NANO-GOVERNANCE DEVELOPMENTS
Nanotechnologies: the present state of regulation
Regulating
nanotechnology continues to pose a big challenge as it is still
widely an undiscovered field and even lacks a proper definition,
experts from industry and regulatory bodies stated at a conference
in Austria in October.
Nanomaterials pose unique problems
due to their inherent complexities and properties, they argued. A
further key challenge was the lack of coordination, with different
ministries and agencies with different areas of responsibilities
being involved at the same time.
European Commission denies regulatory void on nanotech
While
knowledge gaps remain regarding the potential risks of
nanotechnologies, the European Commission, in the second annual
nanotechnology
Safety
for success dialogue conference on 2-3 October, expressed
confidence that existing EU regulation can be applied to this
emerging sector, stressing that the challenge ahead lies rather in
the implementation and enforcement of these regulations.
First nanotech standards see light
The International
Standardisation Organization (ISO) published its first two nanotech
standards late September in a drive to speed up commercialisation of
new nanotech products and protect workers during the production,
handling, use and disposal of manufactured nanomaterials.
The
standard on Terminology and definitions for nano-objects - Nanoparticle,
nanofibre and nanoplate lists, according to ISO, "unambiguous terms
and definitions related to particles in the field of
nanotechnologies".
The
standard on the Health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant
to nanotechnologies describes health and safety practices in
occupational manufacture and use of engineered nanomaterials. It
could "help companies, researchers, workers and other people to
prevent adverse health and safety consequences during the
production, handling, use and disposal of manufactured
nanomaterials," ISO stated.
European Commission to issue nanotech standardisation
mandate
Following a
mandate
by the European Commission, the European standardisation bodies CEN,
CENELEC and ETSI published in April 2008 a
report
for a possible programme of standardisation items considering
nanotechnology and nanomaterials.
The Commission is currently
finalising a follow-up mandate asking the three bodies to develop
the standards. The mandate is expected to be given early 2009.
Researchers accuse Bush administration of ignoring
nanotechnology risks
A US research panel on 10 December issued a
highly critical report of America's nanotech research strategy,
saying it has failed to take into account and effectively manage the
potential environment, health and safety (EHS) risks of
nanotech.
The report called for a significantly revamped
national strategic plan that will minimize potential risks so that
innovation could flourish and society would reap nanotechnology's
benefits.
The "lessons learned" in the report would offer a
silver lining that will help guide the administration of
President-elect Barack Obama, claimed the director of the 'Emerging
Nanotechnologies-project' (PEN) David Rejeski.
The nanotech
risk research plan developed under the administration of President
George W. Bush has been widely criticized by consumer groups, the
chemical industry and lawmakers from both major parties for lacking
a clear vision and the resources needed to improve the understanding
of the potential risks posed by nanomaterials.
Researchers emphasise need for public debate on
nano(bio)technology
EU-funded
NanoBio-RAISE project has
published a
briefing
paper, which discussed key issues related to public perception
and communication about nano(bio)technology.
The paper calls
for relevant stakeholders to organise a range of public
communication and engagement activities in order to promote two-way
communication with the public on the issue.
Such activities
could include encouraging and training scientists in communicating
with the public, organising university and company 'open days' for
the general public, and partnering with local schools and
colleges.
Another NanoBio
briefing
paper provides a review on societal and ethical issues in
nanobiotechnology. It discusses topics such how values drive the
technology or the awareness gap between the role of science, ethics
and the public.
How to best engage the public in nanotechnology
Involving
stakeholders in the debate on nanotechnology should have preference
over engaging the general public, argued the OECD, as European
governments have started discussing plans for a national debate on
nano.
Speaking at a conference in the Dutch city of Delft,
OECD experts warned that traditional public engagement may undermine
the system of parliamentary, representative democracy. They
concluded that the stimulation of good governance of nano was more
important than democratising the debate.
The Dutch government
in July 2008 published an action plan, which foresees installing a
temporary "Commission for the social dialogue on nanotechnology. It
is meant to draw up a political agenda for priority issues to be
discussed, including privacy.
The French government is also
discussing plans for a national debate on nanotechnology, while the
British intends to fund social and ethical research into the
field.
OECD work on nanotech safety
The OECD environment
directorate has released a
report
summing up discussions of a meeting of the its working party on
manufactured nanomaterials held in June. The meeting focused on
chemicals regulation and related health and environmental
aspects.
The report lists, per OECD country, regulatory
highlights, any developments related to voluntary stewardship
schemes, risk assessment decisions or good practices, as well as
describes countries' research initiatives and stakeholder
consultations on the field.
Study on US and UK public attitudes towards nanotech
Results
of the first comparative experiment observing United States-United
Kingdom public attitudes towards nanotechnology were published early
December in
Nature
Nanotechnology.
Based on workshops debating energy and
health nanotechnologies on both sides of the Atlantic, researchers
found unexpected commonalities between the two countries' attitudes
towards the technology.
Both emphasised the benefits of
nanotech rather than the risks and had a high regard for science and
technology. They also viewed energy applications in a more positive
light than applications in health and human enhancement.
Environmental footprint of nanomaterials
Research published
in the
Journal
of Industrial Ecology argues that environmental gains derived
from the use of nanomaterials may be offset in part by the process
used to manufacture them.
This as "strict material purity
requirements, lower tolerances for defects and lower yields of
manufacturing processes may lead to greater environmental burdens
than those associated with conventional manufacturing," the
researchers said.
A separate study of carbon nanofiber
production by Ohio State University researchers found, for example,
that the life-cycle environmental impacts of nanomaterials may be
100 times greater per unit of weight than those of traditional
materials.
Nanotechnologies expected to have a deep impact on societies and
economies
Given its likely large impact on health and
environment nanotechnologies and especially nanobio-applications are
set to be the next major public issue after the debate on
genetically-modified food, experts at a NanoRisk conference held in
October in Paris agreed. They discussed future regulation, risk
governance as well as methodologies to estimate toxicity.
EU food safety agency adopts draft opinion on nanotech
safety
Existing toxicity testing approaches can be used for
case-by-case risk assessment of nanomaterials in food, according to
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
However, the draft
opinion published for public consultation in October notes that the
available data on oral exposure to specific engineered nanomaterials
and any consequent toxicity is extremely limited and "possible risks
arise" as a result of their particular characteristics.
The
public consultation on the opinion closed on 30 November 2008 and
EFSA is set to finalise and publish the final opinion early
2009.
