2020 Science » Risk

Exploring speculated catastrophe and mundane reality

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:33:54 +0000

: Credit: James King

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Academy publishes new nanomaterials risk research strategy

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:38:00 +0000

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

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

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

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

…the present committee focuses on a set of principles in lieu of definitions to help identify nanomaterials and associated processes on which research is needed to ensure the responsible development and use of the materials. The principles were adopted in part because of concern about the use of rigid definitions of ENMs that drive EHS research and risk-based decisions … The principles are technology-independent and can therefore be used as a long-term driver of nanomaterial risk research. They help in identifying materials that require closer scrutiny regarding risk irrespective of whether they are established, emerging, or experimental ENMs. The principles are built on three concepts: emergent risk, plausibility, and severity; …

Emergent risk, as described here, refers to the likelihood that a new material will cause harm in ways that are not apparent, assessable, or manageable with current risk-assessment and risk-management approaches. Examples of emergent risk include the ability of some nanoscale particles to penetrate to biologically relevant areas that are inaccessible to larger particles, the failure of some established toxicity assays to indicate accurately the hazard posed by some nanomaterials, scalable behavior that is not captured by conventional hazard assessments (such as behavior that scales with surface area, not mass), and the possibility of abrupt changes in the nature of material-biologic interactions associated with specific length scales. Identifying emergent risk depends on new research that assesses a novel material’s behavior and potential to cause harm.

Emergent risk is defined in terms of the potential of a material to cause harm in unanticipated or poorly understood ways rather than being based solely on its physical structure or physicochemical properties. Thus, it is not bound by rigid definitions of nanotechnology or nanomaterials. Instead, the principle of emergence enables ENMs that present unanticipated risks to human health and the environment to be distinguished from materials that probably do not. It also removes considerable confusion over how nanoscale atoms, molecules, and internal material structures should be considered from a risk perspective, by focusing on behavior rather than size.

Many of the ENMs of concern in recent years have shown a potential to lead to emergent risks and would be tagged under this principle and thus require further investigation. But the concept also allows more complex nanomaterials to be considered—those in the early stages of development or yet to be developed. These include active and self-assembling nanomaterials. The principle does raise the question of how “emergence” is identified, being by definition something that did not exist previously. However the committee recognized that in many cases it is possible to combine and to interpret existing data in ways that indicate the possible emergence of new risks. For example, some research has suggested that surface area is an important factor that affects the toxic potency of some ENMs; ENMs that have high specific surface area and are poorly soluble might pose an emergent risk.

Plausibility refers in qualitative terms to the science-based likelihood that a new material, product, or process will present a risk to humans or the environment. It combines the possible hazard associated with a material and the potential for exposure or release to occur. Plausibility also refers to the likelihood that a particular technology will be developed and commercialized and thus lead to emergent risks. For example, the self-replicating nanobots envisaged by some writers in the field of nanotechnology might legitimately be considered an emergent risk; if it occurs, the risk would lie outside the bounds of conventional risk assessment. But this scenario is not plausible, clearly lying more appropriately in the realm of science fiction than in science. The principle of plausibility can act as a crude but important filter to distinguish between speculative risks and credible risks.

The principle of severity refers to the extent and magnitude of harm that might result from a poorly managed nanomaterial. It also helps to capture the reduction in harm that may result from research on the identification, assessment, and management of emergent risk. The principle offers a qualitative reality check that helps to guard against extensive research efforts that are unlikely to have a substantial effect on human health or environmental protection. It also helps to ensure that research that has the potential to make an important difference is identified and supported.

Together, those three broad principles provide a basis for developing an informed strategy for selecting materials that have the greatest potential to present risks. They can be used to separate new materials that raise safety concerns from materials that, although they may be novel from an application perspective, do not present undetected, unexpected, or enhanced risks. They contribute to providing a framework for guiding a prioritized risk-research agenda. In this respect, the principles were used by the committee as it considered the pressing risk challenges presented by ENMs.

Maintaining current research and development funding levels. As a committee, we felt that the current US federal government of ~$120 million into environment, health and safety-specific nanotechnology research was reasonable, especially given the current economic climate. However, we did recommend that, as knowledge develops and commercialization of products using nanomaterials increases, funded research is aligned with areas and priorities identified within the strategy.

Developing cross-cutting activities. There were five areas where the committee felt that further funding was needed to ensure the value of nano-risk research was fully realized. Each of these cuts across areas of research, and provides the means to maximize the benefit of the science being supported. From the report:

Informatics: $5 million per year in new funding for the next 5 years should be used to support the development of robust informatics systems and tools for managing and using information on the EHS effects of ENMs. The committee concluded that developing robust and responsive informatics systems for ENM EHS information was critical to guiding future strategic research, and translating research into actionable intelligence. This includes maximizing the value of research that is EHS-relevant but not necessarily EHS-specific, such as studies conducted during the development of new therapeutics. Based on experiences from other areas of research, investment in informatics of the order of $15 million is needed to make substantial progress in a complex and data rich field. However, within the constraints of nanotechnology R&D, the committee concluded that the modest investment proposed would at least allow initial informatics systems to be developed and facilitate planning for the long-term.

Instrumentation: $10 million per year in new funding for the next 5 years should be invested in translating existing measurement and characterization techniques into platforms that are accessible and relevant to EHS research and in developing new EHS- specific measurement and characterization techniques for assessing ENMs under a variety of conditions. The committee recognized that the proposed budget is insufficient for substantial research into developing new nanoscale characterization techniques— especially considering the cost of high-end instruments such as analytic electron microscopes—in excess of $2 million per instrument. However, the proposed budget was considered adequate to support the translation of techniques developed or deployed in other fields for the EHS characterization of ENMs.

Materials: Investment is needed in developing benchmark ENMs over the next 5 years, a long-standing need that has attracted little funding to date. The scope of funding needed depends in part on the development of public-private partnerships. However, to assure that funding is available to address this critical gap, the committee recommends that $3-5 million per year be invested initially in developing and distributing benchmark ENMs. While more funds could be expended on developing a library of materials, this amount will assure that the most critically needed materials are developed. These materials will enable systematic investigation of their behavior and mechanisms of action in environmental and biologic systems. The availability of such materials will allow benchmarking of studies among research groups and research activities. The committee further recommends that activities around materials development be supported by public- private partnerships. Such partnerships would also help to assure that relevant materials are being assessed.

Sources: $2 million per year in new funding for the next 5 years should be invested in characterizing sources of ENM release and exposure throughout the value chain and life cycle of products. The committee considered that this was both an adequate and reasonable budget to support a comprehensive inventory of ENM sources.

Networks: $2 million per year in new funding for the next 5 years should be invested in developing integrated researcher and stakeholder networks that facilitate the sharing of information and the translation of knowledge to effective use. The networks should allow participation of representatives of industry and international research programs and are a needed complement to the informatics infrastructure. They would also facilitate dialogue around the development of a dynamic library of materials. The committee concluded that research and stakeholder networks are critical to realizing the value of federally funded ENM EHS research and considered this to be an area where a relatively small amount of additional funding would have a high impact—both in the development of research strategies and in the translation and use of research findings. Given the current absence of such networks, the proposed budget was considered adequate.

Authority and accountability. In our report, we talk quite a bit about the need for an entity within the federal government to take the lead in implementing a risk research strategy. While the US National Nanotechnology Initiative have done a great job coordinating interagency activities, we felt that there is only so far coordination without authority can go if socially and economically important research is to be conducted in a timely and relevant manner. What this “entity” might look like – we left that to the federal government to chew over.

There’s a lot more to the report – including (as you would expect) a broad assessment of research areas that need attention if the science of nanomaterial human health and environmental impacts is to continue to develop effectively.

This is the first of two reports- the second is due in around 18 months, and will look at progress toward implementing a relevant and effective research strategy.

The National Academies report “A Research Strategy for Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials” can be downloaded here.

Exposure to silver nanoparticles may be more common than we thought

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 03:58:27 +0000

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.

: From the paper in ACS Nano: Over a period of four weeks and in the presence of moisture, 75 nm silver particles became surrounded by large numbers of much smaller particles.

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.

Final program posted for the Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation symposium

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 20:40:20 +0000

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

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

It’s going to be quite a party!

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

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

________________________________________________________

September 20 – The benefits and challenges of technology innovation

7:30 AM Continental Breakfast and Registration

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

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

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

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

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

10:45 AM Break

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

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

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

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

12:45 PM Lunch and poster session

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

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

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

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

3:30 PM Break

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

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

4:30 PM Adjourn

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

9:00 PM End of day

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

7:00 AM Continental Breakfast

8:00 AM Welcome and introductory remarks

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

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

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

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

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

10:15 AM Break

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

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

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

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

12:00 PM Lunch, followed by keynote presentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:15 PM Close of symposium

A plug for the 2011 Risk Science Symposium: Risk, Uncertainty and Sutainable Innovation

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 13 May 2011 14:00:37 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

Some of the highlights include:

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

Draft Program

Confirmed Speakers

Registration

Why we don’t need a regulatory definition for nanomaterials

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 15:37:56 +0000

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.

Technology innovation and human health risk – rethinking the intersection

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:17:33 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

And what about the the content?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cross-posted from the Risk Science Blog

Risk, uncertainty and sustainable innovation: Feedback sought on symposium blurb

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:11:24 +0000

Despite the risk of receiving absolutely no comments (please don’t let me down!), I thought I’d try something new and ask for some feedback on the background blurb for a meeting I’ve been working on.

The meeting is a symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation being organized by the Risk Science center next September. I’ve been struggling with the blurb for this meeting before it goes out – especially striking the balance between something that captures the imagination (and hopefully the attention) of potential speakers, sponsors and attendees, and something that has clarity and substance.

The text below is my latest draft. What I would love to know – today ideally (knowing that you all are desperate for something to break the boredom of a Sunday afternoon) – is whether in your opinion this works, whether it is fluff without substance, whether it is the perfect insomnia cure, or whatever.

Please, please add your comments below – no matter how brief, or how qualified/unqualified you feel you are to say something.

Thank you!

Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation

New perspectives on emerging challenges

As we strive to build a sustainable future, do we need to rethink the relationship between risk, uncertainty and innovation? Today’s accelerating rate of technology innovation promises profound personal, social and economic advances. But in an ever-more complex, interconnected and resource-constrained world, sustainable innovation is jeopardized by emergent risks, together with increasing uncertainty over potential benefits and impacts. And no-where is this more apparent than at the intersection between technology innovation and human health. Drawing on thought-leaders from a wide range of backgrounds and expertise, this symposium provides a unique forum for exploring new ideas on integrative approaches to health risks, uncertainty and innovation, as we look to develop sustainable solutions to global challenges.

Background: As technologies become more sophisticated, pressures on global resources grow and society becomes ever-more interconnected, governments, businesses and citizens are facing increasingly complex challenges as they strive to build an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future. Over the past century, technology innovation has accelerated to the point where scientists and engineers have greater control over materials, organisms and systems – from the atomic scale to the planetary scale – that ever before. This has facilitated a radical shift in global communication, leading to an interconnected society where the flow of information, ideas and influence transcends geographical, economic and social boundaries. At the same time, a growing and increasingly plugged-in world population is placing unprecedented demands on ever-scarcer global resources.

The result is a world where innovation is both a driver of and a potential source of solutions to an increasing number of emerging global challenges.

If we are to adapt and thrive in this changing world, we urgently need to better-enable sustainable innovation – the sustainable development of relevant and responsive new understanding, processes and products that support long-term advances in the quality of human life and the environment. Yet sustainable innovation is inextricably intertwined with risk – particularly the danger of causing harm to human health – and uncertainty over the consequences of our actions.

Technology innovation leads to emergent risks – the likelihood of causing harm in a manner that is not apparent, assessable or manageable based on current approaches to risk assessment and management. The more complex and rapid the innovation, the greater the chances of perceived or actual risks emerging that require new and responsive approaches to minimizing their impact. But as a clear understanding of risks and how to manage them will always lag behind innovation, technology innovation is also dogged by uncertainty – particularly over how a specific course of action may lead to harm, and how this can be avoided.

If innovation is to support sustainable solutions to 21^st century challenges, new and integrative approaches to risk and uncertainty are required. New insight is needed on the interplay between risk, uncertainty and sustainable innovation. Methods of moving risk-based decision-making upstream in the innovation cycle need to be explored. And greater understanding of is needed on enabling collaborative decisions within an increasingly interconnected society in the face of uncertainty.

These are the challenges explored in the 2011 Symposium on Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation. Drawing on thought-leaders in industry, government, academia, the media and other sectors, the symposium will provide a unique opportunity to explore new ideas on sustainable innovation in the face of growing global challenges, emergent risks to human health, and increasing uncertainty over the potential benefits and consequences of technology innovation.

Beyond the obvious – lessons from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:06:34 +0000

The immediate lessons from the Deepwater Horizon disaster are pretty obvious – we (or at least somebody) messed up! But what about the less-obvious lessons – especially those concerning technology innovation and how it’s handled? The Fall 2010 issue of Findings – the University of Michigan School of Public Health Alumni magazine – contains a short piece addressing just this question. As is increasingly becoming my habit, here’s an earlier draft of that article. As well as providing a little more information that the published piece does, it allows an interesting comparison between a good draft (what I think works) and an expertly edited final article (what the editor thinks will work). As usual, I was more than impressed by how a good editor can sharpen a piece up.

In today’s increasingly crowded, interconnected and resource-constrained world, we are more dependent on technology innovation than at any previous time in human history. By 2050, over nine billion people will be placing unprecedented demands on the earth’s resources – a demand that will only be met through developing and using new technologies.

Yet technology innovation comes with its own challenges. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico provides a sobering reminder of what can go wrong when we trust in technology without investing sufficiently in the future. Devastating as this disaster has been though, it is only one small example of the challenges we will face as a global society as resources become scarcer, demands become greater, and our technological reach threatens to exceed our ability to handle it safely.

If a sustainable future is to be built on the effective development and use of technology innovation, we need to rethink how we reap the benefits of technology. The full impact of the Deepwater Horizon spill will take years to evaluate. But underlying the immediate impacts of the disaster is a story of how technology innovation failed, and the lessons that can be learned from this failure; not just so human and environmental disasters of this magnitude can be avoided in the future, but also so that we begin understand more fully how to develop and use new technologies more responsibly.

The technology being used on the Deepwater Horizon rig was at the cutting edge of innovation. Drilling at depths of 5000 feet below the surface of the sea – far beyond the reach of direct human intervention – the operation was pushing the bounds of the possible. Until the disaster, this was a story of technology innovation allowing us to tap previously inaccessible oil reserves. But there is a less obvious story here – one of emerging technologies that could have been used to mitigate the impacts of the spill, if only there had been sufficient forethought and investment to develop them to the point of usability before they were needed.

As it is, the use of advanced technologies associated with the Deepwater Horizon rig failed on three counts: The potential consequences of using an unproven technology were not explored sufficiently; there was inadequate investment in understanding, avoiding and mitigating risks upstream; and there was a lack of foresight in developing new technologies to manage the consequences of failure. Greater foresight, investment and upstream action on each of these three counts could have helped avoid or reduce the impact of the ensuing disaster.

Given the uncertainty surrounding the drilling technology being used and the potentially severe consequences of errors, more realistic scenario planning would have helped prepare for low probability but high impact risks. Coupled to this, more strategic research into the potential risks associated with deepwater drilling, together with greater stakeholder engagement, could have helped industry, regulators and others more effectively manage the consequences of the disaster. And more proactive up-front investment in remediation technologies could have provided more effective tools for managing the consequences of the disaster.

This last issue sticks out like a sore thumb. In the face of increasing global challenges, it is all too easy to latch onto the naïve assumption that technology-based solutions will present themselves as and when needed: The belief that technology innovation will save the day is a pervasive one. Yet as oil began gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, potential new technology-based solutions to managing the spill were conspicuous by their absence – not because the science wasn’t there, but because there had been insufficient investment in developing it into commercially viable technologies. Technology platforms such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology for instance have the potential to support oil cleanup solutions that are significantly more effective and environmentally benign than existing ones. But in the absence of concerted efforts to translate cutting edge science into viable commercial products, BP ended up using an established dispersant with questionable environmental and human health impacts, and uncertain consequences when introduced to an oil plume 5000 feet below the sea’s surface.

If we are to benefit from emerging technologies – to ensure that they help address pressing challenges, and do not create more problems than they solve – we clearly need to think differently about how they are developed and used. There needs to be far greater awareness of the consequences of getting complex and far-reaching technologies wrong, a new willingness for stakeholders to work together to find sustainable solutions, and new thinking on how potential risks can be identified and addressed as early as possible in the development cycle. Because as emerging technologies become increasingly complex and powerful, the consequences of mis-steps on public health and the environment will only become more catastrophic.

This will require better understanding of how emerging technologies can lead to unexpected impacts on human health. And it will depend on developing a deeper appreciation of how technology innovation can be nudged along more responsible – and ultimately more sustainable and beneficial – pathways. In effect, we need a new paradigm that places a science-based understanding of risk at the center of sustainable development.

The Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan is at the forefront of this movement toward a new risk paradigm. By integrating cutting edge science, multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective communication, the Center is working towards avoiding harm from emerging technologies while ensuring their benefits are fully realized. It’s an approach that will significantly reduce the chances of future adverse health impacts – but it’s also one that makes sound business sense.

Devastating as the Deepwater Horizon disaster has been, it is a timely wakeup call to the consequences getting technology innovation wrong – one that has relevance far beyond the confines of BP. As we enter an age where we are more dependent than ever on getting technology innovation right, corporations, policy makers, policy influencers and citizens all need to be a part of a process that supports the emergence of responsible technologies. But for this process to lead to a sustainable future, it must be built on the best possible information if it is to succeed – which means investing proactively and strategically in the science of identifying, understanding and avoiding potential risks. The alternative is to take increasingly risky gambles with our technology-supported future. And as any seasoned gambler knows, the house always wins – eventually.

The version of this piece published in Findings can be accessed here.

Rehabilitating “Risk”

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:25 +0000

Now that I’ve had some time to get to grips with my new position as Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, I thought it was high time I started letting people know something about where the Center will be heading over the next few years. Cross-posted on the Risk Science Center’s home page, here’s a flavor of where we’re going:

Risk is often treated as a four-letter word, or an embarrassing relative – something distasteful that shouldn’t be mentioned in polite society. Yet the reality is that a clear understanding of risk and how to deal with it is essential to every aspect of our lives. The past hundred years have left us a horrifying legacy of what goes wrong when people ignore risks, or fail to identify, access and manage them appropriately, or aren’t equipped to make informed decisions as new potential issues arise. And the challenges are only going to get tougher in today’s increasingly technology-dependent, interconnected and resource-constrained world. Without a doubt, if we are to build a sustainable future in the 21st century, we need to rethink our approach to risk. We need integrative, cross-disciplinary approaches to understanding and managing risks that are inclusive of all stakeholders. We need to push the process of identifying and addressing potential risks up-stream in the innovation process. And we need to equip everyone from citizens to CEO’s and journalists to policy makers to make informed decisions in the face of increasing uncertainty and complexity.

When I accepted the directorship of the Risk Science Center earlier this year, it was this forward-looking challenge that was uppermost in my mind… We already have a strong tradition at the University of Michigan and elsewhere of assessing risks to human health through research in areas like toxicology, epidemiology and exposure, and using generated data to drive decisions on risk management and mitigation. But we struggle to deal with emergent risks presented by new technologies (or new ways of using old technologies) in a changing world. Everyone does – there is no manual (yet) for how to address human health risks from increasingly complex technologies, and how to do this in a society where stakeholder and citizen engagement is becoming increasingly important, where uncertainty dominates the decision-making process, and where ill-informed decisions on risks and benefits could be potentially catastrophic.

So my aim is for the Risk Science Center to spearhead the movement toward a new risk paradigm. By integrating cutting edge science, multi-stakeholder partnerships and effective communication, the Center will be working towards avoiding harm from existing and emerging technologies while ensuring their benefits are fully realized. It’s an approach that will significantly reduce the chances of future adverse health impacts – but it’s also one that makes sound business sense.

This is still very much a work in progress. Over the next year the governance structure of the Center will be established, it’s vision, mission, aims and activities will be further developed, and this website will undergo a major overhaul – creating a resource and community nexus for stakeholders, faculty and students engaged in thinking differently about risk.

In the meantime, please check out the Risk Science Center’s about page for further information on how the Center is developing. And keep an eye out for new initiatives coming out of the Center – including next year’s Bernstein Symposium on “Risk, Uncertainty and Sustainable Innovation: New Perspectives on Emerging Challenges”.

Risk may still be a four-letter word to some, but that’s going to have to change if we as a society are going to tackle the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century and come out on top. As the Risk Science Center develops, expect it to be front and center of this change.

For more information, check out the Risk Science Center’s website.

Cultivating ingenuity & humility in an increasingly complex world

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:06:17 +0000

To coincide with my move to the University of Michigan, Seed Magazine has just published a series of ten questions and answers on what I do and what motivates me as a scientist. You can read how well I fared (or didn’t, as the case may be) with questions as diverse as “How do you explain your job at cocktail parties?” to “Why do you do science?” on the Seed Magazine website.

I was surprised to hear that Seed sometimes have to hard-sell the idea of this series to scientists – who doesn’t want to pontificate about what they are reading, or who they would most like to meet? But I must confess, answering questions like “Why do you do science?” and “What inspires you?” was tougher than I imagined.

Previous articles in Seed’s “10 Questions” series include:

James Kasting on the odds of finding another earth-like planet and the power of science fiction;
Kirsten Bomblies on the immune system of plants and how young scientists can keep inspiration alive;
John Rinn onwhy we should dumpster-dive in our genomes and the inspiration of a middle-distance runner; and
Amy Cannon on low-energy solar cells, training scientists to weed out toxicity, and what makes benign chemistry such a good business proposition.

New report on Science and Trust emphasizes acknowledging risk and uncertainty

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:14:59 +0000

A new report released today from the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Expert Group on Science and Trust emphasizes the need to address risk and uncertainty in developing and using science and technology within society. “Acknowledging risk and uncertainty” is the second of eight broad aspirations from the independent group, established to develop a UK action plan to “enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “license to operate” is socially robust.”

The report “Starting a National Conversation about Good Science” [PDF, 478 KB] is a rich, informative and insightful document, that demands careful consideration. It comes out of a group assembled to consider new mechanisms to increase public trust in science and engineering; review the impact of the existing science-related ethical code of practice; examine how movement of knowledge and people across the different sectors can be facilitated in order to maximize the benefits and impacts of science and society activities; and think about better ways to evaluate the impacts of science and society initiatives. Despite this being a purely British affair, many of the recommendations are relevant far beyond the confines of a UK-centered “national conversation,” and will hopefully stimulate a global dialogue on what is a global challenge.

Amidst the eight “broad aspirations” of the group, which span public judgment about science and awareness of the scientific process, to underpinning science-informed decision-making and good science governance, I was particularly struck by an emphasis on risk and uncertainty. This may be because in a few weeks I will becoming increasingly involved in risk, uncertainty and science-informed decision-making, as I take over as Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan. But beyond this, I was struck by the group’s recognition that, from the publics’ various perspectives, uncertainties surrounding science and technology – their implications in particular – are often more important than the science and technology themselves.

The overarching aim of the Science and Trust Expert Group - and of this report – was

“To enhance society’s capabilities to make better-informed judgements about the sciences and their uses in order to ensure that the “licence to operate” is socially robust.”

In this context,the group recommended that

“Expert advice to Government should identify and characterize uncertainties; policy makers should communicate clearly actions that take account of inevitable uncertainties; efforts should be made to support public judgements about risks and uncertainties.”

In particular, the report emphasizes the need to address uncertainties surrounding the potential impacts and benefits of emerging technologies “in the wider context of science and society relations.”

This emphasis on uncertainty is particularly welcome, and closely aligns with where I hope to be taking the University of Michigan Risk Science Center over the next few years. New technologies – or innovative ways of using existing technologies for that matter – lead to inherently uncertain futures. There is a great danger of mistaking this uncertainty for risk (risk is a reasonably well-understood chance of something bad happening; uncertainty is a poor understanding of whether good or bad will come out of a course of action) – with the result that there is a tendency to shy away from potentially beneficial technologies, simply because we don’t know how they are going to unfold. On the other hand, uncertainty means that we do need to move forward carefully, in case there are very real and relevant risks lurking in the shadows. The trick is to develop better ways of handling uncertainty so that the best possible choices are made.

Being up-front about uncertainty and potential risks associated with science and technology is a critical step toward developing conversations and actions that underpin a science-informed approach to minimizing and otherwise handling uncertainty and risk. One particularly good resource that the report recommends is A Worriers’s Guide to Risk [PDF, 222 KB] – a one-pager intended to help everyone make more sense of the seemingly unending series of stories on risk.

In its specific recommendations and actions, the Science and Trust Expert Group includes:

Support Government to take better account of risks and uncertainties in policy making;
Support public judgements about risks and uncertainties inherent in the scientific advisory process;
Support policy makers to take better account of public attitudes and values to the risks, benefits and uncertainties in the governance of emerging technologies;
Enable wider discussions in the media and elsewhere on uncertainty inherent in the scientific process; and
Enable greater discussion of risk.

Although these are aimed fair and square at the UK, they provide a valuable template for a global conversation about good science, and its role within society. Hopefully, now that the UK has set the pace, we will see this develop as an International conversation about good science.

Could some nanoparticles inflict harm across normally tight biological barriers?

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:01:34 +0000

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.

Risk Innovation… You what?! (Desparately seeking advice!)

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:07:39 +0000

Here’s something I’ve been chewing over for the past few weeks: How do you capture succinctly the idea of developing innovative new approaches to identifying, assessing, managing and otherwise dealing with risks to human health?

What I’ve ended up with is “Risk Innovation” – but I’m not convinced it works.

So I thought I would see if anyone else had any other bright ideas!

This is the challenge in a nut shell:

When dealing with the possibility of substances harming people, there are well-established science-based approaches to identifying and quantifying the risks, backed up by a standard set of approaches to dealing with them (with regulation typically rising to the top of the pile). But these aren’t always effective – and as technologies become more complex, development life cycles become faster and societal hierarchies shift, there’s going to be an increasing need to find new ways to deal with possible health impacts arising from substances.

In fact, the life cycle of new technologies is becoming so short that it won’t be long before they are superseded long before conventional approaches to assessing and managing risks have kicked in.

In other words, technology innovation has to be accompanied by innovations in how we handle risks, if things are going to get better rather than worse for us in the future.

This is a young area of research that is developing rapidly. It’s stimulating, exciting and, above all, crucial to the success of emerging technologies (as well as dealing with new problems emerging from previous technologies).

But it doesn’t have a convenient “handle.”

“Innovation in risk identification, assessment, management and governance” gets to the nub of the idea. But it is also on the soporific side of engaging. Not to beat about the bush, it’s just not sexy! The same goes for various other permutations that try to capture accurately the idea of developing new approaches to handling risk.

So what I’ve ended up with is “Risk Innovation.”

My problem though is that, while the phrase is catchy, it’s wide open to interpretation. It could mean anything from innovative approaches to dealing with risk, to innovative ways of increasing risk – not something most self-respecting health professionals would want to be associated with!!

But what’s the alternative? Or am I being over-sensitive here?

Any thoughts here (please use the comments area below) would be more than welcome.

Thanks!

Want the low-down on nanotechnology safety? Try these ten helpful resources

Andrew Maynard — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:31:10 +0000

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

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

Ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 10:25:59 +0000

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.

New study seeks to link seven cases of occupational lung disease with nanoparticles and nanotechnology

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:16:37 +0000

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]

Nanoparticle exposure and occupational lung disease – six expert perspectives on a new clinical study

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:13:57 +0000

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:

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”).

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.

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.

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)

Is nanotechnology poised for the ride of its life?

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 22:13:12 +0000

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.

Nanotechnology in motion: the good, the bad and the.. just plain weird?

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:56:12 +0000

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.

Value-added nanotechnology

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:34:46 +0000

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.

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in September 2008

Late lessons from early warnings

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:49:49 +0000

As the rate of technological progress advances, are we learning the lessons of past successes and failures? And are we applying these lessons successfully to nanotechnology?

In 2001, the European Environment Agency (EEA) published a seminal report on developing emerging technologies responsibly. Through a series of fourteen case studies spanning the past century, a panel led by the late Poul Harremoës examined what has gone right and what has gone wrong with the introduction of past technologies, and what can be learned about introducing new technologies as safely and as successfully as possible.

The resulting report, “Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000” (PDF, 1.7 MB) draws twelve “late lessons” for decision-makers faced with addressing emerging technologies [1].

Although the report was written before nanotechnology hit the big-time, the twelve lessons (listed below) resonate strongly with the challenges of fostering innovative yet responsible nanotechnologies. So much so in fact a new commentary just published on-line in the journal Nature Nanotechnology takes a hard look at how nanotech measures up to the report’s findings.

“Late lessons from early warnings for nanotechnology” (Hansen, Maynard, Baun and Tickner (2008), DOI:10.1038/nnano.2008.198) systematically compares progress in nanotechnology with each of the EEA’s twelve lessons, and assesses where progress is being made, and where we could be doing better.

And the findings? Some of the lessons have begun to sink in, but overall, it looks like a refresher course in responsible nanotechnology wouldn’t go amiss.

In the commentary, we conclude:

“The picture is not as bleak as it could be. While progress towards developing sustainable nanotechnologies is slow, we do seem to have learnt some new tricks: asking more critical questions early on; developing collaborations that cross discipline, department and international boundaries; beginning the process of targeting research to developing relevant knowledge; engaging stakeholders; and asking whether existing oversight mechanisms are fit for purpose.

But are we doing enough? The question seems not to be whether we have learnt the lessons, but whether we are applying them effectively enough to prevent nanotechnology being one more future case study on now not to introduce a new technology. Despite a good start, it seems that we have become distracted on the way – nanotechnology is being overseen by the same government organizations that promote it; research strategies are not leading to clear answers to critical questions; collaborations are not being as productive as is needed; and stakeholders are not being fully engaged. In part this is attributable to bureaucratic inertia, although comments from some quarters – such as “risk research jeopardizes innovation” or “regulation is bad for business” — only cloud the waters when clarity of thought and action are needed.

If we are to realize the commercial and social benefits of nanotechnology without leaving a legacy of harm, and prevent nanotechnology from becoming a lesson in what not to do for future generations, perhaps it is time to go back to the class-room and re-learn those late lessons from early warnings.”

Nanotechnology is all about the future. But it seems an occasional glance back in history is needed to set the best course of action for success.

EEA’s Twelve Late Lessons:

1. Acknowledge and respond to ignorance, uncertainty and risk in technology appraisal.

2. Provide long-term environmental and health monitoring and research into early warnings.

3. Identify and work to reduce scientific ‘blind spots’ and knowledge gaps.

4. Identify and reduce interdisciplinary obstacles to learning.

5. Account for real-world conditions in regulatory appraisal.

6. Systematically scrutinize claimed benefits and risks.

7. Evaluate alternative options for meeting needs, and promote robust, diverse and adaptable technologies.

8. Ensure use of ‘lay’ knowledge, as well as specialist expertise.

9. Account fully for the assumptions and values of different social groups.

10. Maintain regulatory independence of interested parties while retaining an inclusive approach to information and opinion gathering.

11. Identify and reduce institutional obstacles to learning and action.

12. Avoid ‘paralysis by analysis’ by acting to reduce potential harm when there are reasonable grounds for concern.

__________________________________________________
[1] At the time of posting, the direct link to the “Late Lessons” report was down (that link ishttp://reports.eea.europa.eu/environmental_issue_report_2001_22). As an interim measure, I have linked to a copy of the report posted at www.genok.org.

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in July 2008

Decoupling “nanotechnology”

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:04:33 +0000

“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.

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in May 2008