> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

Experts Dispute Adequacy of Management and Funding for National Nanotechnology Initiative's EHS Research

Senior U.S. officials say the government’s National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) — the federal government’s multi-agency, multidisciplinary nanotechnology R&D program — is well managed and coordinated, and is providing increased funding for research on environmental, health and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology, as well as the societal and ethical concerns associated with this emerging technology.

According to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), more than 1,000 nanotechnology-enabled products are already available to consumers around the world. Yet much remains remains unknown about nanotechnologies' EHS impact, and some experts contend that NNI's EHS research needs to be strengthened through adoption of a “top-level, top-down” strategy. Dr. Martin M. Sokoloski, chair of IEEE-USA's Research and Development Policy Committee, said that currently trying to manage the 13-agency NNI is “like juggling a balloon filled with water.”

In June 2008, the IEEE-USA Board of Directors adopted a position statement on nanotechnology research and development, drafted by the R&D Policy Committee, which said in part that the Executive Branch and Congress should “explore the societal and environmental implications of nanotechnology. Since nanotechnology has the potential to affect humans and the environment in ways that are not yet known, research must be sponsored to examine its impact to avoid unforeseen adverse consequences. Establishing a comprehensive and systematic approach to safety is urgently needed.”

Dr. Sokoloski says, “Today, nanomaterials are found in products such as sunscreen, ketchups, powdered sugar, thermal-insulating paint and cleaning products. However, the major focus of U.S. NNI work is still R&D — and although future applications are certainly impressive, much work needs to be done.”

In a recent development involving EHS implications of nanotechnology, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 29 September issued a new research strategy aimed at more proactively examining the impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment. EPA said the agency will be focusing its research on seven manufactured nanomaterial types — single-walled carbon nanotubes, multi-walled carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, cerium oxide, silver, titanium dioxide and zero-valent iron.

“Since this is an EPA internal strategy, it tells industry and others what the key science questions are that we at EPA believe need to be addressed,” said Jeff Morris, the agency’s program director for nanotechnology.

In a report sent to Congress on 14 May, John P. Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said the proposed NNI budget for FY 2010 of $1.64 will bring cumulative investment since inception of the nanotechnology effort to nearly $12 billion.

“This sustained investment continues to advance our understanding of the unique phenomena and processes that occur at the nanometer scale and to expedite the responsible use of this knowledge to address national and global needs in high-impact opportunity areas such as energy, security and public health,” Holdren said in a transmittal letter. He added: “Along with its investment in the development and application of nanotechnology, the NNI continues to expand its activities to assess and address the potential health and environmental implications as well as societal and ethical concerns associated with this emerging technology.”

According to the OSTP report, planned FY 2010 funding for NNI research efforts in the EHS area will total approximately $87.7 million. It said cumulative investments in EHS research since 2005 now total more than $350 million.

Sokoloski, in an e-mail interview with Today’s Engineer, expressed concern with the adequacy of coordination of the NNI by the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee.

“Although NSET is the interagency body responsible for coordination of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, trying to manage a program spread over 13 federal agencies and totaling over $1.5 billion is like juggling a balloon filled with water,” he said. “The NSET is a hydra-like animal consisting of 27 agencies, headed by OSTP and reporting to the National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Technology. Some Executive [Branch] body should have top-level, top-down risk research strategy, leadership, oversight and budget authority for this multi-agency program. . .  The NNI program should be reviewed periodically by a ‘NNI review board’ populated by industry, academia and citizen communities.”

Sokoloski also said that funding for research into potential or actual environmental, health and safety risks associated with certain nanotechnology applications needs to be substantially increased.

“A budget that supports a viable number of workers is necessary and should be part of the NNI strategy,” the R&D Policy Committee chair said. “The NNI states that it has invested only 6 percent since 2005 in EHS research, and the EPA budget amounts to less than 1 percent of the NNI program. . . . At least 10 percent of the NNI annual budget should be committed to EHS research.”

Janet Rochester, president of the IEEE Society on the Social Implications of Technology (SSIT), in a separate e-mail interview, said she believes that IEEE members involved with developing various applications of nanotechnology should be encouraged to pay increased attention to environmental, health, safety and social factors.

“We need to be concerned about the implementing of technology without the knowledge of the user,” she said. “If I consider cell phone technology unacceptable for some reason, I do not have to buy one. It is much less obvious to the public where nanotechnology is found in the products they buy. For instance, I understand that some sunscreens contain nano particles, but the product labels do not have to say so. Consumers need to be able to make informed choices.”

Noting that she was voicing her own views, rather than an official position of SSIT, Ms. Rochester observed that “nanotechnology promises to be revolutionary in many areas, depending on the technology and its intended purpose. We need to ask, ‘Revolutionary to whom and at what cost to them and others? Who will benefit, who will pay?’”

She added: “Many new technologies have been over-hyped, both in their positive and their negative aspects, and in many cases neither is justified. I believe that we should proceed with caution; examine the intended and unintended consequences, both technical and societal; and see that the public is informed.”

The need for vigorous efforts to study EHS implications of nanotechnology was voiced by Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, at a hearing on 16 April 2008.

“It is important for the successful development of nanotechnology that potential downsides of the technology be addressed from the beginning in a straightforward and open way,” Gordon said. “We know too well that negative public perceptions about the safety of a technology can have serious consequences for its acceptance and use. This has been the case with nuclear power, genetically modified foods and stem cell therapies.”

Rep. Gordon added: “The science base is not now available to pin down what types of engineered nanomaterials may be dangerous, although early studies show some are potentially harmful. We don’t yet know what characteristics of these materials are most significant to determine their effects on living things or on the environment.”

At the same hearing, Andrew D. Maynard, PEN's chief science adviser, testified that “real and perceived risks that are poorly identified, assessed and managed will undermine even the most promising new technologies, and nanotechnology is no exception.”

Maynard said that “a minimum of 10 percent of the federal government’s nanotechnology research and development budget should be dedicated to goal-oriented environment, health and safety research. At least $50 million per year should be directed towards targeted research directly addressing clearly defined strategic challenges. The balance of funding should support exploratory research that is conducted within the scope of a strategic research program. Funding should be assessed according to a top-level, top-down risk research strategy, and by overseen by cross-agency leadership.”

In the Fall 2009 Issues in Science and Technology, PEN Senior Adviser J. Clarence Davies calls for a radical change in how the federal government oversees nanotechnology and other technologies to best protect human health and the environment. He suggests, as a first step, that the government create a new agency called the Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection, which would incorporate six existing agencies: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the Consumer Products Safety Commission.

Asks Davies: "If it proves possible that nanotechnology can be used to improve the functioning of the human brain, should it be used that way? And if so, for whose brains? If nanoscale materials are incorporated in foods to improve nutrition, taste, or shelf life, should the food have to be labeled to show that nanotechnology has been used? If synthetic biology, using nanotechniques, can create new life forms, should it be allowed to do so?"

Barton Reppert is an independent science and technology writer, mainly focusing on Washington coverage of S&T policy issues. He previously worked for 18 years as a reporter and editor with The Associated Press in Washington, New York and Moscow.

Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.