- EPA Denies Texas Waiver Request to Relax RFS Mandate
- Program to Help Developing Nations Forecast Natural Disasters Loses Funding
- Leveling the Playing Field: The Olympics, Doping, and the Enhancement Debate
- One Eye Open for Dual-Use Research
- Intern with Science Progress
- Doubling Down on NIH Funding
- Bipartisan Bill Would Promote Innovation in Reliable, Transparent Voting Technology
- What Took So Long?
- House Moves to Regulate Unregulated Drug Delivery Systems
- Talking Carbon Tonight on Colbert
- Congress Bans Toxins in Toys, Beauty Products
- Renewable Tax Credits Need Renewing
Reauthorizing the NNI: Do We Know What We Need to Know?
The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology and potential regulation were the only points of contention at an otherwise congratulatory Senate hearing held to discuss the reauthorization of the $1.5 billion National Nanotechnology Initiative last Thursday. Both witnesses and senators praised the NNI during the hearing before the Science, Technology, and Innovation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, calling it a “model” program for its effective use of taxpayer money and for its coordination of twenty-five federal agencies in conducting research. Witnesses and committee members did acknowledge both that consumers need to have an accurate understanding of the EHS impacts in order to know they’re getting sound products made with nanomaterials, and companies would also like to know whether they might face future federal regulation or intervention of those products.
Robert A. Robinson, Managing Director of the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Natural Resources and Environment Team expressed concern that the funding set aside for EHS research is not enough to fill “information gaps” when it comes to the potential human risks of nanotechnology and nanomaterials. According to a GAO report released in conjunction with the hearing, only $38 million—or three percent of the NNI budget—went towards EHS, but that figure is likely overstated because of ambiguous reporting standards used by researchers. Robinson called for a better system to keep track of EHS spending. Committee members said they will revisit the EHS budget during the authorization process.
The subcommittee also invited outside experts from industry and the health sectors to explain their respective concerns about the NNI.
David Rejeski, Director of the Foresight and Governance Project and Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, used a tube of Korean toothpaste laden with silver nanoparticles as a prop during his testimony, highlighting the fact that little is known about health risks associated with nanotechnology. Rejeski believes the U.S. oversight system is failing to test for possible risks just as more nanoproducts are hitting the market. He said that many nanotech companies are asking for federal guidance or regulations on EHS issues so they can press ahead with commercialization without fear of retroactive federal intervention. For the NNI reauthorization bill, Rejeski recommended an external advisory board for better transparency; a comprehensive strategy for the Initiative; and efforts to improve public awareness, so as not to hinder commercialization.
Committee members were mostly receptive to the recommendations of witnesses. They echoed many of the same concerns, calling for improved EHS spending and tracking; increased spending in nanotechnology research for renewable energy and fuel production; improving federal standards; and highlighting the need for a positive public awareness campaign to avoid a backlash similar to that suffered by genetically modified foods.
Image: NASA
Comments on this article