Limited transparency in federal nanotech research may hamper development

Without clear leadership and more transparency in federal risk research investment, the emergence of safe nanotechnologies will be a happy accident, rather than a foregone conclusion, says Dr. Andrew Maynard, the Chief Science Advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN). This sentiment was voiced today by Dr. Maynard in testimony at the House Science & Technology Committee’s hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2008.

“Activities to date within the federal nanotechnology initiative have been less than transparent, to the detriment of an effective strategy for nanotechnology development and use,” Dr. Maynard says in written testimony submitted to the committee. “There is a yawning knowledge-gap between nanomaterials entering commerce now and what we know about their safety. This uncertainty over how to develop nanotechnologies safely is hamstringing regulators, impeding nano businesses, and confusing consumers. In short, moving towards the nanotechnology future without a clear understanding of the possible risks, and how to manage them, is like driving blindfolded.”

A PEN assessment of purported nanotechnology risk-relevant research published by the federal government’s National Nanotechnology Initiative reveals that spending on environment, health and safety-focused research projects in 2006 was substantially lower than that claimed by U.S. officials.

“Research projects with the primary aim of understanding and managing the risks of nanotechnology accounted for only $13 million in funding for 2006,” according to Dr. Maynard. “Over the same period, European Union nations invested nearly $24 million in similar nanotech risk-focused projects—almost twice as much as the U.S. There is undoubtedly potentially-relevant research buried in other U.S. government funded projects. But without transparency, it is impossible to assess the true value of this research, or ensure it is used to enable the development of safe nanotechnologies.”

In his testimony Dr. Maynard also renews calls for a reorganization of a federal nanotechnology risk research strategy that emphasizes a “top-down” approach to directing environment, health and safety studies on the cutting-edge technology; urges a minimum of 10 percent of the federal nanotechnology research budget be committed to highly or substantially relevant environmental, health and safety topics – a significant increase from current levels; and the creation of public-private partnerships that will leverage more funding for research.

On top of discussing issues pertaining to the federal investment in nanotechnology research, Dr. Maynard addresses his concern with the “nano-readiness” of America’s students, teachers and workforce in his testimony – particularly through his endorsement of initiatives aimed at recruiting and preparing students to pursue education in nanotechnology. The House nanotechnology legislation at issue focuses significant attention on nanotechnology education.

“When today China has as many scientists and engineers working on nanotechnology as the U.S., it is critical to support initiatives in nanotechnology education aimed at our young people,” Dr. Maynard says.

Source: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Related stories:

Scientists form alliance to develop nanotoxicology protocols
A team of materials scientists and toxicologists announced the formation of a new international research alliance to establish protocols for reproducible toxicological testing of nanomaterials in both cultured cells and animals. The International Alliance for NanoEHS Harmonization (IANH) was unveiled today at Nanotox 2008, one of the world's largest biennial nanotoxicological research meetings.
Carbon nanotubes that look like asbestos, behave like asbestos
A major study published today in Nature Nanotechnology suggests some forms of carbon nanotubes – a poster child for the “nanotechnology revolution” – could be as harmful as asbestos if inhaled in sufficient quantities.
Europe spends nearly twice as much as US on nanotech risk research
A new analysis by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) indicates that European nations are investing nearly twice as much as the U.S. in research primarily aimed at addressing the potential risks of nanotechnology. The analysis also highlights a substantial over-inflation of the federal government’s nanotechnology risk-research investment figures for the U.S.
EPA takes first step in filling nanotech information gaps
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published today in the Federal Register its plan for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The plan takes a positive first step by offering industry, non-governmental organizations and other groups the opportunity to voluntarily submit safety data on engineered nanoscale materials.
US government delays nanotechnology safety measures
Want to buy a bag of carbon nanotubes—in quantities from a few grams to hundreds of kilograms (100 kilograms = approximately 220 pounds)? With a credit card and Internet access, you can. But is the U.S. government doing enough to ensure the safety of these materials and the hundreds of other nanotechnology commercial and consumer products currently on the market?
Federal research plan to determine nanotech risks fails to deliver
Almost a year in the making, a federal plan to prioritize research on the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) impacts of nanoscale materials has so many failings that its begs the question as to whether the government’s 13-agency nanotechnology research effort is able to deliver an effective risk research strategy, according to David Rejeski, head of the Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
Nanotechnology: consumers must be convinced benefits outweigh risks
“There is no doubt that nanotechnology has the potential to make the world a better place,” said Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Chief Scientist Andrew Maynard. “But if consumers and other stakeholders are not convinced that the benefits outweigh the risks, many applications will not see the light of day. Likewise, if the benefits are unclear and the risks uncertain, the products of nanotechnology will be a hard sell.”
Nanotech safety needs specific government risk research strategy and funding
"Prioritizing nanotechnology risk research isn't rocket science," said Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies chief scientist Andrew Maynard. Dr. Maynard's remark is in his testimony today before the federal government's first public meeting focused exclusively on research needs and priorities for the environmental, health and safety risks of engineered nanoscale materials.

News discussion:

Nanotechnology news