Advertisement

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 25–36 | Cite as

Filling the Information Void: Using Public Registries as a Tool in Nanotechnologies Regulation

  • Diana M. BowmanEmail author
  • Karinne Ludlow
Article

Abstract

Based on the experiences of two high profile voluntary data collection programs for engineered nanomaterials, this article considers the merit of an international online registry for scientific data on engineered nanomaterials and environmental, health and safety (EHS) data. Drawing on the earlier experiences from the pharmaceutical industry, the article considers whether a registry of nanomaterials at the international level is practical or indeed desirable, and if so, whether such an initiative—based on the current state of play—should be voluntary or mandatory. The article commences with an examination of the success and failures of voluntary reporting schemes in the UK and the US, as well as the International Council of Nanotechnology’s EHS Database and the OECD’s Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials. The article then examines the history of clinical trials registries, including the key motivations behind their creation, the role of self-regulation, and the perceived benefits thereof. Key lessons of the rise of clinical trials registration are highlighted, as are crucial considerations that must be addressed by policy makers should a multi-lateral public registry for data on nanoscale materials and EHS research be perceived to be a desirable option. The article concludes by arguing that while the creation of a registry to record information generated on nanomaterials is not straightforward, this reason alone should not deter industry from taking a proactive approach to the dissemination of fundamental data and research findings.

Keywords

Nanotechnologies Regulation Registries Transparency Public health and safety 

References

  1. BASF. 2004. Code of conduct for nanotechnology. Ludwigshafen: BASF.Google Scholar
  2. BASF. 2006. In dialogue: Nanotechnology at BASF. Ludwigshafen: BASF.Google Scholar
  3. Coalition of Non-Governmental Organizations. 2007. Principles for the oversight of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials, 31 July. http://www.foeeurope.org/activities/nanotechnology/Documents/Principles_Oversight_Nano.pdf (accessed October 7, 2007).
  4. Couzin, J. 2004. Drug research: legislators propose a registry to track clinical trials from start to finish. Science 3055691: 1695. doi: 10.1126/science.305.5691.1695.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davies, S. 2008. Letter: Nano-enabled choice. The Guardian, 29 March. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/29/nanotechnology (accessed June 5, 2008).
  6. DeAngelis, C., J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug, et al. 2004a. Editorial: clinical statement registration: a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1716: 606–607. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1041281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeAngelis, C., J.M. Drazen, F.A. Frizelle, C. Haug, et al. 2004b. Is this clinical trial fully registered? a statement from the international committee of medical journal editors. Canadian Medical Association Journal 17213: 1700–1702. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.050600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denison, R. 2007. Statement of Richard A. Denison, Ph.D., Senior Scientist USEPA’s Public Meeting on the Development of a Voluntary Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, 2 August. Washington DC: Environmental Defense.Google Scholar
  9. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2006a. UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2006b. Consultation on a proposed voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials—Consultation questions. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2008. The UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials: Seventh quarterly report, August. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  12. Environmental Defense. 2008. Press Release: EPA nanotechnology voluntary program risks becoming a “black hole”, 28 July. New York: Environmental Defense.Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Defense and DuPont. 2007. Nano risk framework. New York: EDF.Google Scholar
  14. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Notice: nanoscale materials stewardship program. Federal Register 7318: 4861–4866.Google Scholar
  15. Fleming, N. 2006. Women buying creams made of tiny particles “used as guinea pigs”. The Daily Telegraph. London, 5 May, p.6.Google Scholar
  16. Gold, J.L., and D.M. Studdert. 2005. Clinical trials registries: a reform that is past due. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 811–820. (Winter). doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2005.tb00547.x.
  17. Gulmezoglu, A.M., T. Pang, R. Horton, and K. Dickersin. 2005. WHO facilitates international collaboration in setting standards for clinical trial registration. The Lancet 36528 May: 1829–1831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haug, C., P.C. Gotzsche, and T.V. Schroeder. 2005. Registries and registration of clinical trials. The New England Journal of Medicine 35326: 2811–2812. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe058280.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Interessengemeinschaft Detailhandel Schweiz. 2008. Code of conduct for nanotechnologies. Geneva: Swiss Retailer’s Association.Google Scholar
  20. International Council on Nanotechnology. 2005. Nano coalition unveils environmental, health and safety database. http://www.icon.rice.edu/ (accessed August 19, 2006).
  21. International Council on Nanotechnology. 2008a. Working groups: Knowledge base team. http://icon.rice.edu/projects.cfm?doc_id=4389 (accessed October 30, 2008).
  22. International Council on Nanotechnology. 2008b. EHS Database, last updated 23 October. http://cohesion.rice.edu/centersandinst/icon/research.cfm (accessed October 30, 2008).
  23. Kelsall, D. 2006. Stand and declare: Opportunity and challenge of clinical trial registration. Canadian Family Physician 52: 1189–1190. (October).Google Scholar
  24. Laine, C., R. Horton, C.D. DeAngelis, J.M. Drazen, et al. 2007. Clinical trial registration—looking back and moving ahead. The New England Journal of Medicine 35626: 2734–2735. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe078110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemmens, T., and R.A. Rouchard. 2007. Mandatory clinical trial registration: rebuilding public trust in medical research. Global Forum Update on Research for Health 4: 40–46.Google Scholar
  26. Martinez, B. 2004. Glaxo settles New York suit over unpublished clinical data. The Wall Street Journal 27 August: B3.Google Scholar
  27. Maynard, A.D., R. Aitken, T. Butz, V.L. Colvin, et al. 2006. Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nature 444: 267–269. doi: 10.1038/444267a.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Medina, C., M.J. Santos-Martinez, A. Radomski, O.I. Corrigan, and M.S. Radomski. 2007. Review: nanoparticles: pharmacological and toxicological significance. British Journal of Pharmacology 150: 552–558. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0707130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oberdörster, G., V. Stone, and K. Donaldson. 2007. Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 11: 2–25. doi: 10.1080/17435390701314761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. Nanotechnologies at the OECD. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  31. Poland, C.A., R. Duffin, I. Kinlock, A.D. Maynard, et al. 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology 3: 423–428. doi: 10.1038/nnano.2008.111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Soil Association. 2006. A proposed voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. Soil Association response to Defra consultation, July. https://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/b0062cf005bc02c180256a6b003d987f/9e47591b80454944802571b8003c5745?OpenDocument&Highlight=2 (accessed May 5, 2007).
  33. Standing Committee on State Development. 2008. Nanotechnology in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Legislative Council.Google Scholar
  34. Stark, D. 2007. Defra nanotechnology stakeholder meetings, 14 February. http://www.euronanotrade.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=557&Itemid=83# (accessed March 6, 2007).
  35. Steinbrook, R. 2004. Registration of clinical trials—voluntary or mandatory? The New England Journal of Medicine 35118: 1820–1822. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stuart, C. 2005. Making labor safety a priority and a profit. Small Times November/December: 32–33.Google Scholar
  37. US National Institute of Health. 2008. About ClinicalTrials.gov. http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/info/about (accessed November 2, 2008).
  38. Woolas, P. 2008. From the Minister for the Environment: UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials, 20 March. London: Defra.Google Scholar
  39. World Health Organization. 2008a. About the WHO ICTPR. http://www.who.ntictrp/about (accessed November 2, 2008).
  40. World Health Organization. 2008b. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): Unique identification. http://www.who.int/ictrp/utrn/en/ (accessed November 2, 2008).
  41. Zarin, D.A., T. Tse, and N. Ide. 2005. Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. The New England Journal of Medicine 35326: 2779–2787. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa053234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies, Faculty of LawMonash UniversityClayton VicAustralia

Personalised recommendations