Timing, hosts and locations of (grouped) events of NanoImpactNet

NanoSafetyCluster - Compendium 2012
Top policy makers and scientists from the Czech Republic, Europe
and the USA met, 29-30 November 2010, at the Academy of
Sciences.
Speakers described their areas of expertise in light of the specific
complexity and uncertainty which nanotechnolgies bring.
Delegates learnt about to transatlantic dimensions to nanosafety,
including how the US National Nanotechnology Coordination
Office is creating strategic focus to minimise uncertainty and
complexity in nanotechnology safety research, and details of the
US EPA’s experience in assessing the risk of MNMs.
High-level presentations were given by the EC, JRC, WHO, UNITAR
and esteemed European academic researchers. Representatives of
industry explained their take on comlexity and nanosafety, and Dr
Wolf-Michael Catenhusen presented Germany’s national dialogue
on nanosafety and the views of the most important stakeholders
in safe nanotechnologies – citizen-consumers.
Analysis of the risks posed by MNM must cover their entire life
cycle - from production (workers may face significant contact with
new nano-enhanced goods), to use (consumers take advantage of
nano-benefits), to elimination (somewhere in our environment).
Nothing can be taken for granted when it comes to nano-safety.
This has been reflected in peer review article by Hunt & Riediker
published in 2011 in Nanotechnology Perceptions: “Building expert
consensus on problems of uncertainty and complexity in
nanomaterial safety.”
5.1.10 3 rd NanoImpactNet Integrating Conference and
Training School in Lausanne, Switzerland
From 14-17 February 2011, Lausanne’s University hopsitals, once
again welcomed representatives of academia, regulatory
authorities, government departments, civil society and industry to
discuss the challenges and limitations of NM safety. The
conference had 6 plenary sessions (1. Opening session: Setting the
scene – Creating bridges between nanomedicine and
NanoImpactNet research; 2. Nano-pharmalogical input to research
on the human and environmental impact of nanomaterials; 3.
Lessons from Nano-Immunology on the impact of nanomaterials;
4. Human impat of engineered nanomaterials and lessons for the
nanomedical field; 5. Implications from environmental fate and
behaviour research for the field of nanomedicine involving
nanomaterials; 6. The future of the NanoImactNet community) and
featured over 29 presentations from leading experts providing
insight into the latest nanotsafety research. Over 240 delegates
attended this conference, representing over dozens of universities
and research institutes. A one-day training school took place on
the day after the conference on Thursday 17 February. Training
School on Reproducible Uptake and Quantification of Nannoparticles
in vitro (and in vivo).
The school was split into 2 parts. Session 1 covered stereological
counting of NPs in cells. This included the preparation and
optimisation of samples for TEM imaging and stereology, and the
general principles of this method. Students carried out some
practical exercises on the quantification of uptake via stereology of
TEM images. Session 2 was on quantitative NP uptake. It covered
different approaches of studying and quantifying uptake kinetics
of NPs in vitro, using flow cytometry and imaging techniques.
Students also learnt about Time-resolved analysis for splitting
random trajectories (an approach for understanding NP uptake
and dynamics in cells). They then carried out quantification
exercises of uptake and dynamic in cells.
Conference Sessions
The Opening session focused on creating bridges between
nanomedicine and NanoImpactNet’s research. It featured
presentations from the director of Lausanne’s university hospital;
of the opportunities and risks of nanomedicines by a research
clinician; and about EU FP7 policies for nanoSafety and
nanomedicine research.
Session 1 looked at Nano-pharmacological input to research on the
human and environmental impact of nanomaterials. Presentations
covered whether nanotechnology can solve solubility problems in
pharmacology; identification of protein-nanoparticle interation
sites; blood clearance and tissue distribution of NPs; and
nanoastructured drug delivery to the brain via the nose..
Session 2 looked at lessons from the field of nano-immunology on
the impact of nanomaterials. Subjects covered included
understanding the interactions of engineered NMs with the
immune system; the effects of NPs on immune response of
lymphocytes, identifying immune related gene-markers following
interaction of engineered NPs with human intestinal epithelial
cells; an immunosafety of engineered NPs and implementing
methods for developing nanomedicines.
Session 3 looked at the human impact of engineered NMs and
lessons for the field of nanomedicine, Presentations covered
silicon nitride porous membranes for NP translocation in vitro
assays; suspension and aerosol exposure scenarios of lung cells in
vitro to zinc oxide; how copper oxide NPs at via a Trojan Horse
mechanism; and a new screening too for NP toxicity experiments.
Session 4 looked at the Implications from environmental fate &
behaviour research for the field of nanomedicine involving
nanomaterials. Subjects covered included: how NPs behave in
biological fluids; how to make highly fluorescent silica NPs to trace
their intracellular fate; assessing exposure risk, persistence and
accumulation on NP silver in aquatic and marine environments; and
how all these impact nanomedicine.
Session 5 looked to the future of the NanoImpactNet community,
the project’s final year of operation and how certain nanosafety
communication activities might continue in the future.
Special stakeholder session - “Involving stakeholders in setting
research priorities”
Invited speakers from industry (Novartis), a consumer group
(ANEC) and the Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies
reflected on whether nanotechnologies will transform medicine,
how it might do so and what it might actually offer in the next 10-15
years. They also looked at whether the benefits will be worthwhile
both in terms of development costs and in terms of prevention and
therapy for patients, and whether those benefits outweigh
potential risks, or poor perceptions. Led by Profs. Geoffrey Hunt
(SMUC), and Alain Kaufmann (Uni. Lausanne) and with active
participation from delegates, discussions covered potential disease
and population groups which might benefit.
The results of this session and two parallel sessions on
characterisation and communication were combined to make
128 Compendium of Projects in the European NanoSafety Cluster