Government's Progress on Nanotechnology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
RSpolicydocument35/06 Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties Two-yearreviewofprogressonGovernmentactions:Joint academies’responsetotheCouncilforScienceandTechnology’s callforevidence Summary of key points • Incommissioningour2004reportonnanotechnologiestheUKGovernmentwasrecognised internationallyashavingtakentheleadinencouragingtheresponsibledevelopmentofnanotechnologies. However,itslackofprogressontheactionsidentifiedinourreport–particularlyinaddressingthe uncertaintiesaboutthehealthandenvironmentalimpactsofnanomaterials–meansthatthisearly advantagehasbeenlost.WeurgetheGovernmenttodedicatemoreresourcestothisareainthenext twoyearsandcompensatefortheslowprogresstodate. • Weareseriouslyconcernedatthelackofprogressmadeinimprovingtheunderstandingofthepotential healthandenvironmentalimpactsoffreenanoparticlesandnanotubes.TheUKGovernment’sregulators havethemselvesconcludedthattheycannotdeterminewhethercurrentregulationsareadequateuntil theknowledgegapsareaddressed.Proportionateregulationtoprotectthepublicandtheenvironmentis notpossibleintheabsenceofevidenceofhazardorrisk. • Thereisageneralconsensusabouttheresearchthatisneededtosupportindustryandunderpin regulation.Theprioritiessetoutinour2004reporthavebeenendorsedandrefinedinnumerous subsequentnationalandinternationalworkshopsandreports,includingtheGovernment’sfirstresearch report.Werecognisefundinghasbeenallocatedforbasicmeasurementandcharacterisationof nanoparticles,whichwillunderpinresearch,butanoveralllackoftargetedfundingbytheGovernment meansthatmanyoftheseprioritiesarenotbeingaddressed.Meanwhile,thenumberof nanotechnologies-basedproductsonthemarketisincreasing. • Responsivemodefundingforresearch,whileimportant,isnotadequatetoaddressinterdisciplinary problemsinanemergingarea.Dedicatedfundingisrequired.Theacademiesstillbelievethatan interdisciplinaryresearchcentrewithadirectedresearchprogrammewouldbethebestmechanismfor addressingtheknowledgegaps.Acentre,whichcouldbeavirtualcentre,isrequiredtoprovideafocus forinterdisciplinaryandinternationalcollaborationandtoassistintheinternationalcoordinationof research.Acentrecouldalsostimulatecapacitybuildingandenablemoreeffectivecompetitionfor fundingfrominternationalsourcessuchastheEuropeanFrameworkProgramme.Itwouldbeasourceof independentexpertadviceforUKindustriesandwebelieveinvestmentinacentrewouldleadtotheUK gainingconsiderablescientificbenefit,andcommercialbenefitinthelongerterm. • Theacademiesarepleasedthattherehasbeensomeprogressontherecommendationsrelatingtopublic dialogue.Outputscouldbemademoreusefulbyimprovingtheinvolvementofpolicymakersinobjective settingfordialogueactivitiesandbyanalysingoutputsmorerigorously.WehopetheGovernmentwill buildonwhathasbeenlearntsofar,anddevelopmechanismsforensuringtheoutputsfromsuchactivity aretakenintoaccountinpolicy-making. RSpolicydocument35/06 • Wereiteratetheneedforacoherentresearchprogrammeintothesocialandethicalaspectsof nanotechnologies.Itcouldprovideabasisfordevelopingfuturepublicdialogueactivitiesandforinvolving socialscientistsintheeducationandtrainingofpostgraduatescientistsintheethicalandsocial implicationsofadvancedtechnologies.AresearchprogrammewouldalsoprovideaUKfocalpointfor collaborationwiththedevelopinginternationalnetworksonnanotechnologiesinsociety. • WhilstwewelcomethecollaborationbetweenGovernmentdepartmentsinrespondingtoourreport,we stronglyrecommendthattheGovernmentinvolveindependentscientistsandsocialscientistsinits activitiestoagreaterdegree. Introduction In2004theRoyalSocietyandRoyalAcademyofEngineeringpublishedthereport Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties (RS&RAEng2004).Bycommissioningthisreport,theUK Governmentwasrecognisedinternationallyashavingtakentheleadinestablishingtheframeworknecessary torealisethegreatpotentialofnanotechnologiesinaresponsiblemanner. Theremitofthestudywasto: • definewhatismeantbynanoscienceandnanotechnologies; • summarisethecurrentstateofscientificknowledgeaboutnanotechnologies; • identifythespecificapplicationsofthenewtechnologies,inparticularwherenanotechnologiesare alreadyinuse; • carryoutaforwardlooktoseehowthetechnologiesmightbeusedinfuture,wherepossibleestimating thelikelytimescalesinwhichthemostfar-reachingapplicationsofthetechnologiesmightbecomereality; • identifywhathealthandsafety,environmental,ethicalandsocietalimplicationsoruncertaintiesmayarise fromtheuseofthetechnologies,bothcurrentandfuture;andidentifyareaswhereadditionalregulation needstobeconsidered. Thereportconcludedthatnanotechnologiescouldhaveawiderangeofbeneficialapplications,andmanyof theseapplicationsposenonewhealthorsafetyrisks.However,itexpressedconcernsoverthepotential health,safetyandenvironmentalhazardsposedbyfree,manufacturednanoparticlesandnanotubes.Free nanoparticlesandnanotubesoftenhaveverydifferentphysicalandchemicalpropertiestothesamechemical inlargersizeandthesenewpropertiesarebeingexploitedinarangeofapplications,forexampleinmedicine andcosmetics.Thesenewpropertiesalsomeanthattheirtoxicologycannotbeinferredfromthatofthe samechemicalinlargerform.Thetoxicologyofnanoparticlesislikelytobedifferentbecauseoftwosize- dependantfactors:thelargersurfaceareaofsmallparticlescomparedwithlargerparticles,givenequalmass, andtheprobableabilityofnanoparticlestopenetratecellsmoreeasilyandinadifferentmannerthanlarger ones.Evidencefromstudiesofexposuretoothersmallparticlesandfibres,includingairpollution,mineral dustsandpharmaceuticalsalsosuggestthatsomemanufacturednanoparticlesandnanotubesarelikelytobe moretoxicperunitmassthanlargerparticlesofthesamechemical. Thereportmadeanumberofrecommendationsaddressingtheuncertaintiesaroundthepotentialhealthand environmentalimpactsoffree,engineerednanomaterialsandensuringappropriateregulation.Italso discussedtheneedforinterdisciplinaryresearchexploringthesocialandethicalissuesarisingfrom advancesinnanotechnologiesandtodevelopacoordinatedprogrammeofpublicandstakeholder engagement.Ourresponsedescribesourdisappointmentandconcernoverthelackofprogressthathas beenmadetheseareas. 2|October 2006 |ResponsetoCSTtwo-yearreviewofprogressonGovernmentactionsTheRoyalSocietyandRoyalAcademyofEngineering RSpolicydocument35/06 WearepleasedthattheGovernmenthasappointedCSTtoreviewtheGovernment’sprogressin nanotechnologypolicyandwewelcometheopportunitytorespondtotheCST’scallforevidence (http://www.cst.gov.uk/cst/business/nanoreview.shtml).Thisdocumentsetsouttherecommendationsofour 2004reportfollowedbyadiscussionoftheGovernment’sprogress.Itwaspreparedinconsultationwith membersoftheworkinggroupresponsiblefortheacademies’2004report. Industrial Applications R1 We recommend that a series of lifecycle assessments be undertaken for the applications and product groups arising from existing and expected developments in nanotechnologies, to ensure that savings in resource consumption during the use of the product are not offset by increased consumption during manufacture and disposal. To have public credibility these studies need to be carried out or reviewed by an independent body. R2 Where there is a requirement for research to establish methodologies for lifecycle assessments in this area, we recommend that this should be funded by the research councils through the normal responsive mode. WeweresurprisedattheGovernment’sresponsethat‘lifecycleassessment(LCA)isinherentlydifficultand methodologiesarenotfullystandardised’.LCAiscoveredbyasetofinternationalstandards(ISO14040to 14044).ItiswidelyusedthroughoutEuropeforpolicysupport,inboththepublicandprivatesector,andthe EU’sIntegratedProductPolicy(IPP)explicitlyreliesonLCA.WealsonotethatDefraandtheEnvironment AgencyinparticularareincreasinglyusingLCAintheUK. TheUSEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyandtheEuropeanUnion(EU)DGResearchheldaworkshopin October2006todiscussdevelopingajointEU/USprogrammeontheapplicationofLCAtonano-engineered products.Amemberofournanotechnologiesworkinggroupwhoattendedtheworkshopnotedthatthe discussionstheresupportedtherecommendationsofourreport.CurrentLCAmethodologycanbeappliedto nano-engineeredproducts,butstudiesareneededtoinvestigatewheretheuseofnanotechnologiescanlead toimprovedresourceefficiency.ScreeningLCAsalsoneedtobecarriedouttoidentifywhereinthelife cyclesofnano-engineeredproductshealthandenvironmentalimpactsmightbeanticipated.However, comprehensiveLCAscannotbecarriedoutuntilthereismoreknownaboutthehealthandenvironmental impactsofnanomaterials. Possible adverse health and safety impacts R3 We recommend that Research Councils UK establish an interdisciplinary centre (probably comprising several existing research institutions) to research the toxicity, epidemiology, persistence and bioaccumulation of manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as well as their exposure pathways, and to develop methodologies and instrumentation for monitoring them in the built and natural environment. A key role would be to liaise with regulators. We recommend that the research centre maintain a database of its results and that it interact with those collecting similar information in Europe and internationally. Because it will not be possible for the research centre to encompass all aspects of research relevant to nanoparticles and nanotubes, we recommend that a proportion of its funding be allocated to research groups outside the centre to address areas identified by the advisory board as of importance and not covered within the centre. 3|October 2006 |ResponsetoCSTtwo-yearreviewofprogressonGovernmentactionsTheRoyalSocietyandRoyalAcademyofEngineering RSpolicydocument35/06 WedonotbelievethattheGovernment’sapproachtoreducingtheuncertaintiesaroundthehealthand