- Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation
- The Top 12 Science Progress Features of 2008
- Breaking: Physicist John Holdren Is Likely Pick for Science Advisor
- Looking for a Research Bailout
- Want to Work Together? The Impact of Multi-University Collabortion
- “The Single Most Effective Way to Prevent the Transmission of Disease”
- Chu Is Bringing Science Back
- National Research Council: Nanotech Safety Needs a Closer Look. Much Closer.
- Neuroscience Everywhere
- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy, Part 4: The Office of Science and Technology Policy
- CNN Decides It Can Cover Science Without Dedicated Science Reporters
- Stem Cell Recommendations for the New Administration
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