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

All in all, the Economist article I think provides a useful synopsis of the current dilemma surrounding nanotechnology safety.   Its safety discussion begins with a discussion of the distinction between naturally occurring nanoparticles and engineered nanoparticles:

All that sounds alarming, but assessing the risks calls for perspective. Humans are already surrounded by nanoparticles of one sort or another. Much of the food people eat is made of naturally occurring nanoscaled components. Each person breathes in at least 10m nanoparticles a minute. Most of them do no harm.

That said, I am a little disappointed that the article did not sufficiently emphasize the inconclusive nature of the animal studies on nano safety.  The article only alludes to studies that show the potential for toxicity:

[s]tudies show there is the potential for such materials to cause pulmonary inflammation; to move from the lungs to other organs; to have surprising biological toxicity; to move from within the skin to the lymphatic system; and possibly to move across cell membranes.

However, we also know that there are a number of studies that suggest that nanomaterials may not have significant toxic effects -- see, e.g., Nano Law Report's coverage of the buckyball study and the study looking at SWNTs in fruit flies. 

With all of that said, the article's bottom line strikes me as reasonable -- that we need to do a better job learning what the risks of nanomaterials are so that we can responsibly regulate their use and manufacture and not lose the "baby with the bathwater" in the process.

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.