With nanosilver on the ropes with EPA regulations, we're going to see more of this ...
"Sanitized Silver is NOT Nanotechnology: Sanitized Silver is neither nanotechnology nor nanosilver." More here
Backgrounder
EPA decides to regulate what it already regulates
Dexter Johnson at IEEE Spectrum's Tech Talk has an excellent followup to Canada's pending decision to chase more nanotech innovation south of its border. Dexter writes:
Based on the labeling logic of Canada, it’s a little curious that any product with nylon in it doesn’t say, “Sulfuric acid helped make this” or when you buy your next laptop "Here’s a list of all the poisonous materials used to make your computer." More here
Backgrounder
Canada's nano climate getting colder
Big Three Are Dead; Long Live The Little
Nano knowledge going south? Blame Canada!
I have a new blog post over at Small Times. Here's an excerpt.
New nano rules may leave Canada out in the cold
If you ask Canadian entrepreneur Neil Gordon about new rules coming next month requiring companies to detail their use of engineered nanomaterials, he'll tell you it's just another example of his government placing artificial constraints on nanotech commercialization.
That's why Gordon is now the ex-president of the now-defunct Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance.
"If Canada is becoming the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of 'potentially' harmful nanomaterials in products, then there is another reason for entrepreneurs to avoid commercializing nanotechnology products in Canada," said Gordon. More here.
Backgrounder
Nano knowledge going south? Blame Canada!
Vive le nanotechnology libre
My 'respectable' blog launches at Small Times
Think tank that studies the ethics of nanotechnology urges Congress to fund more studies on ethics of nanotechnology.
Backgrounder
False claims inform consumers as they 'talk nano'
Wilson Center's nano numbers racket
Indigestible nanotech claim
Nanotechnology 'has turned into a big business so quickly that few are monitoring nanotechnology's effects on health and the environment," says a resolution in Cambridge, Mass., instructing the city manager to look into regulating nanotech.
Sounds to me, again, like "nanobusiness" is the victim of its own hype. Nanotech is not big business. There's a great deal of promising science, a few high-risk investments, a whole lot of nanoscale snake oil masquerading as nanotech. But, as of yet, no big business.
Nanotech investment hypsters, however, have successfully created the illusion that it's big business in order to attract more investment. The only thing it's really attracted, though, is threatened regulation.
Backgrounder
When nanotech 'industry' believes its own PR ...
Nanotech's real danger is the nano con
Just revving up the blogmobile to see if she'll start cold after sitting unused in the driveway for so long. I'll start with an easy one.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced it will regulate products that contain nanoscale bits of silver as anti-microbial agents (NPR story here).
Well, yes, of course it should regulate nanosilver, just as it regulates macroscale silver as anti-microbial agents in products such as pesticides. This falls under the category of "no new regulation needed for nanotech," since this regulation already exists.
The problem here is that silver, whether nanoscale or macroscale, is still clunky old technology that -- standing alone -- cannot be controlled very well since it kills good (or unintended) microbes as well as bad. To me, that ain't nanotech. That's nanoscale stuff being sprinkled into products.
There are, however, real efforts (random one here) being made to create polymers (nano and not) with safe antimicrobial properties. That's the spirit of nanotech. Engineer in the good and engineer out the bad, then let those little buggers loose.
Update: I wonder would I should do now with my SoleFresh NanoSocks? I have been told, in the past, that my footwear could be considered toxic waste, but now it appears that this otherwise subjective opinion could get me into trouble with the EPA.
Backgrounder
Ex-FDA official concludes FDA needs more dough
Taking toxicity out of quantum dots
A bunch of nano characters
I suppose I need to give you my take on the big nanotech story of the day. Here are just the facts, ma'am: The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a group whose mission is to identify regulatory gaps in nanotechnology, hires a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official to do a study that concludes, surprise, there are regulatory gaps in nanotechnology at the FDA that can be solved if more money and authority were to be funneled into his old office.
The End
The confusion continues over nanoparticles in cosmetics. This uncertainty over safety is one of many reasons why nanobio researchers wish the Beauty Industrial Complex would find a different marketing term and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would get more aggressive in sorting out safely engineered nanoparticles from untested, nanosized zinc oxide.
The FDA does not have as much authority over cosmetics as it does over, well, food and drugs. An argument can be made, however, that the more-sophisticated cosmetics out there -- L’Oreal's nanosomes, for example -- could qualify as drug delivery devices.
Update: Shopping for answers: Nanotechnology: Another concern for cosmetics users? (By Leigh Grogan, Sacramento Bee)
Backgrounder
Straight-up info on nanotech regulation
Friends of the Earth releases nanotox report
FDA tries to get a virtual grip on nano
Nerd American Idol
Blogger's Note:You read the ETC Group's take on today's nanotech events in Britain. And now, for something completely different, here's the counterpoint from author, professor and dapper 007-ish Brit Richard Jones. -- Howard
By Richard Jones
Physics Professor, University of Sheffield,
Author of Soft Machines
and NanoBot Correspondent
The Minister of Science, Lord Sainsbury, used the occasion of the opening of an exhibition on nanotechnology at the Science Museum today to announce the Government's response to the Royal Society Report "Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties". I was present at the opening, having got my invitation on the strength of having done some fact checking for the museum, and for having let them have the use of a short film we'd made at Sheffield.
I'd actually debated with myself whether the event would even be worth the trek to London - the word I'd been hearing was that the Government was essentially going to accept the report in full. This would have been significant, in that it would have put the UK ahead of the rest of the world in regulating nanotechnology and studying its potential consequences in advance, but it would have made a fairly dull story. The Science Media Centre, which operates as some kind of rapid response unit to give a pro-science side to stories such as this, had rung me up to see if I was going to be around. They were saying that they weren't seeing a lot of interest from the media.
On the other hand, Jim Thomas from the ETC Group had put out a press release predicting that the response would fall short in the way of action; Jim was clearly going to do his best to make a story out of this.
So I turned up at 9 am at the back door of the Science Museum for the launch. A quick tour of the exhibit showed me that the museum had done a creditable job of showing off nanotechnology, albeit very much at the incremental end of the discipline. My invitation even included a swatch of fabric from Nano-Tex, inviting me to pour water over it. Its special properties, the invitation told me, were because it had been treated with nanosized molecules. I wondered what other sorts of molecules there are.
But serious business awaited - printed copies of the government response were available, and I could see ETC's Jim Thomas in a huddle with Greenpeace's Chief Scientist, Doug Parr, speed-reading the 26 page document and comparing notes. Time for me to get a copy and do the same.
One look at the Royal Society press release showed me that Jim's premonitions about the event were closer to the mark than mine. Headed "Government commits to regulating nanotechnologies, but will it deliver?" the release led with the disappointment of the RS panel's chair, Ann Dowling, that no new money was promised for research to underpin new regulation. I'll analyse the Government's response in more detail on Soft Machines, but it essentially consists of warm words and promises of more reviews and more committees. I'd reread the RS report on the train down, and I'd been reminded that it really did have some quite strong conclusions and some very specific recommendations. Again and again, these recommendations were simply evaded. A couple of examples suffice to give the flavour.
The first question from the floor came from Greenpeace's Doug Parr. "All you've announced is processes. Will you make a commitment to implement new regulation at the end of these processes?" The answer danced around, talking about the importance of the transparency of the processes. The minister did commit to change regulations if gaps are found, but qualified this by talking about the need to pin down very carefully whether gaps existed. And in the case of environmental releases, he thinks this is already covered by existing regulations.
ETC's Jim Thomas was next, cunningly slipping in two questions. "The RS rejected a moratorium on the grounds that we'd have quick action to amend the regulatory regime. Now we're faced with further reviews, what are you going to do about the existing consumer products that contain nano-ingredients?"
The minister responded firstly by talking about all the natural nanoparticles that we already were exposed to, then said society would grind to a complete halt if we stopped everything, then talked about the adequacy of existing guidelines and consumer regulations. Jim's second question concerned the absence of attention given in the response to longer term issues - how the technology might affect the poor, the disabled, the issues of control over technology. The minister gave this question short shrift, more or less saying that as we don't know how the technologies will be applied in the future, it was impossible to know what their social implications would be, and thus it would be pointless to study them.
The next question came from the reporter from "Research Fortnightly", a trade rag for scientists devoted to the pressing issue of where their next grant would come from. "Why was there no new money?" The new coordinating group will draw on existing research council and government department funds, the minister said, there've been big increases in research council budgets... " What if the research councils don't choose to spend their money in this way?" They will, it's all fascinating scientific stuff, he argued. There was a question from the Guardian reporter, but I didn't hear either the question or the response. Then the minister swept off.
In the scrum that followed, I could see Jim Thomas and his PR man very effectively chasing the journalists to give them his no doubt doom-ridden view. In a novel departure for me I had a press handler too; Lorna from the Sheffield University press office had come down, and did a great job of letting me lurk shyly in a corner while she fished out journalists for me to talk to. We'll see if anything I said was coherent enough or interesting enough to make it into their stories later.
I return probably more in agreement with ETC and Jim Thomas than I ever thought I would be. The UK government had its chance to lead the world in introducing sensible regulation and responsible dialogue about nanotechnology, but it hasn't taken it. For the cost of few million it could have defused the nanoparticle toxicity particle issue, but it's chosen to let it slide on, obscuring the many more interesting and serious issues that will arise as this technology develops. The Science Museum should have got someone else to open their exhibition.
NanoBot Backgrounder
UK sets up a fragmented nanopolicy
Blogger's Note:British Science Minister Lord Sainsbury's long-sought reaction to a yearlong Royal Society study on environmental and societal implications of nanotechnology is to ... um ... request another study. Well, in fairness to his lordship (or whatever you're supposed to call him) every major report on nanotech and the environment released during the past four years has concluded that more study is needed. I've written ad nauseam on the Royal Society report here, here and even for the Wall Street Journal here. So, I'm adding other voices. Ladies, germs and mad scientists, I give you Jim Thomas of the ETC Group. Yes, that ETC Group -- the one that wants a moratorium on all nanotech research. Be polite. -- Howard
By Jim Thomas
ETC Group UK Program Manager
and NanoBot Correspondent
Here's my quick impression having just got back: Firstly that the UK Government has wimped out - no specific regulatory proposals (although there will be regulation), no new money for research, no mention whatsoever of addressing societal issues. Nobody seemed very happy with it.
They (the UK govt) have set themselves up for a fragmented and confusing nanopolicy. Basically they have commissioned another review (granted, a more detailed one) of regulatory gaps to report by the end of the year. They have decided to fragment decisionmaking across nine existing advisory committees and various government departments with a new internal government body (Nano Issues Dialogue Group) to try to make sure all those departments talk to each other. They have upset the Royal Society by offering no new money for research into nano-risks and rejecting the idea of a centre of excellence for advice on nanorisks - so that research and advice on nanotoxicology will be fragmented too.
To top it all there is nary a whisper of how to address big societal questions. Lord Sainsbury explicitly said he didn't feel it was government's role to try to forecast or prepare for the societal, economic and ethical disruptions that nanotechnology will bring: "We don't know what the social implications will be, therefore I see little value in considering them".
More specifically he compared the position of nanotech today with the position of computing in 1947 when the prediction was that we would only need around 12 computers and couldn't have foreseen how transformative computing would be. He went on: "We don't even know a half or a quarter of what [nanotech] applications will be".
He's obviously a believer in the school of Nano's revolutionary impact but reckons society will just have to like it or lump it. I find this societal laissez faire astonishing and dangerous. Of course it is government's role to try to forecast what impact technologies will have - they are spending billions of taxpayers money on developing those technologies and good governance depends upon having some sort of assesment of what the future might look like and planning for it. Also in so doing he explicitly is ignoring the Royal Society's warning that the biggest issues to arise from nanotech are likely to be issues of who controls the technology and who benefits. There are seeds of trouble being planted here I think.
The slightly better news: There will be some sort of public dialogue on nanotech facilitated by government (but its fairly vague and will 'inform not define' policy). Also the government supports a two-year sort of moratorium on environmental remediation applications of nanoparticles and will work with industry to prevent or reduce environmental releases of manufactured nanoparticles.
Anyway, read it yourself here.
ETC will, of course, produce a fuller commentary soon.
Update: The conversation continues at Slashdot -- Howard
NanoBot Backgrounder
ETC Group Reacts
Britain balances science, economics, perception
WSJ is down with nano
The British government is doing many things right in formulating nanotechnology policy, as I've written before, but this article (registration required) in the Times Higher Education Supplement indicates that they've picked up a few bad habits. As it is for their American cousins, the British government is trying to regulate and legislate before it's been properly educated. This can lead to some inconsistent, or even bizarre, policies. Here's an excerpt from the Times article:
The Department for Trade and Industry was originally basing its nanotechnology policy upon a strategy report written by Sir John Taylor, the former director general of the research councils, which was published in June 2002. This called for urgent government action, including the setting up of two national centres. But Lord Sainsbury admitted that when this report was drafted, the government understood "very much less about what was going on" in nanotechnology. In the United States, this chaotic, scattered process produced a nanotechnology act (PDF, 56.1 KB), signed by the president, that is being promoted as a down-to-earth, realistic piece of legislation that does not stray into speculative fiction, yet also includes safeguards against "potential use of nanotechnology in enhancing human intelligence and in developing artificial intelligence which exceeds human capacity." While it seems strange that this possibility was not deemed too "sci-fi" to remain in the bill, I can see why some legislators would feel threatened by such technology. |
Gordon Wozniak, who the Contra Costa Times describes as the Berkeley City Council's "resident scientist," has a colorful way of telling his fellow council members not to worry about unfounded fears that stray nanoparticles will escape the molecular foundry being built at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
I'm wondering which charlatan scientists he's spoken to. The ones I've spoken to and read about are planning to do some real nanoscience at the new lab, including Steven Louie, a winner of the 2003 Foresight Institute Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Is it possible that Louie's fooled a bunch of really smart people into believing that his cutting-edge work with nanotubes is just the same old existing science hyped as nanoscience? I'll need to go through my interview with him very carefully to find evidence of hucksterism, since the Berkeley City Council's "resident science" (who should know better) apparently has the inside dirt.
But back to that unfortunate feline. It obviously was not the lab that killed the cat, since it was already dead before it was swung into "nano." I suppose that leaves "curiosity" as the only other possible suspect.
More posts on molecular foundry protests can be found here, here, and toward the bottom here.
