.

Throw this level of potential control into the mix with the other two “C’s,” and you have all the ingredients for a step-change in what we can do, and what the consequences are – for good and for bad.

Next time: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Control at the nanoscale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication.

Next: Confluence: Where communication, coupling and control collide.

Back in April, the folks at the PBS station THIRTEEN asked me to answer 13 questions on nanotechnology and the environment for their website feature Green Thirteen.   The questions ended up covering most of nanotechnology – what it is, what it’s good for, what the downsides might be, and how we might overcome potential problems to use it effectively.  With this in mind, I thought it worth posting the Q&A here as a brief nanotechnology primer…

1. What is nanotechnology?

The chemist and Nobel prize winner Richard Smalley described nanotechnology as “the art and science of making stuff that does stuff at the nanometer scale.”

Nanotechnology involves working with materials at an incredibly fine scale—around the size of the atoms and molecules that they are made of.  But the aim is to achieve something new and useful by working at this scale.

Working at the nanometer scale—where one nanometer is a mere one billionth of a meter long—it becomes possible to tap into some unique properties of matter.  Many of these properties only become apparent when small clumps of atoms and molecules are carefully constructed and used as the building blocks of larger structures.  For instance, some materials can be used in new ways when they are engineered at the nanoscale, simply because they are more versatile than non-nanoscale materials.  Other materials behave in strange new ways that enable innovative uses.  Gold, for example, becomes a highly reactive, red-colored metal when formed into nanometer-size particles.  And working at the nanoscale allows highly sophisticated new materials to be engineered that would be impossible to produce using conventional technologies—everything from super-strong materials to the next generation of computer chips to targeted drugs.

2. What are the benefits of nanotech?

The benefits of nanotechnology are incredibly broad, but generally involve making existing technologies work better, or enabling the development of  new technologies.

Many people see nanotechnology as a tool kit that allows scientists and engineers to do new things, whether they are chemists, physicists, biologists, or working in a hundred and one other fields.  In many cases, the things we use everyday don’t work as well as they could because we haven’t been able to control their structure precisely at the finest level.  But nanotechnology is changing this.  For instance, a growing number of consumer products are being improved through the use of simple nanotechnology-based applications:  Sunscreens that go on clear, but protect against harmful UV radiation; clothing that repels stains; socks that prevent the buildup of odor-causing bacteria; tennis racquets that are stronger and lighter; MP3 players that are smaller while holding more songs; even foods that are supposedly better because they have been engineered at the nanometer scale.

But these consumer products are only the tip of the nanotechnology iceberg.  Because the technology enables other technologies to work better, it has the potential to help address some of the biggest challenges facing us.  These include combating climate change, generating renewable energy, controlling pollution, ensuring access to clean water, and developing highly effective medical treatments.

As nanotechnology is used to make better products and address serious challenges, it is expected to generate jobs and money.  Some estimates put the possible market value of products that depend in some way on nanotechnology as being worth over $3 trillion dollars within the next five years.  While the significance estimates like these are sometimes hard to evaluate, there is little doubt that the “nanotechnology tool kit” will play a major role in underpinning future technological and economic development.

3. How does nanotech improve existing technologies?

Sophisticated as they might seem, many existing technologies are akin to trying to make fine jewelry while wearing boxing gloves.  Nanotechnology is the equivalent of removing the gloves—it gives us the ability to fine tune how materials and products are put together at the finest level.  For example, consider the integrated circuits at the heart of modern computers.  The power of these circuits is limited by how many components can be squeezed onto a single chip.  But it is also limited by how fast the heat generated by the electrons coursing through the components can be removed.  Nanotechnology is enabling components—individual transistors and connectors—to be shrunk to the nanoscale, allowing many more of them to be packed onto single chips.  But it is also improving the materials used to transmit heat away from these components, ensuring they don’t over-heat and stop working.

Sunscreens are another example of where nanotechnology improves an existing technology.  Ten to fifteen years go there were two options to making a sunscreen.  You could either use chemicals that are absorbed into the skin, and protect against harmful UV radiation from the sun.  Or you could use particles of materials like titanium dioxide—the same material used to make paint and some foods a brilliant white—to coat the skin and reflect the harmful radiation.  The particles were generally more effective at protecting the user and had the advantage that they lay on top of the skin rather than being absorbed into it—but they left a pasty white residue on the skin that was cosmetically unattractive.  Nanotechnology has since removed this disadvantage.  But using nanometer-scale particles of materials like titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, manufacturers have developed sunscreens that are transparent to visible light while still reflecting UV radiation—and that don’t rely on chemicals that are absorbed into the skin.  The result is highly effective products that are also cosmetically acceptable.

Almost any technology that can be thought of which relies on physical materials can be improved using nanotechnology—simply because nanotechnology provides increased control over the atoms and molecules that make up any material and determine its properties.  However, the economic, social and personal advantages of the improvements will not always outweigh the time, effort and resources needed to make them happen.

4. What kinds of industries are involved? How and where are nanomaterials made?

There are many types of industries involved in nanotechnology, ranging from small startup companies to major multinational corporations.  The types of materials being made are also very diverse.  The NanoMetro map published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies gives a feel for the range and location of nanotech businesses in the US, although it probably doesn’t capture everything that is happening.  The map identifies industries using nanotechnology in the broad areas of electronics, energy and environmental applications, imaging and microscopy, tools and instruments, medicine and health, and materials.  One important point here is that nanotechnology is as much about the tools needed to see and manipulate matter at the nanometer scale—electron microscopes and scanning force microscopes for instance—as it is about creating and using new materials.

Many nanotechnology applications rely on nanomaterials—materials that have been engineered with nanometer-scale structures.  A lot of the nanomaterials currently in use are simply nanometer-scale forms of materials that have been used for many years—such as the titanium dioxide nanoparticles used in sunscreens and elsewhere.  As a result, it is common to find companies with experience developing chemicals and materials using more traditional methods beginning to develop nanomaterials.  At the same time, there are a number of smaller companies that are developing increasingly sophisticated and unique nanomaterials.  In many cases, these are being spun out of University-based nanotechnology research.

Approached to making nanomaterials are as diverse as the materials themselves.  Some of the simplest nanomaterials are made by reacting chemicals together, either in a liquid—to produce suspensions of nanoparticles—or in a gas, essentially burning materials in a controlled manner to produce nanometer-scale particles.  These are then collected, purified, and further processed before being added to products.  At the other end of the spectrum, researchers are modifying viruses, and re-programming them to build nanomaterials.  Recent research has led to new batteries that are based on virus-constructed electrodes.  In between, there are many different ways of engineering matter to form nanostructured materials that can be used to add value to products.

5. What kinds of nanomaterials are appearing in consumer goods?

Most nanotechnology-enabled consumer products currently available rely on relatively simple nanomaterials.  A survey by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies indicates that silver nanoparticles are one of the most the dominant nanomaterials currently in use, appearing as an antimicrobial agent in everything from clothing to cooking utensils.  Carbon nanotubes—a unique form of carbon with unusual mechanical and electrical properties—is also appearing in a number of products, predominantly in sporting goods as a way to make them stronger and lighter.  Nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are widely used in sunscreens and cosmetics, while silica nanoparticles are also being used in a number of products.  In addition there are a number of products using “soft” nanomaterials, which rapidly fall apart when they have done their job.  For instance, some cosmetics use nanometer scale liposomes—very small capsules containing specific materials—to deliver nutrients and other ingredients to the outer layers of the skin.  These disintegrate when they reach their destination, delivering the encapsulated material to where it is needed.

With the exception of carbon nanotubes, these and other nanomaterials being used in consumer products tend to be nanostructured versions of materials that have been used for some time.  However, over the next few years it is likely that increasingly sophisticated and complex nanomaterials will find uses in consumer products.

6. What are the negatives of nanotech?

Like any technology, nanotechnology has its plusses and minuses.  These will generally be specific to different uses of nanotechnology.  For instance, the potential downsides of a nanotechnology-enabled memory chip in an MP3 player will be very different from using nanoparticles in food.

Because of the new and unusual behavior of many engineered nanomaterials, questions have been raised about their safety.  If something can be used in new ways, get to new places, or has new and unusual physical and chemical properties, it is reasonable to ask whether these might also lead to new ways of causing harm—either to humans or the environment.  Evidence to date is sketchy, but it does suggest that some nanomaterials might cause harm in unexpected ways if exposure occurs.  For some nanomaterials, their potential to cause harm will be negligible.  In other situations, more care will need to be taken to ensure safe use—a lot depends on whether exposure is likely, and how toxic the material is.  Common sense and current knowledge go a long way to reducing possible risks.  But more work is still needed to determine the best ways of using these new materials as safely as possible.

Other concerns about nanotechnology are more social and ethical in nature.  Will nanotechnology lead to personal rights being infringed—perhaps through ubiquitous surveillance?  Who will benefit from these emerging technologies, and who will pay the price?  At what point should the use of nanotechnology in enhancing human abilities be questioned?  These and similar questions are not unique to nanotechnology.  But they are an important component of the debate surrounding its development and use.

7. Are there any health side-effects associate with nanotechnology? (e.g. carbon nanotubes causing lung cancer, unexpected in-vivo reactions)

Nanotechnology in and of itself does not lead to health impacts, simply because it is a toolbox of different techniques rather than one specific technology.  However, some uses of nanotechnology could affect people’s health if used inappropriately.

For a material to cause harm to humans, it must first get into the body.  Once there, it’s toxicity will determine how severe any response is.  A high exposure to a low toxicity material (and many nanomaterials will have a low toxicity) may result in a negligible impact.  On the other hand, a low exposure to a highly toxic material could cause a lot of damage.

Two materials that have been researched quite a bit are titanium dioxide nanoparticles, and carbon nanotubes.  In both cases, the materials have been studied in cell cultures and in animals but not humans, and so estimating the toxicity of the materials to people is a little difficult.

Research has shown that inhaled titanium dioxide nanoparticles are more toxic than larger particles of the same substance.  In this case, size makes a difference it seems.  However, as titanium dioxide has a very low toxicity to begin with, the nanoparticles—even though they appear to be more toxic—still seem to be reasonably safe.

Carbon nanotubes appear to be harmful if inhaled, but the harm seems to depend on the type of nanotubes—and there are many types of carbon nanotubes.  Recent research has indicated that long, straight, stiff carbon nanotubes that look like asbestos fibers under the microscope, could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled.  However, many types of carbon nanotubes don’t have the right shape for this to be a serious concern.  Other research has shown that tangled clumps of carbon nanotubes could also harm the lungs if inhaled, although it unclear how much material is needed for harm to occur.

In both these cases, the critical factor is exposure.  If exposures are low—either while making the materials or using products containing them—risks of health effects will also be low.  The good news is that it seems exposure to carbon nanotubes probably will be low—this is a material that doesn’t readily become airborne as fine fibers.  However, more research is needed to work out how low an exposure is low enough.

8. What kinds of threats to the environment might nanotech pose? (e.g.metal oxide nanoparticle toxicity to fish and frogs)

It’s not clear how harmful different nanomaterials will be if they get out into the environment, although it is clear that some nanomaterials will be more harmful than others.  Important questions that still needs answers include how much material is likely to be release, and from where; whether this material is in the form of nanoparticles, or whether it clumps up into larger particles; how far it is transported, and whether it changes as it moves through the environment; where it accumulates, how long it lasts in the environment, which plants and animals will become exposed, and what the impacts might be.

The good news is that nanoparticles from sources like fires and volcanic eruptions have been ubiquitous in the environment as long as living organisms have been around, and so they have evolved over time to deal with them.  That said, no-one is quite sure how the environment will respond to novel engineered nanomaterials—especially precisely engineered nanoparticles.

One particular potential threat that has already been raised concerns the use of nano-silver in products.  Silver is very effective at killing microbes, which is why it is being used in an increasing number of products.  But it is also highly toxic to a number of organisms as well as microbes.  What is not clear at present is what the impact of silver nanoparticles washed out of products and into the environment might be.  The amounts used may be low enough for the impact to be negligible—or they may not.  It’s a question that can’t be answered well without more information on how much nano-silver is being used, where it is being used, and the likely impacts on the environment if it is released.

9. Who regulates nanotechnology products?

There is no one agency or organization that regulates nanotechnology products.  Rather, they are regulated according to the type of product.  For instance, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for drugs, food additives and cosmetics that contain engineered nanomaterials.  The US Consumer Protection Safety Commission covers consumer product safety.  The US Department of Agriculture covers food safety—except where FDA has jurisdiction.  And the US Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for chemicals and pesticides.  Each part of this patchwork of regulations and regulatory agencies has different levels of regulatory authority when it comes to nanotechnology products.

10. How much is still not known about the safety of nanotech products, and what needs to be done to fill in the gaps?

From a scientific perspective, there is still a tremendous amount that we don’t know about how to develop and use nanotechnology products safely.  Specific research question that need answers have been raised by a number of organizations, including the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and the US government National Nanotechnology Initiative.  There is broad agreement that if nanotechnology is to succeed—and succeed safely—there needs to be a major strategic research program that identifies and fills the outstanding research gaps.  This will require a clear set of goals and objectives, additional research funding, and greater coordination between the organizations that fund research, and those that use the information to ensure material and product safety.

That said, we are not starting out with a blank slate when it comes to using nanotechnology products safely.  Knowledge from other materials can be used to reduce potential risks in many cases, and existing regulations can be applied to nanomaterials—although their implementation may be less than perfect.  However, strategic research will be essential to underpin the long-term safety of increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based materials and products.

11. What kinds of recycling challenges are there for nanotech materials? What about nanolitter?

Recycling nanotechnology products presents a number of challenges.  First, there is the problem of stuff that isn’t recycled, either because no-one thinks about it, or because including nanomaterials in a product makes recycling difficult.  This leads to the possibility of nanomaterials being released into the environment as products are disposed of in landfills and slowly degrade, or are incinerated.

Where nanotechnology products are recycled there are two challenges:  Is it worth attempting to extract and reuse the nanotechnology components of the products, and how might this be done; and does the inclusion of a nanomaterial in a product make conventional recycling harder?  To illustrate this second point, imagine nanoparticles of some substance were added to plastic bottles to make them perform better, but that these nanoparticles interfered with the quality of material recycled from conventional plastic bottles.  Would it be better to separate out the nano and non-nano bottles, and how would that be achieved in practice.  The first challenge is perhaps a little easier to address, as it is unlikely that nanomaterials could be recycled from nanotechnology products in a useable state.  Rather, it is more likely that the substances forming the nanomaterials—the silver in nano-silver socks for example—would be reclaimed and used to form new nanomaterials.

12. What are some of the future uses for nanotechnology? How likely is a nano-fabricator?

The next few decades will most likely see some tremendous advances that are based in part on controlling matter at the nanometer scale.  These could well include new forms of generating and storing energy; lighter stronger materials; targeted cancer treatments; treatments for degenerative diseases; efficient ways to purify water; faster more powerful computers; computers that run on light, not electricity; biological organisms that are programmed to make new materials and devices; metamaterials that channel light in highly unusual ways.  We will definitely see a shift from the rather simple nanomaterials being used today to increasingly complex multifunctional nanomaterials.  And associated with this will be an increasingly sophisticated suite of instruments for observing and manipulating the world at the nanoscale.

Based on current research, there will further advances in developing new molecules and nanoscale systems that mimic or reflect what happens in biology (biology, after all, operates very effectively at the nanoscale).  These will move us closer to building new materials and devices molecule by molecule.  But the end result will be much closer to conventional chemistry or biology than the “nano-fabricator”—a speculative machine that can construct complex products out of their constituent atoms, much like the replicators of Star Trek.

13. How can we prevent future problems with nanotechnology? (e.g. grey goo)

Nanotechnology will come with its own set of problems—just as every technology preceding it has.  The trick here will be to have the foresight to spot the problems before they get too large and to navigate a course around them.  This is a tough task.  It will require strategic research to address plausible issues, and ways of translating the results of this research into proactive action.

Even with such an approach, there will be mis-steps.  But hopefully, with the right strategies in place, corrective action will be able to taken fast enough to prevent either major human health or environmental impacts, or the hopes of nanotechnology to address critical challenges being dashed.

In the long term, there may be challenges that are outside our current ability to comprehend the potential dangers, and how to avoid them.  Not self-replicating nanobots perhaps—the so-called “grey goo” that is more science fantasy than science fact—but other technological breakthroughs that take us places unimaginable a few years ago.  The only way to deal with such challenges is to develop institutions that are sufficiently fleet footed and forward-looking to respond to the challenges as they come over the horizon.

The one thing we cannot afford to do is to stick our heads in the sand and ignore potential of nanotechnology to do great good and possibly great harm.

These questions and answers first appeared in their original form at THIRTEEN.ORG on April 28 2009

The unthinkable has happened!  The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is poised to get $5 million in crisp new dollars for researching possible workplace risks arising from nanotechnology.  It may not sound like a big deal.  But believe me—it is…

Back in 2005, NIOSH spent $3 million on nanotechnology risk research—scraped together from various internal sources.  It wasn’t a lot, but it allowed the agency to begin chipping away at a growing problem—how to work safely with the increasingly unusual materials coming out of nanotechnology.  Since then, NIOSH has been doing an annual loaves and fish trick—pushing meager internal funds further than they had any right to go in the pursuit of safer workplaces.

But even with inspired leadership and a smart bunch of researchers, $3 million a year was never enough to cover all of the research needed to underpin safe nanotech workplaces.  Back in 2005, we didn’t know how to measure exposure to nanomaterials, how toxic the new materials being produced were, how to prevent exposure, or how to work with and dispose of the materials safely.  Despite some excellent research, we are still a long way from answering these questions—which makes things tough for the producers, users and regulators of nanotechnology-related products.

Of course, the burden for filling in the knowledge gaps doesn’t lie solely on NIOSH’s shoulders.  Other federal agencies are filling in some of the unknowns under the auspices of the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).  And collaborations with research partners around the world are helping leverage the limited funds that are available.

Nevertheless, NIOSH is the lead US agency when it comes to underpinning safe workplaces through sound research.  And so far it hasn’t had the resources necessary to do the job when it comes to nanotechnology.

Over the past five years, annual funding for nanotechnology risk research has increased within the agency—it was up to $7 million last year.  But this has always been achieved through redirecting internal funds.  Despite the US Government investing around $1.5 billion per year on nanotechnology research, not a drop of new money has gone NIOSH’s way.

Until now.  Maybe it’s the new administration.  Maybe people are eventually waking up to the fact that successful nanotechnology depends on safe workplaces.  Either way, NIOSH is scheduled to receive $5 million in new funding for nanotechnology risk research next year—bringing the total nanotech research budget to $12 million.

Of course, it isn’t enough to do everything that is necessary.  Even my lowest estimates suggest that the agency need an additional $10 million per year to make significant inroads into the research backlog here.

But it is a major step in the right direction.

That’s not the only good news though.  Browsing through the NNI’s Supplement to the President’s Budget for 2010 [PDF, 3.4MB], a number of agencies will be increasing spending on nanotechnology risk research next year.  Most significantly, the National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST) will be investing an additional $3 million, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) an additional $7 million.  Overall, the projected budget for nanotechnology risk research for 2010 is $88 million—$16 million up on this year.

This is great news.  But I do need to add a caveat.  The NNI figures have always tended to encompass research that is relevant to addressing safety concerns, but isn’t necessarily directly focused on the type of research that is needed (this discrepancy was highlighted most recently in a National Academies of Science report).  And so there is a chance that not every dollar in that $88 million will go directly to ensuring the safer use of nanotechnology-related products.

Nevertheless, I am cautiously optimistic that a larger proportion of the funding will be directly relevant to understanding and minimizing risks in 2010.   Funding increases for NIOSH, NIH, NIST and the US Environmental Protection Agency will all directly contribute to a better understanding of potential risks.  And a large chunk of National Science Foundation funding in this area is already tied up in two research centers specifically focused on environmental impacts.

There is still a long way to go if US government-supported research is to get us to where we need to be with developing safe nanotechnologies.  In addition to funding, there is still a need for increased stakeholder involvement in mapping out research directions and a stronger research strategy.

But it seems that under the new administration things are at least moving in the right direction.

And while an additional $5 million for NIOSH may seem a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things, it is a major step forward to protecting one of the more vulnerable groups when it comes to engineered nanomaterials—the people making and using the stuff.

So you’re looking for a new technology concept—something that will stimulate research funding, make a buck or two, and maybe save the world—at least for another year or so.  What do you need?

Here’s a quick checklist:

1. Something that’s revolutionary. Evolutionary change doesn’t hack it these days I’m afraid—your new technology needs to make a distinct break from the past—or at least, look as if it does.
2. Hype—and lots of it. A vision for how your technology will transform the world over the next ten to fifty years.  If you can argue that civilization will collapse without the new tech, so much the better.
3. A focus on interdisciplinary research. Stove-piped technologies are so last century.  To be hip and relevant in the 21st century, you need to be interdisciplinary.  Fusions of two disciplines are good—more are better though.  And if you can throw in a social science or two, better still.
4. Inter-agency collaboration. You know you are on to a winner when one government agency alone can’t cope with your idea.
5. An education crisis.  As a rule of thumb, your new technology should be so out of the box that a whole new approach to education is needed to develop and sustain it.
6. Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Safe technologies aren’t sexy.  Period.  Actually, that’s not true, but there is an implicit assumption that any bold new technology concept will have a dark side—acknowledging this and working out how to handle it early on is de rigueur for the budding technology entrepreneur.
7. An intent to engage “the public.” Breathe easy—current evidence suggests that you don’t actually need to talk to “the public,” just act as if you want to.  Of course, this approach may end up backfiring if you don’t move on to your next big idea fast enough.

OK so it’s a rather tongue in cheek list, but it does bear more than a passing resemblance to where nanotechnology—that doyenne of emerging technologies—was ten years ago.  And it now seems to match up pretty well with the new emerging tech kid on the block: synthetic biology…

A couple of weeks ago, the UK Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) released a new report on the “scope, applications and implications” of synthetic biology.  Reading through it, I couldn’t help experience a sense of déjà vu—the storyline is remarkably similar to how nanotechnology was being pitched at the end of the 1990’s (see for instance Vision for Nanotechnology R&D in the Next Decade from the Inter-agency Working Group on Nanotechnology—the precursor to the US National Nanotechnology Initiative. [PDF, 9.9 MB])  In fact reading it, I had the spine-tingling sense that I was looking at nanotechnology’s political successor here.  It wasn’t so much the absence of any substantive references to nanotechnology—in spite of the rather significant lessons learned from the development of this technology over the past ten years—as the way in which the new technology was being pitched.

Holding the RAE report up to the New Technology Concept checklist, this is what you have:

Something that’s revolutionary. Check. “Synthetic biology could revolutionise a number of fields of engineering.”

Hype. Check. “Many commentators now believe that synthetic biology has the potential for major wealth generation by means of the development of major new industries, much as, for example the semi-conductor did in the last century, coupled to positive effects for health and the environment.”

A focus on interdisciplinary research. Check. “The coming together of engineering and biology that typifies synthetic biology means that it is, by nature, a multidisciplinary field of endeavour. Fundamental research requires collaboration between engineers, biologists, chemists and physicists, as well as social scientists and philosophers.”

Inter-agency collaboration. Check. “The elements set out above cut across several Government departments. A strategy would enable appropriate policies to be put in place that acknowledged their interdependency.”

An education crisis. Check. “The main challenge to providing training in synthetic biology is that its interdisciplinary nature does not fit naturally into the traditional university structure or the standard funding mechanisms.”

Heartfelt concern for the possible downsides of the technology. Check. “The development of synthetic biology brings with it a number of ethical and societal implications that must be identified and addressed.

An intent to engage “the public.” Check. “As well as an academic exploration of these issues by social scientists, ethicists and philosophers, early public dialogue is of the utmost importance to help promote listening and understanding of people’s hopes, expectations and concerns”

The RAE report actually has a lot to commend it.  It provides a good account of what synthetic biology is all about.  It makes the case reasonably well for greater UK investment in the technology.  It even manages to outline many of the more prominent social and ethical concerns.

Yet I can’t help feeling that the report is naively outdated.  Over the past ten years, we’ve learnt a lot about what works and what doesn’t when boosting a new technology.  Nanotechnology was (still is) a technology concept grounded in science, but with a fair chunk of policy associated with it—a grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world.  On balance it’s been a success so far, but with a steep learning curve that isn’t threatening to level out anytime soon.

Synthetic biology is also being pitched as a science-based grand scheme to raise research dollars, create jobs and improve quality of life for people around the world. This is fine—synthetic biology as a concept is pretty solid.  But if the RAE report is to be believed, it is being promoted using an old and outdated model.  Ten years ago, it might have looked fresh—now it just looks uninformed.  For some reason, the lessons we are still learning with nanotechnology don’t seem to be translating across to synbio too well.  Maybe it’s because of a genuine lack of awareness.  Perhaps it’s intentional—with synthetic biology being seen as a competitive successor to nanotechnology.  I don’t know.  Either way, it doesn’t bode too well for the future of the synthetic biology enterprise.

The science and technology embedded in synthetic biology are important.  But the hurdles the new technology faces to underpinning safe, successful and accepted innovations are substantial.  Re-inventing old problems won’t help here.  But leaning from similar experiences with other emerging technologies just might.

Rather than trying to roll nanotechnology out of its spot, perhaps its time for synthetic biology to do a bit of cozying up instead.  There are, after all, more than enough problems needing technology-based solutions to go around.  And I strongly suspect that, in this case, two metaphorical heads will be better than one in tackling them.

Part 5 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

Last time in this series of occasional blogs, I made the rather bold statement that while science and technology are going to have a highly visible impact on our lives over the next few decades, progress is going to be underpinned in most cases by our increasing control over materials at the invisible nanoscale. It isn’t exactly intuitive why this should be the case though—how on earth can engineering matter on a scale a billion time smaller than the average person be so important?

In trying to answer this question, I want to take a rather unconventional approach and explore three advantages of working at this scale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication.

Smallness. Size matters—it’s something we all understand intuitively.  There are occasions when you can do something with a small object or device that would be impossible otherwise.  This photo from Ilan Kelman for instance illustrates the idea perfectly: There are times that “smallness” gets you to places that larger objects can’t reach—like parking spaces!

It’s easy to see how making things that we can see and touch small can enhance their value.  But the utility of smallness doesn’t stop when things become invisible to the naked eye.  All the way down to the nanometer scale, there are opportunities to make things work better or work differently by making them small.

Here’s a very trivial example of smallness making a difference at the nanometer scale, but it’s a useful illustration of why size matters:

Silver is a great antimicrobial agent.  It’s been used for millennia to prevent infections from spreading and is one of the reasons why “silverware” is—or used to be—made of the metal.

But it’s not that easy to use.  Large lumps of metal aren’t always that easy to incorporate into products that you want to keep sterile or have antimicrobial properties.

One solution is convert the individual silver atoms into charged ions that can be dissolved in liquids and incorporated into other substances.  As its the ionic form of silver that is most harmful to microbes, this makes a lot of sense.  But ionic silver isn’t that easy to use either.  Say you have a silk scarf or a wound dressing you want to imbue with antimicrobial properties.  Getting those silver ions in there without changing the physical feel and nature of the material is a tough challenge.

This is where smallness comes in.  Make the silver metal into nanometer-sized particles, and it becomes relatively easy to get it into a wide range of products.  Because these are particles we are dealing with, there isn’t so much complex chemistry behind using them.  And because they are so small, they don’t unduly affect the feel and performance of the products they are used in.  As an added advantage, replacing a few large particles with millions of small ones increases the chances of microbes coming into contact with them manyfold.

Because of the advantages of smallness when it comes to using silver as an antimicrobial, there has been an explosion of products using silver nanoparticles—everything from refrigerators to socks to toothpaste.  And all because smallness gets you to new places.

It’s a trivial example, but it does illustrate an important way in which “smallness” through increased control over matter at the nanoscale leads to added value.

It’s not the only way though—there is also strangeness.

Strangeness. No two questions about it, things can get a little weird down at the nanoscale. This is good – it means that controlling matter at this scale opens up a whole new toolbox of material properties that can be put to good use.

Vicki Colvin at Rice University came up with a great analogy for strangeness a few years back.  It went something like this:  Imagine you have a cat.  It looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, smells like a cat.  Now, imagine you have a technology that allows you to make that cat smaller.  As you shrink your cat down, it gets smaller and smaller, but still retains its essential cat-ness.  But imagine reaching a point where suddenly, instead of looking, smelling, sounding like a cat, your cat becomes a dog!

This is the very essence of strangeness—materials behaving in unexpected and sometimes radically different ways when they are engineered at a nanometer scale.  This doesn’t always happen—it depends on the material and the scale on which the material is being engineered—but in some cases the changes in behavior can be startling.

A good example is found in the metal gold.

Gold is an inert, yellowish metal—everyone knows this.  It’s lack of reactivity is why so much jewelry is made from the stuff (it doesn’t tarnish), and in part why it holds its value.  But form gold into particles just a new nanometers across, and everything changes—the metal does the equivalent of transforming from a cat into a dog.  Instead of appearing yellowish in color, the particles now appear red, and become highly chemically active.

This change in color has been exploited for millennia in glass-making (unbeknownst to the glass-makers, who had no idea they were making and using nanoparticles), with perhaps the most famous example being the Lycurgus cup from Roman times.  Illuminated from behind, the gold nanoparticle-containing dichroic glass that the cup is made from appears deep red in color.

This strange behavior has a lot to do with how the movement of electrons in materials is affected when they are engineered at a nanometer scale.  As these movements affect everything from electrical conductivity and interactions with electromagnetic radiation—including visible light—to how a material conducts heat, nanometer-scale engineering allows scientists and engineers to tap into material properties that are rarely accessible without control at this level.

But it’s not enough to have a smorgasbord of strangeness at out fingertips—we also need the ability to use these unusual properties.  And this is where sophistication comes in.

Sophistication. As humans, we are pre-programmed to build things.  As kids, we start early—usually with large blocks.  But we soon learn that there are limits to what can be made with these rather awkward building blocks, and so we progress on to finer blocks—think of it as graduating from wooden blocks to Duplo.  However, it isn’t long before we outgrow these bricks and crave something smaller with which to create increasingly sophisticated structures.  And so we discover that ultimate building medium—Lego.

It’s a rather tongue in cheek analogy, but it illustrates something we all know: The smaller the building blocks we use, the more sophisticated the products we can make.  This applies at the human scale, but it just as equally applies at the nanometer scale.  In fact, being able to build with nanometer-scale clumps of atoms and molecules gives us perhaps what is the ultimate construction set.  And before anyone interjects with “surely that’s just chemistry,” the distinction here is the ability to put these small clumps where we want them with nanometer scale precision.  This is sophistication at the nanometer scale, and opens up new possibilities in engineering materials and products with enhanced or unique properties.

It’s probably fair to say that we are just beginning to scratch the surface of what can be achieved through sophisticated nanometer-scale engineering, but already there are examples that hint at the potential that is opening up.

Here you see a schematic of an actual nanometer-scale particle developed by Raoul Kopelman and Martin Philbert at the University of Michigan.  What is particularly interesting is the sophisticated way this particle has been engineered at the nanoscale to carry out a number of tasks.

The core particle is coated with a thin layer of PolyEthylene Glycol (PEG) to make it invisible to the body’s defense systems.  It is also covered with molecules that enable it to attach to a specific target cell—a particular cancer cell in this case.  Internally, the nanoparticle has been engineered with a contrast-enhancing agent, meaning that when sufficient particles are attached to the tumor being treated, they can be seen using imaging techniques like MRI.

Then the really clever bit—the particles have been engineered with a sensitizer.  In essence, this is a component that causes the particle to do something when it receives a signal.  In this case, when the particle is illuminated with a particular wavelength of light, it releases chemicals to kill the cancer cell it is attached to.

This “smart” particle represents an incredible degree of sophistication at the nanometer scale, and does what it does—destroys cancer cells without affecting healthy cells—because of this sophistication.  And it’s only one example from an increasing number of applications that demonstrate what can be achieved when we have the sophistication to build things at close to the scale of individual atoms and molecules.

At the end of the day, smallness, strangeness and sophistication don’t tell you everything you need to know to understand why an increasing ability to control matter at the nanoscale is so important.  But they do provide a pretty good insight—dare I say, a sophisticated insight—into what can be achieved by working at this scale.

They also create a bridge between two largely separate spheres that is poised to take our control over the world in which we live to an entirely new level.  But more of that next time.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Control: Gaining mastery over the world at the finest level

Next: Nanoscale control: Leveraging biology

How many good nanotech videos have you come across?  Chances are, you’ll be struggling to name more than one of two.  But over the past few weeks there have been a few posted on the web that are worth watching.  These three in particular mesh together rather nicely to tell a story of nanotechnology’s potential, some of the hurdles that need to be overcome to make it work, and one or two of the myths that have messed around with people’s perceptions.

The first two feature footage of me in conversation with Jorge Ribas at the Discovery Channel, but don’t let that put you off – Jorge did a fantastic job of editing the conversation into something worth watching.  The third is a deliciously wicked cartoon from Ransom Riggs that has already done the Web circuit, but is well worth airing again.

THE GOOD STUFF

A glimpse into some of the cool stuff that could come about through engineering matter at a nanometer scale:

THE “BAD” STUFF

Actually, this isn’t bad at all, but video does give a glimpse into some of the challenges we face if nanotechnology is to reach it’s potential without causing unnecessary harm:

AND THE WEIRD STUFF

I thought this cartoon from Ransom Riggs was a great foil to the first two videos, as it lampoons one of the persistent myths of nanotechnology – the idea of a “gray goo” of self-replicating nanobots destroying the world.  Crazy as the idea sounds, it was Prince Charles’ concerns over gray goo that led to the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering publishing what is still one of the most authoritative assessments of nanotechnology benefits and risks.

All in all, a great introduction to the promise, hurdles and outright myths of nanotechnology.

If you have other favorite nanotech videos, please let me know.

Part 4 of a series on rethinking science and technology for the 21st century

So far in this series of occasional blogs, I’ve covered coupling and communication—two of three “C’s” which together are challenging how science and technology are best used to serve society.  Now it’s the time to delve into the third “C”—control.

Because this is a tough subject to cover in one bite, I’m going to split it between three posts.  Here, I’ll get the background stuff out of the way.  Then, in the following posts in the series, I’ll take a look at why this “C” is so transformative, and some of the more advanced directions control is taking us in.

To kick things off, I want to start big.  The image to the right is an artist’s impression of a scheme dreamt up by Roger Angel at the University of Arizona to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth—a possible approach to combating (in part) global warming.  It represents the idea of suspending trillions of solar diffusers – fuzzy translucent plates—at the Lagrange point between the earth and the sun, where they can deflect a small amount of the sun’s radiation away from the planet.

If we could achieve this, it would be the largest feat of planetary control ever undertaken.

Just a few years ago, such a scheme would have been pure science fiction.  But we are getting to the point where advances in science and technology are bringing mega-engineering projects like this within our grasp.  For the first time in human history, we have both the audacity and technology to think about controlling our environment on a planetary scale.

This taking control of things on a grand scale is part of what the third “C” is about.  But it is only the tip of the iceberg.  Going back to Angel’s solar sunshade, it’s worth asking what it would take to transform this idea from fantasy to reality.  In amidst the myriad engineering challenges it represents is the issue of materials—how do you make solar diffusers (or “flyers”) light enough yet robust enough to do their job?  The reality is, the materials needed to achieve this simply don’t exist at present.

Which means that for the plan to work, new materials need to be created.

This isn’t a trivial thing to achieve.  It’s not as if we are going to discover some fancy new element that can be made into a wonder-material.  Rather, the solution is going to lie in how we put small groups of regular atoms—the building blocks of everything we use—together in different ways, to form new and better materials.

And this brings us to the area where increasing control is going to be truly transformative—control over matter at the scale of atoms and molecules—the nanoscale.

But why should controlling matter down at this miniscule level make a difference? The answer lies in what makes stuff work better, and what messes it up.

Most materials we use nowadays are not as good as they could be.  They generally function OK, but they could be better.  And the reason for this is that down at the nanoscale, they are a mess—atoms aren’t aligned properly, there are gaps in the structure where there shouldn’t be, stuff is present that should not be there, while the stuff that should be there isn’t where it ought to be.

This isn’t surprising.  Until relatively recently, we didn’t have the tools or the know-how to engineer stuff down at the atomic level, so we had to make do with rather imperfect materials.  This is changing though, and it is changing extremely rapidly.

Eighty years or so ago, scientists began to develop ways of seeing—or at least taking a good stab at visualizing—the structure of materials on an atomic scale.  Techniques like electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction opened up a brand new perspective on how stuff is put together.  More importantly, these and other tools gave scientists the feedback they needed to start tinkering systematically with materials at the nanoscale.

The age of nanometer-scale control was born.

Over the past couple of decades, near atomic-level control over matter has surged ahead, as growing awareness of its importance has combined with greater incentives for scientists to work across traditional boundaries and huge funding initiatives from government and industry.  The result has been rapid progress in engineering materials and products that work—or work better—because their structure has been controlled and manufactured at the nanometer scale.  Products as diverse as computers and cosmetics are already benefitting from the added value that comes from nanoscale control.  Already there are hundreds of consumer products out there that manufacturers claim do what they do “better” because of nanoscale engineering.  These are small fry though compared to some of the applications in the pipeline—smart drugs, new power sources, faster computers, even designer microbes.  And the indications are that we are only just beginning to flex our nano-muscles.

The bottom line here is that while science and technology are going to have a highly visible impact on our lives over the next few decades, progress is going to be underpinned in most cases by our increasing control over materials at the invisible nanoscale.

To begin to grasp how working with matter at such a small scale opens up new opportunities, it’s worth focusing on three features of nanoscale control—smallness, strangeness and sophistication.  These will be the subjects of the next blog in this series.

Notes

Rethinking science and technology for the 21st century is a series of blogs drawing on a recent lecture given at the James Martin School in Oxford.  This is a bit of an experiment—the serialization of a lecture, and a prelude to a more formal academic paper.  But hopefully it will be both interesting and useful.  I’ll be posting a “rethinking science and technology” blog every week or so, interspersed with the usual eclectic mix of stuff you’ve come to expect from 2020science.

Previously: Communication: Science and technology in a connected world

Next: Control at the nanoscale: Smallness, strangeness and sophistication

Reading yesterday’s New York Times, it seems China could well be poised to leapfrog the West in advanced battery technology (China Vies to Be World’s Leader in Electric Cars). According to the article, Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.

If they deliver the goods, the economic ramifications will be significant.  But then so will the resulting breakthroughs in battery technology.

Despite our ever-increasing addiction to battery-powered gizmos, current technologies are seriously limited.  My laptop and cell-phone (and this morning, my e-book) constantly seem to die at most inopportune moments.  And remembering to recharge the 1001 things in my life that depend on batteries (while working out which recharger goes with which device) is a time-suck I could easily live without.

No question, personal electronics are desperately in need of a major battery upgrade.

But that’s small fry compared to the challenges of developing usable batteries for power-hungry cars.

The problem is, it’s hard to get electricity into batteries fast; hard to get it out again; and once you’ve got a lot of it in there, hard to prevent the battery having a melt-down—remember the stories of igniting/exploding PC batteries?  These are tractable problems for the small stuff—cell phones and the like—but they present enormous obstacles to scaling up batteries large enough to power cars.

Yet developing battery-powered cars makes a lot of sense… It reduces reliance on highly-refined fossil fuels.  It has the potential to even out electricity demands—essentially using batteries as an energy-buffer.  It enables Prius-like energy-recovery while driving. And it relocates a harmful source of pollution (tailpipe emissions) to where it can be better managed—at the power station.

The good news is that emerging technologies like nanotechnology are providing solutions to at least some of the challenges being faced in developing advanced batteries.  Lithium ion batteries in particular are benefiting from electrodes engineered with nanometer-scale structures, which decrease charging time and increase power output, while improving battery safety.  Companies like A123 and Altairnano are already exploiting nanotechnology-based developments in advanced batteries.  And anecdotally, experts suspect that the performance of most high-end laptop batteries already depend on the use of carbon nanotubes in the electrodes.

There’s still some way to go before this technology matures to the point where electric cars make sense on a grand scale.  But that day is coming.  And by all accounts China will be in the lead when it does.  China is already a major player in the field of nanotechnology (see last week’s piece by Tom Mackenzie in The Guardian for instance), and has the capacity to focus research and development resources where they are most likely to deliver the goods.

The end result probably doesn’t bode well for an ailing US car industry which is still struggling to readjust to a world where smaller, lighter, greener are the order of the day (even the much-touted Chevy Volt still looks like old ideas dressed in new technology).  But a push by China to develop technologically and economically viable electric cars could stimulate world-wide development of battery technologies that leads to a reduced dependence on fossil fuels, and a smaller overall environmental footprint.

That would certainly be good news.

And as a spin-off, there’s a chance that we might finally get batteries for our laptops, cell phones and e-books that don’t die when we need the most.  Now that would be progress indeed!

Footnotes

While writing this, there was some discussion on the NYT article and batteries in general on Twitter.  I particularly wanted to acknowledge helpful comments and links from @joergheber (esp. on wireless power transfer), @quantum_tunnel (re-engineering batteries) and @crc2008 (for the link to the Lightning Car Company) – thanks guys.

A guest blog by Dr. Frans Kampers, director of the Wageningen biotechnology center for food and health innovation (BioNT) at the Wageningen University and Research Center in the Netherlands.

Using nanotechnology to make food better—it seems like a good idea, but does it have its downsides?  Questions over the safety and wisdom of using nanotech in food products and during their production have been bubbling along for some time.  Earlier this year, the UK House of Lords launched an inquiry into the use of nanotech in the food sector, while in March the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) published a scientific opinion on the potential risks arising from nanotechnologies on food and feed safety.  And in the past few days, media coverage in Australia has raised questions over the safe use of nanotechnology in food products.

So far the question of safety has been rather confused (especially in the media)—partly because some commentators have been unclear over what types of nanotechnology will potentially be used in food products, and how these specific uses will lead to possible benefits and risks. There’s also been a certain amount of mixing and matching of the data, with data having nothing to do with food being used to raise concerns – not good science!

In March, Dr Frans Kampers, an expert in food and nanotechnology from the University of Wageningen in the Netherlands, gave an excellent overview of why nanotech is of interest in the food sector as part of a symposium at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Given some of the confusion in this area, I asked him whether he would mind me posting his notes from the presentation here on 2020science.

He kindly agreed.

Nanotechnology is a rapidly developing innovative technology with applications in very many areas, including food, nutrition and food industry. Many people associate nanotechnology with nanoparticles and link the hazards of nanoparticles to all applications of nanotechnology. However, most nanotechnology does not result in nanoparticles and many nanoparticles are from natural origin and therefore should not be considered nanotechnology. The opportunities of doing business at the nano-level in food applications arise from the realization that foodstuff usually has a structural hierarchy that starts at the molecular and supramolecular level. Creating new functionality in a food product therefore often means starting the modifications at the nano-level…

There are four global challenges regarding food where state-of-the-art technologies like micro- and nanotechnologies can contribute:

• Feeding the increasing world population in a sustainable way;
• Improving the quality and safety of foods;
• Delivering those nutrients to individual consumers that are required for good health; and
• Helping in the prevention of welfare diseases like obesity.

These will be discussed next.

The increasing levels of welfare in large populations will result in shifts in diets towards more protein rich components (meat and fish). Our planet is not big enough to produce the corresponding amounts of meat and/or fish in the traditional way. New technologies will have to be developed to utilize the plant protein sources more efficiently than via animal production. The realization that meat is a material with structural elements also at the nano-level implies that developing a good meat replacement from plant or dairy protein sources requires structuring the product at the nano-level and constructing the structural hierarchy all the way up to the macro-level. Ongoing research at Wageningen UR (Atze Jan van der Goot, Food and Bioprocess Engineering) has delivered first results of such a development.

Creating “artificial meat” by constructing materials with a hierarchical structure, starting from the nanoscale

Although food never was as safe as it is now in industrialized countries, a report from the WHO from 2002 shows that there is still much room for improvement. The food industry is always looking for opportunities to monitor food quality in various stages of the chain more accurately. However, they are handicapped in the sense that measuring microbial activity on a food material requires a well-utilized lab, qualified personnel and time. And time is something that is valuable in chains where quality deterioration occurs rapidly. Food industry would like to have fast, cheap, easy to use, sensitive and accurate devices that can be used close to the production line of foods for the detection of pathogens or the quantification of spoilage organisms. Nanotechnology can contribute to the fulfillment of this demand. The method could be based on the detection of specific DNA fragments developed by Wageningen UR (Aart van Amerongen, AFSG).

Nanotechnologies are also used to improve packaging materials in such a way that the quality of the packaged products is maintained for longer periods in time. Creating better barriers to reduce oxygen leakage in modified atmosphere packaging systems, is a low tech application of nanostructured clay materials. Adding nanoparticles with antimicrobial properties to the packaging material helps to reduce the bacterial pressure inside the package and therefore slows down spoilage. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology in combination with head space sensors can directly communicate information about the real quality status of the product to the logistical systems, the cash desk or even the refrigerator. This will become economically viable in combination with printable electronics, another result of nanotechnologies.

People evolved to thrive on a mix of foods much less calorie-less rich than those found in today’s diet

If everybody eats a varied diet with 200 g of vegetables and two pieces of fruit a day we all would get all the nutrients we need to stay healthy. Unfortunately there are very few people who eat this sensibly. Large groups in society have one-sided diets and run the risk of missing out on certain nutrients. Especially since our food is extremely rich in calories while our digestive system—evolved in times when periods of food scarcity where abundant—is optimized to store as much of the calories as possible. This effect in aggravated because of our life styles that require virtually no exercise to get the food and in which much less energy is required to maintain our body temperature. The result is that we eat much less high calorie food that does not contain very many other components. Our gastro-intestinal tract, designed to process large quantities of low calorie foods, has very little possibility to extract all the necessary nutrients. The food industry therefore develops novel food products that are fortified with specific ingredients.

Nanotechnology-based encapsulation can be used to get essential nutrients into the body efficiently

Nanotechnology can provide microsized containers that can contain various nutrients. The supramolecular structures used for this purpose can mask undesired flavors that would spoil the flavor of the product, can protect the substances from inactivation, can improve the bio-availability of the nutrients and can deliver them to specific parts of the Gastro-Intestinal tract where they are most effective. Creating these structures in a cost effective way is not trivial and requires intricate knowledge of self-assembly mechanisms. At Wageningen UR (Physical and Colloid Chemistry) fundamental research is being done to understand these mechanisms and to find new ways to create these innovative encapsulation systems.

It is well known that welfare diseases like obesity rapidly develop in an epidemic that could threaten the healthcare system in the industrialized world. Apart from the lack of exercise, the main problem is the fact that our food contains too many calories. The intricate understanding of processes at the micro- and nano-level allow us to re-engineer processes in the food industry and to create new products that taste and feel the same, but contain less calories. As an example Wageningen UR research on double emulsions (Food and bioprocess Engineering) was presented where the core of oil droplets of an oil-in-water emulsion is replaced by water. This could result in a mayonnaise that tastes and feels like the full fat kind, but contains much less calories.

Using nanotechnology, emulsions are possible that have the taste and texture of rich foods, but without the calories

At Wageningen UR we are very well aware of the discussions within society about applications of nanotechnologies in food. Societal acceptance is a condition sine qua non to be able to make use of the opportunities discussed above. One of the key aspects of that is the risk/benefit evaluation of these applications. Unfortunately the general public lacks the technical ability and the information to make a good risk assessment, and partly as a result ends up focusing on the hazards alone, rather than a combination of hazard and exposure. Moreover, since the general perception is that “nanotechnology” equals “nanoparticles,” the hazards of “nanoparticles” are equated with risks of “nanotechnology.” But the hazards of nanoparticles concentrate on the non-dissolvable, persistent particles often made of metals or metal oxides. These particles can sometimes traverse barriers, get in the blood stream and enter certain tissue.

The “nano” in many nanotechnology and food applications is in the structure of ingredients and additives, rather than in their overall size

Persistent nanoparticles are rarely used in food products for the very simple reason that the body cannot benefit from them. The nanotechnology in products largely is used to create encapsulation systems that are designed to fall apart in the Gastro-Intestinal tract and release their contents. Afterwards only molecules of food-grade materials remain and no particles are found in the feces of the consumer. Moreover, these encapsulates are usually larger than 100 nm and therefore do not constitute nanoparticles in the usual sense. The nanotechnology is in the wall of these particles to create the specific functionality that offers the new properties to the product.

The full set of slides from Dr. Kampers’ AAAS lecture can be downloaded here.  (PDF, 6 MB).

I’m looking at an electron microscope image of a carbon nanotube – as I cannot show it here, you’ll have to imagine it.  It shows a long, straight, multi-walled carbon nanotube, around 100 nanometers wide and 10 micrometers long.  There is nothing particularly unusual about this.  What is unusual is that the image also shows a section of the lining of a mouse’s lung.  And the nanotube is sticking right through the lining, like a needle through a swatch of felt.

The image was shown at the annual Society of Toxicology meeting in Baltimore last week, and comes from a new study by researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on the impact of inhaled multi-walled carbon nanotubes on mice.

It’s highly significant because it takes scientists a step closer to understanding whether carbon nanotubes that look like harmful asbestos fibers, could cause asbestos-like disease…

Questions were raised about carbon nanotubes and their superficial similarity to asbestos fibers as far back as 1992.  Yet it wasn’t until last year that research was published suggesting carbon nanotubes that look like harmful asbestos fibers could possibly also cause asbestos-like diseases—specifically the disease of the lungs’ lining mesothelioma.

The Poland study, published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, indicated that development of the disease mesothelioma was theoretically possible following inhalation exposure.  But it didn’t establish whether exposure could occur to asbestos-like carbon nanotubes in practice or, if they were inhaled, whether the nanotubes could move to and penetrate the sensitive outer layer of the lungs.

Both steps would have to occur for there to be a chance of mesothelioma developing.

The current study from NIOSH seems to close the loop on one of those steps.  Some caution is needed here as the research has yet to be peer reviewed (see Richard Denison’s comments for instance).  Yet the findings are so significant that NIOSH thought it important to keep people abreast of developments before the work is finally reviewed and published.

In the study, a suspension of carbon nanotubes was introduced into the mice lungs using the pharyngeal aspiration technique, and the movement of the nanotubes through the lungs subsequently tracked.  The researchers found that some of the nanotubes migrated from the alveoli in the lungs (the tiny sacs where oxygen passes form the air to the blood) to the pleura—the delicate membrane surrounding the lungs.  As seen in the image described above, there was direct evidence that some of these needle-like fibers physically penetrated through the lung lining, into the region where mesothelioma can develop.

The researchers are at pains to point out that these data are preliminary, and are not conclusive.  The results could have been influenced by the way the nanotubes were delivered to the lungs, the amount of material applied, or the types of animals used.  Nevertheless, they demonstrate that, in principle, some forms of carbon nanotubes have the potential to migrate to the outer layer of the lungs.  And this, combined with the data from Poland et al., raises the stakes considerably regarding potential health impacts.

The data from this study will be peer-reviewed and published shortly, allowing a more critical evaluation.  But given the significance of the preliminary findings, it seems  there is an urgent need for a more extensive strategic research program to establish how harmful different types of carbon nanotubes are, and how they can be handled safely.

Without this, it’s hard to see how manufacturers will be able to make informed choices on good practices that don’t either endanger workers and users, or place an overwhelming burden on production processes.

In the meantime, the best advice seems to be: Take great care to avoid airborne exposures when working with carbon nanotubes that bear a physical resemblance to asbestos.

There are some things they don’t cover in media training, like giving interviews while suffering from stomach flu, talking to reporters thousands of miles away while on a dodgy cell phone connection, or speaking intelligently while your three-year-old niece runs rings around your legs.  It’s probably because they come under the “so bloody stupid no one would ever think to advise you not to do these things” category.  Yet sometimes we find ourselves in these uncharted waters.  Which is why Tom Mackenzie’s otherwise strong piece in today’s Guardian on nanotechnology in China ended up with less than perfect input from yours truly!

Rather than rant about the injustices perpetrated by scientific illiterates and the opportunistic press though, I’m breaking with tradition today and admitting that the fault probably lies with me…

Mackenzie’s piece addresses the rise of China as a major international player in the emerging field of nanotechnology.  It’s an important piece, and one that needs to be taken seriously. Given China’s recent track record on product safety, it rightly balances coverage of technical and commercial advances with concerns over possible health issues.  But here’s where things get a little skewed.  Tom writes:

Underlying these developments are serious safety concerns. Nanoparticles are so small they are easily inhaled and absorbed through the skin. Dr Andrew Maynard, the chief science advisor to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, says that some nanoparticles could be deadly. “Nothing has yet been confirmed, but there are strong suggestions that inhaling these particles could cause lung cancer or lung disease,” he says. “If carbon nanotubes behave anything like asbestos, we won’t know what the health impacts are for about 20 years, because that’s how long it can take from exposure to the onset of the disease.”

Flagging up these concerns is essential—nanotechnology is leading to novel materials that could well cause harm in novel ways, unless we work out ahead of time how to use them safely.  But the paragraph is a tad on the misleading side.  Nanoparticles are NOT easily absorbed through the skin (the skin is actually pretty good at keeping them out of the body).  And to say that some nanoparticles could be deadly confuses an already complex issue.  Yes, there are serious concerns over materials like long thin multi-walled carbon nanotubes. But plenty of nanoparticles are likely to be no more harmful than their non-nanoscale counterparts.

The issue here though is that I was Tom’s source on nanotechnology safety, and I screwed it up—I wasn’t sufficiently clear or focused to provide him with the information he needed to place the story in a sound, science-based context.

I’m not beating myself up over this (too much).  It happens, and in many cases less-than-perfect science coverage in the media gets absorbed into the bigger story and evens out over time—the biggest impacts being dented pride and the derision of one’s colleagues.

But that’s no excuse for sloppy communication. Poor science in the media muddies issues, and at worst can lead to misinformed and potentially damaging decisions being made. Yet an absence of science coverage leaves us in an even worse position.  Which means that scientists need to know how the media works, and their role in ensuring stories are founded on science reality rather than speculation.

So, mea culpa in this instance. At the end of the day, the better we as scientists communicate to—and through—journalists, the better equipped people will be to make informed judgments.

As they say, “practice makes perfect.” Next question, please?

An interview with Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, Director of the International Council On Nanotechnology

Today is Ada Lovelace Day—a day when people around the world are drawing attention to women who excel in technology.  Some weeks back I pledged, along with many others (Over 1500 at last count), to blog about one of my “tech heroines.”  The aims: to highlight the role of women in technology, and to establish role models that will inspire the next generation of technologists.

Having signed up to the task it soon became obvious that this was not going to be an easy blog to write for a whole host of reasons – not least the rich and varied choice of “tech heroines”  that I could focus on. In the end, I decided on a good friend and colleague who has successfully bridged the worlds of technology development, implementation and policy: Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, of Rice University

First, the potted history:  Kristen started off as a chemist—B.S. magnum cum laude from Canisius College, followed by an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Rochester.  For the next few years she stuck to chemistry, mainly focusing on teaching.  Then in 2001 she spent a year in Washington DC as a Congressional Science Fellow—a move that marked a change in direction in her career.

Returning to Rice University in 2002, Kristen became the Executive Director for Education and Policy for the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN)—the first National Science Foundation research center focusing on the environmental applications and impacts of nanotechnology.  Then in 2006, she was appointed Director of the International Council On Nanotechnology (ICON)—a position she still holds.

It’s Kristen’s work with ICON that I want to focus on here.  The International Council On Nanotechnology was founded in 2004, at a time when concerns over the potential health, environmental and societal impacts of nanotechnology were increasing, and opportunities for stakeholders to talk freely with each other were few and far between.  Conceived by Professor Vicki Colvin (another “tech heroine”) and Kristen Kulinowski, ICON was established as an extension of the NSF-funded CBEN program to develop and communicate information regarding potential environmental and health risks of nanotechnology, thereby fostering risk reduction while maximizing societal benefit.

Since its formation, ICON has brought together people from different countries and organizations—including government, business, academia and non-government organizations (NGO’s)—to work on developing safe and sustainable nanotechnologies.  It’s an organization that has played an important role in getting people talking, while addressing gaps in the nanotechnology safety knowledge base and getting information to people that need it in a form they can understand.

As a result, ICON is an organization that continues to play an important role in the development of an economically and socially important emerging technology, and does so under the deft leadership of Kristen Kulinowski.

To me, this is critical.  There’s a real need for people who are adept at generating new knowledge and translating that knowledge into practical uses.  But there’s also a need for people like Kristen, who can help translate potential technologies into socially/economically viable applications—“working at the interface between science and society.”  Without them, it’s going to be increasingly hard to transform good ideas into good products over the coming years.

I’ve known Kristen for some time, and as a member of the ICON Executive Board have had a front-row view of her work with the Council.  But rather than embarrass her (and myself) with a gushing account of her triumphs as a “tech heroine,” I thought it would be more informative to let her speak for herself.  So I drafted up some questions, and spent half an hour on the phone talking with her about her career as a leader in science and technology—who happens to be a woman.  This is how the conversation went:

You are generally seen as a leader in the field of nanotechnology, but you started out as a chemist.  Why science, and why chemistry in particular?

I was always interested in understanding how the physical world works, and got a real buzz out of solving problems.  Of course, I’ve since discovered that not everything has a black and white answer, but that fascination with understanding things and using the information is still a powerful motivator.

At college, I planned to major in psychology and biology—I wanted to do something socially useful.  But an incredibly effective and dynamic teacher opened my eyes to the beauty of organic chemistry.  Through him and others, I became fascinated by how chemistry works at a fundamental level—digging beneath the facts and figures of chemistry to understand and appreciate the underlying mechanisms.

The decision to spend a year on Capitol Hill was an interesting one.  What prompted the change in direction from science to policy?

I was writing letters of recommendation for students to do all sorts of stuff other than traditional bench-science and I thought “I want some of that.”  I’ve always been interested in the bigger picture—how people’s work impacts society—and I was interested in how this fitted in with my interest in science.  In the end, a friend talked me into applying for the Congressional Science Fellowship.  I’d talked her into doing something similar some years previously, so I guess she returned the favor!

How did your experiences in Washington DC change your perspective on science and technology?

The experience was life changing.  I almost didn’t come back to Rice, but I had a great job waiting for me where I could follow my interests in policy.  And my husband was still in Houston of course.

Having spent time on Capitol Hill, I came away with a much clearer impression of the importance and impact of science and technology on society.  It also became very clear that there are well-intentioned people on both sides of the political aisle—that ideally politics is about people trying their best to make good choices in a world that isn’t black and white.  This is perhaps one of the most important things that I learnt—that despite what some scientists think, there are rarely right and wrong answers in policy, and negotiation and compromise are essential to ensuring science and technology are used in society’s best interests.

Back to academia, and you took on a leading role in the emerging field of nanotechnology.  How do you feel your previous experience equipped you for this new role?

My new role was very much at the interface of science, technology and policy.  Coming back from my time in Washington, I had a much clearer idea of how government works, and the potential role of government in managing—and possibly hindering—development.

As CBEN got off the ground, there was a big public conversation getting underway on nanotechnology development.  Different groups were beginning to take different postures—ranging from pro to precautionary—and it was becoming increasingly clear that government decisions, as well as stakeholder actions, would have significant consequences on how the technology developed.  In particular a complex landscape was emerging that needed more than just scientific knowledge to navigate and work within.

Some of the big challenges being faced then—and still being faced—were how to translate promising and important technologies from the lab to the market; technologies such as new medical applications, or new approaches to cleaning up pollutants and reducing environmental footprints.  Ensuring society saw the benefits of these technologies would mean navigating regulatory hurdles, and finding new ways to identify and solve problems—not things that a traditional science training equips you for!

As Director of ICON, what have been some of your greatest challenges as a “technology facilitator?”

The biggest challenge has been balancing the perspectives and agendas of four very different stakeholder groups—government, industry, non-government organizations and academia.  The dynamic is complex because these groups are not monolithic—people involved in ICON bring their individual perspective to the table as well as that of the group they nominally represent.  At some point, I’ve run afoul of each of the four stakeholder groups—which represents a kind of balance, I suppose!

The space within which ICON works is much more crowded now that when we first started out.  More people are aware these days of the challenges to translating new science into effective technology-based solutions, and are getting in on the act.  I would like to think that ICON has played some role in this growing awareness.  But it does mean that it’s harder to get people’s time and attention—especially when budgets are tight.

And how about the successes you are most proud of?

ICON has achieved a lot that I’m proud of over the past few years—things like the publications database, the workplace practices survey, the Good Nano Guide that we are currently working on.  But I think the thing that I’m most proud of is that we have nurtured a community of people from very different backgrounds and perspectives who are enthusiastic about working together to ensure that this emerging technology is developed and used safely and effectively.

I’m not sure I am allowed to ask this one, but I’m going to anyway:  in what way (if any) do you feel that being a woman has prevented or enabled you to achieve what you have wanted to?

At the end of the day, I feel that I got to where I am and have achieved what I have through my abilities, not my gender.  Superficially, it’s easier to get noticed in the physical sciences if you are a woman, if only because there are still too few—but I have many tremendously bright, successful and inspiring colleagues who are also women.  It has been a challenge juggling a career and family—especially when maternity leaves have meant spending some months away from a job in a rapidly moving field I have even been asked explicitly by colleagues whether my job is compatible with motherhood. I decided to find out for myself.

And the answer:  Most definitely, yes!

Certainly from my experience, if you want to follow a path in science and technology and you have the ability and drive, the opportunities are there—no matter what your gender.

And finally, do you have any advice for women who are interested in following a career in technology—whether on the technical, commercial or policy side of things?

Very simply, follow your “joy.”  I’m extremely happy that my career has brought me to where I can work at the interface between science and society, but I could never have charted the course I took in advance—it certainly isn’t a traditional career trajectory.

I would also add, marry well—not rich, but well. ☺

What else could I possibly add to that?

(You can follow Kristen Kulinowski on Twitter, at @Kulinowski)

Postscript

This was a tough blog to write.  I wasn’t entirely convinced of the merit of singling out women excelling in technology.  But I do concede that as a man it’s difficult for me to have an unbiased perspective here, and so I am more than happy to take it on advice that highlighting women “tech heroines” will help inspire more women to pursue a career in technology.  And perhaps more importantly, it will encourage those who want to follow this career path to “follow their joy,” and not be inhibited by unnecessary barriers.

I was also concerned that writing as a man about women in technology could end up being intensely patronizing.  Hopefully the format I chose avoided most of the traps here, but for where I might have inadvertently offended, I ask the reader’s forgiveness.

Selecting a single person to write about was not easy.  As Kristen notes above, there are many inspiring women in science and technology, and I have had the privilege of working with a number of them.  I selected Kristen because her work straddles science, technology and social boundaries in a way that I am particularly interested in—and because she is extremely good at what she does.  But I would be remiss if I didn’t also mention her colleague Professor Vicki Colvin, who is the executive director of ICON, as well as the director of CBEN.  If no-one has written an Ada Lovelace blog on Vicki, they should have—she is a major player in the field of developing safe and sustainable nanotechnologies, and was the driving force between CBEN and ICON becoming established.  Definitely another “tech heroine.”

And finally, there are a lot of people writing about women in technology today as part of Ada Lovelace day.  You can track them on the Ada Lovelace Day Collection Mash-up.  Alternatively, look out for tag ALD09post on relevant posts.  And if you want to know more about the day, the person it is named after, and the person who set the whole thing in motion (Suw Charman-Anderson), please do check out http://findingada.com.

So you want to make or use carbon nanotubes, but you are worried about handling then safely.  What do you do?  The good news is that the UK Health and Safety Executive has just published an information sheet that addresses just this question.  Risk management of carbon nanotubes is (according to the blurb) “specifically about the manufacture and manipulation of carbon nanotubes, and has been prepared in response to emerging evidence about the toxicology of these materials.”

But is it any good?  Here’s my initial take:

HSE recommends a precautionary approach for managing the risks of all carbon nanotubes. This is a good move.  The evidence so far—which admittedly is sparse—points towards all forms of carbon nanotubes being more harmful in the lungs than non-nanotube forms of carbon.  Of course, it depends on how you define “precautionary,” but “looking before you leap” seems a reasonable translation in this case.

No mention is made of possible exposure when working with carbon nanotube-containing products. HSE’s information sheet is clear that exposure to nanotubes can occur when making the stuff, when using it, and when researching its properties.  But there is no mention of what could occur when machining, grinding or cutting a product containing carbon nanotubes.  To be fair, research so far indicates that in most cases, once carbon nanotubes are embedded in a product they are unlikely to come out.  But if a precautionary approach is to be taken, it seems sensible to at least ask whether there is a chance that exposure to the material will occur while working with carbon nanotube-containing products.

The review of new evidence neglects particle-like effects in the lungs. The information sheet revolves around concerns over asbestos-like behavior and certain types of carbon nanotubes, which is understandable given the unpleasantness and latency period of diseases like mesothelioma.  But current research suggests that even clumps of carbon nanotubes that don’t look like asbestos fibers are more toxic if inhaled than might be imagined.  Last July, Anna Shvedova and colleagues published research showing that inhaling non asbestos-like single walled carbon nanotubes at concentrations currently recommended as safe by many manufacturers could be harmful.

In other words, it isn’t just asbestos-like behavior that we need to be concerned with here.

Use of carbon nanotubes appears to be discouraged in the absence of information on inhalation hazards. The information sheet states:

“HSE views CNT’s [carbon nanotubes] as being substances of very high concern.  Although the recent findings only apply to some CNTs we think a precautionary approach should be taken to the risk management of all CNTs, unless sound documented evidence is available on the hazards from breathing in CNTs.  If their use cannot be avoided, HSE expects a high level of control to be used.”

I may be reading this section wrong, but the message seems to be: If you don’t have a good handle on how harmful the substance you are using might be, don’t use it. But if you absolutely must, do everything possible to reduce exposures to a minimum. As there are no definitive data on carbon nanotube toxicity yet, this advice seems to boil down to the use of carbon nanotubes being discouraged.

Given the economic potential here, I’m interested in how this will play with industry.

Recommended qualitative risk management actions will reduce exposures… At the heart of the information sheet is advice on steps to reduce exposure to airborne carbon nanotubes when working with the substance.  These are solid, generic, good occupational hygiene practices—“use appropriate work processes,” “control exposures at source,” “make sure exposures are controlled at all times” etc.  And if followed, they should lead to fewer people being exposed to less material.  But I do wonder how practical some of them are for dealing with certain forms of carbon nanotubes—especially when it comes to working in fume cupboards and keeping material wet where possible.

…But there are few indications of “how much is enough.” Qualitative actions abound in the information sheet: “use appropriate work processes;” “provide suitable work equipment;” maintain “adequate control of exposure at all times.”  But such advice is hard to apply in the absence of any information on what processes are “appropriate,” how suitability is determined, and when “adequate control” is achieved.

I’m sure the point here is that any actions to reduce exposures are better than none.  But without quantitative benchmarks, the chances are that some people will be exposed to worryingly high levels of carbon nanotubes (under the “we tried our best” arguement), while others will struggle to obtain exposure levels that are needlessly low.

On balance, I have to commend the HSE on coming out with the information sheet on the ground that any information is better than no information, and I’m sure that some will find it helpful.  But I do worry that the information provided isn’t specific enough to either protect peoples’ health effectively, or provide nanotech businesses with the help they need to do the right thing without over-doing it.

And unfortunately, the document fails to provide links to other sources of information that may help remove some of the ambiguity (see some of the documents below for instance).

The bottom line here is that the information sheet is great for raising awareness, but seems to falls short of providing much in the way of practical advice.

Of course, I don’t actually have to make hard decisions on what exposures are acceptable for my employees, which controls to put in place, and how to assess their effectiveness.

Maybe if I did, my perspective would be different.

End Notes

I should note that I was asked to informally review a late draft of the information sheet last year.  I suspect I was too late in returning my comments though—the published document isn’t substantially different from my review copy.

For more substantive advice, I would recommend reading the document “Nanotechnologies – Part 2: Guide to safe handling and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials” from BSI Inc.  My review of it can be found here.

More detailed information on working safely with nanomaterials is also published by the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Similar advice is available from the standards organizations ISO and ASTM International (see  Alphabet soup hides the secrets of safe nanotech! for further information)

Thoughts on applying Control Banding to working with nanomaterials can be found in this excellent paper by Sam Paik and colleagues.  While not dealing specifically with carbon nanotubes, it does develop a framework for making exposure control decisions:

Application of a Pilot Control Banding Tool for Risk Level Assessment and Control of Nanoparticle Exposures.  Paik et al. (2008) Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2008 52(6):419-428

Paik’s work forms the basis of safe handling guidelines recommended by the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (CSST) and NanoQuébec.

Additional 2020 Science blogs addressing carbon nanotube safety:

• Carbon nanotubes: the new asbestos? Not if we act fast
• Resolving the carbon nanotube identity crisis
• Asbestos-like nanomaterials – should we be concerned?

]]> http://2020science.org/2009/03/17/working-safely-with-carbon-nanotubes/feed/ 1 http://2020science.org/2009/03/02/nanotechnology-risk-research-ten-years-on/ http://2020science.org/2009/03/02/nanotechnology-risk-research-ten-years-on/#comments Tue, 03 Mar 2009 02:28:21 +0000 Andrew Maynard http://2020science.org/?p=958

Ten years ago to the month, one of the first research reports detailing the challenges of ensuring the safe use of engineered nanomaterials was delivered to the UK Health and Safety Executive.  The report wasn’t for general release, and you’ll be hard pressed to find a copy of it in the public domain.  But as a co-author, I have a copy skulking around in my archives.  And given it’s ten year anniversary, I’ve been browsing through it, to find out how much has progressed—or not, as the case may be!

The report focused on ultrafine aerosols, and the Health and Safety Laboratory’s ability to respond to then-current, and future, research needs.  As such it was pretty wide ranging, and focused extensively on exposure to incidental nanoscale aerosols—such as welding fume and engine emissions—in the workplace.  But it did encompass the then-nascent field of nanotechnology and “nanophase material synthesis.”  And some of these early assessments of the field bear revisiting.

For anyone interested in what was being written about the potential health and safety issues raised by engineered nanomaterials ten years ago, I’ve extracted a few sections of the report below—for the full thing, you’ll have to go to the UK Health and Safety Executive.

My apologies that the post is so long—I’m only expecting a dedicated few to plough through it.  But at the least, you might want to skip to the end to see how the research recommendations of 1999 compare to those of today—you might be surprised!

A scoping study into ultrafine aerosol research and HSL’s ability to respond to current and future research needs.
IR/A/99/03

Kenny, Maynard et al. 1999

The introduction to the report starts:

Over the past few years a number of epidemiological studies have indicated a tentative link between ambient particulate concentrations, and morbidity and mortality rates (e.g. Dochery et al. 1993, Pope 1996, Schwartz et al. 1993, Schwartz et al. 1991).  In all studies, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 µm (the PM10 fraction) have been implicated as the key agents.  The lack of an apparent association between particles of specific composition and health effects has indicated the observed effects to be due to some physical aspect of the inhaled particles.  A further link between particle size and health has been indicated by Dochery et al. (1993) who showed a more positive correlation between ill health and particles smaller than 2.5 µm than was seen than with the PM10 fraction.  The possibility of correlations between particle size and number concentration and toxicity has been demonstrated by Oberdörster et al. (1995) by exposing rats to PTFE particles ~20 nm in diameter.  At concentrations of 106 particles cm-3 (corresponding to an equivalent mass concentration of approximately 60 µg m-3) rats exposed for 30 minutes died within 4 hours. At lower concentrations a steep dose response curve was observed between pulmonary inflammatory responses and particle number.  More recent research has begun to indicate a possible material-independent link between inhaled particle surface area and selected toxicological endpoints (e.g. Lison et al. 1997). The possibility of a relationship between fine inhaled particles and ill health is now readily accepted,  although research is still at a very early stage and most published data to date are open to a wide range of interpretations.  Tentative hypotheses concerning possible mechanisms leading to toxicity have been proposed (e.g. Schlesinger 1995, Seyton et al. 1995, Donaldson and McNee 1998), and the impact of inhaling ultrafine particles on both the respiratory and cardiovascular systems have been speculated on.  The US EPA have already acted, partially as a response to earlier epidemiological studies, and introduced the PM2.5 sampling standard for environmental particulates.  Whether the UK is to follow this lead is still under discussion.  However, despite these steps, research so far has raised more questions than answers.  There is debate over the interpretation of the epidemiological studies, and the appropriateness of chosen endpoints in toxicology tests.  Contradictory experimental results are beginning to be published regarding ultrafine particle impact on health (e.g. Pekkanen et al. 1997).  There also appear to be widely conflicting views on what constitutes an ultrafine particle, with implicit cut-off points ranging from 10 µm down to a few nm!

In amongst all the current confusion is the question of whether the alleged health implications of inhaling ultrafine aerosols are of relevance to the workplace.  Much has been made of the apparent health problems amongst vulnerable sectors of the general population following environmental exposures, and the argument is followed through to the conclusion that within a healthy workforce similar problems are unlikely to be seen (backed up by a lack of evidence of severe health problems that are clearly linked to ultrafine aerosols).  However, in part the current uncertainty over the toxicity of ultrafine particles is due to the very limited information available on the nature of so-called ultrafine particles.  Inhaled particles associated with health in epidemiology studies have been very poorly defined, and even the particles used in most well controlled in vitro and in vivo experiments have been poorly characterised.  Without basic information on particle size, morphology, composition and structure, it is clearly not feasible to make value judgements on the nature of inhaled particles, either in the general environment or in the workplace. In the light of the scarcity of information on particle characteristics, the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Air Pollutants has recommended the monitoring of such parameters at a number of environmental locations (COMEAP 1996).  Similar measurements will be essential within the workplace before further speculations on the importance of ultrafine aerosols are made.

In reading this, it is important to remember that the state of the science is ten years on from when this was written—there are now a wealth of publications on the potentially health-relevant behavior of nanometer-scale particles.  Yet the framework of questions set out largely remains as relevant now as it did then.

Perhaps more interestingly, in 1999 the discussion was focused on understanding and managing the health impacts of inhaled particles, NOT whether those particles could be classified as arising from nanotechnology or not.  As a result, the document tends to be more grounded in the science of how fine particles potentially impact on health, rather than how the poorly defined field of “nanotechnology” might lead to health effects.

The report goes on to consider the generation of ultrafine aerosols in the workplace:

In general, very little is known about any aspect of ultrafine aerosols in the workplace.  There are a number of processes such as welding and soldering where intuitively one would expect large numbers of sub-µm particles.  However even in these areas, detailed measurements of particle size do not appear to have been made.  There is a general feeling that in situations where large concentrations of particles are generated, agglomeration will remove ultrafine particles from the aerosol before it is inhaled, thus removing the need to consider ultrafines. However this has not been verified, and evidence exists for significant mass concentrations of ultrafines existing close to generation sources.  Interestingly, researchers are currently speculating that agglomerates with ultrafine primary particles may have the equivalent impact on the lungs as the individual primary particles.  More is known about the products of internal combustion engines, although mainly from the view point of monitoring and reducing environmental emissions.  However very little information on the nature of individual particles in the workplace exists.

Ultrafine aerosols tend to be formed either through nucleation (in particular homogeneous nucleation), gas to particle reactions or through the evaporation of liquid droplets.  The majority of workplace ultrafine particles are likely to arise from the nucleation route, either as combustion products, or within saturated vapours arising from other sources (e.g. welding, smelting, laser ablation).  Evaporation of sub-micron and even micron sized droplets of relatively high purity solvents will result in very small particles.  Where the initial particles are highly charged, there is the possibility of any resulting fine particles exceeding the Rayleigh charge limit and fragmenting into even finer particles.  This is a recognised method of generating ultrafine particles through electrospraying.  To what extent this generation route is present in the workplace is unknown, although it is used for the specific generation of ultrafine particles during nanofabrication.  Gas to particle generation of ultrafine aerosols accounts for the majority of non-combustion particles in the environment, although again the significance of this route within the workplace is unclear.

Following current interest in nanophase technology, and the use of ultrafine particles as precursors in nanophase materials, it is likely that the next few years will see an increase in the industrial generation and use of ultrafine particles.  At present the planned generation of particles tends to be isolated to the production of ultrafine metal oxides such as TiO2, ZnO and fumed silica.  Ultrafine carbon black is also currently generated on a commercial scale. Although the full extent to which ultrafine aerosols are generated as an unwanted by-product within industry is still largely unknown, there are clear cases where the generation rate is high, such as in welding and from internal combustion engines.  Even so, data on the nature of generated aerosols in these areas are sparse.

There follows an assessment of different sources of nanoscale particles in the workplace, from welding to plastic fumes from laser cutting, and a range of other sources.  This is all interesting information, but here I want to focus on the section on ultrafine aerosol precursors in nanophase technology:

Over the last ten years, interest in the unique properties associated with materials having structures on a nanometer scale has been increasing at something approaching an exponential rate.  By restricting ordered atomic arrangements to increasingly small volumes, materials begin to be dominated by the atoms and molecules at the surfaces of these ‘domains’, often leading to properties that are startlingly different from the bulk material.  As the domains become smaller, and hence more dominated by surface atoms and surface energies, so the properties become increasingly unique from either the bulk material or the constituent atoms. So for instance, a relatively inert metal or metal oxide may become a highly effective catalyst when manufactured as ultrafine particles; opaque materials may become transparent when composed of nanoparticles, or vice versa; conductors may become insulators, and insulators conductors; nanophase materials may have many times the strength of the bulk material.  All of these effects and many more have been observed with various materials.  Such material properties that are unique to nanostructured materials that have excited both the scientific and industrial communities in recent years.

Most nanophase materials are fabricated either from the liquid state, or the aerosol state, although some routes combine the two.  The liquid route perhaps gives more control over the process in some cases.  However there is a general feeling at the present that using aerosols is an inexpensive and versatile route to constructing these materials.  Although there are many different production methods being explored, the general approach is to generate, capture and process an aerosol of particles with the dimensions of the final nanostructure.  Typically this requires the generation of particles from 1 to 2 nm in diameter up to around 20 – 30 nm in diameter, depending on the required properties of the final material.  Generation rates in research laboratories tend to be low (of the order of mg/hour), although where industrial production of nanoparticles has commenced, production rates of the order of tonnes per hour are seen.

At present, nanophase materials are an emerging technology, with the emphasis most definitely still on the research lab.  However, there is considerable commercial commitment to the field, and it is certain that as scale-up problems are overcome, the mass production of both nanoparticles and nanophase materials will increase rapidly world-wide.  When this occurs, the unique health problems associated with a unique product that can neither be treated as a bulk material or on a molecular level will have to be fully addressed.  In the meantime, there is a clear need to keep up to date with both developments in the technology, and any health concerns that may be associated with it.

Over the past ten years, commercial-scale production of nanoscale materials has moved on significantly, although perhaps not as much as some would have predicted.  Yet the issues surrounding their safety still reflect (by on large) the issues raised here.

The report summarizes the state of nanotechnology research in 1999—which I’ll skip over—and goes on to consider where the rather quaintly termed nanophase technology was heading:

The indication from the scientific press is that there are as many potential applications for nanophase technology as there are groups working in the field.  However a relatively small number of areas can be identified where commercial production of materials is most likely to be seen in the next 5 – 10 years.  To understand the commercial pressure behind the progress of nanophase technology and its likely integration into industry, you only have to consider the potential market for successful applications.  In the electronics industry in particular, the revenue arising from nanotechnology is likely to be well in excess of hundreds of billions of dollars.  In other areas, such as coatings and catalysts, similar markets exist for successful applications.  The market for ‘intelligent’ drug delivery systems, if successful, is likely to be immense.  Reflecting this, the pharmaceutical industry is currently investing in excess of $14B per annum into advanced delivery systems.

Electronic applications

The reduction in particle size has a profound effect on electronic structure as nanometre dimensions are reached, leading to a number of unique electronic properties seen in individual and groups of nanoparticles.  As an illustration, Si, which is semiconducting in the bulk solid, may be used to form nanometre sized pseudo-crystals with one of two types of atomic structure dominating its faces.  Particles with one structure are fully conducting. Those with the other are good insulators. What does this mean/what are the general implications?

Perhaps the most widely recognised electronic property of nanoparticles is their ability to act as quantum dots.  In arrays of such particles, the overall electronic characteristics are dominated by quantum effects within the particles, leading to novel applications.  For instance, quantum dot devices can be used to create high efficiency LED’s and electroluminescent plastics.  High frequency solid state lasers based on quantum dot technology are expected to form the basis of a major breakthrough in telecommunications, leading to significantly higher communication bandwidths.  High speed and high capacity computer memory will also be possible using quantum dot technology.  Success in fabricating viable quantum dot devices will bring about a major technological step within the electronics industry, leading to a $B production industry, although progress at present is limited by the need to fabricate very precise arrays of well characterised particles.  Current approaches include the use of colloids, nanolithography and aerosols.

Porous nanostructured semiconductors such as silicon have recently been shown to have electroluminescent properties.  If this can be fabricated into integrated circuits, the basis for the next generation of high speed optoelectronic computers will be laid.  Nanoparticles are also being found to lead to improved properties in resistors and capacitors.  Ultrafine conducting particles embedded in an insulating matrix have been shown to give a great range of resistances as well as showing very high temperature stability.  Similarly, the use of nanoparticles in capacitors has been shown to give a high dielectric permitivity and a low dissipation factor, making them ideal for high speed computer memory.

A particularly interesting phenomenon seen in nanophase materials is that of electrochromism; the modification of optical properties by the application of an electric field. Windows or mirrors coated with thin layers of these materials show variable light transmittance or reflection based on the magnitude of an applied electric field.  It has also been found that nanophase materials may be used to form thin transparent films with high conductivity.

A number of other important areas relating to electronics are increasingly relying on the use of nanostructured materials.  Solid state gas sensors show improved sensitivity when using films of sintered nanometre particles; high temperature superconductors have a higher performance when formed of nanostructured materials; thermocouples benefit from nanostructure and the magnetic properties of some nanostructured materials is already exploited to the full in magnetic storage media.

Coatings

Using nanophase materials to coat a wide range of substrates is being explored, and has been exploited in a wide range of applications.  Hard nanophase coatings are important in the construction industry.  The use of coatings with specific optical properties is of interest within the glass and photographic film industries.  Dry coating technology is also benefiting from nanophase materials.  It has been shown that the transport properties of large particles may be radically altered by the addition of a thin coating of fine particles of a suitable material.  For instance, coating starch grains with fumed silica results in a highly flowable powder.  In many cases, this coating need only be of the order of nanometres thick, and the use of nanoparticles in dry coating processes is already under investigation.

Chemical-mechanical polishing using nanoparticle slurries.

Surface polishing is a critical step in the processing of silicon wafers prior to semiconductor chip fabrication.  Surface blemishes are a major source of both wafer and chip rejection in the electronics industry.  By using polishing slurries consisting of nanoparticles, planarisation of wafer surfaces with fewer blemishes is possible.

Drug delivery systems.

A key goal in current drug delivery system research is the development of ‘intelligent’ systems that will deliver doses to specific sites within the body.  One approach being actively considered is the use of coated nanoparticles.  These would be capable of penetrating capillaries and being transported directly to the target site.  The coating would include the drug to be delivered, components to prevent an immune response from the body and components to achieve site-specific or condition-specific delivery.

Nanoparticle catalysts

The modified surface chemistry of nanoparticles is well recognised for its catalytic properties in many materials.  This, together with the associated surface area to mass ratio for such particles, has led to intense interest in nanostructured catalysis within many fields.

After laying out the state of the science regarding the potential risks of inhaling nanoscale particles (which has advanced considerably over the past ten years), the report summarises (on the health impacts):

There has been little work in this field to date, so it is difficult to draw meaningful general conclusions from the published data. One of the reasons for this lack of data appears to be the difficulty in generating particles of standard and known size for use in in vitro studies. Particles used in both in vitro and in vivo studies have also tended to be relatively poorly characterised. Different effects both in vitro and in vivo have been observed with different sources of ultrafine particles, so the responses measured may be a function of the particle constituents rather than the particles per se. The differences observed have been attributed to the ability of particles with a particular composition to have different levels of free radical activity at their surface. Whilst there has been some work investigating synergy between acid aerosols and ultrafine particles (see below), there has been no work investigating the synergy between ultrafine particles and other potential airborne contaminants, e.g. allergens, VOC’s and bacteria. Some of the animal models used to demonstrate toxicological endpoints require exposure regimes which are far in excess of any possible exposure in humans (e.g.  6 hours a day, 5 days a week for 3 months). Therefore, the extrapolation of such health effect data to humans should be treated with some caution.
…
Interest in possible health effects following inhalation of ultrafine particles is high at present, and research is beginning to follow this interest.  Inhalation toxicology has taken over from epidemiology over the past few years, and dominates the field at present.  Dose response relationships in rodents are being seen that indicate particle number or surface area to be more appropriate metrics than mass.  The possibility of ultrafine particles acting as vectors to transport  acids and metals to the alveolar region of the lung is also being explored.  However it is recognised that many of the current approaches being taken are lacking in various aspects, particularly regarding the significance of chosen endpoints and the characterisation of particle exposure, and a number of groups are now beginning to address these issues.  This is an area that is particularly ripe for good research proposals to sympathetic funding bodies. The need to fully characterise the particles used in exposure and inhalation tests, as well as those that people are exposed to in the workplace and environment, is well understood, although the right combination of technical skills to achieve this seems to be lacking in many establishments.  In particular there would appear to be significant scope for transferring analytical electron microscopy skills used in materials science and nanostructure analysis to the analysis of ultrafine aerosol particles.  There is also a recognised need for in-vitro test systems that allow cell cultures to be exposed to the aerosol, rather than a particulate suspension.  A small number of research groups are currently developing test systems allowing direct aerosol deposition.  Funding for fine particle research (PM2.5 sampling, and mass-based aerosol sampling) still dominates, but all aspects of ultrafine particle research are on the increase, and it is likely that the next few years will see significant funding opportunities and research in this area.  Driven by concerns over environmental exposure, together with the need to address exposure limits for nuisance dusts, there is increasing interest in examining the impact of ultrafine particle exposure in the workplace.

The report covers a lot of ground on exposure measurement and control, which I won’t duplicate here (although a lot of the information remains highly pertinent).  Instead, I’ll jump right to the end of the report, where a number of research recommendations are made.  Remembering that these are focused specifically on inhalation exposure in the workplace, they sound surprisingly contemporary, being written 10 years ago:

Full quantification of ultrafine aerosol exposure in the workplace:

• Measurement of number, size, surface area, composition, morphology, structure
• Investigation of the surface properties of workplace particles.
• Investigation of surface enrichment, role of modified surface activity below 10 nm, relevance of internal structure.
• Development of instrumentation and analytical techniques for surface area
• measurement and individual particle characterisation (Analytical Electron Microscopy)

Targeted epidemiology and toxicology studies.

• Epidemiological evidence for ultrafine particle toxicity in the workplace
• Toxicity of well defined particles, and of particles characteristic of those found in the workplace.
• Investigation of mechanisms resulting in toxic responses, in relation to the known physical and chemical attributes of workplace particles.

Instrumentation

• Identification of deficiencies in instrumentation and monitoring requirements, and development of new technologies and methods.

Control

• Reassessment of  the applicability of conventional control systems (including RPE) to reduce exposure to ultrafine particles, and the development of new approaches to exposure control.

Exposure Limits

• Assessment of current exposure limits in the light of available data on ultrafine particle toxicity, and the development of more appropriate approaches to exposure limits.

Ten years on, it is surprising how relevant this document still is.  The major issues facing the safe use of nanomaterials were reasonably clear ten years back.  And many of the research needs raised then remain today.  Progress certainly has been made since then, and an understanding of the types of nanomaterials of greater concern has increased—the 1999 report doesn’t mention carbon nanotubes for instance.  But on the flip side, this is a report that was clearly unencumbered by the politics of nanotechnology that seem to have diffused through things today

Perhaps most surprisingly though, is that governments and others are still talking about the same issues – often as if they have discovered them for the first time – without doing that much about them.  It would be churlish to ask where we might have been now if some of those 1999 recommendations were listened to.  But at least I can ask where we might be in 2019, if only we can break out of this endless cycle of re-inventing the nanotech risk report!

Endnote

Because this was an internal report, I have been careful to extract only parts of it that are of general interest and are not in any sense proprietary.  That said, there is a lot of information in the full report that would be helpful to anyone grappling with addressing and managing potential occupational risks arising from nanoscale particle exposure in the workplace.  It would be great if the UK Health and Safety Executive could release it for public use!

References

COMEAP (1996).  Non-biological particles and health.   HMSO Publications.

Dochery, D. W., Pope, C. A., Xu, X., Spengler, J. D., Ware, J. H., Fay, M. E., Ferris, B. G. and Speizer, F. E. (1993).  An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities.  N. Engl. J. Med, 329, 24, 1753-1759.

Donaldson, K. and McNee, W. (1998).  The mechanics of lung injury caused by PM10.  In: Air Pollution and Pealth.  Eds:  Hester and Harrison.  Royal Society of Chemistry.  ISBN 0-85404-245-8.  pp21-32.

Lison, D., Lardot, C., Huaux, F., Zanetti, G. and Fubini, B. (1997).  Influence of particle surface area on the toxicity of insoluble manganese dioxide dusts. Arch. Toxicol. 71, 725-729

Oberdörster, G., Gelein, R. M., Ferin, J. and Weiss, B. (1995).  Association of particulate air pollution and acute mortality:  involvement of ultrafine particles?  Inhal. Toxicol., 7, 111-124.

Pekkanen J, Timonen KL, Ruuskanen J, Reponen A, Mirme A (1997) Effects of ultrafine and fine particles in urban air on peak expiratory flow among children with asthmatic symptoms. Environ Res 74: 24-33

Pope, C. A. (1996).  Adverse health effects of air pollutants in a nonsmoking population.  Toxicology, 111, 149-155.

Schlesinger, R. B. (1995).  Toxicological evidence for health effects from inhaled particulate pollution:  does it support the human experience?  Inhal. Toxicol., 7, 99-109.

Schwartz, J., Spix, C., Wichmann, H. E. and Malin, E. (1991).  Air pollution and acute respiratory illnessin five German communities.  Environ. Res., 56, 1-4.

Schwartz, J., Slater, D., Larson, T. V., Pierson, W. E. and Koenig, J. Q. (1993).  Particulate air pollution and hospital emergency room visits for asthma in Seattle.  Am. Rev. Respir. Dis., 147, 826-831.

Seyton, A., MacNee, W., Donaldson, K. and Godden, D. (1995).  Particulate air pollution and acute health effects.  The Lancet, 345, 176-178.

Explaining nanotechnology to people is tough—as anyone working in the field will tell you.  Clever stuff that’s too small to see with the naked eye doesn’t slot easily into most people’s human-scale view of the world.  So it’s not surprising that many non-experts (and even some “experts”) end up with a rather mangled idea of what the technology is, and what it is not!

And this begs the question: if people are to be empowered to make informed decisions on nanotechnology, how do you un-mangle the misconceptions?

One approach is to tap into the latent creativity of researchers and science-enthusiasts, and get them to make educational video-shorts.  The American Chemical Society is doing just this in its “What is Nano?” video contest.  The challenge: submit an original creative video no more than 3 minutes long before March 12 2009 on “what is ‘nano’?” “how is ‘nano’ best visualized?” or “where is ‘nano’ headed?” And get the chance to win $500in cash!

You can browse the entries and vote for your favorite on the ACS NanoTube website—highly recommended for an entertaining diversion when the pressures of work get too much!

My favorite so far: “Small can be big – a French cheesy perspective” from Irene Suarez-Martinez and Chris Ewels.  Not sure how great the educational value is, but it made me laugh:

[Add your vote here]

The top contender at present though is “The Nano Song” from Patrick Bennett and fellow researchers at UC Berkeley… – seen at the top of this blog [you can vote for the video here].

I’m still not sure whether to cringe or grin at this one—but you have to admit, the production values are pretty high.  And the video does have the distinction of hitting the big time on the Wired Science blog.

I should also mention out of familial loyalty, my eleven year old son’s entry:

[Add your vote here - no pressure!]

This is a repackaging of some legomation shorts he made for me a couple of years back. It stretches the boundaries of the competition rather (to say it explains anything about nanotechnology is a bit of a stretch).  But I still think it’s a lot of fun—and it demonstrates a level of skill in stop frame animation that’s way beyond anything I could do!

To be honest, there are plenty of turkeys amongst the gems in the current offerings—including videos that will leave your head spinning, even if you thought you knew a thing about nanotechnology.  But as a start, the competition is a great way of getting people to think more imaginatively about the work they do, and how to make it accessible.

So do look through the competition entries, and PLEASE add your votes—the more attention the videos get, the higher the quality of submissions here and in subsequent contests is likely to be.

And if you feel inspired, there’s still time to get your 3-minute masterpiece out there for all to see.

Best of luck!

Given the recent surge in 2020science readers (thanks to Lon S. Cohen at Mashable), I thought it about time I did a short retrospective—a taster for the type of stuff you can expect to read here.  So here are five pieces from the past year that cover everything from nanotechnology to synthetic biology, and ethics to the trials of being on the scientific meeting circuit—all from the perspective of emerging technologies.

Enjoy!

Asbestos-like nanomaterials – should we be concerned? It seems that when the possible downsides of nanotechnology are broached, it doesn’t take long for the “A” word to surface.  But what is the truth—if any—behind comparisons between nanomaterials and asbestos?  From January 2009.

.

Nanotechnology—In bed with Madonna? How do you squeeze Madonna, John Kerry, nanotechnology and Elle magazine into the same blog?  With difficulty is the correct answer I think, but somehow they all managed to appear together in this piece from April 2008.

.

.

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture. What the heck is synthetic biology, is “biopunk” a real word, and are the 21st century equivalents of computer hackers going to reconfigure life as we know it?  I can’t promise any easy answers, but hopefully this post from June 2008 helps set the scene.

.

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? We’ve all heard of bioethics, but if the earth can be treated like one massive complex organism, do we need the planetary equivalent of bioethics—“geoethics” perhaps?  From January 2009.

.

.

Enough meetings already! Ever get jealous of the scientific jet-set, swanning between “prestigious” speaking engagements in exotic places?  Don’t bother—the reality is far from glamorous, as this post from May last year tries to capture.  Fortunately, there are occasional compensations, albeit in unlikely forms!

.