Comments on: What Was the White House Thinking? http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/ Our experts' views on chemical and nano news Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:07:26 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Nanotechnology Notes » Double Standard: Nanotech Is New! Except When That’s Inconvenient - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Nanotechnology Notes » Double Standard: Nanotech Is New! Except When That’s Inconvenient - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:33:28 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/#comment-65 [...] I noted in an earlier post, the federal government staunchly maintains that regulatory agencies’ current authorities and [...] [...] I noted in an earlier post, the federal government staunchly maintains that regulatory agencies’ current authorities and [...]

]]> By: Nanotechnology Notes » Stating the Obvious: Nano Cosmetics Risk Assessment is Inadequate - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Nanotechnology Notes » Stating the Obvious: Nano Cosmetics Risk Assessment is Inadequate - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:09 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/#comment-10 [...] after publishing my last post, I learned that the European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Products has [...] [...] after publishing my last post, I learned that the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Products has [...]

]]> By: Andrew Maynard http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Andrew Maynard Tue, 04 Mar 2008 23:25:08 +0000 http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2008/03/04/what-was-the-white-house-thinking/#comment-8 Richard, I have to agree that the OSTP "Principles" seem caught up in an outmoded view of oversight obstructing innovation, rather than it being a critical foundation-stone to safe, sustainable and broadly beneficial nanotechnologies. And I don't thing this will change while the responsibility for oversight directions seems to lie in the hands of the technology promoters. Of course, we need an integrated approach to nanotechnology development, with close working partnerships between those developing, selling, using and regulating the results of nanotechnology - the dynamics of any emerging technology are just too complex for isolated compartmentalization. Yet within this mix, some separation or roles and authorities is clearly needed. Because the alternative - as you allude to - gets perilously close to the fox guarding the henhouse! Richard,

I have to agree that the OSTP "Principles" seem caught up in an outmoded view of oversight obstructing innovation, rather than it being a critical foundation-stone to safe, sustainable and broadly beneficial nanotechnologies. And I don't thing this will change while the responsibility for oversight directions seems to lie in the hands of the technology promoters.

Of course, we need an integrated approach to nanotechnology development, with close working partnerships between those developing, selling, using and regulating the results of nanotechnology – the dynamics of any emerging technology are just too complex for isolated compartmentalization. Yet within this mix, some separation or roles and authorities is clearly needed. Because the alternative – as you allude to – gets perilously close to the fox guarding the henhouse!

]]>