nanotechnology oversight - Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nanotechnology Oversight: An Agenda for the New Administration 7 II. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE Actions required to promote <strong>nanotechnology</strong> and to prevent its potential adverse effects involve numerous agencies and various kinds of efforts. Because of the gaps in our knowledge and the rapid pace at which the technology is evolving, any steps taken now will likely have to be modified in the future. However, that does not mean we should not act. It means simply that any actions we take should be flexible enough to incorporate new knowledge. RESEARCH The NNI is the coordinating body for federal <strong>nanotechnology</strong> research. NNI does not have a budget of its own: the $1.5 billion that comes under its aegis for FY 2009 is the sum of the <strong>nanotechnology</strong> budgets of a dozen agencies (see Appendix B). The agency with the largest portion of that $1.5 billion is the Department of Defense (DOD) ($306 million), followed by the National Science Foundation ($247 million). In FY 2009, $76 million, about 5 percent of NNI funds, is categorized by NNI as research on the health and environmental effects of nano. An assessment of previous NNI research budgets suggests, however, that perhaps only a third of this 5 percent will support research primarily aimed at addressing the risks of <strong>nanotechnology</strong> (Maynard 2008). Most of the remaining 95 percent of NNI funds are being used to foster <strong>nanotechnology</strong> applications and to advance the science of <strong>nanotechnology</strong>. The recommendations to improve <strong>nanotechnology</strong> research are as follows: *1. Increase environmental, health and safety (EHS) research funding. The most important step that can be taken in <strong>nanotechnology</strong> research is to significantly increase the dollars going to EHS research. EHS research is the greatest need, and it is the area that has been most neglected. Although still inadequate, the proposed FY 2009 level for nano EHS funding is an encouraging increase over the FY 2008 level. Also in the 2009 budget, NNI for the first time identifies EHS research in a separate category, a step that should reduce some of the controversy about what the government is actually spending. Neither the recent NNI EHS research strategy (www.nano.gov; issued 2/14/08) nor the EPA Nanomaterial Research Strategy (draft, EPA ORD, 1/24/08) contains detailed budget estimates, which makes it hard to estimate what the federal government should be spending on nano-related EHS research. An early version of the House Committee on Science and Technology bill reauthorizing and amending the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act required that EHS funding be at least 10 percent of total NNI funding. The 10 percent figure drew support from industry and environmental leaders but was opposed by the Bush White House. There is a question of the availability of competent researchers, but additional funds will attract researchers and encourage them to apply their expertise to <strong>nanotechnology</strong>. A reasonable target is to increase FY 2009 funding to $100 million and FY 2010 funding to $150 million. 2. Require a peer-reviewed EHS research plan. The effectiveness of EHS research is a function not only of the quantity of dollars spent but also of the quality and relevance of the research undertaken. As Andrew Maynard of PEN (2006, p.5) has said, “The federal government needs to assume top-down, * Priority
8 authoritative <strong>oversight</strong> of strategic risk-based research.” The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 requires that NNI issue a general strategic research plan and update that plan every three years. The act should be amended to similarly require an EHS strategic plan and to require that the plan be developed with stakeholder input, be peer reviewed and be subject to public comment before being made final. The EHS strategic plan must have clear goals and a workable road map for how to achieve those goals. The House bill referenced above would require NNI to issue an EHS plan. An EHS research plan issued voluntarily by NNI in 2007 was widely condemned as inadequate by both congressional lawmakers and scientists. A revised plan, issued in February 2008, was somewhat improved but still lacked details about how the goals would be accomplished. *3. Strengthen National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) coordination. For the research plan to be effective, NNI needs to have greater ability to direct and coordinate agency expenditures. At present, it relies on cajoling the agencies and on whatever influence it can exert over the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB acts as the president’s agent in putting together the federal budget, and thus is the only real source of power with regard to budgeting. The president should direct OMB to ensure that individual agency <strong>nanotechnology</strong> EHS budget requests are consistent with the NNI EHS plan. During the annual budget review, NNI should be authorized to make recommendations to OMB for switching funds among agencies and programs. Consideration should be given to providing a lump sum of money that NNI could use to jump-start high-priority research projects. Another option would be to require that one associate director in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) be responsible for NNI coordination. OSTP’s associate directors are among the few positions in the Executive Office of the President that require Senate confirmation and are therefore subjected to congressional <strong>oversight</strong>. 4. Encourage separation of NNI promotional and <strong>oversight</strong> functions. More than 90 percent of NNI funds are spent on development and promotion of <strong>nanotechnology</strong>, and encouraging the growth of the technology has been the focus of NNI’s efforts. Some environmental groups have claimed that this promotional function interferes with the function of assuring adequate research on and <strong>oversight</strong> of potential adverse effects of <strong>nanotechnology</strong>. Responding to this criticism, the NNI, in its 2007 Strategic Plan, established EHS as a separate program component (National Science and Technology Council 2007). The establishment of a separate interagency regulatory coordinating group (see page 9) and a separate EHS research plan (see page 7) should prevent the NNI’s promotional function from interfering with an aggressive program to identify any EHS problems with <strong>nanotechnology</strong>. 5. Establish a Nanotechnology Effects Institute. The federal government and the <strong>nanotechnology</strong> industry have a joint stake in improving scientific knowledge about the effects of <strong>nanotechnology</strong>. This shared interest could be embodied in the creation of a scientific research institute devoted to understanding the effects of <strong>nanotechnology</strong>. The institute would be modeled on the Health
Page 1 and 2: Project on Emergin
Page 3 and 4: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author thanks
Page 5 and 6: ABOUT THE AUTHOR J. CLARENCE (TERRY
Page 7 and 8: urgently need to be strengthened. F
Page 9 and 10: * Communicate to workers and firms
Page 11 and 12: 2 800 FIGURE 1. TOTAL PRODUCTS LIST
Page 13 and 14: 4 vivid examples of how adverse pub
Page 18 and 19: Nanotechnology Oversight: An Agenda
Page 38 and 39: WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER

nanotechnology oversight - Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?