Thinking Big About Nanotech

Government oversight, best practices from business leaders, and full disclosure of research findings are all necessary for the science to advance

by Rob Aitken

Nanotechnology, the science of small heralded as the next big thing, seeks to understand and control matter on a scale smaller than 1 micrometer, normally 1 nanometer to 100 nanometers. The technology has the potential to improve quality of life but may also cause harm. It poses great challenges to the governments, researchers, and corporations seeking to harness it.

Scores of commercial products—from paints to medicines to food—are being developed with nanoparticles taken from carbon, silver, and a huge range of other commonplace materials that have exotic properties, such as exceptional strength or electrical conductivity. Intel (INTC), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and IBM (IBM) are just a handful of the big companies hoping to unlock nanotech's potential.

However, more than 100 years of industrial experience show that exposure to other particles such as coal dust or silica can cause serious, potentially fatal diseases. The risk of ill health depends on the toxicity of the material and the length and level of exposure. Under some circumstances, nanoparticles may also have an adverse health impact.

Unanswered Questions and Challenges

Among the questions raised by this prospect: How toxic are these materials and in what context? Is there sufficient exposure of workers or consumers to cause adverse health effects? Do nanomaterials require new methods of disposal?

As of now, there are few answers. Over the last three years, more than 25 national and international reviews have been published by regulators, government departments, insurance organizations, and researchers. All point to a lack of knowledge concerning these questions. Only a system that combines commonsense government oversight, best practices from business leaders, and full disclosure of research findings can answer these questions in a way that lets nanotechnology advance to its full potential.

Regulatory authorities throughout the world have been slow to acknowledge the potential challenges posed by these new materials. Few, if any, regulatory regimes differentiate between approved materials in bulk and nanoscale form. Given the concern about the lack of available risk-related research, and the increasing range of nanoproducts appearing on the market, it's hard to argue that regulators have been as involved as they need to be. There is clearly a balance to strike here. Overzealous oversight (or the threat of it) could stymie innovation. But failure to act promptly could lead to significantly enhanced risks to the public and the environment, and a resulting failure of confidence in the emerging nanotech industry.

Industry Participation Is Critical

The Environmental Protection Agency in July said it will investigate the use of nanomaterials to determine whether they fall under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Part of its inquiry is a voluntary stewardship program that asks manufacturers to hand over appropriate information. While this attempt to collect information is laudable, it does not go far enough in compelling participation. Want proof? In Britain, a similar approach has attracted only nine submissions since 2005.

Instead of asking the industry to volunteer, these programs should encourage—through funding and other incentives—more risk-assessment research and sharing of available data.

Better oversight can only succeed when coupled with better industry participation, wherein manufacturers actively gather and distribute findings on nano risk. A recent publication of a nano risk framework by DuPont (DD) and Environmental Defense provides an excellent model for the type of approach that could be adopted and the type of information needed.