Some say the world ends in fire, others ice. At times I fear the Grey Goo. Whether you are worried about nanotechnology devouring the universe or simply mucking up your lungs, you may wish to peruse these proposed nanohazard warning designs. My brilliant, Left Coast buddy Severine let me know about the contest, and also emailed me her essay on the hazards of nanotech and the need for oversite, which you can read after the jump.

transgenic, mutant, pollution muching nano-bots, and other EPA approved projects.

Governance missing.
A Look at US regulation of nanotechnology
With a focus on Nanotechnology applications on Foods

Severine von Tscharner Fleming, November 30 2005

PROLOGUE

The writing of this paper coincided with a tremendous, collective, and simultaneous burst of regulatory action on nanotechnology. During the course of the last three weeks there have been several high profile reports, national regulations, city regulations, ASTM terminology standardization, and international scientific and political discourse on the topic of nanotech safety protocols. The particular novelty of many of these regulatory actions makes this paper somewhat uneven, reflecting the unevenness between the proscribed actions, promised funding, ‘boots on the ground’ research and web-site documentation of the new policy goals. Due to the newness, bigness and complexity of nanotechnology I feel as though I have barely gotten my mind around what the stuff is, let alone how we should regulate it. I am in good company with my ignorance, and feel justified in my bitterness.

You do not get a man’s most effective criticism until you provoke him. Severe truth is expressed with some bitterness.
Henry David Thoureau

SILICON VALLEY TOXICS COALITION FRAMEWORK

I. Technology is never neutral.
II. Technological fixes will not save us.
III. All technology occurs within a political/social/humanitarian context.

This paper deals with the governance issues surrounding a novel sector of scientific research based on the study, manipulation, and deployment of materials manipulated at an atomic scale for various purposes. The overwhelming promise of these new technologies for patent extention on existing chemicals, for developing sensors, switches, fibre optics, fertilizers, toxic waste remediation techniques etc. presents such a blinding opportunity for industry and science, that even those bodies within the US government -which ought to be regulating, testing, and preventing nano-euphoric contamination events, have joined on the bandwagon. In many cases it seems that they have hitched their own mighty oxen to the front an expansionist wagon train into micro-science, and have deployed insufficient scouts up the trail . In the last week of writing this paper much ‘late breaking news’ of new regulations and precautionary agenda turned out to be hollow promises, like a sale’s pitch to the frontier town sheriff. “Yes, Sir. We’ll be careful” I leave it to you, my reader to decide for yourself whether the safety protocols are adequate.

INTRODUCTION TO NANO

Nanotechnology describes a whole host of procedures, processes and products which exist in ‘nano scale’ ie they can be measured in nanometers. One nanometer is equal to 1/billionth of a meter. Nanomaterials take advantage of the unique chemical reactivity, surface area, and quantum mechanics of the micro-scale to exhibit amplified reactivity and chemical attributes unseen in the macro-versions of their component elements. Carbon, silicon, titanium, aluminum and silver are preferred materials (along with many heavy metals such as gold, palladium, platinum) for use in these contexts. Carbon in particular is employed in the creation of ‘nanotubes’ , bucky balls, fullerenes, quantum dots, dendremes and other structural ‘vehicles.’ These tiny fibres and shuttles can contain or convey DNA, explosives, drugs, adhesives, corrosives, anathetics.. or any number of ‘reaction sensitive’ reagents-useful in making switches, sensors and micro-fluidic discrimination chambers/pumps. The promises and potentials for nanotechnology to revolutionize numerous areas of scientific enquiry and enterprise has ensured its status as investment darling, but public heath consequences and environmental concerns have by no means triggered a similarly robust regulatory framework.

PROMISE OF NANO TECH

With applications ranging from nano solar, to nano-film food coverings, nano-sensor crop monitoring systems, nano-enabled drug delivery, nano-protected textiles, nano-emulsified margerine, nano-robotic soil detoxifiers, nano-fiber ‘smart clothing’, nano-embedded wireless energy distribution, nano genetic engineering, nano ‘cancer’ bots, nano nutraceuticals, nano biowarfare…it is clear that regulation, governance and oversight of the vast number of experimental projects and industrial applications will require quite a sophisticated, well funded, and adequately prepared set of institutions. But it gets far worse than you might first imagine. In envisioning the future along the lines of the predictions of material scientists, it soon becomes apparent that we are in the midst of a mind-blowing convergence in the fields of nanotech, biotech, info-tech, and even neuroscience. This convergence makes use of knowledge gained in each of these fields in the to enable manipulation across species, and across the biological/digital divide, creating ‘organisms’ with the capacity for rudimentary logic, and self replication. These conceptions are often difficult to grasp, but in essence Synthetic Biology is the science of creating ‘living mashines:’ novel life forms with new genomes (mixed, matched and also synthesized from scratch) composed of bioloigical tissue components, but which function as production units within a computer controlled system. The institutions, regulations, inspectors, international treaties, biodiversity protections, contamination prevention, ethical preventatives and cultural discourse needed to ensure that such creatures do not wrek total havoc on planet ecosystems might just be more than we can muster. This paper argues that such institutions are sorely lacking the United States, but that muster them we must, or else face a quite unbelievable erosion of the biological foundation that supports our human existence.

NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE

The Federal government has long provided R&D for research sectors which it feels are critical for American security, or the American economy. Currently with a big Department of Defense push for ‘renewable energy’ the big bucks are flowing and all sorts of folks who used to be activists are now ‘biofuel venture capitalists,’ on the private side of a public expenditure boom. Labs at this University and others around the country heed the ‘call to arms’ as heralded by increased research grants, and thus the course of research, product development, and economic growth are cunningly predetermined. Not all that comes from this ‘supply chain’ is necessarily evil. Al Gore tends to remind us that the internet emerged from a DARPA surveillance system, and our entire agri-chemical industry (including DDT and synthetic fertilizers) emerged out of the nerve-gas research for World War II. DDT was banned in the 1970s in a flush of environmental regulations (Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act) enacted in response to a movement begun by Rachel Carson and her book Silent Spring. Environmentalists are still using the rules set up in the 70’s to hold polluters accountable. What we currently face is a new set of products that do not properly fit into the old rules, but no new rules have yet been passed. We are essentially waiting for Nano Nation to be written.

The federal government has decided that Nanotechnology is the next ‘big thing’ and has allocated a substantial budged to nano R&D. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (nano.gov) is the coordinating body for this federal income stream, they predict that next Fiscal Year the federal budget will be more than 1.6 billion. The National Nanotechnology Initative will henceforth be called NNI. Please look at the Bibliography section for a full list of NNI participants. While it is difficult to find government agencies focused on regulation of nanotechnology, it is not for lack of interest in the sector. Among the many Federal Agencies concentrating on the promotion and development of nano-scale technologies, and the ‘scaling up’ of nano-material applications we find: The National Nanotechnology Initiative, National Science Foundation, NASA, Department of Defense- Nanoscale Science, the Engineering, and Technology subcommittee, The National Science and Technology Council, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Commitee on Technology, National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, National Science and Technology Council, EPA Nanotechnology grants projects STAR and SBIR and EPA Office of Research and Development, The National Nanotechnology Initiative and others. (www.nano.gov) While the EPA does mention the potential risks of nanotech on its website, but it is very difficult to find any evidence of research, spending, or even precautionary thinking among its various programs.

THE EPA (Environmental Protection Agency of the US)

The EPA website has remarkably little information about regulating nanotech, but it does list many of the projects which it has funded (Ranging $70,000-200,000) in experimental Nanotech projects for environmental remediation. Many of these projects are fall under a program called STAR (Science To Achieve Results). This program has given over $6 Million dollars to University research programs aimed at Environmental applications of “super tech” nanotechnology. STAR researchers are part of a government-wide effort (National Nanotechnology Initiative www.nano.gov) that doubled in funding from FY 2000 to FY 2001. They are pursuing a highly practical goal: “green nanotechnology” or, finding ways to apply this fast-developing technology to create a cleaner environment.” Those familiar with the history of genetically modified organisms will remember that the first patent ever awarded for a living creature was for a ‘oil-eating’ bacteria meant to denature petroleum contamination after oilspills. While the bacteria in question turned out not to be practical, it set a precedent. The EPA focus on ‘green nanotech’ is telling of the unerring faith in new technologies to solve the problems caused by older ones. It is also telling of a relationship with the industries responsible for the “superfund sites’ now under EPA management. Many of these same companies are investing heavily in nano-remediation research, hoping to profit from the poison and the cure.

The EPA funded projects are public/private alliances seeking to create ‘pollution eating’ technologies that can later be brought to market by private, market based firms. One such partnership is between the EPA and Argonide corporation- a manufacturer of alumina–based filters for removing contamination (and specifically arsenic) from drinking water. The EPA hopes that such high technologies can be deployed to clean up the chemical spills and contaminants that it as an agency must currently manage, to treat municipal water supplies of affected areas, and to use in industrial management of hazardous wastes. Argonide’s President Fred Tepper is the producer of these arsenic filters. The legacy of the chemical manufacturers remains eerily present as many of the companies producing ‘next generation materials’ have their roots in heavy industry, or in Fred’s Case, converting weapons-systems from the Soviet era.

“Since 1992, Fred has built a number of relationships in the Russian research community. He has supported R and D there and has also obtained research funding from the U. S. Department of Energy for a number of Russian scientists. He is a founding board member of the US Industrial Coalition. The purpose of USIC, and its Department of Energy National Laboratory partners is to support scientists in the former Soviet Union who had been involved in weapons of mass destruction and convert their technologies into marketable products.” (Argonide website) It all sounds so wholesome and altruistic.

Many of the products made by this particular firm come from a lineage of defense/ wartime/ space capsule applications. The arsenic filter project has bounced around NASA, the US ARMY, the Department of Energy, DARPA, the National Renewable Energies Lab, and the Department of Defense. Product names of other Argonide products reflect the values and atmosphere of defense laboratory culture. “The Vector Virological Institute of Novosibirsk, Russia was added to the CRADA as a subcontractor to support DTC with biological capability.” The Vector Group is active not only in Ceramic/Alumina water purification, but also in many wartime applications, for biosafety, bio-warfare and virus contamination by ‘enemy forces.’ Vector is a fitting name. Often in corporate critiques it is useful to follow the money. In the case of this corporation’s research group, it is they who have most successfully followed the money- in the form of adapting their technologies in accordance with the latest fears, trends, and ‘homeland security’ lingo applications in US government research funds. These tech companies look a lot like creative remoras feeding on the vast fatty belly of the biggest shark around.

LATE BREAKING NEWS

The writing of this paper coincided with the EPA’s first decision to regulate nano tech applications in American consumer goods (November 24, 2006). This is a landmark decision. In an amusing garble of governance confusion the EPA has regulated the use of silver nano particles/powers in consumer products such as washing machines, air fresheners and shoe liners under the only framework currently applicable, FIFRA. FIFRA stands for the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Silver is used as an anti-bacterial, or sterilizing coating, and advertised as such. Regulations have been imposed due to fears that silver ions released into the laundry for the purpose of killing bacteria, could escape into waste streams/waterways and might kill off beneficial bacterial in aquatic ecosystems, or may even cause human health effects. No studies have yet been done on the ecosystem effects of nano-scale silver ions. (Washington Post)

Sadly, the EPA’s pesticide regulations are notoriously full of loopholes. Longtime pesticide watchdogs continue to lobby the EPA to regulate ‘inert’ ingredients, the analog in nanotechnology seems to be nano applications with no claim to kill a pest. The EPA oversight will apply only to products advertised as germ killing – “a detail that at least one major retailer has apparently noted”. (Washington Post) Last year nano-materials escaped regulation because FIFRA does not regulate ‘pesticidal devices.’ Thus from a regulatory perspective, silver ion releasing washing mashines are more like a rat trap, than a rat poison. Thus despite the fact that the machines emit particles into the wash water, and sewer system, they had not been regulated until now, nor have any of the other 375 products currently on the market been evaluated with the holistic framework needed to prevent harm.

‘The Sharper Image, which until recently advertised as anti-microbial several products containing nanosilver, has dropped all such references from its marketing materials.’

In such cases, Jones said, the EPA will not act. “Unless you’re making a claim to kill a pest, you’re not a pesticide,” he said. (Washington Post, Nov 23) So while it is a positive step that the EPA is regulating any nano-material applications, the loopholes in this particular regulatory gesture make it a limp gesture indeed.

One interesting, and as yet unproven suspicion is that this latest EPA ruling falls deliberately and disproportionately against a Korean producer, Samsung, the largest seller of nano-silver products. Like the US, the Korean government has an aggressive strategic investment in nanotechnology, which it sees as the future for the Korean economy. South Korea has committed 2 Billion US dollar in the next ten years for nano R&D. In 2003 the South Korean president enacted the “Nanotechnology Development Promotion Act” to promote research, and the industrialization of that research within Korea. (Asia Pacific Nanotech Weekly) It may well be that the silver rules were meant to send a signal to Korea, that their products will be held to a higher standard.

In the case of nano-silver, motivations for the recent move may also come from the recent announcement by the Hong Kong metro system to coat all hand railings, buttons, grab-poles and handles with a silver-titanium nano-film. This highly publicized move is meant to address the public’s fear of H5N1 Virus, or ‘bird flu’ as the coating is anti-microbial, anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, and anti-viral. The London underground is also considering using this coating in its trains and broader rail system applications in England may follow. With 2.5 million daily riders on the Hong Kong system, exposure to potentially toxic coatings might well have prompted some kind of regulation/safety testing in the US. This case presents a clear cause for concern for those dismayed by the large-scale application of nano-products to public places, and by passing a ruling on the laundry machines, the EPA has taken an important first step in calming public fears and providing the beginnings of a regulatory system.

Intrigue aside, the EPA has more fundamental limitations when it comes to pro-active, research driven precautionary regulation by the. Quite frankly, they don’t have the cash. Funding cuts within the EPA have led in the past few months to the ‘recycling’ of five regional libraries worth of scientific journals, research review and environmental documentation. The EPA estimates that these closures will result in 2 million dollars in savings over the next few years as compared to the 11 million dollars that they spend on product development for environmentally useful nano-tools. . The agency reassured the public that most of the discarded documents are ‘easily found’ elsewhere, or online.

As an agency, the EPA has clearly displayed its institutional confidence in nano-technology. The EPA took one step towards regulating consumer products this week, but it simultaneously approved 15 nano-materials for use without safety testing, and itself administers large-scale applications of nano materials to toxic waste sites in this country.

FDA AS A BRAND

Unlike GMOs, which have only been regulated under FIFRA, nanotech products often have biomedical applications which demand oversight by the FDA. The Food and Drug Administration of the United States is charged with ensuring the safety of our drugs, medical equipment and food supply. The FDA also looks after cosmetics and pet food. Public Statements by the FDA suggest that current regulations are ‘probably adequate’ in the case of nanotechnology. In that there aren’t any. The FDA’s page on Nanotechnology states at the bottom: “This website will direct you to documents in the respective Centers that will help you develop an understanding of how different products are regulated, and how you should proceed to get your product approved for marketing. Please note: While there are no nanotech-specific guidance documents at this time, all existing guidance documents would apply to nanotech products. Some resources on this site require you to have Microsoft Word to view them.” No apologies, no timetables, no public statement about the actions of other governments, or even transparency about the many toxicity studies being carried out by the FDA.

Admittedly the FDA is busy. This year there are 68% more clinical drugs out on the market than there were last year. Clearly the FDA does not want to create bottlenecks for innovation, indeed nanotechnology has been designated a “critical path initiative” with special priority given to the approval to nano/nano combination applications. (NNI) The FDA has either ‘pre-market approval, market clearance, or post-market review. The latter is most lenient as ‘Regulatory action is taken if adverse events occur’ (Nakissa Sadreih) Currently mars company has a patent out to ‘coat food in an inorganic nano-film’ ie seal up a candy-bar with a mico-plastic sheathing imbued with titanium to minimize the oxidation during storage. Another food application being considered by Nestle is to enclose ‘oxygen scavengers’ inside the sealed product packaging to limit respiration by the food and prevent spoilage. Labeling has not surfaced as an issue for the FDA, but it is likely that consumer lobbying will be needed to achieve any transparency about nano in food.

Many of the nano tech projects currently on the market fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA, but many do not. Products like face creams, sports equiptment, non-stick films, drug delivery systems, cleaning supplies, paints, fabrics, waxes/coatings all contain potentially harmful materials, but the current regulatory framework has certain predudices when it comes to actually regulating any particular product. For example, the FDA is far likelier to investigate the safety of a new drug than it is the safety of a new face cream. This reflects a congressional prejudice, not a scientific one. These predudices are unfortunate but reflect the fact that the FDA is seriously underfunded and must therefore prioritize carefully. It is currently estimated to be running 56% short of its estimated budgetary needs just to meet current mandates in FY 2006, let alone build up the kinds of inter-departmental expertise, coordination, and man-power to deal with this new nano sector.
Matthew Herper, saying “…FDA has become synonymous with drug safety. In a sense, ‘FDA approved’ is the brand that the entire $216 billion U.S.drug market is founded upon. Dilute the confidence of the public in the agency, and many billions of dollars in current and potential sales vanish (Does the FDA have what it takes?)

LOCAL GOVERNANCE

The city of Berkeley is to be the first in the nation to take on regulation of nanotech production at a city scale. They hope to set an example for local governance of an issue that federal regulators have largely ignored. Namely, that citizens are concerned about exposure to experimental nano materials, workers are concerned about ‘ asbestos like symptoms’ from nanotube inhalation, and dismayed by the secrecy of the scientific community particularly around issues such as disposal and public transparency. Many of these concerns are locally clustered around the construction of CITRIS, the ongoing work at the Labs on the hill, and in the Chemistry departments at UC Berkeley. “The university’s physics department leads a $7.1 million federally funded project to develop nanomachines capable of performing complex tasks. The lab recently opened its Molecular Foundry, which provides free space for academic, government and industrial scientists to do nonproprietary research. The national lab and UC Berkeley together make as many as 100 new nano compounds a month but in quantities so minuscule that there isn’t enough for testing.” (San Francisco Chronicle) Public Debate in Berkeley has its roots in citizen action against the development of nuclear technologies and weapons at the UC, and the current furor on nano-tech stems from a distrust of the labs based on that history, and an ongoing tension between the city and the University.

Berkeley’s hazardous materials supervisor, Nabil Al-Hadithy believes in the Precautionary Principle, and his comments suggest a distrust of the EPA’s level of ‘acceptable risk”. “ There have been a great number of attempts to regulate (nanotechnologies), and they’ve all amounted to nothing because of the fear of upsetting industry, which leaves workers and the community at some unknown risk,” he said. “It’s the unknown that’s a concern to us ”Al-Hadithy is behind Berkeley’s Dec 5 passage of Title 15. This amendment to Berkeley’s Municipal code, Hazardous Materials and waste mangement “requires the filing of disclosure information for hazardous materials…Title 15 requires all businesses that manufacture of use nanoparticles to submit a written report of the current toxicology of the nanomaterials reported, and methods for safe handling, monitoring, containing, disposing, and tracking the inventory, thus assisteing with prevention and mitigation of releases.” (Action Calender Dec 5, Updated Dec 5-Office of the City Clerk, Berkeley, CA)

Berkeley is at the forefront of regulating nanoparticles, but has been in close communication with other major regulatory players, as well as the top producers of experimental nanoparticles in the country (UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley Labs, UC Physics Department, CITRIS) Article 15 reflects the collaborative writing process, often to the detriment of public health.“Both UC and Lawrence Berkleey lab, when questioned by the Toxics management Division, noted that information on properly managing nanoparticles is still at an early stage. After much consideration and input from staff, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, the United States EPA, and the Woodrow Wilson Institute, the recommended self-reporting was considered to be a minimum regulation for nanotechnology facilities.” Not only is the current program minimal, but enforement is quite tricky since the ‘users’ of nanoparticles have little access to health information themselves. The article ‘hopes’ that a precautionary approach will be used in such cases, but there is no firm rule. While these actions by the city of Berkeley are far from perfect, they are nonetheless an important first step in the process. Eventually, it may well be mandated that businesses and research facilities alike must gather health and safety data on all materials handled, and submit this to the city. In a way, the recently passed system is similar to the Toxics Release Inventory with the caveat that the Berkeley ruling directly argues for a portion of NNI funds to be redirected towards environmental, health and safety testing to fufill city requirements on those issues.

PRINCIPLES OF PRECAUTION

The US Federal government has explicity undertaken a ‘critical path’ (Buckminster Fuller term used by the NNI) with regard to nanotechnology, and has commited to harness the power of nanotechnology in cleaning up existing contamination, and to propel the US economy into the forefront of a profitable new sector. A few cities within the US however, have chosen the “precautionary framework” instead. San Francisco, like the European Union, has chosen to regulate new technologies according to a set of principles developed to limit harm to citizens, rather than reduce friction for industry. The precautionary principles explicitly address the problems of ‘proving harm’ for toxic chemicals in a critique of traditional ‘rubber stamp regulations.” Those communities who suffer contamination often undergo tremendous pain and trauma from the release of new materials into their environment, history has shown that the victims must often suffer terrible medical consequences in order for their concerns to be heard. Under the precautionary principle, citizen safety is a higher priority than economic development for the chemical companies, any ‘risky’ technology bears the burden of proving its safety. Policy makers would prefer a slow, cautious and prudent pace for accepting new chemicals/technologies, than to bear the cost of cancers and pollution.

“Science and technology are creating new solutions to prevent or mitigate environmental problems. However, science is also creating new compounds and chemicals that are already finding their way into mother’s milk and causing other new problems. New legislation may be required to address these situations, and the Precautionary Principle is intended as a tool to help promote environmentally healthy alternatives while weeding out the negative and often unintended consequences of new technologies.”(City of San Francisco Precautionary Principles)

Further:

Where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect shall not be viewed as sufficient reason for the City to postpone cost effective measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its citizens. Any gaps in scientific data uncovered by the examination of alternatives will provide a guidepost for future research, but will not prevent protective action being taken by the City. As new scientific data become available, the City will review its decisions and make adjustments when warranted. (San Francisco Precautionary Principle)

Cities which can envision an environmentally sustainable future are in a good position to limit the entrance of potentially damaging technologies. So often, the trouble comes when there is no vision for a sustainable future, and policy makers spend their time dealing with crisis situations, or in ‘traffic abatement’ programs-employing technological quick-fixes to existing, structurally poor design. Progressive cities like San Francisco have begun to imagine their own futures, Salt Lake City has enacted Kyoto, and ‘green mayors’ are taking the lead in implementing better planning/zoning. If nanotechnology gets on their radar, they have a good set of institutions with which to share ‘best practice’ and get the protocol right.

HIGH TECH INSIDERS URGE CAUTION

While individual federal agencies fumble, industry insiders recognize that the lack of regulation of nanotechnology both endangers pubic acceptance down the road, as well as jeopardizing the reputation of American products abroad.

Bill Joy is a firm believer in technology; he is one of the designers of Unix, and Java. He was one of the founders of Sun Microsystems, he is also a critic of the headlong rush into convergent technological fantasia. “… with the prospect of human-level computing power in about 30 years, a new idea suggests itself: that I may be working to create tools which will enable the construction of the technology that may replace our species. How do I feel about this? Very uncomfortable. Having struggled my entire career to build reliable software systems, it seems to me more than likely that this future will not work out as well as some people may imagine. My personal experience suggests we tend to overestimate our design abilities.
Given the incredible power of these new technologies, shouldn’t we be asking how we can best coexist with them? And if our own extinction is a likely, or even possible, outcome of our technological development, shouldn’t we proceed with great caution? (Sun Systems co-Founders and Head Scientist Bill Joy, Wired Magazine 2001) Bill Joy was joined by White Paper writers from the Lawrence Livermore lab who fear that an inadequate regulatory response to the burgeoning nanotech industry threatens the credibility of these materials in the eyes of the public. Writers at the Woodrow Wilson Center, in one case an ex VP from Monsanto Corporation, are keenly aware that some relations will be needed to appease the public.

These ‘inside voices’ are having quite a big impact on Federal spending and the framing of the Environmental Health and Safety talk at the highest levels. This ‘big talk’ is in many ways similar to the CSR reporting of Nike and other corporations, the research in question has been commissioned to dispel doubts and ensure the smooth sailing of mainstream nanotechnologies. This strategy is similar to the voluntary codes of conduct employed by Nike in that the research commissioned has no explicit power to determine the course of more ‘production oriented’ funding streams. Nike fails its own standards, from the structure of current EHS studies, it is likely that the NNI will fail to address concerns raised by its own scientists. Even so, the tone is hopeful; government press releases prominently feature their expenditures on these issues, and the president has pledged to raise EHS budgets next year to 44 million dollars. “Today, the United States leads the world not only in spending for nanotechnology development, but also by an even larger margin, in its investment in research to understand the potential health and safety issues. Continued interagency coordination of the Federal Government’ investment in both aspects of this emerging technology will help ensure full realization of the potential of nanotechnology in a safe and responsible manner” (September 20, 2006- NNI Environmental, Health and Safety research needs for Engineered nanoscale materials) Again, while it is encouraging to see some more money pledged towards the EHS concerns, it does seem that the main driver for this expenditure is as a government-bolstered insurance policy for the American industry, and these numbers are still just talk-EHS research programs do not yet exist at a scale commensurate with the commercial deployment already underway.

PRECAUTIONARY PROPOSALS

Among the ten suggestions presented by Andrew Maynard (Woodrow Wilson Center for Emerging Nanotechnologies) in Nature Magazine this month is the outline of a systematic, holistic, and precautionary approach to managing the risks of nanotechnology in the environment and for human health. He recommends extensive testing of fibrous materials, of developing sensor technologies for nano emissions/aerosols, of pursuing ecological and in vivo animal studies, and proactively researching all possible consequences of the various products. His is an ambitious, but critical agenda. He reminds readers of the lessons learned with asbestos and GMOS, both in terms of public acceptance and catastrophic health consequences. The liability risks, investment troubles and insurance quagmires may well resound with investors currently involved in over-optimistic product development. Each of Maynard’s recommendations come along with a deadline, he calls for an acceleration in the speed with which governments and industries act to ‘cover the bases’ in terms of product and worker safety. The programs Maynard speaks of are just starting to emerge from NNI, but his are far more radical in the involvement of the public in decision-making.

“Develop strategic programmes that enable relevant risk-focused research, within the next 12 months. Ultimately, systematic and organized risk research will empower industry, consumers and policy-makers to make the best decisions about the development and application of emerging nanotechnologies. As end-users of the scientific data, these communities must play a central role in shaping what is done and how. Government research strategies that systematically reduce uncertainty surrounding the potential impact of nanotechnologies and support science-based oversight are essential to the safe development of nanotechnology. But these must be complemented by, and integrated with, industry-led research. We highlight three areas that we believe are critical to the success of such risk research: collaboration, communication and coordination. “(One of ten recommendations, Nature)

NNI has published an outline of such research programs (September 2006) but each paragraph begins with paeans to the revolutions in agriculture, medicine etc. that nano will bring, and ends each paragraph with comments to the effect of “unintended risks must be investigated to allow for the public to enjoy the benefits of this new technology” The document focuses on ‘risk assessment and risk management’ for these exciting new technologies, frequently comparing nanotechnology to gasoline or X-rays These are not precautionary statements, by any means, for there is nowhere mention of a ‘no action’ decision, where certain materials would be deemed too dangerous for researchers, health workers, and the general public. This is called “relinquishment, ” and has been the model employed under the nuclear arms treaties. The emerging framework for nano testing follows the same old mandate of ‘limiting exposure’ and moderating harm-strategies which have not worked for traditional chemistry, and which (given the unknowns involved with synthetic biology and self-replicating nano technologies) seems totally inadequate. It almost seems like the NNI research protocols were designed to be vague, archaic, and industry-friendly.

HEALTH RISKS UNKNOWN

“There is virtually no information available about the effect of nanoparticles on species other than humans or about how they behave in the air, water or soil, or about their ability to accumulate in food chains. Until more is known about their environmental impact we are keen that the release of nanoparticles and nanotubes to the environment is avoided as far as possible. Specifically we recommend as a precautionary measure that factories and research laboratories treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as if they were hazardous waste streams and that the use of free nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited.” (Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, “Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties,” July 2004)

NANOTECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE

While most nanotech applications fall within the ranges of computer science, heavy industry and sporting equipment- a more worrisome set of applications being contemplated by agribusiness researchers. The scale of impact of such technologies is in many cases greater than for bits of gadgetry produced in a factory, it would also be far more difficult to prove harm once a global food producer to every child in the country distributes a product. The Health Minister of Norway once said that while he, personally, was not opposed to the genetic engineering of food crops, he would rather wait and watch the impact on the children of America, than to experiment with the children of Norway.

Apart from the ecological and health concerns, we might make brief mention of the sociological, and politic-economical implications of nanotechnological innovations in agriculture. The ‘smart fabrics’ currently envisioned by futuro-spin doctors range from the useful, (clothes that generate electricity) to the silly (clothes that switch color like a chameleon) will likely not take over the market anytime soon, but synthetic fibers might well displace demand for cotton (for instance). Aecording to ETC, over one billion people are involved in the the cotton sector worldwide-growing, harvesting, baling, gining, storing, that does not include the garment workers. Most of these people are in Africa.That is a lot of people whose livelihoods are determined by one crop, whose landscapes and infrastructures are dedicated to it, and in many cases, whose political organizations rely on its revenues. None of these billion workers are likely to have a voice in shaping the application of nano-fiber textiles, nor will they receive any kind of compensation for a drop in cotton demand.

Agricultural applications of nanotechnology would fall under the USDA (US Department of Agriculture), which has a bad record of keeping companies accountable when banned materials are distributed ‘in error.’ Late on Friday November 24th the USDA declared safe for human consumption the genetically engineered variety of rice (LL601) that had been found contaminating the US rice supply this summer. Bayer Cropscience, the company holding the LL601 patent, applied for deregulation after contamination of the U.S. long-grain rice supply was discovered in August. In approving the rice, the USDA allowed Bayer to take a regulatory shortcut and skip many of the usual safety tests by declaring that the new variety is similar to ones already approved, in this case two varieties of biotech rice that Bayer never commercialized because farmers did not want them in their fields. (Cal GE-Free press release ) This recent post-release approval of an experimental GE rice is a bad indicator for how the USDA might respond to the products currently under investigation for agriculture by Bayer Cropscience, BASF, Monsanto, Cargill, Dow, Du Pont/Pioneer etc. All of these companies are known to be investigating nano-scale materials, for example by creating nano-particle emulsifications of approved chemical fertilizers and herbicides and fungicides- these new ‘formulations’ would enable the companies to extend their patents for the ‘new’ products.

The range of applications currently being considered, and even administered is shocking. “In 2003, ETC Group reported on a nanotech-based soil binder called SoilSet developed by Sequoia Pacific Research of Utah (USA). 114 SoilSet is a quicksetting mulch which relies on chemical reactions on the nanoscale to bind the soil together. It was sprayed over 1,400 acres of Encebado mountain in New Mexico to prevent erosion following forest fires as well as on smaller areas of forest burns in Mendecino County, California.” (Down on the Farm, ETC) The history of invasive species introductions into California began with the valiant effort of Fish &Game Departments, and the Department of Forestry’s attempts to vanquish erosion on forested slopes. Himalayan Blackberry and Eucalyptus are the hardy invaders who have forever altered our landscapes, displaced natives and endemics, and disrupted grassland ecosystems. As an amateur student of natural history I am shocked to sees similar patterns being repeated with nano soil binder-whose effects are as yet unknown.

DEFENSE APPLICATIONS

Technological development must not be confused with natural evolution. Technologies do not emerge from the muck, as mysteriously or magically as the iridescent plumes on a peacock. No, technologies are the result of investments in science and research funding directed by visionaries and funding bodies for particular purposes, and from certain perspectives. The ‘evolution’ of scientific and technological innovation has become accepted in the popular mind by the introduction of increasingly sophisticated gadgetry for the rich and urban; but this mistaken ‘faith’ in technology ignores its driving force: R&D subsidy, or the quest for profitable products. Holistic understanding of technologies’ drivers makes it easier to predict the innovations of the future, their applications and social implications. In the case of nanotechnology, one can use data about target audiences, material science orientation, and defense contracts to surmise that applications will necessarily favor such ends as: high value coatings for electronics/durables, surveillance/security/monitoring, processing aids, value-chain insurances, quality controls, and weapons deployment. These predictions make sense in the context of a predicate-oriented production analysis.

Below is a graph showing investment by the Department of Defense. It is estimated that less than 1% of NNI funding (FY2005) has been going towards environmental health and safety testing for nanotechnology. (Center for Emerging Nanotechnology)

Annual DoD investment in nanotechnology; 2006 estimated. (Source data: DoD “Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Programs”, May 8, 2006)
(www.nanowerk.com)

From this graph we can deduce that the Department of Defense has found compelling projects to hook this funding with; but while EHS spending has also been growing, it is still only 1%(FY2007) of the total. (NNI) The Department of Defense has the upper hand far more lab-coats, far greater understanding of the micro territory, a far bigger body of knowledge than is possible with a fraction of the funding. Let us remember that the EPA (and to a lesser degree OSHA and FDA) is charged with monitoring the safety of all citizens, including scientists in private and public laboratories who are doing this research. Without any evidence of harm, it can still be argued that precautionary measures remain dangerously absent from this funding scenario.

CONCLUSIONS

While top policy makers affirm and publicly discuss their commitment to support risk-focused research, such program is currently all too rare and all too sparse. “ In September, Sherwood Boehlert, chair of the US House Science Committee, commented in a hearing “we’re on the right path to dealing with the problem, but we’re sauntering down it when a sense of urgency is required”. And in October, Britain’s Royal Society raised concerns that the UK government had not made enough progress on reducing the uncertainties surrounding the health and environmental impacts of nanomaterials”. (Nature Magazine) Funding is a major hurdle, particularly since the current administration in Washington has already laid out a research agenda targeted at homeland security, rather than worker safety. The US leads the field in innovation, but it is probable that the EU will ultimately take a stand on product/worker safety issues ahead of the US. Rhetoric usually precedes action, but sometimes rhetoric replaces action, the Bush Administration’s “Clear Skies” and “Healthy Forests,” programs actually weaken earlier protections. The change in congress triggered a big loss in stock value for the pharmaceutical sector, so hopefully the Democrats coming in will be harder to influence. It does seem hard to imagine a significant change in National policy on these issues for the next two years at least.

Local level politics are far more hopeful. I can easily imagine ten or twenty cities adopting the precautionary principle, or ordinances classifying nano particles as hazardous waste-as Berkeley has done. The amount of ‘hard science’ that these cities can cite as evidence of the harm is limited, but perhaps there is some philanthropic entity (Sun Microsystems) that could sponsor research, through the Foresight Institute, or the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Both of these groups are convinced that pro-active research is needed to prevent quite significant disruptions from nanotechnologies and have laid out specific investigations and precautions that must be taken, not only to prevent EHS problems, but also industrial sabotage, arms races, and ‘grey goo’. Funding for such initiatives is unlikely to come from the US government in the absence of a crisis, or public outcry.

Where will the outcry come from? Imagine a citizens’ movement, perhaps of mothers, farmers, or even unemployed autoworkers organizing protests to stop contamination, to stop agribusiness patenting of new nano-chemicals, or to protest the production of all these nano –products overseas. Imagine a series of high-fidelity science fiction movies like ‘the Matrix’ put together by Hollywood directors who want to education the public about the upcoming challenge with nanotechnology. Bill Gates will not save us, “Gates estimates that his personal investments in biotech companies are worth $300 million to $400 million, “(Business week, 2003) he is totally invested in a biotech/nanotech future, both privately and actively with his foundation. But there are other billionaires, the European Union is looking into research, the UN may well begin to set up some kind of a regulatory system, and even the US, given a different administration, may well begin to take the nano-prophesies more seriously. 42% of Americans have never heard of nanotechnology (Project on Emerging Nanotechnology) so for any consumer or civil-society based governance strategy to work, the first step is spreading the word. Let us hope that the events of the past few weeks are a sign of political will to address the threats of nanotech, and to start asking the right questions.

AFTERTHOUGHTS

I am doing my part. Last week I testified, as a citizen of the City of Berkeley, on behalf of the Title 15 Ordinance amendment. I was the only student, and the only UC Berkeley affiliated attendee-this from an institution which houses the largest nanotech facility in the country. I have also posted this paper on the web. The more I learn about nanotech, it’s funders, its doubters, the military applications, the surveillance, the toxic waste eating ‘synthetic organisms’ the “ambient intelligence,” synthetic food additives and subway coatings, the toxin sensors and quantum dots, the more sinister it all becomes. George Orwell said that when our language is so sloppy, we are more vulnerable to perversions of truth: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength. But still the framework for nanotech is undeniably corporate.

The nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) technologies used in 20th-century weapons of mass destruction were and are largely military, developed in government laboratories. In sharp contrast, the 21st-century GNR technologies have clear commercial uses and are being developed almost exclusively by corporate enterprises. In this age of triumphant commercialism, technology - with science as its handmaiden - is delivering a series of almost magical inventions that are the most phenomenally lucrative ever seen. We are aggressively pursuing the promises of these new technologies within the now-unchallenged system of global capitalism and its manifold financial incentives and competitive pressures. (Bill Joy, Sun Microsystems).

Just this week ASTM has created an official standard for nano-terminology, the first official standard ever created to describe the phenomena that have already been patented and fashioned into saleable products. Is nano the future, how will we know?
Bibliography:

EPA website pages: www.epa.gov

http://www.argonide.com/biowarfare.html

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/

www.nano.gov

Mander, Jerry. In the Absence of the Sacred, 1991 Sierra Club Books San Francisco

EPA to Regulate Nanoproducts Sold As Germ-Killing Rick Weiss
Washington Post Thursday, November 23, 2006; Page A01

Asia Pacific Nanotech weekly, Vol 1 article#27, 2003

ETC group policy paper EPA’s Nanotech Regulation: Ironic Parameters, 18 October 2006 www.etcgroup.org

Nature magazine (16 November 2006) Published online 15 November 2006 Safe handling of nanotechnology by Andrew D. Maynard (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7117/full/444267a.html#B6)

Friends of the Earth nanotechnology project (Size does matter) http://nano.foe.org.au/node/162

FOE Nanotech news Report November 2006 (see website above)

Why the future doesn’t need us, Bill Joy. Wired Magazine issue 8.04 April 2000

International Council on Nanotechnology (A joint project of Rice University,
Regulating the products of Nanotechnology, Does the FDA have the Tools it needs?
- A special report by the Woodrow Wilson Center for Emerging Technologies PEN5 October 2006 www.

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm

FDA Considerations for Regulation of Nanomaterial containing products, Nakissa Sadrieh EPA Office of Pharmaceutical science

Down on the Farm, a special report on Nanotechnology in Food and Agriculture by
Etc. Group. Can be downloaded from their website. www.etcgroup.org

Science, Technology and Engineering Policy Group Berkeley White Paper Award winner: Preparing for the Backlash: Pre-emptive Policy for the Nanomaterials
Revolution by Gavi Begtrup and Brian Kessler

Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, “Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties”
30 March 2004 ,FDA Regulation of Nanotechnology Products ,Norris E. Alderson, Ph.D.Associate Commissioner for ScienceUS Food and Drug Administration

Berkeley considering need for nano safety, Rick DelVecchio, San Francisco Chronicle,
Friday, November 24, 2006

National Center for Environmental Research, Report on Nano Research http://es.epa.gov/ncer/events/news/2003/01_15_03a.html

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (Joint Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Pew Charitable trust) http://www.nanotechproject.org

Business week, Bill Gate’s Other Love: Biology. April 24, 2003
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2003/tc20030424_2912_tc121.htm
Government Departments and Agencies

Federal agencies that participate in the National Nanotechnology Initiative under the auspices of the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET) Subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council.
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Department of Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Forest Service

Department of Commerce
Bureau of Industry and Security
Technology Administration
Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Department of Defense
Department of Education

Department of Energy
Office of Science, Nanotechnology
Office of Basic Energy Sciences
Office of Fossil Energy
Office of Industrial Technologies
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health
Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Department of Homeland Security
( includes Transportation Security Administration )

Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of Treasury
Environmental Protection Agency
Intelligence Community
International Trade Commission
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Patent and Trademark Office

Further Resources for future research by readers of this paper:

• January 30 - February 3, 2006 - NanoTox 2006 - This meeting will address the biomedical aspects of nanotechnology and give academic, industry, and government researchers to present the latest findings on the toxicity of nanomaterials. (PDF, 2pp., 372KB, about PDF)

• March 26 - 30, 2006 - American Chemical Society Meeting, Atlanta, GA - Symposium on Nanotechnology and the Environment, focus on Green Nanotechnology. Sessions include benign synthesis of nanomaterials, nano-enabled green energy, using nanotechnology to prevent pollution in current processes.
• April 20, 2006 - Nanotechnology Applications in Environmental Health: Big Plans for Little Particles, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina - The full-day workshop will convene top nanotechnologists and environmental and ecosystems health researchers to discuss the use of biosensors in environmental monitoring, human exposure research, and ecosystems research.
• December 4-7, 2006 - International Conference on Nanotechnology Occupational and Environmental Health and Safety: Research to Practice, Cincinnati, OH - The Conference is centered on the impact of nanotechnology on occupational and environmental health and safety from two perspectives: (1) promotion and protection of individual safety and health along the life cycle of nano-based products and (2) use of emerging technology in prevention and detection/treatment of occupational and environmental diseases.

Nanotechnology Consumer Products Inventory – http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44 – A searchable database of consumer products that contain nanomaterials. This database was developed by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

http://www.nrdc.org/health/science/nano.asp – NRDC fact sheet on nanotechnology.

What Persuades the Public to Embrace and Buy Nanotechnology? – http://www.nanotechproject.org/99/dreaming-of-a-nanotech-christmas – At the project on Emerging Nanotechnologies’ website you can view a webcast, read an article, or view a presentation focused on the public’s perception of nanotechnology.

2005 EPA Draft Nanotechnology White Paper outlines the potential hazards of nanotechnologies, and offers research recommendations.

Rachel’s Environment and Health News’ 3-part series on nanotechnology examines health, environment, governance and other issues related to nano materials.

Part 1, June 26, 2003: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2362

Part 2, July 10, 2003: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2363

Part 3, July 24, 2003: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2371

Also, see: #816, April 28, 2005: Nanotechnology and the precautionary principle: http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=2498

The ETC Group in Canada tracks nanotech and has a variety of articles, testimonies and other material available online at: http://www.etcgroup.org/en/issues/nanotechnology.html including their “Tiny Primer on Nano-Scale Technologies and the Little Bang Theory” available at www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/55/01/tinyprimer_english.pdf