TECHNOLOGY FOCUSNanotechnology: The Paradox
of Progress - Part II
Editor's Note: Last week in Part I, we looked at the potential nanotechnology applications for industries, including automotive, and what the research community is saying about its increasing use in the products we use everyday. This week, Part II investigates the measures put in place the last few years aimed at creating a system of checks and balances for its use.
CHICAGO (Jan. 24, 2005) - Nanotechnology (NT) has already led to the creation of products and processes that have spawned many improvements in the automobile and other industries, products that have improved vehicles, the delivery of drugs and other medical treatments and more. The short time span from the birth of NT until today is less than two generations; as such, researchers are concerned there has been little regard to public safety and other societal impacts with the use of NT. However, during the past few years, these rising concerns for responsible development and application of NT have resulted in a closer examination and deeper discussions about better managing this new technology entering our lives.
What you don't know can hurt you Concern for both public education and safety is not going unheard. In fact, one of the early pioneers in NT, scientist Eric Drexler founded the Foresight Institute in 1986 and began to actively argue for more responsible public policies to be implemented between labs and consumer shelves and showrooms.Federally, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a consortium of 23 government agencies, was formed in 2005 - after a five-year period of loose interagency cooperation - to coordinate efforts in NT science, engineering, and technology. Its goals include maintaining a world-class research program, facilitating the transfer of new NT products for the public benefit, implementing public education and supporting the responsible development of NT. Among the bodies included are the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Transportation; the Consumer Product Safety Commission; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); the Patent and Protection Commission; and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
TIMELINEDateEvent1959Richard Feynman predicted we could build machines small enough to make objects at the atomic scale.1975Eric Drexler invents what would become molecular manufacturing.1974Norio Taniguchi coined the term ?nanotechnology.?1980U.S. government begins to invest in nanotechnology projects.1985Richard E. Smalley discovered the "buckyball."1986Drexler founds Foresight Institute, with a primary focus cnveying the beneifts and risks of nanotechnology.1991Carbon nanotube formed.1991IBM physicists built an atomic switch.2000Working group formed that would become the National Nanotechnology Initiative.2002Center for Responsible Nanotechnology founded.2004First Occupational Health Symposium2004EPA Draft White Paper on NT2005First ISO International Conference2006First International Conference on NanotoxicityThe momentum that NT has gained from birth to consumer products has been like a tsunami. Within the automotive industry, workers are using NT dusts, powders, aerosols and fluids, as well as handling parts and components with nanomaterials in them. But researchers are concerned that the wave of NT use has increased so rapidly that considering short-term impacts has hardly gained traction, let alone the assessment of long-term consequences. The fact is that many of new and existing products are continuing to get to market without any credible and recognized testing, regarding direct or indirect risks to health or environment.
In 2004, EPA released a draft white paper on NT;a final white paper by the Agency followed in 2005. One result of the draft paper was the implementation of a voluntary NT program in September 2005. A presentation of the program was made during the automotive industry week in Las Vegas by Holly Pugliese, EPA policy analyst.
As part of the program, manufacturers of nanomaterials were asked to register voluntarily with the Agency and provide documentation in regards to the nanomaterial's nature, hazards, exposure potential and risk management practices. In conjunction with the voluntary registration program, a limited number of NT products would be selected and studied more in-depth, with the manufacturers providing EPA with more specific risk information it might ask for. The purpose of EPA's voluntary program, after inventorying the risks identified, is to develop a more permanent and non-voluntary administrative program for NT that could be applied going forward. More information is available on EPA's Web site.
Checks and balances While an admirable starting point to safeguard the workforce and general public, there are some detriments. One is that participation is voluntary, enabling firms to share only the information they choose. Secondly, even if shared, there has not been enough time to determine the known risks, as well as their fuller and longer lasting impact. Third, the lack of attention to risks to date in general leaves open the possibility that unknown risks exist. Last, in being voluntary in nature, those manufacturers who may have a potentially harmful product - whether aware or not - may have chosen simply not to participate in the EPA program. Any or all of events could skew the results and subsequent policy decisions, let alone inadvertently expose people to risks by omission.International and cooperative concern also began to formalize just a few years ago. In October 2004, the First International Symposium on Occupational Health Implications of Nanomaterials was convened. Co-sponsored by the U.S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the U.K. Health and Safety Executive, a number of hazards were discussed, including toxicity and the lack of proven control measures. Other international meetings include the inaugural meeting of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee 229, Nanotechnologies held in November 2005 and the First International Conference on Nanotoxicology in January 2006.
Capping the well Risk management advocates argue that trying to jam NT into existing and outdated laws is not enough to safeguard workers and the public. Existing legislation, such as the Toxic Substances Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act and environmental laws for clean air and water, were written well before NT was widely known. NT's growing impact is also accelerating faster and in more diverse ways than is the government's ability to keep pace in regulating, oversight and enforcement.Dr. J. Clarence Davies, senior fellow, Resources for the Future, just released a research paper titled "Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology" in January 2006. Davies previously served the Bush administration as the EPA assistant administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Rather than amend or strengthen existing laws, he proposes that a new law be structured. "The law would require manufacturers to submit a sustainability plan which will show that the product does not present an unsuitable risk," he wrote.
Davies suggests the sustainability plan be comprised of six parts: a life-cycle analysis of the product or material; testing results; proposed future reporting requirements; proposed labeling for the product or material; proposed restrictions, if any; and a detailed explanation as to why the product risk, if any, is acceptable. He further explains that this new law would need to be accompanied with new mechanisms and institutional capabilities. Davies' complete report can be viewed at http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=39.
The failure to act, should the public be threatened by unanticipated negative impacts, according to Davies, will unleash a new technology that is out of control, within a legal and political environment that is poorly equipped to manage it. The consequence he argues is the dawn of a public backlash that could wreak havoc on the national economy.
It should be noted that while it may seem that the rush to assess and control risks is just a recent trend, we do need to keep some perspective here. Commercialized NT products only began to enter the market in the late 1990s. Compared to other technological innovations in the past, such as electricity, nuclear power, or computers, the response of academia, government and social advocates has come relatively sooner with NT than with its predecessors.
Drexler's Foresight Institute was launched even before market products came to light, which is perhaps a result of his insight on the inside and understanding of NT's potential, both good and bad. The surprise is that it took more than a decade for others to rally to the cause. Nonetheless, the efforts since the turn of the century of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, EPA, and even dialogues such as Davies' proposal are evidence that genuine concern has emerged from an environment where many were lost in the wonders of NT.
For the automotive industry, and for global society as a whole, one truth seems evident: If the merits of NT are as claimed, it would follow that an open dialogue to consider what risks and adverse effects that may be present is a prudent man's course. Identifying those risks and the means to manage or avoid them, objectively and proactively - sooner rather than after a disaster occurs - makes sense, whether one is for or against NT.
(Sources: NSF, WWIC, NNI, EPA, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,Foresight Institute, NIOSH)
