In 2004 the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (RS/RAEng) published their eagerly anticipated report on the opportunities and uncertainties of nanotechnologies. The report quickly earned wide spread respect for its detail and perspectives on the advances surrounding nanotechnology as well as helping to correct the UK Government's past failure to lead on the nanotech issue. Thus, the report quickly assumed gold standard status.
Since 2004 further reports have been published and numerous public engagement strategies implemented in order to respond to the points raised by the RS/RAEng report. It has been suggested that 50 national and international reviews have been carried out by various government departments, industry associations and insurance organisations[1]. All of these projects have sought to research, clarify and chart a way forward on matters concerning nanoparticles and associated risks.
The common findings of all of these reports can be summarised quite succinctly. First, it is agreed that there are potential risks to health and the environment from the manufacture and use of nanoparticles. Second, there is a lack of knowledge about what these risks are and how they should be dealt with. Thirdly, as a result of the previous point research is needed, which involves the participation of all stakeholders, to fill this knowledge deficit.
Consequently, the general feeling has been that research activity in the UK has increased. Thus, one would expect that now five years on since the publication of the RS/RAEng report that some resemblance of gaps being filled in the knowledge base would be seen to be taking place.
Sadly this does not appear to be the case. In fact, in order to accurately chart progress it might be better to adopt the nano scale, given the lack of progress.
House of Lords enquiry into nanotechnologies and food
The House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology launched an inquiry into Nanotechnologies and Food on 3 February 2009. In one of its recent sessions, evidence was heard from various representatives from the research councils with regarding to capacity building in this area.
From listening to the proceedings of this session what becomes quickly apparent is the lack of real progress in actively seeking to address the deficit in knowledge. This really does appear to be perverse given the number of different groups and councils which have been formed around nanotechnology. Cross councils of research councils exist, involving the likes of Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Nanotech issue groups exist which draw in representation from DEFRA and Food Standards Agency. The Nanotechnology Research Coordination Group (NRCG) has even been established with the specific remit to coordinate publicly funded research into the potential risks presented by the products and applications of nanotechnologies. It is chaired by Defra and membership includes Government Departments, Regulatory Agencies and the Research Councils[2].
In theory the infrastructure to aid such research looks to be in place. But having the groups and infrastructure in place is not enough if the frames of reference and focus are not adequately trained on the areas which need to be addressed and held to account. It does make one wonder whether or not this problem is a symptom of the nanotechnology phenomena. Everything appears to be nano from i-Pods to computer text editors, giving rise to debates over whether or not it should be referred to as solely a technology or technologies. Has creating groups and bodies concerned with the nanotech cause simply been in response to the ‘buzz’ or with a specific need in mind?
The response of research council representatives to questions posed by members of the Lords select committee regarding this deficit in knowledge was that it is easier said than done. Carrying out the research to find the answers is a difficult task to undertake. Consequently, it is too early to be able to provide the conclusions and the necessary answers to questions pertaining to risk assessment, toxicology and nanoparticle penetration.
The frustration and bewilderment of committee members to these responses was evident. What is slowing the process down? Whilst on the one hand research council representatives acknowledged the importance of filling the knowledge gap, on the other they appeared to lack a sense of urgency in driving forward the research. Despite the funding and resources available there appears to be no real coordinated effort to initiate the necessary research required to fill the gaps. Is this case of management versus leadership? Management very often looks to maintain a present position, taking its cues from benchmarks across an industry. In comparison, leadership will often turns current trends on their head, creating something from nothing. Have we entered deadlock in the nanotechnology conversation where true leadership is required in order to move this thing forward rather than just tinker and 'celebrate' what we already know?
EMERGNANO
A sign of hope in the face of this problem could be the EMERGNANO report, mentioned several times during the committee meeting. The project sought to undertake a review of completed and near completed environment, health and safety research on nanomaterials and nanotechnology and was completed in March 2009.
The report does indeed put forward recommendations for new research to help fill the gaps. Among various points for consideration, it notes that there has been a widespread imbalance in the work being carried out, in relation to the NRCG programme of 19 research objectives (RO) and its five main scientific areas i) TFA1: Metrology, Characterisation, standardisation and reference materials ii) TFA2: Exposure – sources, pathways and technologies iii) TFA3: Human health hazard and risk assessment iv) TFA4: Environmental hazard and risk assessment and v) TFA5: Social and economic dimensions of nanotechnologies. The sheer number of research projects does not correspond with the main task force areas and the eighteen research objectives. A larger number of studies have been carried out in terms of human health, with research into environmental impact and implications being substantially lower.
If this was not striking enough, when capacity building was analysed in terms of reference to each of the nineteen research objectives, 44 studies were deemed relevant to RO14 (which refers to research to establish a clear understanding of the deposition, distribution, toxicity, pathogenicity and translocation potential and pathways for nanoparticles in the airways and lung and their potential impacts on the cardiovascular system and brain) in comparison to just one with reference to RO9 (referring to optimisation, development and application of technologies that enable the measurement of exposure to nanoparticles in soil and water[3].
From the angle of regional variations, it is perhaps not surprising to find that there are differences between areas. This level of variation could be explained by variations in national priorities and capabilities. For example, the largest number of studies was found to be in the USA, closely followed by the UK.
Public access
From any reasonable level of research undertaken into the nanotechnology conversation, one will quickly come across a strong sense that the nanotech debate must avoid at all cost following the same trajectory as the GM foods debacle. Consequently, there is a real need to ensure upstream engagement with the public as early as possible. Hence the plethora of public engagement initiatives and projects which now seem to be either in operation or have now since concluded their research.
Indeed, the House of Lords Science and Technology committee in their Science and Society report published in 2000 supported such a position, recommending that direct dialogue with the public should move from being an optional add-on to science-based policy making to…..a normal and integrated part of the process [4].
It is therefore a little alarming to find that one of the challenges the EMERGNANO project encountered was not being able to satisfactorily identify useful output from some studies, undertaken with public funding, because the results had not been released into the public domain. Surely this is something that cannot be left unaddressed?
Room for improvement: an understatement
In each of the four task areas, there still remains an overall general need for further research work to be carried out. In terms of TFA1, the report does reveal that some progress has been made in identifying candidate materials which may be used to develop characterised reference nanoparticles for toxicology[5].
Regarding TFA2, little is still known about nanoparticles in relation to consumer exposure. Disturbingly, there appears to be no work to date at all which specifically focuses on food. In TFA3, there appears to be a real absence of studies aiming to describe the accumulation of particles in a variety of organs after inhalation. What is particularly concerning in this case is the wording used – “In general there is no attempt to try and identify potential structure-activity relationships that could govern penetration at any of the important boundaries”[6]. If this is not happening, what is actually being attempted?
For the report to conclude that based on their findings, progress to date is “disappointing” is surely an understatement.
A technological revolution
Whilst matters of scientific discovery and advancement do take time and at points perhaps take longer than anticipated, to have no significant signs of activity or ‘work in progress’ in these areas is astonishing. Related questions then emerge as to what precisely are the research councils doing? What research are they funding and more importantly given the economic climate, where is the money going?
It has been argued that simply being yet another technology, nanotechnology presents us with a rebound revolution that far from moving us forward, actually causes us to rethink what we consider science and technology to be within the emerging landscape of nanotechnology. If this is the case then surely proactive leadership needs to be assumed in order to further increase capacity building in areas such as risk and toxicity where currently our understanding is lacking.
Nanotech promises much more than rich-world “accessories” such as sun creams, tennis racquets and triple bladed razors and other clever gadgetry. Yet looking at the evidence to date, this could well be where the money is being chanelled towards, instead of where it is most needed.
The EMERGNANO report concludes that the findings present an excellent basis for assessing progress of these studies into the future. Clearly if the RS/RAEng was regarded as a gold standard report of promoting up streaming and public engagement, then the EMERGNANO is a gold standard report in terms of exposing the embarrassing inertia of nanotech research and development.
As representatives of the research councils have indicated, let us hope that the report is duly taken up by all stakeholders and used to bench mark what progress has been made to date in order to generate the necessary research.
It will be interesting to continue to monitor the progress of the House of Lords select committee’s enquiry and read their final report on this exciting and revolutionary field of science and technology. It presents a profound set of questions largely because it seems to have no discernable boundaries, causing us to be its new frontier. Therefore the need to capacity build and enhance our understanding and knowledge is of even more paramount importance
[1] Aitken, R.J, Hankin, S.M, Ross, B. et al, EMERGNANO A review of completed and near completed environment, health and safety research on nanomaterials and nanotechnology: Executive Summary, (Defra, 2009), http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=CB0409_7908_EXE.doc [accessed 25th June 2009] , p.2.
[2] "Nanotechnologies - Research Coordination Group", http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/nanotech/research/, [accessed 28th June 2009].
[3] Aitken, R.J, Hankin, S.M, Ross, B. et al, EMERGNANO A review of completed and near completed environment, health and safety research on nanomaterials and nanotechnology: Executive Summary, (Defra, 2009), http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=CB0409_7908_EXE.doc [accessed 25th June 2009] , p.3
[4] House of Lords (2000), Science and Society, Chapter 5: Engaging the Public, para. 5.48
[5] Ibid, p.4
[6] Ibid, p.4
