Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These organisations included, for example, BASF Corporation, Bayer Material Science, Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric, Nanofilm and Swan Chemicals Inc.

  2. In contrast, the focus of the second party, the Working Party on Nanotechnology, is primarily focused on broader policy related dimensions of the development of the technology, including international co-operation, public engagement, and trade (OECD 2008).

  3. Including, for example, the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

References

  • BASF. 2004. Code of conduct for nanotechnology. Ludwigshafen: BASF.

    Google Scholar 

  • BASF. 2006. In dialogue: Nanotechnology at BASF. Ludwigshafen: BASF.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2006a. UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials. London: Defra.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Environmental Defense. 2008. Press Release: EPA nanotechnology voluntary program risks becoming a “black hole”, 28 July. New York: Environmental Defense.

  • Environmental Defense and DuPont. 2007. Nano risk framework. New York: EDF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Notice: nanoscale materials stewardship program. Federal Register 7318: 4861–4866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, N. 2006. Women buying creams made of tiny particles “used as guinea pigs”. The Daily Telegraph. London, 5 May, p.6.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Interessengemeinschaft Detailhandel Schweiz. 2008. Code of conduct for nanotechnologies. Geneva: Swiss Retailer’s Association.

  • International Council on Nanotechnology. 2005. Nano coalition unveils environmental, health and safety database. http://www.icon.rice.edu/ (accessed August 19, 2006).

  • International Council on Nanotechnology. 2008a. Working groups: Knowledge base team. http://icon.rice.edu/projects.cfm?doc_id=4389 (accessed October 30, 2008).

  • International Council on Nanotechnology. 2008b. EHS Database, last updated 23 October. http://cohesion.rice.edu/centersandinst/icon/research.cfm (accessed October 30, 2008).

  • Kelsall, D. 2006. Stand and declare: Opportunity and challenge of clinical trial registration. Canadian Family Physician 52: 1189–1190. (October).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Martinez, B. 2004. Glaxo settles New York suit over unpublished clinical data. The Wall Street Journal 27 August: B3.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Oberdörster, G., V. Stone, and K. Donaldson. 2007. Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 11: 2–25. doi:10.1080/17435390701314761.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2008. Nanotechnologies at the OECD. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Standing Committee on State Development. 2008. Nanotechnology in New South Wales. Sydney: NSW Legislative Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

  • Steinbrook, R. 2004. Registration of clinical trials—voluntary or mandatory? The New England Journal of Medicine 35118: 1820–1822. doi:10.1056/NEJMp048264.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, C. 2005. Making labor safety a priority and a profit. Small Times November/December: 32–33.

  • US National Institute of Health. 2008. About ClinicalTrials.gov. http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/info/about (accessed November 2, 2008).

  • Woolas, P. 2008. From the Minister for the Environment: UK voluntary reporting scheme for engineered nanoscale materials, 20 March. London: Defra.

  • World Health Organization. 2008a. About the WHO ICTPR. http://www.who.ntictrp/about (accessed November 2, 2008).

  • World Health Organization. 2008b. International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): Unique identification. http://www.who.int/ictrp/utrn/en/ (accessed November 2, 2008).

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana M. Bowman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bowman, D.M., Ludlow, K. Filling the Information Void: Using Public Registries as a Tool in Nanotechnologies Regulation. Bioethical Inquiry 6, 25–36 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9134-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9134-9

Keywords

Navigation