Nanotech report raises red flags

When the government asked the Royal Society to assess nanotechnology, it was expecting the same rubber-stamping service that it got from it on GM foods. But the attempt has backfired, as the much-awaited report highlights a plethora of nano-risks and calls for enhanced regulation.

by Jim ThomasThe Royal Society hardly ranks as one of the UK’s more socially progressive bodies. Pro-nuclear and famously employed by the Blair government to run a spin unit defending GM foods, this august institution can usually be relied on to to give a hearty cheer for new corporate technologies and a sneer to anyone raising tricky questions. That was probably what Lord Sainsbury was expecting last year, when he asked the Royal Society in collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineers to run a year long investigation into whether nanotechnology raises any societal issues. Lord Sainsbury had in fact already declared that it doesn't, but was keen to “park” an emerging nanotech controversy by bringing in the scientific heavy guns to declare it safe.

However, it now seems that the heavy guns have inadvertently backfired. Far from giving nanotech the all clear, the Royal Society report “Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties” available online at www.nanotec.org.uk) vindicates groups who have been expressing concern about the dangers of nanoparticles, and highlights the lack of regulations for this emerging industry. It unambiguously concludes that uncertainties about the risks of manufactured nanoparticles “need to be addressed immediately” and that far more public debate is needed. Among its recommendations are:

Ingredients in the form of nanoparticles should undergo a full safety assessment before being commercialized, even if the substance has already been assessed in larger forms. In effect this a recommendation for a moratorium on new nanoparticle consumer products until regulations are put in place. This raises the question of what to do with products already on the marketplace that are unassessed. Rather timidly the Royal Society fudged that question.

The use of free manufactured nanoparticles (not fixed to or within a material) should be prohibited in environmental applications such as remediation, until appropriate research has been undertaken. Environmental releases of nanoparticles should be minimalised as far as possible.

Chemicals in the forms of nanoparticles should be treated by regulators as new substances, thus acknowledging that properties of nano-size particles may be different from the same chemical substance in larger forms.

Factories and research laboratories should treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as hazardous materials, and seek to reduce or remove them from waste streams.

Industry should make public all relevant data related to safety assessments of manufactured nano-particles, and demonstrate how they have taken into account that properties of nanoparticles may be different from larger forms.

Consumer products such as cosmetics and sunscreens containing manufactured nanoparticles should be labeled, mentioning them on the ingredients list.

All relevant regulatory bodies in the UK and Europe should review whether existing regulations are appropriate to protect humans and the environment from potential nanotech hazards, and report on how regulatory gaps will be addressed.Unfortunately where the report was strong on health and safety risks, it was poor on addressing many of the more serious societal issues that nanotech will raise. While acknowledging the issues of ownership and control as fundamental, concerns about corporate control over matter through nano-patents were entirely left out. As one of the report's authors told me, “we chose not to deal with all the problems of industrial capitalism - it simply wasn’t in our remit”. But a narrow remit meant that there was no discussion of nanotech monopolies or the implications of nanotech for the global South. “There have been plenty of red flags, but the dollar signs have blotted out the warnings signs”, said Rory O'Neill, editor of the TUC's Hazards magazine. Ethical issues such as how using nanotech for human enhancement will impinge the rights of the disabled and affect the definition of ‘normal’ were touched on but not explored. The amount of military spending assigned to nanotech and the potential of nano-sensors for surveillance were also pointed out, but no concrete suggestions made. Most strangely, considering the continual comparison with GM foods, the report fails to examine the impacts of nanotech on agriculture and food production and also falls short in its assessment of the potential risks of mixing nanotech with genetic engineering. It naïvely puts the impacts of nanobiotech in the distant future (more than 10 years). In reality, nanotech and biotech are already converging to create hybrid materials, machines and living organisms.

The UK government is expected to respond to the report by the end of the year. Meanwhile the European Union, whose own proposals for nanotech published earlier this year barely touched on risks and regulations, have launched an online consultation into Europe’s strategic approach to nanotech. All are encouraged to fill in a questionnaire at www.nanoforum.org