So, it's the end of what's been a pretty full on week for the SAFENANO team, and i'm confused! Not really a suprise or a change from the norm i guess, but this time i thought i'd write it down and see if SAFENANO's readers can offer any help!...

To provide you with some context, here's the background to why my head's spinning...

This week, myself and Rob Aitken attended 1st Annual Symposium of the EU FP7 project ObservatoryNANO in Dusseldorf, within which we lead the Environment, Health and Safety work package. The meeting itself was open only to invited experts from across the wide range of ObservatoryNANO's 10 main technological themes, so there was plenty of room for at times heated debate amongst a group of scientists with such varied backgrounds and strong ideas - I was really looking forward to it .

This year,  the general idea of the symposium was to provide some plenary sessions covering broad ranging aspects of nano (such as our EHS perspective, and tackling application development within industry), and the rest of the time be split into parallel workshops for discussion of major themes within the project. As one of our main deliverables within the EHS workpackage is to evaluate the (soon to be publically available) year 1 technology sector reports (a hefty task as there are currently over 50!!), myself and the other workpackage members from RIVM, EMPA and CEA split up and tried to gather opinion on the EHS aspects of as many of the workshops as possible.

Anyway, i'm getting sidetracked - enough about work tactics & back to why i'm confused...

As part of the symposium, members of our fellow workpackage on Ethics and Societal implications of nanotechnologies held a number of workshops to assist them in pulling together an 'Ethics Toolkit', which (to the best of my understanding) will aim to help provide those working within nanotechnologies with guidance on practising in an ethically sound manner. On the afternoon of the first day, i found myself settling into the Food, Health and the Environment Ethics workshop - not quite sure what to expect.

The session started with an introduction from the session's mediator, who then started to outline some ethical questions for the group to consider. As could be expected, the reception to these was a mixed one - some engaging with the questions, and others totally rejecting their value or relevance to the day's proceedings (at one point a hand was raised simply to comment that the whole thing was all utterly rediculous...like i say, strong opinions). It all made for good listening.

However, as time went on and we'd waded through the ins and outs of general ethical soundness, the oxymoron of green nanotechnology and bizarelley, whether or not it was fair to implant chips in teachers' brains to monitor whether or not they were having 'inappropriate' thoughts during school hours (!), the crux of the whole nano-ethics debate for me crystallised, and then remained unanswered: is it fair to consider the ethics of nanotechnology separately from the techology or application which it is enables?

So, here are the main arguments i've been thinking about:

1. Without the specific context/application of use by which the nano and application/technology are married, there would be no real ethical issue to consider (as there would be no exposure to and thus implications for animal or environmental wellbeing) - so why bother to consider nano-ethics separately? i.e. all we'd be doing is regurgitating the same ethical questions we've already thrashed out for say biotech to a greater extent...

2. To only consider the nanotech and the technology/application it supports together is also short-sighted, as although they are married by the context/application in which they are used, and thus you could possibly combine the ethical questions posed by each into one larger set of questions, the two continue to evolve and progress separately of each other and this changing nature has to be taken into account in some way.

3. Am i just thinking waaay to hard about this on a week where i've had very little sleep?!

Really, the more i think about this the more confused i get (and the happer it get I'm in EHS not ethics!). I'm certain there are flaws in even these basic arguments, and many others i haven't even thought of yet but despite putting a considerable amount of thought into it, i still can't see a clear way forward...

So, given that i'm not making any progress - what do you think?

Can nano- be separated from -technology, or are the two stuck together whether we'd like them to be or not? Your thoughts please! 

After spending a fair bit of time ‘hibernating’ at SAFENANO HQ (well, that’s how I wish it was!), this month sees the beginning of a fairly busy period for the team, and the start of a number of very important new projects in nano HSE. The first of these kicked off on Monday, with the preliminary meeting of the newly-formed FP7 action 'ObservatoryNANO' in London

ObservatoryNANO is a 4 year FP7 funded project featuring 10 partners from across Europe, the basic idea of which is to examine 10 key areas of nanotechnology development, and provide easily accessible information covering economic impact, technological advances, health & safety implications, regulations and standards both in the present time and with a horizon scanning focus.

SAFENANO/IOM have the task of leading the Health Safety aspect of the project. The task we have been set, namely to review the technological and economic reports produced by other partners and provide a comprehensive health and safety assessment of each area, is definitely going to be a challenge, but the project's outcome should be a resource that is invaluable to industry, academia and government alike. Following Monday's meeting, where the main aim was to meet everyone else, and begin ordering how to coordinate our actions with those of the people responsible for each of the 10 technical, scientific and economic reports. For the SAFENANO team, it was just great to finally start work on another of the FP7 projects everyone has worked so hard to be awarded. Following this, we’re now ready to meet with our workpackage partners RIVM, CEA and EMPA at the beginning of summer and get started on the work proper - SAFENANO will keep you updated on how we progress as the HSE aspects of the project develop. 

In the meantime, there is already a website up and running to introduce users to the project - have a look at www.observatory-nano.eu for more information!

I am still really quite new to the nanotechnology health and safety area, but like many people who follow its developments, recent efforts reported addressing this area have in my eyes seemed at times so fragmented and overlapping that the cynical side of my personality was left wondering how we even got this far! The field seems be becoming an increasingly crowded area to work in, and must be bewildering to newcomers (I was confused!). Two articles in the October 15th edition of Chemical and Engineering News therefore came as a welcome respite to the usually confusing releases of recent times.

The online edition of the magazine addresses in two articles the state of environmental, health, and safety research of engineered nanoparticles, and the challenges risk-based nanotech research faces in America. The articles, written by Susan R Morrisey, provide a brief and easily understood overview of recent efforts being made in America by both Government and NGOs to address these issues, and highlight the questions being asked about exactly how useful the federal strategy will end up being as it seemingly lags begind the NGOs (several of whom are imminently to release of strategic plans for this area).

The first, ‘Setting Priorities for Nanotech’ discusses the efforts made thus far by the National Nanotechnology Initiative’s (NNI) Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. It summarises the steps that lead to the publication of NEHI’s plan for Prioritization of EH&S research needs for Nanotechnology, and the mixed reception that this brought from NGO’s across America (see SAFENANO’s coverage of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ reaction to this release). It also covers the current position that the NEHI group are in, the problems they face in the immediate future, and includes reaction from E. Clayton Teague, Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office.

The second article focuses on the challenges of Risk-Based Nanotech Research, and summarises the efforts being made by Rice University’s International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) to address the need for a predictive model for assessing how nanoparticles interact with biological systems in the run down to ICON’s release of this report in the coming months. 

Of course, the articles focus entirely on the USA, and are not by any means an all encompassing record of the efforts being made, past, present and future. However, they provide a good overview of the current lie of the land in the effort to promote nanotechnology health and safety - and reading them didn’t make my head hurt! 

Follow the links to read 'Setting Priorities for Nanotech' or 'Challenges of Risk-Based Nanotech Research'

This week, I was lucky enough to be invited to hear an impromptu talk from Joel A Pedersen of the Environmental Chemistry and Technology Program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Dr Pedersen was in the UK to attend ‘Prion 2007’, and dropped by the IOM to give us a summary of his work on transformation of engineered nanoparticles in the environment, something I knew little about before his visit.

To start, we were given an introduction to the complex interfacial interactions to which nanoparticles are subject, including the Extended Derjaguin Landau Verney Overbeek (XDLVO) theory and interactions such as the Electrostatic Double Layer, Lifshitz van der Waals and Polar Interactions. In addition, Dr Pedersen gave an eloquent description of the confounding influence steric reactions, surface roughness and functionalization could bring, the effect each of these has on Nanoparticle behaviour, and the inherent difficulties these multiple simultaneous interactions present for making accurate quantitative predictions of nanoparticle behaviour in the environment.

He then moved on to focus on the actual lifecycle of nanoparticles, and changes in their surface that may occur during this lifecycle. Dr Pedersen described acquisition and biomodification of NP coatings, and gave laboratory-based and real-life examples of both. He then discussed chemical models for microbially mediated NP transformation, including oxidation, reduction and ligand –assisted dissolution of nanoparticles – the area his group are currently investigating. His laboratory had carried out an elegant experiment using an in vitro biomimetic oxidative assay which made use of lignolytic funghi. The group had applied this assay to polyethylene glycol (PEG) functionalised Quantum Dots, colloidal NPs that have undergone development as organic dyes and fluorescent markers in living cells amongst other applications. They found that that Quantum Dot transformation is possible within oxidative environments, and that Cadmium was released from within the core of the QDs they used.

Despite the huge complexity of the concepts Dr Pedersen was conveying (a lot to take on board if you’re as new to the topic as I am!), his talk and research was incredibly interesting. In addition, the results he has collected so far clearly have possible wide-ranging implications for the use of such Quantum Dots in living organisms given that substances which make up the core of QD’s are often intrinsically toxic in nature. It also reminded me of the enormity of the puzzle that scientists investigating nanotechnology are facing, and what a tiny proportion of this we have tackled so far.

I just finished reading through the Interim report on the  EU Nanotechnology Action Plan. Having summarised its contents in a news article for the main SAFENANO website, I found myself confused by some of the shortcomings highlighted in the report. 

Amongst the weaknesses listed as apparent in Europe, a 'lack of interdisciplinnary infrastructure for research' was noted. I find this hard to agree with when groups such as the Safety of Nanomaterials Interdisciplinary Research Centre (SnIRC), which has been active since 2005, are established and ready to coordinate research efforts. In addition, other groups such as ENTA and the NIA are actively working to bridge the gap between researchers and industrialists, and are in a good position to coordinate efforts to help increase private investment in research, and aid with further development of an interdisciplinnary infrastructure for nanotechnology. Maybe i'm missing something (it has been a pretty hectic day for me), but from my perspective there is definately coordination, and infrastructure has been developed...i suspect that the root of the issue will be found in a lack of funding to take these areas forward at a pace that matches the speed at which nano is taking off commercially rather than anything else...what are your views?

In addition, the report specified that activities should take place to develop a shared understanding of the responsibility of researchers within an ethical framework. Ok, so maybe there is no ethical framework as such yet, but I do think that we have an understanding of our responsibility as researchers, otherwise SAFENANO would never have been developed or funded!

Today, EHP online pre-published the findings of a US workshop looking at Hazard Assessment of Nanoparticles. The workshop, held at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in April 2006, brought together some of the nanotechnology heavyweights in the US and beyond to discuss what information is needed to understand the human health impact of engineered nanoparticles, and how this information would be best obtained.

The workshop was really a prelude to the burst of standardisation and regulation themed activity in both Europe and the US. Having been involved with both the development and implementation of SAFENANO, and the REFNANO workshop series conducted by SnIRC and SAFENANO earlier in 2007, it was pleasing to look through the results and conclusions of the EHP report and see that at least some of the demands raised have been met. For example, by developing SAFENANO, Recommendation 3 'Develop a Multi-Disciplinnary community of practice and information-sharing forum for researchers and all interested stakeholders' is now in place and avaliable through the our Community area. 

REFNANO also further developed the recommendations put forward; in particular, recommendation 4 (Develop and make avaliable a set of reference nanoparticles for research laboratories to use as controls/benchmarks in their studies) and recommendation 5 'work towards quantitative risk assessment by selecting a set of 3-5 specific nanoparticles for full physicochemical characterization, in vitro and in vivo testing' were tackled.

Having been pleased to see almost complete concurrance between the US And EU's recommendations on a strategy to address nanotechnology hazard, and delighted to be actively involved in promoting areas of this, i couldn't help feel dissapointed that the US and the UK and EU clearly also have an ongoing common major problem - funding.  This is old news really - we all know there is a lack of funding, but i do find myself wondering how long we will be attending these workshops, reporting the findings and calling for funding to further the development of robust testing and regulatory mechanisms to protect the health of workers and the general public, before any  funding significant enough to implement these recommendations is allocated.  After all, governments worldwide are more than happy to recognise Nano Health and Safety issues as a hugely important, recommend the formation of interdisciplinnary teams to tackle it and encourage sharing of information amongst parties involved...but so far, no government seems to be putting forward the cash to progress matters as quickly as everyone says is necessary.... Despite all this though, and as naiive as it seems, I am ever hopeful that this will change in the near future!

REFNANO's final report has recently been completed, and will be published via DEFRA soon - keep checking SAENANO.org for further details on this.

NB. I am aware that there are a number of upcoming workshops on developing strategies to regulate nanomaterials in the near future - for example, NIST's US Workshop on Standards for EHS Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials, and NanoStrand's EU workshops on standardisation and characterisation (for details, see SAFENANO's Event Calendar). These i'm sure will be of great benefit to those involved in terms of organising thinking on these topics further, and will provide some more publicity for what is without doubt the most important but least funded area of nanotechnology. Here's hoping someone takes heed and funds the actioning of the findings...