By Andreas von Bubnoff
Small Times Contributing Editor
Jan. 9, 2007 — U.S. federal government officials who coordinate nanotechnology research held a public meeting on Jan. 4 to get comments on what types of research are most important to study nanotechnology risks.
The meeting convened experts and stakeholders in Arlington, Va., to present what they thought such research should focus on.
It came more than three months after a report on nanotech risk research needs was issued by the agencies that are part of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, or NNI, the U.S. government program that coordinates nanotech research and development.
The report had been completed just in time for a Sept. 21 Congressional hearing on nanotech risk research. It had been expected to set nanotech risk research priorities. But at the hearing, congressmen complained that it was just a list that failed to set priorities.
“That’s the process we are working on now,” said Norris Alderson, associate commissioner for science at the FDA and chair of the interagency working group that prepared the report. The document identified about 75 nanotech risk research needs, Alderson said, and the Jan. 4 meeting was convened to get input from experts and stakeholders as to how to set priorities among them. “We really need to hear from you, we are serious about this,” Alderson said.
The report identifies research needs in five areas: How to detect and measure nanomaterials; how to reduce the risk of exposure and accidents; effects on health; effects on the environment; and surveillance of human and environmental exposure to nanomaterials.
Many of the presenters mentioned similar areas as ones that need to be addressed. Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, said a good test to prioritize risk research is to see if it aims to protect people and the environment from harm. He referred to a recent report where he wrote that research priorities over the next two years should include how to measure exposure, evaluate toxicity, control the release of nanomaterials, and how to develop ways to handle them safely. Other areas that need to be studied include developing instruments that can measure nanoparticles in air and water and predicting the toxicity of new nanomaterials using models, he and others wrote in a recent article in Nature.
Another priority should be research into life cycle analysis of nanotech products, because that will inform about exposures better than toxicology, said Jo Anne Shatkin of the Cadmus Group, an environmental consulting firm.
Several speakers said the safety of workers who manufacture nanotech products needs to be addressed. “Employees have potentially the highest exposure rates because they are exposed to nanomaterials at the workplace,” said Eric Landree of the RAND Corporation, a non-profit think tank. George Kimbrell of the International Center for Technology Assessment agreed, but said that consumer product safety and environmental impacts are also important.
Whatever the case, many research needs should become quite obvious by taking a look at nanotech products, Maynard said. To illustrate the point, he mixed a powdered dietary supplement allegedly containing nano-sized calcium and magnesium particles into a glass of water. Looking at the dietary powder, he said, some questions that come to mind are, what happens in the lungs once the powder is inhaled; does it penetrate the skin; and what does the liquid do in the gut once swallowed? “There are some complex questions associated with prioritization,” he said, “but when you look at products, some of that complexity disappears.”
Much of the risk research should be applied, some speakers said. Just doing exploratory research could lead to investing millions of dollars, Maynard said, only to ask how that research might be useful after it has been completed. “This is a little bit of the wrong way around for some specific questions,” Maynard said.
But others cautioned that without basic research, unexpected results could be missed. Past environmental research has resulted in many surprises, said Arnold Kuzmack, who works for the EPA but said he was giving his personal opinion. “It’s hard to look for something when you don’t know what you are looking for,” Kuzmack said. “I would venture to predict that there will be some big surprises in nanotechnology.”
Still, with a limited supply of money, you first “have to put the money where the immediate issues are,” Maynard said.
Alderson said the meeting was a success. “We feel very good about what we got today,” he said. “We hope we’ll get more in the written comments.” Comments can be submitted on the Web until Jan. 31. But after that, there is no specific timeline, Alderson said, other than “as fast as we can get it done.”
“Once we have your input and the information from the budget agencies we will look at the gaps and that will be our final document,” Alderson told the meeting.
But Maynard said he didn’t think the presenter’s comments were all that helpful, perhaps because the meeting was convened at the last minute just after a major holiday on the first day of Congress.
“A lot of the presentations were using the opportunity to make statements about the state of nanotech risk research,” he said, “as opposed to providing practical guidance of what research needs to be done and how to prioritize that research.”
