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

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

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

This Article Was Authored and Contributed by the American National Standards Intititute

This second article in a series on nanotechnology standardization introduces the international working group that, under US leadership, is creating the standards needed to support the health, safety, and environmental aspects of nanotechnology.

In the post-war era of the late 1940s, global leaders of government and industry formed a central body to “facilitate the international coordination and unification of industrial standards.” Twenty-six member nations came together in 1947 to form the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 

ISO and its national member bodies – including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) – are constantly evolving to meet changing demands. Today, ISO is addressing issues such as industrialization, the advancement of information technologies, quality, the environment, and the health and safety of workers and consumers. Today, roughly one of every twenty ISO standards addresses issues pertaining to health, safety or the environment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This morning's New York Times features an editorial discussing Peter Barton Hutt's before the House subcommittee responsible for FDA oversight.  Mr. Hutt warned that the FDA was "barely hanging on by its fingertips;"  others testifying before the subcommittee suggested the agency lacked funds and staffing to do its job:

In a hearing before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, members of the agency’s own scientific advisory board outlined the F.D.A.’s many weaknesses. It lacks scientists who understand rapidly emerging technologies — including genomics and nanotechnology — relevant to product safety. The agency is further hobbled by a high turnover rate of scientists, a decrepit information technology system, a weak organizational structure, and a shrinking inspection force.

That said, FDA has been researching nanotechnology issues for some time -- it formed its Nanotechnology Task Force in August 2006.   Still, it's interesting that nanotechnology safety issues have even found their way to the editorial page of the New York Times.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nanotechnology was among the many hot topics discussed at this year's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.  Among the five conceptual pillars for this year's Forum was the topic: "Exploring Nature's New Frontiers," which is described here.  It's a nice concept, I believe, because it highlights the diverse areas -- everything from global climate change to disease eradication -- in which nanotechnology and other emerging technologies may play a role. 

In addition, as reported by Nanowerk, the World Economic Forum-founded "Global Risk Network" released its 2008 annual report [1.6mb pdf] that described nanotechnology risk as a "Core Risk."  Unsurprisingly, the driver for characterizing nanotechnology as a "Core Risk" appeared to be the still-preliminary state of the research into nanotechnology safety:

The report notes that studies reveal health impairment due to exposure to widely used nanoparticles (paint, cosmetics, healthcare). The primary impacts of a potential problem would be on public health, with secondary impacts on investment in a range of nanotechnologies.

It also states that increasing human exposure to nanotechnology will increase severity should an event occur, but this has to be balanced against the multiple opportunities created by nanotechnology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The November 22, 2007 issue of The Economist contains a story on nanotechnology safety entitled "A little risky business."   The article focuses on Andrew Maynard's presentation before the House Science Commitee in October, an event we covered here, and also covers the ongoing debate over the use of silver nanoparticles as an antimicrobial agent in consumer products. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Researchers at Rice University successfully utilized a near-infrared flourescent imaging technique to detect individual carbon nanotubes in fruit flies.  The study, reported here and here, involved an experiment where the researchers fed fruit fly larvae a diet that contained carbon nanotubes.  The flies were then shot with a laser, which excited the nanotubes and allowed them to be viewed using a flourescent technique.   The good news is that the fruit flies apparently survived to adulthood just as well as fruit flies in the control group, and apparently weighed the same as the controls, too.  The study's conclusions about the bioaccumulation of the nanotubes in the fruit flies are interesting:

When the researchers removed and examined tissues from the flies, they found the near-infrared microscope allowed them to see and identify individual nanotubes inside the tissue specimens. The highest concentration of nanotubes was found in the dorsal vessel, which is analogous to a main blood vessel in a mammal. Lesser concentrations were found in the brain, ventral nerve cord, salivary glands, trachea and fat. Based on their assays, the team estimates that only about one in 100 million nanotubes passed through the gut wall and became incorporated into the flies' organs. 

I don't know enough about the anatomy of a fruit fly to fully grasp the significance of these findings, but I find it hopeful that only a tiny fraction of the nanotubes accumulated in the flies' organs, and also find it hopeful that the flies were apparently not harmed by the nanotubes' presence.  One of the researchers quoted in the report, Dr. Bruce Weisman, is a well-known nanotechnology researcher at Rice.

Update:

Thanks to Youtube, we can see a six second video of the carbon nanotubes "lit up" inside the fruit flies here. 

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

One downside to our focus on the safety of nanomaterials is that it can cause us to lose focus on the potential upsides of nanotechnology in the environmental, health and safety arena.  CORDIS is reporting on a study funded by the European Parliament's Scientific Technology Options Assessment ("STOA") committee which looked into whether nanomaterials could serve as substitutes for hazardous materials.

In particular, the study focused on two areas where nanotechnology is already making inroads --  coatings and catalysts:

Two areas where nanotechnology is already making inroads as a substitute for hazardous chemicals are coatings and catalysts. Coatings can create anti-adhesive surfaces which resist things sticking to them, such as dirt, or have biocidal properties to prevent living organisms from sticking to them.

Nanoparticles are also widely used in catalysts, although the authors point out that research in this field was already on the nanoscale, and so it is not clear to what extent future developments could be attributed to nanotechnologies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported by AzoNano.com, the EPA recently announced the award of two grants, collectively worth $600,000, to researchers at Oregon State University to study the human health impacts of nanomaterials.  The pair of studies look like the first step toward nanotechnology regulation.  According to the AzoNano article, the first study is a survey of common manufactured nanomaterials to understand their interaction with biological processes.  The second study looks specifically at how manufactured nanomaterials may "damage or kill cells:"

Dr. Alan Bakalinsky is studying the relationship between specific characteristics of nanoparticles, like shape and structure, and their effects on cells. The work is expected to lead to the development of safety guidelines for industrial and environmental exposure to nanomaterials. "We're trying to identify specific structures in manufactured nanoparticles that might cause damage to cells," said Bakalinsky. "If we can determine which shapes and structures are most dangerous to cell function, it should be possible to design the materials to avoid those shapes and minimize the risk of damage."

Both Oregon State researchers, Drs. Bakalinsky and Tanguay, look to be relatively new to the nanotechnology field.  Bakalinsky is a food science researcher and Tanguay is a molecular toxicologist. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

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. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

By, Jaime T. Landrum:

As the impact of nanotechnology grows, more companies are considering the utilization of nanotech products and processes in the workplace. Questions regarding nanotechnology's effect on the American worker, however, come side-by-side with these business decisions. As reported at Occupational Hazards, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is expected to issue guidance for employers facing these problems.

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

Rice University's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology, together with researchers from University College London and the London Business School, released the results of a major consumer research study that sought to measure public perceptions of the risks & benefits of nanotechnology.  As reported in PhysOrg,

The largest and most comprehensive survey of public perceptions of nanotechnology products finds that U.S. consumers are willing to use specific nano-containing products – even if there are health and safety risks – when the potential benefits are high. The study also finds that U.S. consumers rate nanotechnology as less risky than everyday technologies like herbicides, chemical disinfectants, handguns and food preservatives.

The study also found that American consumers did take nanotechnology's possible health risks into consideration when evaluating whether they would purchase products containing nanotechnology:

One survey polled consumers about how likely they would be to use four specific, nano-containing products: a drug, skin lotion, automobile tires and refrigerator gas coolant. This is the first large-scale study to experimentally gauge the public's reaction to specific, nano-containing products, and [Professor Steven] Currall said the use of scenarios about plausible, specific products yielded results that challenge the assumption that the public focuses narrowly on risk.

"It was clear that people were thinking about more than risk," he said. "The average consumer is pretty shrewd when it comes to balancing risks against benefits, and we found that the greater the potential benefits, the more risks people are willing to tolerate."

Their findings were published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.  You can access the full article here (subscription required). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Christian Science Monitor dedicated its editorial yesterday to the issue of nanotechnology safety, and endorsed the proposal set forth in November's Nature by fourteen scholars to discuss what lead author, Professor Andrew Maynard, termed the five "grand challenges" of nanotechnology safety.

Citing a Lux Research study, the CSM editorial indicated that by 2014, manufacturers will sell $2.6 trillion dollars' worth of products that use nanotechnology.   After praising EPA's decision to regulate "nanosilver," a decision that we have reported on at length here, CSM endorsed the Maynard proposal:

They include developing ways to detect nanomaterials in the air and water, learning how the shape of nanomaterials affects their toxicity, creating accurate models for predicting how nanomaterials act in the human body and the environment, and finding ways to engineer nanomaterials so that they are safe by design.

Both the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Science Committee have endorsed the paper and urged the White House and federal agencies to put together a plan to fund the scientists' recommendations in the fiscal 2008 budget.

The need to act is urgent. Otherwise the enormous benefits of nanotech risk falling victim to safety issues that could - and should - have been confronted already.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks