Guest Experts

Five years on from the RAEng/RS Report - a personal view.

2009-07-28T13:27:00Z

The 29th July marks the 5th anniversary of publication of the seminal Royal Academy of Engineering / Royal Society report 'Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties'.

To mark the occasion, Professor Anthony Seaton CBE, who was involved in advising the RS/RAEng on compilation of the original report, has shared his thoughts on what progress has been made since the original publication, and what remains to be done:

I think it is helpful to imagine what might have happened had such a report not been published. At the time, Prince Charles had put the royal seal of approval on fears of the planet turning to grey goo and some environmental pressure groups were raising fears across a range of possible hazards to humans and the environment. There were signs that battle lines were being drawn up for a fight that could seriously hinder the development of these nanotechnologies similar to that waged over genetic modification; calls were made for a moratorium on their further development. But the report was published, “welcomed” by Government and generally accepted by society, and committees were set up to consider the many recommendations made. The main anxieties of both public and researchers/technologists were reduced and the technological and commercial development proceeded apace. Interestingly, although almost no new money was set aside by the UK Government for research into health, environmental and societal hazards, as recommended by the report, a substantial research effort has in fact started. And, so far at least, nobody appears to have been harmed by nanotechnologies.

Those of us on the working group had to rack our brains as to possible hazards. The physicists were able to deal with the grey goo story from first principles, but the possible medical and environmental hazards were not amenable to such an approach, since there was limited understanding of the mechanisms of interaction of small particles with human or other cells and tissues. We proceeded by analogy with known risks from other small scale materials to which populations have been exposed, and came up with two important and well-researched ones: asbestos as an analogy for carbon nanotubes and air pollution particles for roughly spherical nanoparticles.

Being a group largely composed of scientists, we naturally called for more research and appropriate funding.

I have to say that I was somewhat less enthusiastic, as a medical scientist, than was the majority of the working group about the amount of money and the research structures called for. A body convened to examine a specific issue will always call for more research and money specifically for that issue, taking account of the scientific uncertainties and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to investigate them. However, what it does not take into account is the degree of priority that the issues raise with the funders. In this case, it was only necessary to consider where a medical research funder would rank theoretical risk from nanoparticles (for it was in manufacture and use of nanoparticles that we foresaw hazard) against other current priorities such as those associated with pandemic infectious diseases, climate change, the ageing population and brain diseases, the development of vaccines, tackling alcohol and air pollution and so on, to realise that in terms of public health the issue was small. In my view, this remains the case, but this is not to say that it will remain so nor that it is unworthy of scientific investigation. So what was to be done while the committees set up by Government were deliberating?

I think the most important immediate effect of the report arose from our recognition that hazards were possible and identifying areas requiring investigation. There is a natural suspicion that working groups such as this one, though independent and representing august bodies such as the two Academies, tend to take a conservative and establishment view, no matter how resolutely they make their independence clear. In this case, the very mention of asbestos was sufficient to allay such doubts. It also had the very useful effect of making scientists and technologists producing and using nanotubes aware of possible risk and has allowed regulators to produce advice intended to reduce this risk. The report also helped stimulate the European Union to fund several programmes of research into nano hazards. And from a personal point of view, a number of those of us who already had a background of research in the areas of air pollution and asbestos and held current grants in the field got together without any specific funding as a multi-disciplinary consortium to try to answer some of the questions raised by the report. This is the loose association called SnIRC, the Safety of Nanoparticles Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration, based on the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, an independent self-funding research charity. Within these five years, SnIRC has proved able to develop a wide-ranging programme of research across the fields of occupational hygiene and human and eco toxicology and through its partner in the University of Edinburgh has answered one of the most pressing questions, with respect to asbestos-like properties of some carbon nanotubes. There is now sufficient understanding on which to base sensible, pragmatic measures to protect researchers and workers against most foreseeable hazards, even though there is insufficient yet known to enable us to predict which nanoparticles might entail real rather than theoretical risk. But it is not necessary to know for sure that something is dangerous before taking action to reduce risk.

Complex problems are not solved overnight. Nanotechnology raises many complex issues relating to possible adverse consequences and at first sight these appeared overwhelming. The report narrowed them down to toxicological, regulatory and societal/ethical. Never before has the introduction of a new technology been attended by an effort to understand and forestall hazard before any adverse consequences have been demonstrated, so to that extent any such effort would have been ground-breaking. On the toxicological side, the necessary research has already made important advances in understanding and a body of work aiming at finding generic properties of nanoparticles and their surfaces is underway. Methods of protection of workers and consumers from airborne nanoparticles are understood, allowing regulators information on which to base guidance, though appropriate methods of measurement of particles in this size range and of measuring the relevant toxic component or physical characteristic are still awaited. There is very much interesting research to be done at the interfaces of toxicology, measurement, occupational hygiene and surface chemistry. I am not clear as to whether the report’s recommendations to Research Councils and others on societal and ethical issues surrounding the introduction of new technologies have been taken up generally. They are worth re-reading and universities need to take account of the desirability of ensuring that scientists take account of possible societal impacts of their endeavours.

Although I am generally positive about the introduction of nanotechnologies, I am not complacent and should end with a few concerns. There has undoubtedly been a huge unregulated introduction of nanoparticles into consumer products, including those for human consumption in food and on-line “medicines”. Although the human gut is pretty resistant to what it takes in, the bacteria within it are not and may have a much greater influence on our health than we think – indeed are essential to life! Dosing oneself with anti-bacterial nanoparticles is not something I would do, but many people are. Neither would I use any aerosol household spray containing nanoparticles, as we know something of the toxicity to the lungs and heart of inhaling large numbers of such particles in air pollution. Until there is convincing published research to the contrary, I would remain wary of putting nanoparticles (as opposed to larger particles of the same chemical) on skin in cosmetics or sun screens with respect to possible allergies and photosensitization. And finally, I would urge the Health and Safety Executive to carry out an audit and life cycle analysis in all facilities making and using nanotubes in order to ensure appropriate protection of manufacturers, users and those who ultimately dispose of them. If necessary, I would post a notice at such facilities stating “Caution – asbestos-like materials in use.”

Prof Anthony Seaton CBE, MD, DSc, FMedSci

Nanoparticle Characterisation: thoughts on the needs of end users

2009-02-04T14:38:00Z

Last week, Ratna Tantra of the National Physical Laboratories (NPL) payed a visit to IOM and the SAFENANO team. During this time, she provided us with this blog, which collates her thoughts on nanoparticle characterisation and the needs of end users:

Last October, I was fortunate enough to attend a two-day workshop on 'Enabling Standards for Nanomaterial Characterization' in the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The workshop featured a series of presentations by scientists of various disciplines, concerned in developing standards and standardised methods for nanoparticle characterisation. On the second day, we broke into smaller groups and as part of a 'consensus exercise' the various groups were required to identify and prioritise research needs. As I’m currently involved in research projects concerning the characterisation of nanoparticles at National Physical Laboratory, I ended up being placed in Group 2, "Protocol Development: Physical Property Characterisation". As expected, people from mathematics, physics or chemistry background mainly filled Group 2, apart from one biologist. Lurking in our midst, she assured us that she was there for a reason. She wanted the "nanoparticle characterisation experts" to give her guidance and her question was: "What tools would I need to characterise my nanoparticles in a cell culture medium?"

I guess this question made me think about the current techniques on offer to the end users. We certainly have tools that would allow us to probe aspects of the nanoparticle parameters, under certain defined sampling and experimental conditions. This may be sufficient to meet the needs of the nanoparticle manufacturers but what about other end users, with their different/specific applications? For example, the toxicologists and environmentalists, who would need to characterise the fate and behaviour of nanoparticles in situ, or generally in complex media. In order to approach the problem in a logical manner, end users would need to state guidelines for their particular measurement requirements, enough so that confidence in the data is at an acceptable level. In this sense, end users would need to provide:

a) an estimate on the required degree of : accuracy and reproducibility
b) better understanding on the nature of the selectivity requirements

A start in the right direction would be to identify key organisations and subsequently conduct an extensive survey, so as to have some kind of benchmark on the measurement needs for the end users in the nano-community. Nonetheless, I have a feeling that the outcome would eventually point us to the direction of investing efforts to:

improve the selectivity and specificity of current methods (most likely to involve the development of new technologies)
increase portability of test equipment
improve throughput
engage in applied research and the development of specific applications

Are all of these endpoints achievable? The nature of the problem is not trivial; someone once told me that “to characterise a nanoparticle in a complex media is like trying to find a needle in a pile of other needles!” In addition, the development of new technologies is expensive. It is obvious that success will be governed by striking the right balance between: finance needed to support this kind of research and the ability for people to work together across disciplines to address this issue.

Postscript:

There are several nanoparticle characterisation projects running across NPL, both government and industry sponsored projects. To some extent, my views concerning the need to find new platforms to characterise/detect nanoparticles have previously echoed in:

the report 'An outline scoping study to determine whether high aspect ratio nanoparticles (HARN) should raise the same concerns as do asbestos fibres', recently published by DEFRA
The detection of carbon nanotubes and workplace safety, Nanotoxicology, Volume 1, Issue 4 December 2007 , pages 251 – 265

SAFENANO in Singapore

2007-07-12T15:13:00Z

Last month, I was invited to Singapore on behalf of a research group centred at the National University of Singapore (NUS) to present in a 2 day workshop on Occupational and Environmental health issues arising from Engineered Nanoparticles. It was a great opportunity for the IOM/SAFENANO to have a presence at an AsiaPacific event, as this is an area of the world in which nanotechnology is growing rapidly.

The panel of guest speakers at the event included scientists from Asia, the EU and the USA. My presentation was on Risk Assessment of Nanotechnology, and the ongoing research in this area being carried out in Europe. During the course of the workshop, I established new links with interested parties in Singaporean Academia and Government through our shared views on research and regulation issues. I hope that these new collaborations will prove to be fruitful and long lasting. The collaboration between the IOM/SAFENANO and AsiaPacific Nanotechnology Research is one that we expect will grow and develop in the near future.

My involvement in both of these events highlighted to me the growing awareness amongst industry, academia and governments alike that there is a need not only to collaborate with one another nationally but also internationally, and that this must be on a global scale. Only this way will we ensure that nanotechnology risk research progresses as fast as is as possible.

On a lighter note, Singapore also proved to be a shopping paradise, and I was able to bring home various presents at disgracefully low prices!