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

Among the items Maynard criticized is the practice of carbon nanotube manufacturers to submit MSDS sheets for SWNTs that effectively mirror those for regular graphite.  This is a practice I also identified as problematic in my remarks before the Nano App Summit in Cleveland on October 22nd.  However, in the absence of clearer safety data, I don't know that it's unreasonable to provide warnings to workers based on the source material and then to additionally warn workers of "potential" inhalation and other risks. 

In any event, among the six steps Maynard advocates are the following:

Create a new federal advisory committee to allow transparent input and review from industry, scientists, labor groups, nongovernmental organizations and other stakeholders; [and]

***

Appoint a top-level government leader responsible for the action needed to address the environmental, health and safety challenges of nanotechnology.

In his comments, Maynard criticizes what he terms as disconnects between administrative agencies and contends that NNI is not sufficiently well-funded and is not focused clearly enough on environmental, health and safety issues.  One example of the "disconnect" Maynard dislikes is the fact that NIOSH filed a public comment on EPA's TSCA paper from this past summer in which NIOSH disagreed with EPA's proposed regulatory framework for nanomaterials under TSCA.  Instead, Maynard believed that NIOSH should have been communicating with EPA through "back channels."  While I recognize Maynard's general point that the federal government needs to coordinate as well as it can, I actually don't mind the transparency that comes with agencies communicating through "front channels" rather than "back channels."  Say what you will, but the public disagreement between NIOSH and EPA on the TSCA regulatory issue certainly has drawn attention to the issue and enriched the public debate in a way that "back channel" lobbying would not have.

The primary complaint of stakeholders is the speed at which NNI is developing its risk research priorities.  Many complain that the process is taking too long to accomplish while nanotechnology development moves further ahead.  Other comments on the program include the lack of authority over NNI member agency to dictate action, and an observation by Nanotechnology Law Report commenter Dr. Kristen Kulinowski, director of the International Council on Nanotechnology, that government could lean more heavily on non-governmental resources, including industry and research universities, for information.

The speed at which NNI is developing its risk framework is a ponderous given the concerns raised about the potential hazards or risks associated with free nanoparticles in the environment.  And the fact that the concerns over NNI's actions are being voiced by all facets of the nanotechnology community only adds to the confusion.  And, this is not the first time NNI has been questioned in this regard.  Co-author John Monica reported on prior criticism of NNI's work here, and I posted thoughts even earlier here.  Consequently, NNI's deliberate actions cannot be wholly denied.  However, we must keep in mind that NNI is undertaking a huge project in an extremely complex intersection of science, policy, and regulation.  Further NNI is tasked with overseeing the work of 26 federal agencies, none of which it has complete authority over.  Deliberate action is certainly understandable, however, at what point does the deliberateness transform into foot-dragging?  After all, this will be NNI's third appearance in front of Congress.

The Act is designed to address the health and safety concerns surrounding nanotechnology.  Said Representative Honda, "The NANO Act requires the development of a nanotechnology research strategy that establishes research priorities for the federal government and industry that will ensure the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology."

HR 3235 was assigned to four House committees: the Committees on Science and Technology, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Homeland Security.  If it receives House approval, the Senate would then have to approve the language for it to become law.

If enacted, the Bill would:

1. create a public-private investment partnership to address nanotechnology commercialization and related issues;
2. create tax credits to encourage investment in nanotechnology companies, training, and education programs;
3. create grant programs to spur development of "nanotechnology incubators," encourage nanotechnology research for environmental, energy, homeland security, and health programs, and spur development of interdisciplinary nanotechnology courses at colleges and universities;
4. establish the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center;
5. direct the National Science Foundation to work with manufacturers to partner with occupational training centers to promote training programs for workers in the nanotechnology manufacturing industry; and
6. call for the development of a strategy that increases the interaction between the Department of Energy's national laboratories and private research labs.

Reports indicate that as part of the re-authorization legislation, Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) included an amendment to the Senate bill setting aside $40 million per year for environmental health and safety research.  Aside from this fiscal directive, there are expectations that Congress will mandate the reauthorized NNI to perform more research into risks associated with nanotechnology. 

MEH: Re-authorization of the NNI is crucial for the advancement of our understanding of nanotechnology.  Through the NNI many federal agencies can share information and research, which will serve to close the ever-present data gap that surrounds nanotechnology. At the same time, an increased call for EHS funding is not inappropriate, and it is through directed funding that specific goals can be met.  While the NNI has been criticized of late, its role in the development and regulation of nanotechnology is an important one as we try and both learn about this new technology and, at the same time, begin to formulate efficient and effective regulations.