Advertisement

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 165–182 | Cite as

Moving forward responsibly: Oversight for the nanotechnology-biology interface

  • Jennifer KuzmaEmail author
Special focus: Nanoparticles and Occupational Health

Abstract

Challenges and opportunities for appropriate oversight of nanotechnology applied to or derived from biological systems (nano-bio interface) were discussed in a public workshop and dialog hosted by the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy of the University of Minnesota on September 15, 2005. This paper discusses the themes that emerged from the workshop, including the importance of analyzing potential gaps in current regulatory systems; deciding upon the general approach taken toward regulation; employing non-regulatory mechanisms for governance; making risk and other studies transparent and available to the public; bolstering mechanisms for public participation in risk analysis; creating more opportunities for meaningful discussion of the social and ethical dimensions of the nano-bio interface; increasing funds for implications and problem-solving research in this area; and having independent and reliable sources for communication. The workshop was successful in identifying ways of moving forward responsibly so that ultimately nanotechnology and its products can succeed in developers’, researchers’, regulators’, and the public’s eyes.

Keywords

oversight regulatory policy nanotechnology biotechnology biology societal implications 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges all the workshop participants for their contributions and to the workshop report that forms the basis of this paper. In particular, Norris Alderson, FDA; Lynn Bergeson, Bergeson & Campbell; Jacob Finkelstein, University of Rochester; Karen Florini, Environmental Defense; Sheldon Friedlander, UCLA; Ken Hallberg, MN Nanotechnology Initiative; Robbin Johnson, Cargill, Inc.; Jane Macoubrie, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Evan Michelson, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; Jordan Paradise, University of Minnesota; Christine Peterson, Foresight Institute; Elizabeth Wilson, University of Minnesota; and Alan Ziegler, Converging Technologies Bar Association carefully reviewed the workshop report and provided comments. The author would also like to acknowledge the support of David Y. Pui and Kenneth H. Keller, University of Minnesota, for their support and the help of Marsha Riebe, Kana Talukder and Peter VerHage of the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota with organizing the workshop.

References

  1. Alderson N., 2005. Overview of FDA’s Activities at the Nano-Bio Interface, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  2. Baird D., 2005. Philosophical Issues in Future Applications, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  3. Bergeson L., 2005. Overview of EPA’s Activities at the Nano-Bio Interface, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  4. Cobb M., Macoubrie J. (2004) Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. J. Nanopart. Res. 6:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005a. Overview of Issues for Consideration by NPPTAC. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/npptac/nanowgoverviewdocument20051109 .pdf.
  6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2005b. External Review Draft Nanotechnology White Paper Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by members of the Nanotechnology Workgroup, a group of EPA’s Science Policy Council http://www.epa.gov/osa/nanotech.htm.
  7. Finkelstein J., 2005. Establishing a relationship∼between Physico-chemical and Toxicological Properties of Engineered Nanomaterials. An Approach to Assessing Risk, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  8. Florini K., 2005. Nano-Balancing: Voluntary and Regulatory Approaches to Ensuring Safety, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  9. Foresight Nanotech Institute, 2004. Foresight Guidelines Version 4.0: Self Assessment Scorecards for Safer Development of Nanotechnology by N. Jacobstein and G.H. Reynolds Version 4.0: http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html
  10. Friedlander S., 2005. Modern developments in nanoparticle aerosol science and technology, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  11. Hoerr R., 2005. Nanocopoeia: A Novel Nanotechnology to Improve Drug Formulation and Delivery, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  12. Long T.C., et al., 2006. Titanium Dioxide (P25) produces reactive oxygen species in immortalized brain microglia (BV2): Implications for nanoparticle neurotoxicity, Environ. Sci. Technol. ASAP Web Release Date: 07-Jun-2006; (Article) DOI: 10.1021/es060589n.Google Scholar
  13. Macoubrie J., 2005a. Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  14. Macoubrie J., 2005b. Pew Charitable Trusts Projects on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Informed Public Perceptions of Nanotechnology and Trust in Government, September.Google Scholar
  15. Michelson E., 2005. Falling Through the Cracks: Issues with Nanotechnology Oversight, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  16. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), 2005. What is Nanotechnology? http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/whatIsNano.html. Accessed November 30, 2005.
  17. National Research Council (NRC), 1996. Understanding RiskGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council (NRC), 2002. Publicly Funded Agricultural Research and the Changing Structure of U.S. Agriculture.Google Scholar
  19. Nanoscale Science, Engineering, and Technology Subcommittee (NSET), 2005. The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry. Office of the President of the United States, March.Google Scholar
  20. Oberdörster G. et al. (2005a). Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ. Health Perspect. 113:823–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Oberdörster G. et al. (2005b). Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: Elements of a screening strategy. Particle and Fibre Toxicology 2:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 1986. Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, 51 Fed Reg 23302.Google Scholar
  23. Peterson C., 2005. Long-term Potential, Unprecedented Challenges for Governance, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  24. Roco M.C., 2004. Nanoscale Science and Engineering: Unifying and Transforming Tools, 50(5) AIChE 890–897, 895–96Google Scholar
  25. Roco M.C. (2005). The emergence and policy implications of converging new technologies integrated from the nanoscale. J. Nanopart. Res. 7:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roco M.C., Bainbridge W.S., (eds) (2003). Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance. Kluwer Academic Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Savage N., 2005. Nanotechnology & EPA, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  28. Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith R., 2005. Normal Science or Problem Solving? Getting Our Priorities Straight, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  30. Taton A., 2005. The Nano-Bio Interface: An Overview, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  31. Thompson P., 2005. Social and Ethical Implications in Agrifood Applications, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  32. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 2001. The Costs and Benefits of Industrial Agriculture. Backgrounder. http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/sustainable_food/costs-and-benefits-of-industrial-agriculture.html
  33. Untereker D., 2005. Presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  34. Walker L., 2005. Nanotechnology for Agriculture, Food, and the Environment, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar
  35. Ziegler A., 2005. The Nano-Bio Interface: Enterprise Liability and Insurance Risk, presentation at the Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight, University of Minnesota, September 15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Science, Technology, and Public PolicyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.254 Humphrey CenterMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations