{"id":14,"date":"2008-03-26T12:33:21","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T20:33:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/2008\/03\/26\/double-standard-nanotech-is-new-except-when-that%e2%80%99s-inconvenient\/"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:30","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:30","slug":"double-standard-nanotech-is-new-except-when-thats-inconvenient","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2008\/03\/26\/double-standard-nanotech-is-new-except-when-thats-inconvenient\/","title":{"rendered":"Double Standard: Nanotech Is New! Except When That\u2019s Inconvenient"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. <\/em><\/p>\n

As I noted in an earlier post<\/a>, the federal government staunchly maintains that regulatory agencies\u2019 current authorities and regulatory structures are adequate.\u00a0 Yet I sense quite a bit of angst — even panic — in the agencies over how they will actually address the complexities of nanotechnology under those existing authorities and regulatory structures.<\/p>\n

The claim that laws developed long before nanotechnology came along can nevertheless manage it flawlessly smacks of a double standard:\u00a0 If there\u2019s nothing novel here, why is the federal government investing $1.5 billion annually to develop nanotechnology? <\/p>\n

It\u2019s like nano promoters who boldly declare in one context \u2013 say, when talking to investors \u2013 that nano is revolutionary, like nothing that preceded it.\u00a0 But they argue just as vehemently in another setting \u2013 say, when talking to regulators \u2013 that it\u2019s merely an incremental change in what came before.<\/p>\n

Some of us who have been calling for a fresh approach to oversight of nanotechnology have also been accused of trying to impose a double standard, however.\u00a0 It\u2019s unfair, we\u2019re told, to hold nanomaterials to a higher standard of safety than other chemicals by, for example, calling for more upfront testing than is required under TSCA for new conventional chemicals, or seeking to require pre-market review by FDA of nanomaterial-containing cosmetics, when that\u2019s not done for non-nano cosmetics.<\/p>\n

I have three responses:\u00a0 First, in a way, our accusers are right:\u00a0 The nano debate does shine a light on what many of us see as broader deficiencies in how we manage all chemicals and products.\u00a0 There\u2019s no question that many limitations to current approaches are not nano-specific, but have been given \u201cnew legs\u201d in the nano debate.\u00a0 Our inability to effectively manage risks across the lifecycle is one example.\u00a0 But we should seize this opportunity to illustrate those deficiencies using the fresh backdrop of nanotech \u2013 in no small part because they also affect the safety of nanomaterials entering commerce.<\/p>\n

Second, the fact is nanotechnology does pose new<\/em> questions regarding oversight and whether current regulatory concepts are in fact transferable to a nano world.\u00a0 One oft-mentioned example:\u00a0 Regulations are laced with mass-based standards and thresholds, yet there is almost universal agreement \u2013 on scientific grounds \u2013 that mass is likely to prove a poor dose metric for most if not all nanomaterials.\u00a0 Yet no serious regulatory discussion has started to my knowledge about modifying or adapting the current mass-based regulatory criteria to reflect surface area, particle count or other more appropriate metrics.<\/p>\n

Third, if the bar needs to be raised, the time to do it is when a new technology is being introduced, rather than after it has become entrenched \u2013 that\u2019s true from an economic efficiency point of view, as well as politically.\u00a0 And as for the argument that we risk stifling innovation, as Mark Greenwood has pointed out<\/a>, innovators in emerging, fast-moving industries tend to respond and adapt more quickly to address potential problems or concerns than do more \u2013 umm \u2013 ossified enterprises (be they in business or government).<\/p>\n

Nanotechnology offers us the opportunity to solve \u2013 in a new, improved way \u2013 some thorny, longstanding failures in how society has dealt with the introduction of new technologies.\u00a0 So I just don\u2019t buy the argument that we should go on doing things the way we have been, so we don\u2019t unfairly penalize nano.\u00a0 We should raise the floor, not lower the ceiling!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Still, some observers \u2013 noting that most of today\u2019s nanomaterials are variants on existing substances \u2013 argue it would be easier and faster just to tweak the current system.\u00a0 I would argue that, even if that were to work for a time, an incremental approach to these new and rapidly evolving materials is bound to break down.<\/p>\n

Consider the tortuous legal logic EPA<\/a> has had to follow in ruling that nano forms of existing chemicals aren\u2019t \u201cnew\u201d under TSCA.\u00a0 EPA says the law forbids it from acknowledging the very nano-ness<\/em> of nanomaterials<\/a>, namely the fact that their properties are dictated by more than just chemical structure, but also physical attributes.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s just with the current<\/em> generation of nanomaterials.\u00a0 Now add in more dynamic elements expected to emerge in next-generation<\/em> nanomaterials, and mixed biological-chemical materials, and so forth.\u00a0 Now is the time to start thinking about how we\u2019re to manage the future of nanotechnology and more generally, these anticipated advances in material technologies.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. As I noted in an earlier post, the federal government staunchly maintains that regulatory agencies\u2019 current authorities and regulatory structures are adequate.\u00a0 Yet I sense quite a bit of angst — even panic — in the agencies over how they will actually address the complexities of nanotechnology under …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,56087,114108],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-14","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-nanotechnology","category-tsca"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12921,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14\/revisions\/12921"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=14"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}