NNI at 10

Posted on September 8, 2010 by Robert Oszakiewski

In an article in the September issue of Nature ("Nanotechnology: Small wonders"), Corie Lok reviews the beginnings and accomplishments of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) over the last ten years.

The article attributes the creation of the NNI to four factors:

- A booming US economy, particularly in the high tech sector

- Support from the Clinton administration as it entered its last year in office

- Developments within the then emerging science of nanotechnology that caught the public's attention

- Visionary scientists and engineers who could clearly and in terms everyone could understand communicate what this new field of science was about and how it would benefit everyone. The late Dr. Richard Smalley and Mihail Roco are noted by Ms. Lok for their work in getting NNI started.

NNI's success in creating research centers and legitimizing nanotech in the eyes of the general public, leading  to a flow of venture capital to start-up companies that planned to commercialize the results of nanotech research, is offset by what Lok and others consider its biggest flaw, a lack of focus on the possible adverse effects of nanomaterials on the environment and human health. NNI is now beginning to fund research in these areas.

As the article notes, NNI deserves a great deal of the credit for nurturing nanotechnology over the past decade. But as nanotech has begun to mature, expectations of returns on the investments of both public and private capital in the form of practical and commercial applications and products have risen. In many ways, nanotech and nanoindustries are still at a beginning stage and applications of nanotech in such fields as medicine are still being developed and explored.

NNI faces an uncertain future, with bills that would reauthorize and continue funding for NNI, such as HR 554, the "National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act", passed in the House in February 2009  and HR 5116, the "America COMPETES Reauthorization Act", passed in the House in June 2010 awaiting action in the Senate. S. 1482, the Senate version of the "National Nanotechnology Initiatives Amendment Act" - despite the same title, they are not companion bills - remains stuck in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.  As Congress returns from the August recess, these bills may be brought up for debate before Congress adjourns so members may run for re-election.  It is also possible that the bills may be brought up for debate in a "lame-duck" session following the elections.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tech Bills Stalling in Senate

Posted on July 1, 2010 by Robert Oszakiewski

The Capital Hill newspaper POLITICO carries an article today discussing how technology related bills awaiting votes in the Senate, including the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act, are stalled due to the Senate's focusing on the financial reform bill, the upcoming confirmation vote on Elena Kagan to be the next Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court, the upcoming July 4 and August recesses, and the elections in November. The fear among researchers is that federal funding for various projects, including those in the nanotech field, may dry up. The potential for the November elections to energize work on these bills is also briefly discussed. What is not discussed in the article is the possibility of the tech bills to be voted on in a potential "Lame Duck" session of Congress, following the elections.

As always, we will continue to monitor the progress - or lack thereof - of nanotech related bills in Congress.

Tags: , , , , ,

NNI Reauthorization Reintroduced

Posted on January 16, 2009 by Michael E. Heintz

Yesterday, Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology introduced H.R. 554, the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009.  This is a bill identical to the 110th Congress's H.R. 5490, which passed the House by a 407 to 6 vote, but stalled in the Senate.  According to the Committee's press release the NNI Amendments Act of 2009 will "require[ ] the agencies participating in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to develop a plan for the environmental and safety research, and a roadmap for implementing it, which includes explicit near-term and long-term goals and the funding required, by goal and by agency. The bill also seeks to leverage private sector investments in nanotechnology and facilitate technology transfer by strengthening public/private partnerships."

You'll recall that we did several posts concerning the 2008 version of the bill and the importance of reauthorizing the NNI.  While each federal agency will continue to pursue its own agenda for nanotechnology research and regulation, it s important to have an umbrella organization that is aware of all of the different efforts in order to make connections and avoid duplication when possible.  Hopefully Congress can see its way to reauthorizing the NNI before the bill expires, again.  Stay tuned for hearing announcements and bill markups.

Tags: , , , ,

Andrew Maynard Testifies Before House Committee

Posted on November 13, 2007 by Patrick T. Lewis

Andrew Maynard of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson Institute testified on October 31st before the House Science Committee.  PEN's press release is here and the full text of Maynard's remarks are here.  In his testimony, Maynard advocated six steps to improve nanotechnology safety and criticized what he believed was a lack of coordination and focus on environmental, health & safety issues. 

 

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.
Tags: , , , ,

NNI To Testify Before Congress (Again)

Posted on October 30, 2007 by Michael E. Heintz
E. Clayton Teague of the National Nanotechnology Initiative is scheduled to testify before the House subcommittee on Research and Science Education on October 31 to address the NNI's development of its "risk research strategy."  NNI has been criticized by several organizations including the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, the American Chemistry Council, and DuPont for its delayed development of the strategy. 

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.
Tags: , , , ,

Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities Act

Posted on August 1, 2007 by Michael E. Heintz
Nanowerk News is reporting that Representative Mike Honda (D-San Jose) introduced HR 3235, the Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities (NANO) Act.  The legislation is to "promote the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology in the United States."  Representative Honda drew on the report, "Thinking Big About Thinking Small"  when drafting the legislation for Congressional consideration.

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.

 
Tags: , , , ,

NNI Reauthorization

Posted on May 14, 2007 by Michael E. Heintz
The Risk Policy Report is reporting that Congressional re-authorization for the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the cross-agency program designed to study nanotechnology issues, is underway.  The current funding is set to expire at the end of the 2008 fiscal year.

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.
Tags: , , , ,

Congressional leaders urge nanotech safety research

Posted on December 22, 2006 by Patrick T. Lewis

According to a December 21, 2006 press release, both outgoing House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and incoming Chairman Bart Gordon (D-NT) urged the Bush administration "to establish a research agenda with clear priorities to ensure a greater understanding of the potential environmental, health, and safety risks associated with nanotechnology."  

I suspect that in 2007, the new Congress may well push a nanotechnology safety initiative.  Nanotechnology safety issues are increasingly being publicly discussed, especially given Berkeley's new regulations and NIOSH's recent interest in occupational nanotechnology safety.  Andrew Maynard's proposal, discussed in Nature in connection with the National Nanotechnology Initiative, so far looks to be the most comprehensive public proposal -- the press release expressly references it.   We previously reported on Maynard's proposal here and here. 

 

Tags: , , , , ,