Nanotoxicity: Congress to study first, regulate later

Click here to enlarge image

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 26, 2004 – Congress can sometimes react before it thinks. A good example is its passage of a 1996 law aimed at trying to protect kids from porn on the Web by outlawing any material accessible to children deemed to be “indecent” or “patently offensive.” The Supreme Court struck down the law a year later as illegal censorship.

When scientific research or new technologies spark controversy or concern, lawmakers tend to want to react with new rules and regulations. Yet, it seems lawmakers may have learned something from their early attempts to regulate the Internet.

Click here to enlarge image

When it comes to health or environmental concerns over nanotechnology, key lawmakers are advocating research and study before Congress or federal agencies react with new regulations.

The release in March of a controversial study by Southern Methodist University lecturer Eva Oberdorster that found fish exposed to buckyballs suffered brain damage generated much debate within nanotech circles about how the study was conducted, its potentially disturbing results and the media coverage it generated. But the study appears to have stirred little concern on Capitol Hill.

During an April 2 speech at a National Nanotechnology Initiative conference, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chief sponsor of a nanotechnology research authorization bill last year, said he would like to see further study into the potential health and environmental effects of nanomaterials before lawmakers react with new laws.

Wyden pointed to the bill’s creation of a nanotech “preparedness center,” which would examine environmental, health and societal issues related to nanotechnology as a way to help policymakers sift through some of the concerns.

“We’re not ready yet to put in place a battery of new regulations in nanotech,” Wyden said.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., who worked closely with Wyden on the nanotech bill, said during a speech at the conference that researchers and supporters of nanotech need to do a better job of making sure “your advances are understood and judged based on their actual applications and merits, rather than disregarded due to unfounded fears and misguided perceptions.”

Allen also announced that he was forming a Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus to help promote and educate other lawmakers and constituents about nanotech.

One House staffer who has worked closely on nanotech issues said that there had been little discussion or concern raised about Oberdorster’s study on the Hill. While lawmakers want to ensure that health, environmental and societal concerns are given adequate consideration, the aide said, it had “not been proven” that current rules and regulations can’t be molded to cover new issues raised by nanotech.

The aide added that those who are involved with crafting the nanotech bill are glad to see that research into the health and environmental effects of nanotechnology is moving forward.

This research and other health and environmental questions were the focus of the most recent meeting of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), a board of business and academic representatives that advises the White House on science and technology issues.

Charles Auer, director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, told PCAST during the March 30 meeting that the EPA is in the process of identifying which regulations might apply to nanomaterials.

Auer said that the office is trying to determine whether nanomaterials might fall under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which regulates production and distribution of commercial and industrial chemicals.

The EPA is also sponsoring a $4-million research project that will examine the impact of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment. Several other federal studies examining health and environmental issues related to nanotech have been launched in the last year.

One of those studies is a $3-million multi-year project led by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that will examine the potential toxic and carcinogenic effects of inhalation exposure to nanomaterials.

Public-private partnership

Far from wanting to impose any new restrictions on nanotech research, Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., is looking for new ways for Congress to assist the burgeoning industry in bringing research to the marketplace.

Honda is crafting a bill that would establish a public-private partnership to address what he sees as the funding gap between nanotechnology research and commercialization. The legislation is expected to call for the creation of a nanomanufacturing corporation within the Department of Commerce that would oversee this partnership.

The proposed bill also would authorize $750 million for this partnership and would be complemented by a $250-million investment from the private sector, according to Honda’s spokesman.

Honda has not said when he would introduce the bill. But in an election year, Congress has few days left to take up legislation outside of must-pass bills such as annual appropriations legislation that funds the federal government.

POST A COMMENT

Easily post a comment below using your Linkedin, Twitter, Google or Facebook account. Comments won't automatically be posted to your social media accounts unless you select to share.