Nanotechnology environmental, health and safety debate heats up

Filed in archive Environment & Health on December 19, 2005

The debate over safety in nanotechnology is heating up with increasing calls for more spending on studies of environmental, health and safety (EHS) impacts. Several recent studies have also suggested concerns about the health risks of nanomaterials. One found that a nanoparticle commonly used in industry could have a damaging effect on plant life. The report, published in a recent issue of "Toxicology Letters," shows that nanoparticles of alumina slowed the growth of roots in five species of plants. Alumina nanoparticles are found in scratch-resistant coatings and sunscreen lotion. Says Daniel J. Watts, PhD, the lead author of the study: "This study makes the observation that seedlings can interact with nanoparticles such as alumina, which can have a harmful effect on seedlings and perhaps stunt the growth of plants."

Other recent reports on nanotech EHS impacts include " Characterising The Potential Risks Posed By Engineered Nanoparticles " by the UK Department For Environment, Food And Rural Affairs, and the Woodrow Wilson Center' s " Research Inventory of the Environmental, Health and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology. "

And last month, the National Science Foundation gave Brown University $1.8 million to study the effects of nanomaterials on human and animal cells. "The question isn't whether nanomaterials are good or bad," says the project' s Principal Investigator Robert Hurt. "The question is which are toxic? Under what conditions? And can we make and purify them in different ways to avoid toxicity - to make 'green' nanomaterials?"

And while the Federal government is expected to increase funding for EHS research in coming years, it' s off to a slow start. In 2005, the federal government spent nearly $1 billion on nanotech research and applications. Of that amount, a total of $38.4 million (less than 5 percent) was focused on studying EHS impacts. Now, calls are increasing for the federal government to increase EHS spending to 10% of total nanotech funding.

Keith Blakely, CEO of NanoDynamics, speaking before the US House of Representatives Science Committee last month, suggested four major initiatives the US government should take to address nanotechnology EHS:

Increase overall federal support for EHS focused research in nanotech

Support EHS compliance efforts in emerging businesses

Coordinate individual agencies to develop EHS policies for nanotech

Promote public education around EHS and nanotech

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the Committee, concluded that, "If nanotechnology is to fulfill its enormous economic potential, then we have to invest more right now in understanding what problems the technology might cause. This is the time to act, before we cause problems. "

Supporters of a 10% allocation to EHS include the NanoBusiness Alliance, Environmental Defense, the Foresight Institute, and many others. Tim Harper at Cientifica argues against earmarking 10% of all research dollars for safety studies.

Meanwhile, the UK government announced last month it will devote $8.5 million to studies on environmental and health risks from nanotechnology. That' s over one-third of the total spending on nanotechnology research by government, agencies and research councils in the UK. Europeans have been much more cautious than Americans about embracing nanotechnology, just as they' ve been slow to adopt genetically modified foods (GMOs). The UK has been the most open to GMOs, Germany is just now allowing the construction of its first GMO facilities, and Switzerland just voted for a five-year moratorium on GM crops. Clearly, as with GMOs, the US is pushing a new technology and Europe is thinking twice before pulling it in.

Here at nanotechbuzz you' ll find at least 10% of my posts dedicated to environmental, health and safety issues in nanotechnology. The reason is that knowledge is the best preventive medicine in guarding against the harmful application of technology. The more we know, the better our choices will be . . . as long as we take the time to step back and consider the environmental, health and safety implications of each decision we make in developing and applying this revolutionary technology.