Panel eyes nanotechnology issues

KEYSTONE — Bigger is not always better, at least when it comes to the emergence of nanotechnologies, one of the hottest areas for research and development in the world right now.

The potential benefits of the sector are huge, promising breakthroughs in medical treatments, environmental cleanups and energy efficiency. But the commercial application of nanotechnologies comes with potential risks to human health and the environment that are ill-understood and poorly defined.

For example, some recent research suggests nano-scale particles of titanium dioxide, already used commercially in sunscreen, are harmful to algae, said Mary Jo Wetter, of the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration. Along with groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace International, Wetter’s group is calling for a moratorium on commercial applications of nanotechnologies until the risks are more clearly identified and some sort of regulatory framework has been established.

“Most of the products using nanotechnologies are found in sporting goods stores,” Wetter said, explaining that some applications have resulted in lighter bicycles or tennis balls that hold their bounce longer. “We don’t think what we have right now — better bowling balls — justifies the risks. A precautionary stance is important in this case,” she said, explaining that her group is not calling for a ban, but for a safe, go-slow approach. A moratorium could be nuanced to make allowances for promising life-saving medical applications, for example, she explained.

<b>Definition needed</b>

How to get a handle on those risks and develop a governance framework for the emerging sector was the topic of a panel discussion Friday during the American Bar Association’s environmental law conference at Keystone.

“We need a definition so we know what we’re regulating,” said the EPA’s Don Sadowsky. “We don’t regulate technology, we regulate materials. What is the most effective way of getting the information we need and taking effective action?” Sadowsky asked.

Regulation alone won’t do the job, Sadowsky continued, explaining that there is ignorance of regulations that have been in effect for 20 years.

To provide a framework for the debate about a regulatory path, panel moderator Timothy Mealey, of the Meridien Institute, said there are two choices: To race ahead with the development and application of nanotechnologies in commercial products, only to find later that there are significant risks, comparable to issues associated with the use of lead, asbestos and CFCs, or to go slow under the assumption that there is a high risk, only to find later that the concerns were overblown.

<b>Collaborative approach?</b>

Industry interests represented on the panel said an innovative, collaboration-based approach to regulation is key to making sure the new technologies aren’t stifled. Panelist Lynn Begeson, representing an environmental law firm based in Washington, D.C., said an agreement between Environmental Defense and DuPont is a model for this path.

The collaborative approach reflects a whole new way of developing public policy, and should be embraced and nurtured as a “better way of doing things,” Bergeson said. The traditional notice and comment method of developing regulations isn’t responsive enough to keep pace with the rapidly evolving sector, she said.

In the nanotechnology arena, the business community has made a heroic effort to avoid the biotech debacle, Bergeson said, referring to public consternation over the rapid commercial application of manipulated biological organisms.

Wetter said simply relying on voluntary programs isn’t enough.

“If not everyone participates, it’s not effective,” she said.

All the panelists agreed that more public spending is needed to do some of the basic research. Simply answering questions about safe handling could cost between $50 and $100 million dollars, Wetter said.

“It’s not even clear what kind of masks would help. And not every lab is protecting workers,” Wetter said.

“Industry is calling for increased public spending on research, but it’s not happening,” Mealey said.

<i>Bob Berwyn can be reached at (970) 331-5996, or at bberwyn@summitdaily.com.</i>

<b>What’s Your Take?</b>

Should there be a moratorium on the commercial application of nanotech products until the risks are better understood? Share what you know about nanotechnologies by clicking the comment link at the top of the story.

<b>For more information go to the following web sites:</b>

http://www.nanotechnologies.org

http://www.nano.gov/

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/

For the environmental perspective go to:

http://crnano.org/Greenpeace.htm

http://www.foe.org/camps/comm/nanotech/

http://www.etcgroup.org/en/

For a United Nations report on nanotechnology and the environment, go to: http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2007/PDF/7_Emerging_Challenges72dpi.pdf.

What is nanotechnology? Nanotechnology refers to working with materials at the molecular or smaller levels to develop functional machines. It is the science, engineering and technology related to the understanding and control of matter in the length scale of about one to 100 nanometers. It’s been described as the intentional manipulation of atoms at the scale of nature to achieve some beneficial purpose. Nanoscale materials can be assembled in a “bottom-up” process that involves assembling atoms and molecules, or in a “top-down” process, by milling smaller particles from raw materials. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. One hundred nanometers is about 1/70th the diameter of a red blood cell, or about 1/800th of the width of a human hair. Ten atoms of hydrogen side by side equal one nanometer. At this scale of size, materials behave differently than at larger bulk scale. Those unique properties give the matter potentially beneficial uses, including medical applications and cleanups of toxic materials. Nanotechnologies are being used across 15 sectors of industry in about 400 products. Estimates of the economic impact of the nanotech industry range as high as $2.3 trillion.