Nanotech's Safety Risks

The potential economic impact of nanotechnology is great. According to a 2004 study by the nanotechnology research and advisory firm Lux Research, nanotechnology was incorporated into $13 billion worth of products in the global marketplace in 2004. The study projects that this number will increase to $2.6 trillion by 2014.

With so many products already on the market and the promise of more to come, concerns are growing about the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of products utilizing nanotechnology. These concerns were expressed at a hearing convened by the House Science Committee on Nov. 17 to assess research on the EHS implications of nanotechnology and to discuss how the committee could facilitate work in this area.

Currently, the federal government's nanotechnology research and development effort is led by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). Twenty-four agencies are part of this group, with 11 agencies having ongoing nanotech R&D programs. In 2006, the requested budget for NNI was $1.1 billion. Of this amount, $38.5 million-or 3.7%-is directed to research on EHS implications.

If nanotechnology is to fulfill its enormous economic potential, then we have to invest more right now in understanding what problems the technology might cause, Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) said in his opening statement. This is the time to act-when there is a consensus among government, industry, and environmentalists, he added.

In fact, the broad support for EHS risk studies was evidenced by the composition of the panel. Representatives from a large chemical company, an environmental group, a pair of research organizations, and the federal government all stressed the importance of federal support for EHS risk studies of this young technology.

Some congressmen, however, noted that the lack of EHS studies is impacting their ability to make informed policy decisions in a timely manner. Commercialization of the technology is outpacing the development of science-based policies to assess and guard against adverse EHS consequences, Science Committee ranking member Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) said. The horse has left the gate, he noted, adding that more research must be done quickly to catch up with the pace of commercialization.

To put the potential EHS risks in context, E. Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, part of NNI, pointed out that most of the current uses of nanotechnology involve composites where the nanoparticles are bound in a matrix. He also noted that manufacturers of engineered nanomaterials and those using these materials are already taking steps to minimize exposure to the fine particles in the workplace.

That's not to say there's not a risk, but rather that the exposure to free-engineered nanomaterials is for the most part still low, Teague said. So we are well-positioned to assess possible risks before nanoparticles become widely used or make their way into the environment in large quantities, he noted.

But the lack of data on the toxicity of nanoparticles, even in small quantities, has many worried. The concern stems from the limited number of short-term toxicity studies that have been published to date.

The limited data is a flashing yellow light, said Richard A. Denison, senior scientist with the environmental group Environmental Defense. Several of the reported studies have found a variety of adverse effects associated with each of the major classes of nanomaterials now being produced, he noted in his testimony.

The government can play an important role in this area of research by helping to coordinate the efforts under way by industry, academia, and the government itself, explained Matthew M. Nordan, vice president of research at Lux. By unifying the splintered toxicology research efforts, he said, scarce resources can be stretched.

The unification of the toxicology research effort, along with the elimination of regulatory ambiguity that would be possible from the resulting data, is key to speeding responsible nanotech product development in industry, Nordan explained. These two issues-absent data and regulatory ambiguity-are slowing nanotechnology commercialization in the U.S. today, he said.

The commercialization of nanotechnology may also be threatened by an absence of generally accepted testing methods and standards, explained Krishna Doraiswamy, research planning manager for DuPont Central Research & Development. Because nanoparticles do not necessarily behave like their larger particle relatives, research is needed to develop a uniform, science-based approach for identification of hazards, assessment of exposure, and management of risks, he said, adding that this research requires immediate attention.

To address this situation, the government also should spend more money on such research, the panelists told the committee. For example, Nordan advocated for funding between $100 million to $200 million per year for research in this area-two to five times the fiscal 2006 level. Similarly, Denison said that Environmental Defense supports an annual budget of at least $100 million for each of the next several years to study EHS implications.

With the tight budget constraints Congress is facing, finding funds to ramp up support of EHS implications research is unlikely to happen, the congressmen agreed. As an alternative, Gordon raised the possibility of reprogramming the NNI budget to increase funding for EHS studies by reducing other nanotechnology R&D.

The witnesses all expressed concern that a decision to reprogram funds would be complicated by the uncertainty of where current funds are being spent. To address that concern, panelist David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, said that his group was compiling a publicly accessible inventory of federally supported research dealing with EHS implications of nanotechnology (see page 44).

It is our hope that this inventory will be a useful tool for informing future EHS-related research strategies and policy decisions, Rejeski said in his testimony. Although not comprehensive, it will provide the most complete overview of current federally funded research into the EHS implications of nanotechnology to date, he explained.

In addition to filling the gaps in nanotechnology EHS risk research, Rejeski noted that dealing with perceived risks involving public perception and effective oversight is essential to the success of nanotechnology. Our ability to realize the promise of nanotechnology is becoming more and more linked to governance and management issues, not just science, he said.

The U.S. regulatory policy for addressing nanomaterials so far has been ad hoc and incremental, Rejeski pointed out. He expressed concern that until large-scale benefits of nanotechnology materialize-something that could take as long as a decade-there will be little public tolerance of oversight failures or mishaps. If such a mishap does occur, he said, it could rapidly chill investments and galvanize public opposition.

To avoid opposition to nanotechnology, the government needs a public engagement strategy, which, Rejeski noted, is not the same as education. The strategy should include town meetings, listening sessions, and civic forums, he explained.

Educating people on nanotechnology assumes there is a deficit in their understanding, Rejeski explained. Engagement forces us to admit that the public may have something important to say to scientists, industry, and policymakers and that they deserve to be part of the larger conversation about how nanotechnology develops, he said.

The government also needs to take steps to get information about EHS risks out to small businesses, start-up companies, and other groups currently working at the forefront of the nanotech field, Rejeski said. The witnesses at the hearing noted that these groups play an important role in commercializing nanotechnology, but often have difficultly finding key information.

An important fact is that many of the interesting discoveries relating to new nanoscale materials are being made in universities and by entrepreneurs in start-up companies, Doraiswamy said. These entities may lack the experience, resources, and funding needed to adequately address the fundamental EHS questions, he explained. Providing a way for these groups to easily find the needed information would aid in moving products to market.

Rejeski called on the committee to develop a push strategy directed at these small businesses, start-ups, and small labs. The government-at federal, state, and local levels-needs to knock on their doors with useful technical and, potentially, financial assistance, Rejeski said. Mounting information on government websites will not adequately address this problem, he pointed out.

Nanotechnology offers an important opportunity to apply the lessons from prior mistakes by identifying risks up front, taking the necessary steps to address them, and meaningfully engaging stakeholders to help shape this technology's trajectory, Denison said. In short, there is an opportunity to get nanotechnology right the first time.