- FDA Rules for Cigarettes Are a Victory for Public Health, for Science (and for the Earth’s Climate?)
- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
How To Make Nanotechnology Bigger
Nanocrystals magnified under an electron microscope.
Source: Opensource Handbook of Nanoscience
and Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology is fertile new field with a host of unexplored risks, so how should the government go about cultivating it? This was the major issue raised by Dr. Richard Denison, a Senior Scientist in Environmental Defense, who testified at yesterday’s hearing before the House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education, on the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). The balance of potential and uncertainty is one of the reasons why the development of research priorities for risk assessment of nanotechnology has moved at a glacial pace. Denison recommended the government divide the work of nanotech promotion and risk assessment between two complementary but entirely separate offices to avoid conflicts of interest. Denison also recommended inter-agency coordination of research into the Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) concerns within the NNI.
The NNI involves 26 agencies and received $1.35 billion in FY 2007, $180 million of which has gone to EHS research between FY’s 2005 and 2008. In 2003, a National Environmental and Health Implications working group set about prioritizing and implementing the research needed to ensure “responsible development and use of nanotechnology.” The group’s aim was to establish a prioritized list of research goals in Spring of 2006, but it was delayed until September 2006 and the resulting list was not prioritized. A narrower list of priorities finally appeared in August 2007 with a narrowed-down list of priorities.
Dr. Vicki Colving, Professor & Executive Director Rice University & International Council on Nanotechnology Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, emphasized the necessity of coordinating and “harmonizing” research. For instance, the community currently lacks a consensus on the toxicity of nanotubes, which inhibits the ability of the NNI to assess research risks.
Dr. Clayton Teague, Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, assured the Committee that the office will release a comprehensive report in the next few months listing EHS projects. The office is currently seeking consensus on standards from multiple agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget, as well as international bodies. In contrast to Denison, Teague advised against forming “a centralized office with budgetary authority to oversee the NNI’s EHS research program,” since it would lack the breadth of technical expertise that is available across all of the involved agencies and would undermine the EHS responsibilities within and between agencies.
The NNI provides a brochure outlining the benefits and some of the general risks of nanotechnology. They list the many possible uses for nanoparticles such as lighting, energy, water filtration, medical treatments, and material durability.
Comments on this article
