Nanotechnology Lawyer & Attorney : Porter Wright Morris & Arthur : Nanotechnology Law Report - Germanium nanobead image provided by UT-Battelle, which manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy

This fifth and final article in a series on standards for the nanotechnology community contributed by ANSI explains the development of specifications that will look at raw nanomaterials in terms of their use in a variety of applications.

By 2007, the development of international guidelines for nanotechnology was well underway within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Each of the projects of ISO Technical Committee (TC) 229, Nanotechnologies, had been categorized into one of the TC’s working groups: WG 1, Terminology and Nomenclature, WG 2, Measurement and Characterization, or WG 3, Health, Safety, and Environment.

But when the Standardization Administration of China (SAC), China’s national standards body, submitted two new work item proposals in October 2007, TC 229 members recognized that the proposed areas of technical activity – addressing specifications for nanomaterials in terms of possible applications – did not fit easily into any of the existing WGs.

Material specifications had already been identified as a priority area in the TC 229 business plan, which was based on the results of a 2006 survey, “ISO TC 229 Nanotechnologies Survey of Standardization Needs.” Some aspects of the SAC-proposed work items, however, fell under the scope of each of the WGs and yet other parts of the proposals didn’t fit into any of the groups.

In response to these newly identified needs, a new working group on Material Specifications (WG 4) was formed in early 2008.

Leadership and Work Items for WG 4

Given their important role in the creation of WG 4, China holds the convenorship of the group through SAC and Professor Limin Wang. The scope of the group is still being drafted with the help of several international stakeholders, including many from the United States. This scope, once established, will serve as a roadmap for how to further the efforts of the WG.

TC 229/WG 4 currently has three work items in development to examine raw materials in terms of their purpose in a variety of uses. The first two of these are the original SAC-submitted work items that sparked the formation of WG 4, and are currently being led by SAC:

• Nano TiO2 (Titanium Dioxide) specifies the characteristics and measurement methods for engineered nanoscale titanium dioxide (powder form). The material has numerous industrial applications, including use in sunblock, certain fibers and plastics, paints, printing ink, coatings, ceramics, and catalysts and catalyst carriers.

• Nano CaCO3 (Calcium Carbonate) specifies the characteristics and measurement methods for engineered nanoscale calcium carbonate (powder form). Industrial applications for this material include fillers in rubbers, plastics, coatings, paint, and printing ink.

Each of these work items will be divided into two parts: characterization of measurement and methods; and use of the nanoscale material in applications.

The third work item under WG 4 is being led by BSI British Standards, the national standards body for the United Kingdom:

• Guide to specifying nanomaterials will provide guidance on the preparation of comprehensive technical specifications for manufactured nanomaterials in order to ensure the delivery of a product that behaves in a reproducible manner.

Impact on Industry

As the standards developed under WG 4 can be used in industrial applications and consumer products from paint and coatings to textiles and sunblock, they will have a tremendous impact on manufacturers in a wide variety of industries, both in the U.S. and abroad. Interested stakeholders are encouraged to provide input that can help to formulate the strategy for WG 4.

U.S. involvement in ISO/TC 229 and its Working Groups begins with the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 229, administered by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Led by Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, the TAG is organized into Working Groups that mirror their efforts on the scope of each TC 229 WG.

The mirror group for WG 4 is led by Dr. David S. Ensor, of RTI International.

“American industry has a rare opportunity to shape the content of these very early stage working draft standards and influence the strategic direction of WG 4,” said Dr. Ensor.

How to Participate

Participation in the U.S. TAG to ISO/TC 229 WG 4 is open to all nationally interested stakeholders. The TAG actively seeks participants who have expert knowledge in all aspects of nanotechnology material specifications.

“I encourage interested organizations to participate in the U.S. TAG and help develop U.S. positions to guide the deliberations of our experts to WG 4,” Dr. Ensor added. “We expect WG 4 will likely become an important ISO/TC 229 activity with time because it will eventually build on the standards developed by the other working groups.”

To join the ANSI-accredited U.S. TAG for ISO/TC 229 or any of its WGs, contact Heather Benko (hbenko@ansi.org; 212.642.4912).

For more information on the U.S. TAG for ISO/TC 229, visit http://www.ansi.org/isotc229tag.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nanowerk is reporting that the International Standards Organization (ISO) completed its first step in developing standards for nanotechnology regulation.  The definitions are revealed in ISO/TS 27687:2008, Nanotechnologies – Terminology.  

The three main materials covered by this first set of definitions and terminology are: 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier today, Continental Western Insurance Group issued what appears to be one of the first nano-specific commercial insurance exclusions in the United States.  Although Continental originally posted the exclusion and two supporting documents on its website, the materials were removed after BNA published an article about the exclusion this morning. We managed to print out the material before it was taken down and we provide links to it in this article.

Regular readers will recall that we have been covering nano-related insurance coverage issues for some time.  Prior posts are here, here, here, here, here, and here. 

A summary of each of Continental's three documents follows:

Background on Nanotubes

Continental's "Background on Nanotubes" document explains the policy behind its exclusion:
"The intent of this exclusion is to remove coverage for the, as of yet, unknown and unknowable risks created by products and processes that involve nanotubes. The exclusion is being added to make you and your customers explicitly aware of our intent not to cover injury and/or damage arising from nanotubes, as used in products and processes…"

The primary reason for the exclusion appears to be recent reports comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos. You can find information about the press coverage of the May 2008 articles comparing multi-walled carbon nanotubes to asbestos here. Another factor in Continental's decision appears to be the often cited nano consumer product inventory published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 

Based on the asbestos analogy and PEN's product database, Continental concludes that it "would not be prudent for us to knowingly provide coverage for risks that are, as of yet, unknown and unquantifiable. We are all too aware of what happened to companies involved with asbestos-related exposure in the past, and see this as a very similar issue."

Notice to Policyholders

Continental's draft Notice to Policyholders makes it clear that it covers most of Continental's insurance groups, including: Acadia Insurance Company; Continental Western Insurance Company; Fireman's Insurance Company of Washington, D.C.; and Union Insurance Company. The notice references the actual exclusion which is attached and explains that this "endorsement excludes bodily injury, property damage, and personal and advertising injury related to the exposure of nanotubes and nanotechnology in any form. This include the use of, contact with, existence of, presence of, proliferation of, discharge of, dispersal of, seepage of, migration of, release of, escape of, or exposure to nanotubes or nanotechnology."

Nanotubes and Nanotechnology Exclusion

The exclusion itself reiterates that this "endorsement excludes bodily injury, property damage, and personal and advertising injury related to the exposure of nanotubes and nanotechnology in any form. This include the use of, contact with, existence of, presence of, proliferation of, discharge of, dispersal of, seepage of, migration of, release of, escape of, or exposure to nanotubes or nanotechnology." 

It further contains specific exclusions for "existence, storage, handling, or transportation of 'nanotubes' or 'nanotechnology'…any manufacturing processes or products including same, and any losses arising from lawsuits related to 'nanotubes' and/or 'nanotechnology.'"

The exclusion defines "nanotubes" as "hollow cylinders of carbon atoms or carbon fibers or any type or form of "nanotechnology" which contains remarkable strength and electrical properties used in any products, goods, or materials.  "Nanotechnology" is defined as "engineering at a molecular or atomic level." 

Both definitions are vague. For example, a hollow carbon fiber fishing rod that makes no claim to contain nanoscale materials would still technically be included in the definition of 'nanotubes" because it is a hollow cylinder made of carbon atoms. Similarly, attempting to entirely exclude "nanotechnology" is unworkable because it is really just science on an extremely small scale.

Rather than excluding all "nanotechnology," Continental more likely meant to exclude all nanoscale materials. Even then, such a blanket exclusion would be extremely broad because many nanoscale materials have not been shown to pose any environmental, health, or safety risks. Further, even within the category of carbon nanotubes, recent researchers' warnings about potential EHS risks have been largely confined to long, thin, needle-like carbon nanotubes, while excluding other varieties.

Stay tuned.  We will attempt to find out what happened to Continental's documents and will continue to monitor nano-related insurance coverage issues.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last month, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholar's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) published a paper on the ability of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to deal with possible environmental, health, and safety risks potentially posed by the use of some nanoscale materials in certain consumer products.

 E. Marla Felcher, "The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Nanotechnology," Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, PEN 14, August 2008.

 The article begins with an analysis of PEN’s online consumer nanoproduct inventory which is used to support the author’s claims that "nanotechnology-enabled products" have made their way into every category of product under the CPSC's jurisdiction. Of the 60 products on PEN’s website, the author claims that "all of them are available for purchase by consumers," and approximately "half of nanotechnology consumer products currently on the market would fall under CPSC's jurisdiction." She notes that "[e]very day, new nanoengineered products make their way into stores’ shelves, among them kids’ pants, teddy bears, baby bottles, pacifiers, teething rings, plastic food storage containers, socks, chopsticks, humidifiers, mobile phones, computer processors and tennis rackets."

In a loaded rhetorical follow-up question the author asks: "Is it safe for an infant to spend hours each day sucking on a nano-enhanced pacifier?" The question does more to cement the author’s predilection against the use of nanoscale materials in consumer products than it does to present readers with a true quandary. Moreover, while PEN’s online inventory is a great tool, the author fails to take into account that many of the products on the site have never been commercialized, or have long been taken off the market. Such an analysis would provide a helpful balance to the article’s "pending emergency" tone.

Getting beyond initial issues, the author’s key concerns appear to have less to do with potential nano-specific product risks than with CPSC foundational issues. The author’s primary complaint appears to be that the CPSC has no premarket testing authority. She also believes that there is "[a]mple evidence" that companies do not do premarket testing or self-report hazards and defects -- a conclusion many dispute.

In keeping with her general approach, the author lists "Five Generic Weaknesses in CPSC's Product Oversight Capacity:" 1. "CPSC's Data Collection System is Not Nano Ready;" 2. "CPSC has Limited Ability to Tell the Public About Health Hazards Associated with Nanoproducts;" 3. "CPSC Has Limited Ability to Get Recalled Nanoproducts Out of Use;" 4. "CPSC Lacks Sufficient Enforcement Staff to Identify Manufacturers That Fail to Report Nanoproduct Hazards;" and 5. "CPSC Does Not Have Sufficient Authority to Promulgate Mandatory Safety Standards for Nanoproducts."

While some of these points are valid, they are not nano-specific. In fact, this section of the article would suffer little if the prefix "nano" and the term "nanotechnology" were eliminated from the text. (Try it.) The same could be said for several of the prior papers published by PEN in which the authors’ complaints and cautions appear more related to broader governance issues than to nano-specific difficulties.

To get to the heart of the paper, most readers will want to flip to the last section where the author lists several recommendations to correct the problems she perceives with the CPSC.

The author recommends that the CPSC should: 1. "Build the agency’s nanotechnology base and expertise;" 2. Identify companies making "nanoproducts and request that they submit research studies, risk assessment data and any information they hold that will enable CPSC scientists to assess the safety of nanoproducts;" (Although she notes that the Consumer Product Safety Act provides sufficient authority to accomplish this recommendation); 3. "Coordinate with other health and safety agencies, and combine efforts to evaluate the risks associated with nanoproducts;" and 4. "Convene a CHAP to evaluate the health and safety risks associated with nanoproducts currently on the market that are intended for use by children."

The author’s second CPSC recommendation is the most interesting and could benefit from further development. If the Consumer Product Safety Act provides sufficient authority to allow the CPSC to ask companies making nanoproducts to submit safety and risk assessment data (as the author suggest), that should go a long way to satisfying the author’s nano-information gathering concerns. The potential civil liability facing companies marketing nanoproducts without first collecting such data after it has been specifically requested by the CPSC would act as a hefty deterrent to the potential misconduct she fears.

The author also recommends two Congressional remedies:

1. "Amend the Consumer Product Safety Act to give CPSC the authority to require manufacturers to identify the presence of nanomaterials in their products;" and 2. "Adopt Section II of the Consumer Products Safety Act Bill recommended to Congress by the NCPS in its 1970 Field Report." This would give the CPSC the ability to promulgate "safety standards for any 'new' consumer products" . . . "where there exists a lack of information adequate to determine the safety of such product in use by consumers."

It is hard to argue against the author’s first Congressional recommendation. Collecting more information is a good thing as long as the requirements are not onerous and the CPSC actually has the ability to process and use the data productively. Although mentioned in the "Foreword," left out of the author’s Congressional "should do" list is more CPSC funding specifically dedicated to nanotechnology safety issues. Arguably, many of the author’s issues with the CPSC could be diminished with additional funding, staff, and resources to more fully address nanotechnology issues.

All in all, the paper is well worth reading as long as PEN’s and the author’s predispositions are kept in mind.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This fourth article in a series contibuted by ANSI on standards for the nanotechnology community addresses the development of specifications for measurement, characterization, and test methods that will provide a common reference point for material manufacturers and their customers.

Measurement and characterization standards fly under the radar, affecting our lives in innumerable ways – from the number of miles driven to work to the paper loaded in the office printer. To imagine daily activities without these concepts would be nearly impossible, but that is exactly the challenge faced by scientists and manufacturers in the nanotechnology community.

For the growing number of industries that work with or are affected by nano-materials, consistent and globally accepted methods for testing, measurement, and characterization will provide a common reference point. By establishing a baseline to determine the starting properties of materials, these standards can facilitate meaningful comparisons of manufacturing and research results from different organizations and labs, and help to form a basis for the measurement of additional material properties.

When the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Nanotechnology Standards Panel (NSP) first convened in September of 2004 to discuss priority recommendations for nanotechnology standardization, participants earmarked metrology, methods of analysis, and test methods as areas needing urgent attention. In particular, guidelines for particle size and shape, as well as particle number and distribution, were considered critical.

These needs are being addressed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) through its Technical Committee (TC) 229, Nanotechnologies, Working Group (WG) 2, Measurement and Characterization. Convened by Japan under the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC), WG 2 focuses on the development of standards for consistent descriptions, assessment, and test methods for nanotechnologies, taking into consideration the need for metrology and reference materials.

U.S. participation in ISO/TC 229 WG 2

U.S. participation in ISO/TC 229 and its Working Groups is centered in the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 229, chaired by Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. The TAG, which is administered by ANSI, is organized into Working Groups that mirror their efforts on the scope of each TC 229 WG.

The U.S. mirror group for WG 2 is led by Dr. Ray Tsui of Motorola. The TAG WG plays an important role in establishing ANSI’s positions on the issues addressed in the group with the help of experts from the industry, government, and academia.

Several other U.S. organizations actively participate in the both the international and domestic WG 2 work efforts, including the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), as well as Honeywell, Hyperion Catalysis, and others.

Guidance Documents in Progress

Representative of its efforts over the past three years, WG 2 is currently developing 10 work items; most involve single-walled or multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and how to characterize them using specific instrumentation methods. Four of these work items are led or co-led by the United States:

• ISO/Approved Work Item (AWI) Technical Specification (TS) 10797, Nanotubes – Use of transmission electron microscopy in walled carbon nanotubes (co-led by the U.S. and Japan)

• ISO/AWI TS 10798, Nanotubes – Scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray analysis in the characterization of single walled carbon nanotubes (led by the U.S.)

• ISO/New Work Item Proposal (NP) TS 10812, Nanotechnologies – Use of Raman spectroscopy in the characterization of single-walled carbon nanotubes (led by the U.S.)

• ISO/AWI TS 11308, Nanotechnologies – Use of thermo gravimetric analysis in the purity evaluation of single-walled nanotubes (co-led by the U.S. and Korea)

“The activities in WG 2 are strongly coupled to the other efforts within ISO/TC 229,” said Dr. Tsui. “The work of WG 1, Terminology and Nomenclature, defines the materials being measured, while the output from WG2 provides important information regarding intrinsic material properties and measurement methods that can be used by WG 3, Health, Safety, and Environment, and WG 4, Material Specifications.”

This overlap is apparent in one work item that is currently in the domain of WG 3: Guidance on physico-chemical characterization of engineered nano-objects for toxicologic assessment. This document, being developed under U.S. leadership, will serve as a reference for characterizing nano-objects to be used in toxicology testing. WG 3 is presently creating toxicology guidelines as they relate to health and safety; WG 2 may join the effort to assist in the development of methods used to characterize toxicity.

Getting Involved in ISO/TC 229 WG 2

Participation in the U.S. TAG ISO/TC 229 Working Group is open to all nationally interested stakeholders. The TAG actively seeks participants who have expert knowledge in all aspects of nanotechnology measurement and characterization. To join the ANSI-accredited U.S. TAG for ISO/TC 229 or any of its WGs, contact Heather Benko (hbenko@ansi.org; 212.642.4912).

For more information on the U.S. TAG for ISO/TC 229, visit http://www.ansi.org/isotc229tag.

Stay Tuned: The next article in this series will introduce ISO/TC 229/WG 4, Material Specifications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, EPA and Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. released the agency's first manufacturing consent order with regards to nanotubes.  The consent order was entered into between the two parties through the pre-manufacture notice (PMN) portion of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

After yesterday's rather, ahem, disappointing day in the financial world, I thought I would check in on some of the nanotechnology assets to see how they have fared in the recent machinations of the markets.  Simply, the answer is: about what you would expect.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This third article in an ANSI series on standards for the nanotechnology community explains how agreements for terminology and nomenclature are creating the common baseline that is needed for global collaboration and understanding.

As an ever increasing array of industry sectors embraces the rapid development of materials at the nano scale, stakeholders around the planet have attempted to weave a new “nano” vocabulary into their communications.

Consistent and globally-accepted nomenclature and terminology – the fundamental building blocks for any burgeoning industry – tops the list of stakeholder needs. Until there is consensus, even terms that are frequently cited in relevant scientific literature, e.g., nanotechnology, nanoparticle, nanostructure, nanoscale and nanomaterial are at risk of being interpreted differently between nations and industries.

In a June 2004 letter to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Dr. John H. Marburger, III, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to the Executive Office of the President, wrote:

“As new materials, structures, devices, and systems are developed that derive their properties and function due to their nanoscale dimensions, it will become increasingly important to the researchers, manufacturers, regulators, and other stakeholders to have an agreed upon nomenclature with which to communicate.”

Dr. Marburger asked ANSI to step forward to facilitate the development of standards in the area of nanotechnology, starting with nomenclature and terminology.

The Institute responded by forming in August 2004 a cross-sector coordinating body known as the ANSI-Nanotechnology Standards Panel (www.ansi.org/nsp). The Panel does not itself develop standards; rather, it works with other national, regional, and international standards bodies, as well as industry, academic, and government stakeholders, to establish work plans, harmonize efforts, and mitigate duplication or overlap.

As the Panel became more and more engaged in coordination activities within the United States, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, then later, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) each formed Technical Committees (TCs) to create and promote the implementation of nanotechnology standards. The Panel quickly took on a new global perspective.

Experts understood that the road to consensus would be bumpy. Many of the participating nations had already made clear their perspectives about the characterization of nano-objects and what constituted “work at the nanoscale.” There were distinct differences of opinion about whether the definitions for nanotechnology terminology should consider the size of the object, the unique properties that materials exhibit at the nanoscale, or both. [Ultimately, consensus was reached that it should be both.]

Work in Progress for Terminology and Nomenclature

Upon its formation in 2005, the founding members of ISO Technical Committee (TC) 229, Nanotechnologies, including the United States, agreed that a standardized naming system and standardized terms were needed to facilitate communication among the many sectors that deal with nanotechnologies.

U.S. participation in ISO/TC 229 and its Working Groups begins in the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 229, chaired by Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. The TAG, which is administered by ANSI, is organized into Working Groups that mirror their efforts on the scope of each TC 229 WG.

Under the leadership of convenor Dr. Clive Willis (Canada), a working group on Terminology and nomenclature (ISO/TC 229/WG 1) was created and charged with defining and developing unambiguous and uniform terminology and nomenclature that can be used by any stakeholder, from manufacturing and research to government agencies and regulatory bodies.

The mirror U.S. activity for nanotechnology terminology and nomenclature is chaired by Martha Marrapese of Keller and Heckman. Experts from academia, government, standards developing organizations, and the legal arena comprise the group’s membership

One of the WG’s first actions was to agree that industries should resist the temptation to simply add the prefix “nano” to already existing, well-defined terms. WG 1 members also agreed to try to avoid redefining technical terms that are already in common usage and not nano-specific.

The WG’s first published work, Nanotechnologies – Terminology and definitions for nano-objects – nanoparticle, nanofibre, and nanoplate (ISO/TS 27687), defines the basic terms frequently used in nanotechnology literature. Included in this technical specification are definitions for terms such as “nanoscale” (the size range from approximately 1nm to 100nm) and “nano-object” (a material with one, two, or three external dimensions at the nanoscale). The document also establishes a hierarchy of terms that describe some of the more specific forms of nano-objects based on their dimensions.

Three additional WG 1 work items are still under development:

• ISO/NP TS 12144, Nanotechnologies – Core terms – Terminology and definitions and ISO/NP TR 12802, Nanotechnologies – Terminology and nomenclature – Framework provide a prioritized and systematic approach for developing further definitions as needed.

• ISO/NP TS 12921, Nanotechnologies – Terminology and definitions for nanostructured materials will help foster a common understanding among worldwide industrial, academic, and public sectors related to nanomaterials.

The audiences for WG 1’s work are expansive. In addition to its collaborative work with IEC’s nanotechnology committee (IEC TC 113), requests have also been received for additional definitions that will apply to terms commonly used in nanomanufacturing sectors, including: IT and telecommunications; aerospace and automotive industries; energy and utilities; materials and chemical industries; forest and paper products industries; food industries; pharmaceuticals, biomedical, and biotechnology; environment and national security; and clothing and personal care.

“Terminology and nomenclature are important underpinnings of nanotechnologies standards activities,” said Ms. Marrapese. “They inform the other areas of standards development, including measurement and characterization, health, safety and environment issues, and product quality specifications. They also serve as the basis for how vocabulary is used and specific materials are identified for the purposes of international research, commercial activities, intellectual property protection, and government oversight and support.”

Getting Involved in ISO/TC 229 WG 1

Participation in the U.S. TAG ISO/TC 229 Working Group is open to all nationally interested stakeholders. The TAG actively seeks participants who have expert knowledge in all aspects of nanotechnology terminology and nomenclature. To join the ANSI-accredited U.S. TAG for ISO/TC 229 or any of its WGs, contact Heather Benko (hbenko@ansi.org; 212.642.4912).

For more information on the U.S. TAG for ISO/TC 229, visit http://www.ansi.org/isotc229tag.

Stay Tuned: The next article in this series will introduce ISO/TC 229/WG 2, Measurement and characterization.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The University of Dayton School of Law's Intellectual Property Law Society and its Program in Law and Technology are hosting "Transnational Models for Regulation of Nanotechnology" on Tuesday, October 7, 2008.  The symposium is being sponsored by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP and The Hubert A. and Gladys C. Estabrook Charitable Trust, and features Dr. Gary Marchant, Lincoln Professor of Emerging Technologies, Law and Ethics at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University as Guest Speaker.   

The symposium will explore both the potential risks posed by nanotechnology and potential regulatory frameworks that law may impose.  It will also explore the various rationales for international regulation including the potential for cross-boundary harms, sharing of regulatory expertise and resources, controlling protectionism and trade conflicts, avoiding a "race to the bottom" in which governments seek economic advantage through lax regulation, and limiting the "nano divide" between North and South.  Finally, the symposium examines some models for international regulation and offers tentative thoughts on the prospects for each.

The symposium is one of the law school's ongoing "Scholarly Symposia Series, Current Issues in Intellectual Property Law."  You can find a copy of the registration form for the event here.  Please be sure to attend.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SafeNano is reporting that a new effort for global research for nanotoxicology issues was announced earlier this week at NanoTox 2008.  This new, international research alliance is tasked with the "creation of protocols for a limited number of toxicology tests on a small number of representative nanoparticles to enable a ‘round robin’ study in which identical results will be sought. This will involve at least the use of nanomaterials and biologicals from a common source and a single set of protocols."  The group is The International Alliance for NanoEHS Harmonization (IANH) and will include researchers from the United States, the European Union, and Japan.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Another insurance company has entered the nanotechnology risk debate.  In addition to Lloyd's and Swiss re, ACE Casualty Risk recently released both a white paper and podcast discussing nanotechnology issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you interested in nanomedicine issues specifically, I wanted to make you aware of a new blog worth reading.  The Nanomedicine and IP Blog is a newly created site by Luca Escoffier, a PhD student at Queen Mary, University of London and is a Transatlantic Technology Law Forum (TTLF) fellow at Standford writing his dissertation on patenting medical nanotechnology inventions. Luca is now in the U.S. as visiting fellow at the University of Washington (and tells me he is enjoying Seattle).  Should be an interesting look into the specific field of nanomedicine as the sector develops.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link