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

In recent days, the US EPA's National Center for Environmental Research and the United Kingdom's Natural Environment Research Council, Physical Sciences Research Council, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Environment Agency announced a "joint research effort to develop and validate predictive tools and similar conceptual models that predict exposure, bioavailability and effects of manufactured nanomaterials in the environment."  The organizations are expected to issue a joint call to interested parties for the submission of predictive models that will be jointly evaluated by both countries.  The models will will likely cover "environmental fate, behaviour, interaction, bioavailability and effects focused on one or more classes of manufactured nanomaterials," as well as new detection methods and other topics.  Solicitations are expected in February 2009.

In the ongoing quest to close the "data gap," this is appears to be another useful partnership where two of worldwide leaders in nanotechnology development are combining resources and efforts to better understand the environmental impacts of nanomaterials.  Stay tuned for the call for models and research projects and also the eventual results of the partnership.

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

Late last week, the National Institute for Standards and Technologies (NIST) issued a call for white papers “to support, promote, and accelerate innovation in the United States through high-risk, high-reward research in areas of critical national need."  The call was issued through NIST's Technology Innovation Program (TIP), and covers a multitude of areas seeking coverage, including nanotechnology and nanomaterials.

"In this call for white papers, TIP is seeking information in all areas of critical national need, but also seeks information to assist TIP in further defining several topic areas under development. White papers may discuss any area of critical national need of interest to the submitter, or may address any of the following topic areas: civil infrastructure, complex networks and complex systems, energy, ensuring future water supply, manufacturing, nanomaterials/nanotechnology, personalized medicine, and sustainable chemistry."

More information on submitting White Papers to TIP can be found here, and the deadlines for submission are: January 15, March 9, May 11, and July 13, 2009.

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

As a follow-up to last week's post concerning The New York Times view of nanophobia, I also submit the following article.  Nanowerk is reporting on a new study released by Yale University concerning the public opinion as to the safety of nanotechnology after receiving various amounts of information.  The study is reported fully in Nature Nanotechnology (pay site).

The Yale study concludes that an individual's view on how safe nanotechnology is, or isn't, is based largely on their pre-existing cultural values.  As Dan Kahn, lead author, explains, and Nanowerk reports, "People who had more individualistic, pro-commerce values, tended to infer that nanotechnology is safe...while people who are more worried about economic inequality read the same information as implying that nanotechnology is likely to be dangerous."  Views on nanotechnology seems to correlate to views on other issues such as global warming.  The study goes on to conclude that communication with the public remains important, that perhaps the dialog should account for the existing predispositions of the audience.

Frankly, accounting for the existing views of the audience hearing information on nanotechnology had not previously occurred to me, although it makes sense.  Its a matter of communication versus effective communication.  While I always try to research an audience before speaking, I'll now be thinking more critically about how to account for that information in discussions and other presentations.

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

As you can imagine, its been slow news on the regulatory front, what with the holidays, changing of political administrations, and the like.  But that doesn't mean there isn't anything to talk about.  I submit for your consideration an interesting article from yesterday's The New York Times.  Reporter Natasha Singer's article is on public perception cocnerning nanomaterials in consumer products.

Ms. Singer presents her views on the change occurring in the public concerning the touting of nanotechnology.  While a few years ago, as Ms. Singer writes, "nano" was attached with anything and everything, now, manufacturers are beginning to retreat from some claims given the increased level of scrutiny, and in some instances fear, shown by the public.  Ms. Singer provides a look at the sociological issues being faced by the sector.  Worth taking a few minutes to read.

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