Regulators around the world are currently grappling with how to manage the possible risks associated with first generation nanotechnologies. But increasingly sophisticated nanotechnology-based products are coming—will the old regulations still cover these emerging nanotechnologies, or is a re-think in how substances are regulated in order?
Nanotechnology is oft-heralded as the next industrial revolution—something that will transform our lives. But despite this lofty vision, many of the nano-driven products that consumers and regulators are grappling with at the moment seem rather mundane. Nanotechnology promoters talk about smart drugs, super-strong materials and science fiction-like invisibility cloaks. Yet for most people, the nanotechnology of the hear-and-now doesn’t extend much beyond sunscreens and stain-resistant pants.
Okay, so this is something of an oversimplification. But it’s fair to say that regulatory agencies charged with protecting people and the environment have so far been faced with rather simple and crude nanotech-enabled products. These early products of engineering matter at the nanoscale have raised plenty of challenges of their own when it comes to ensuring safe use—like how a material that can cause harm because of its size as well as its chemistry should be regulated, or which of the current battery of toxicity tests applied to new substances work for nanomaterials, and which do not. However, with some creative thinking, a dash of new research and a bit of hand waving, there’s a general (although by no means universal) feeling that existing regulatory frameworks can just about stretch to cover many of the current products of nanotechnology.
But will this always be the case?
What are the chances of future developments in nanotechnology throwing up products that are so unusual, that existing regulatory frameworks are stressed to the point of breaking?
Looking into the emerging technologies crystal ball is always a dangerous business—there’s often a gaping chasm between the seeds of new technologies and those that eventually make it to market. Development timescales are inevitably longer than predicted. And more often than not, the most successful new technologies are the ones that sneak under the radar—taking everyone unawares.
Yet even with these limitations, we probably know enough about where nanotechnology is heading to gain some insight into whether existing regulatory frameworks are likely to suffice, or whether, at some point, new approaches need to be considered.
In tackling the question of future regulatory challenges from emerging nanotechnologies, it seems important to ask “what is different about nanotech?” It’s where new materials and products deviate from established norms that regulatory frameworks will be most likely be stressed. Some emerging products of nanotechnology will quite conceivably look very conventional from a regulatory perspective—these shouldn’t cause too many problems. But where a new product’s ability to cause harm doesn’t fit with current understanding, alarm bells should start to ring.
In working out what (if anything) is different about nanotech, there is a tendency to fall back on generally accepted definitions of nanotechnology, such as the one crafted by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). But this is a temptation that needs to be resisted. The NNI definition of nanotechnology is one of expedience, not science. It serves the purpose of stimulating new research and technology innovation in an exciting new area—and does this brilliantly. But it doesn’t clearly define a set of products and processes that have common and specific safety issues; and it was never intended to.
Instead, it is more helpful to ask how materials engineered at a nanometer scale might behave differently to more conventional materials, and how this might affect their safe use.
Read more: http://2020science.org/2009/09/11/living-in-a-post-chemistry-world-the-regulatory-challenges-of-emerging-nanotechnologies/#ixzz0R2Ko12PS
READ THE REST
IEET Blog