 |
WASHINGTON, April 1, 2004 – As scientists and others continue to debate the significance of a recent study on the toxic effects of nanoparticles, the controversy has highlighted a growing need for federal research into the environmental and health effects of engineered nanomaterials, policy makers and others say.
The controversial study was unveiled earlier this week by Eva Oberdorster, a researcher from Southern Methodist University who found that fish exposed to nanoparticles suffered brain damage. Yet despite these potentially significant findings, industry leaders say they do not expect lawmakers will react negatively to the study.
 |
“What (the study) will do is heighten the interest in funding initial research on nanotoxicology so we can find out what synthetic nanostructures are safe and what structures raise environmental and human health issues,” said Tom Kalil, assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California-Berkeley, and former technology adviser in the Clinton administration.
In an interview, John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said he did not believe the study would affect funding for nanotech research or harm nanotech’s image among lawmakers, who are in the process of crafting annual appropriations bills that will provide funding for nanotech research and other government programs.
“There have been concerns expressed (in the past) about the health effects” of nanotechnology, Marburger said. “I don’t think the level of sophistication is so low (in Congress) that this will come as a surprise.” Instead, the study provides “another sign that we have to be careful” with the new nanomaterials being created, he said.
Federal agencies are in the process of beginning several studies aimed at studying the health and environmental effects of nanoparticles such as carbon nanotubes. Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, FDA, and other agencies discussed the issue Tuesday at the quarterly meeting of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), a panel of industry and academic representatives that provide the White House with advice on science and technology issues.
Among the studies initiated in fiscal year 2004 include a $3-million project headed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Science’s (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program. The project will examine through inhalation exposure the toxic and carcinogenic potentials of quantum dots, nanotubes, and other materials in laboratory animals.
The EPA has also launched a $4-million research project that will study the toxicology of manufactured nanomaterials. It will also look at the fate, transport and transformation of manufactured nanomaterials and the impact of human exposure to them.
While these studies may take several years to complete, John Bucher, director of federal toxicology research at NIEHS, said he believes the studies may provide short-term results as soon as next year. He said researchers have begun designing the studies and procuring the materials needed for their work.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, noted that additional research is being done through other agencies, including the National Science Foundation that will touch on environmental and health effects of nanomaterials.
He noted that health and environmental research makes up about 11 percent of total federal nanotech funding this year.
Meanwhile, the newly released study led by Southern Methodist University environmental toxicology lecturer Oberdorster found the rates of brain damage to be 17 times higher in nine large-mouth bass exposed to a form of water-soluble buckyballs. The rate was in comparison to nine unexposed fish. The concentration of nanoparticles used in the 48-hour laboratory study was .5-parts-per million.
The current study is believed to be the first to show that such particles may cause brain damage, but researchers have not performed human studies. Oberdorster said she is seeking money from the EPA for additional studies to look at such issues as how the buckyballs actually get into the fishes’ bodies and cause damage.
The study was presented Sunday at the national meeting of the American Chemical Society in Anaheim, Calif. An article based on it was submitted in late February to the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, and is going through peer review. The journal likely will publish it later this year, she said.
Oberdorster stressed that more needs to be done before drawing any firm conclusions about nanoparticles and health risks. She would like to see tandem research efforts into the benefits and risks.
“I know there are all these scary Michael Crichton ‘Prey’ things out there; my study does not in any way support that sci-fi horror thing going on,” she said. “Don’t stop using nanotech, because there are so many important things it can offer. Let’s keep looking at the possibilities, alongside the cautionary toxicology of it.”
Vicki Colvin, executive director of the center for biological and environmental nanotechnology at Rice University, provided the materials used in Oberdorster’s study, but she distanced herself from its findings during a presentation at the PCAST meeting.
Still, Colvin said one of her biggest concerns as more findings from other studies are revealed on the potential health and environmental effects of engineered nanomaterials is that the “scientific community will have an instinct to want to run to the defense” of those findings, without adequately understanding public fears. At the same time, as federal researchers move forward with their own studies, she urged policy makers to help develop standards for research and common terminology.
Nonetheless, PCAST member Robert Herbold, Microsoft’s executive vice president, said the recent study’s findings should be taken seriously. “This is an area that could flame out extremely quickly if these things are not handled” delicately, he said.
In an interview prior to the PCAST meeting, Teague said there is some “possibility there could be an over reaction to this” study. Still, he said, “no one is going to take these studies lightly. They will be taken as important new pieces of information as we proceed to develop appropriate regulatory mechanisms (aimed at) ensuring that the technology is moved forward in a responsible way, and health and environmental impacts are given high priority.”
Small Times staff writer Jeff Karoub contributed to this report.