Dec 11 2008
A 15-member committee of chemists, toxicologists and other experts said it found no adequate statement of clear goals or priorities in the strategy outlined by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a program set up in 1998 to coordinate government research in nanotechnology.
Already, more than 600 products on the market contain nano-scale components, which are smaller than the width of a human hair. They include sunscreens, cosmetics and fibers that can make fabrics stain-resistant. The Bay Area is a hotbed of nanotech research, embracing both university scientists and private companies.
The government has spent more than $8 billion on nanotech research since 2001, and that sum includes millions for safety studies. But the committee said the National Nanotechnology Initiative has not produced a useful summary of current knowledge on the technology's risks, nor has it set up a cogent schedule for improving that understanding in the next 10 years.
"The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology," said David Eaton, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Eaton was the chairman of the National Research Council committee.
Many new nanotech products are in the works because compounds engineered on the nano-scale have surprising and useful properties.
But scientists and consumer groups are concerned that nano-materials might also have unexpected effects on the body and the environment.
They wonder whether extremely fine particles released into the air could damage the lungs. Could drugs that include nano-materials induce allergies, build up in the liver, combine with other molecules to produce toxins or simply inactivate bodily structures such as enzymes and thus cause disease?
Government agencies have produced valuable studies on such questions, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative has done a good job of coordinating the work and preventing duplication, said Martin Philbert, a professor of toxicology at the University of Michigan and vice chair of the National Research Council committee.
But he said the committee found that some government studies defined as safety research did not produce useful conclusions or techniques to protect health and the environment. The program should consider how to address, for example, the need for tools to detect and quantify nano-materials, the committee said.
"It's not always the most exciting science," Philbert said. "But it may be the most necessary science to ensure stability and health of the environment and the public."
The committee report was requested by the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which administers the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
In a written statement, the office said the government agencies participating in the nanotech consortium acknowledge the National Research Council's "substantial and important recommendations for further progress on (safety) research and will give them the careful and thorough analysis they deserve."
The nanotechnology office said the program is already pursuing one of the goals recommended by the National Research Council - broadening the scope of the federal safety strategy by including the perspectives of academics, industry, foreign researchers and others active in the field.
But the nanotechnology office said congressional action would be required to implement other recommendations.
The National Research Council committee said the nanotech safety program suffers from a lack of budgetary authority and other powers that would give it greater influence over the research priorities of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
The committee also advised the program to consider creating a safety branch separate from the units whose main goal is to stimulate and support the development of nanotechnology products.
A separation of the two functions would remove any impression of conflicts of interest and "ensure that the public health mission receives appropriate priority."