Advertisement

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Environment

Evaluating The Safety Of Nanotechnology

Congress, National Academies report push for more environment and safety impact studies

by Susan R. Morrissey
October 9, 2006 | A version of this story appeared in Volume 84, Issue 41

UNDER FIRE
[+]Enlarge
Credit: Susan Morrissey/C&EN
Alderson (from left), NSF Director Arden L. Bement Jr., and deputy assistant administrator for science at the Environmental Protection Agency William H. Farland were told by Science Committee members to give impacts of nanotech a higher priority.
Credit: Susan Morrissey/C&EN
Alderson (from left), NSF Director Arden L. Bement Jr., and deputy assistant administrator for science at the Environmental Protection Agency William H. Farland were told by Science Committee members to give impacts of nanotech a higher priority.

For nanotechnology to realize its economic potential, more research must be done on the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanoparticles. This message was made clear at a recent House Science Committee hearing and was one of the recommendations in a new National Academies report.

Happening days apart—the hearing was held on Sept. 21 and the report was released on Sept. 25—the two events highlighted just how limited is the understanding of EHS implications of nanotechnology. Both the members of Congress and the report authors warned that, with nanotech-containing products already on the market, there is no time to waste in studying the risks of this emerging technology.

"The nanotechnology industry, which has enormous economic potential, will be stymied if the risks of nanotechnology are not clearly understood and addressed," said Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) at the hearing. He noted that unless the risks of nanotech to humans and the environment are understood, the potential dangers are "literally incalculable."

Led by Boehlert and ranking member Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the Science Committee expressed its frustration with the slow pace of research into the EHS impacts of nanotech. The committee held a similar hearing a year ago and was openly disappointed that little progress had been made since then.

The hearing also marked the release of a report on the EHS research needs prepared by the government's interagency Nanotechnology Environmental & Health Implications (NEHI) working group. This report is intended to be used by federal agencies that are part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to inform and guide research programs. NNI is a coordination mechanism for agencies doing nanotech R&D.

The witnesses at the hearing, representing four different federal agencies that participate in NNI, agreed that the report was a good first step. But the committee and a pair of nongovernmental witnesses voiced concern that the report is basically an inventory of existing efforts and not a "game plan" necessary to inform new research efforts, which was the intended goal of the NEHI report.

"In the absence of a prioritized EHS research plan, I see no way to initiate a carefully crafted set of research programs that are relevant to the needs of the companies that will be developing and using nanotechnology and to the needs of agencies charged with oversight of EHS aspects of nanotechnology," Gordon said. "We must strengthen the current planning and coordination process from EHS research or implement a better approach without delay," he noted.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the agency representatives appeared to understand that Congress wants an increase in the intensity of work on EHS implications. "Your message is loud and clear," said Norris E. Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the Food & Drug Administration and chairman of the NEHI working group.

The need for greater intensity in studying EHS impacts is echoed in another report, "A Matter of Size," a National Academies triennial review of NNI. The report also calls for the development of economic metrics to quantify the return on investment of federal nanotech R&D.

In general, this report finds that NNI has increased interagency coordination and has set up "R&D programs with wider impact than could have been expected from separate agency funding without coordination." For NNI to continue its success, the report recommends, it should maintain a balanced portfolio of R&D activities that include a mix of long- and short-term goals and establish an independent technical advisory panel. The report also recommends creating an NNI working group to coordinate resources with the Departments of Education and Labor to ensure a strong technical workforce.

The report notes that it is too early to fully assess the impacts of the investments made under NNI, which echoes the Science Committee's message that now is the time to do EHS research. "We have to bring some order to this process, or we're going to squander our chance to understand nanotechnology on a schedule that will help business and protect the public," Boehlert said.

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

0 /1 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.