Federal nanotech risk research plan still comes up short

The National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) Working Group recently released its strategy for nanotechnology environmental, health and safety research. The strategy outlines an improved focus on risk research for more than 20 federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC).

Earlier drafts of the strategy received widespread criticism from industry officials, policy experts and congressional lawmakers for being merely a list of general nanotechnology risk research categories. The new strategy makes substantial strides towards identifying prioritized research needs and assigning lead agencies to address these needs.

Also just released, the new EPA Office of Research & Development nanotechnology risk research plan appears to be in lock step with the NEHI strategy. The EPA plan includes important studies on risk assessment methods and life-cycle analysis to determine the eventual fate of nanomaterials.

But major hurdles still stand in the way of the public, industry and government obtaining a better understanding of the risks posed by nanomaterials — and how to limit those risks. Necessary resources for nanotechnology risk research are few and far between in relevant oversight agencies such as the EPA, FDA and CPSC. In addition, a limited investment by the NNI on occupational exposure research can only increase dangers to those most susceptible — workers.

“The truth is that while the NEHI made significant strides in this latest effort to present an improved nanotechnology risk research strategy, only about five of the more than 240 identified risk research projects focus on exposure assessment — which directly affects workers. These are the people who are on the front line and most likely to be exposed to potentially hazardous nanomaterials,” says David Rejeski, the director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN).

“The document also fails to employ a ‘top-down,’ strategic approach aimed at directing funds and research at the places where there’s likely to be the most risk,” according to Rejeski. “The NEHI structure and plan are still broken. The plan is a collection of individual agency research programs and not a strategic approach appropriate to a technology projected to be incorporated into $2.6 trillion worth of products by 2014.”

An earlier analysis by PEN shows that in FY2005, the U.S. government spent only about one percent of the overall $1.2 billion federal nanotechnology research investment on highly relevant risk research. For more information, see: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/ehs .

The current strategy suggests that things have improved, but according to Rejeski “only 40% of the listed research projects are highly relevant to understanding potential nanotechnology risks—the remaining 60% have only tangential relevance. Transparency over what is being done and what needs to be done is essential to strategic planning. The cited $68 million invested in nanotechnology risk research in fiscal year 2006 is an inflated estimate of work that directly addresses the issues, and that can only further confound the formulation of an effective strategic plan.”

Source: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Nano vaccine for hepatitis B shows promise for third world
Chronic hepatitis B infects 400 million people worldwide, many of them children. Even with three effective vaccines available, hepatitis B remains a stubborn, unrelenting health problem, especially in Africa and other developing areas. The disease and its complications cause an estimated 1 million deaths globally each year.
Nanomaterials Key to New Strategies for Blocking Metastasis
A new treatment strategy using targeted nanoparticles to block metastasis with anti-cancer drugs leads to good results using significantly lower doses of toxic chemotherapy, with less collateral damage to surrounding tissue, according to a collaborative team of researchers at the Center of Nanotechnology for Treatment, Understanding, and Monitoring of Cancer at the University of California, San Diego. In designing this system, the investigators, led by David Cheresh, Ph.D., have identified what may become a generic method for using nanotechnology to target metastasis.
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.
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.
Rice expert calls for coordination in nanotechnology research
Nanotechnology holds great promise for the future of cancer therapy and water treatment, but concerns about the safety of nanoproducts may limit these important technological developments, Vicki Colvin said today in comments to the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology.
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.

Federal nanotech risk research plan still comes up short

Related stories:

News discussion: