A new government plan to identify the long-term health and environmental risks from nanotechnologies has met with a lukewarm reception. Despite being backed by £5m worth of funding for research into these issues, and having as its desired outcome a ‘framework for containing any “unacceptable risks”,’ the plan risks coming apart at the seams from lack of focus, say its detractors.

The research plan was announced in response to a study commissioned by the government from the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, which concluded in 2004 that greater understanding was required of the longer-term risk to human health and the environment — for example, in agriculture and food production – from nanomaterials, in particular nanoparticles.

Howard Dalton, chief scientific advisor to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which prepared the recent report, said it ‘sets out the ambitious and forward-looking research agenda that is needed to ensure that we are able to identify and manage potential risks associated with the use of nanotechnologies.’

But the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering say it does not go far enough. Professor Ann Dowling, who chaired the 2004 report into nanotechnologies, said, ‘The government has identified sound priorities for the research needed to develop safety regulations […] But we are concerned that its approach to funding this research is rather ad hoc. Rather than strategically building a programme, with a dedicated pot of money, to explore any potential health and environmental risks associated with nanoparticles, it is primarily relying on individual research teams to come forward with proposals and compete against other research areas for funding. This approach leaves it to chance that the right research will be undertaken.’

Their views are largely reflected by those of Richard Jones, professor of physics at Sheffield University. ‘The report makes a very good job of setting out the areas in need of attention,’ he told Science & Public Affairs, ‘but I’m sceptical about whether the framework will be enough to get the necessary work done. […] People might not come forward with the required proposals.’

Professor Jones believes that careful scrutiny of existing knowledge to identify the gaps is needed first of all – followed by earmarked money to fill them. But there is a chance, he believes, that there is not even enough scientific capacity or expertise to achieve this.

The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering also warned that the research that is needed to underpin safety regulations must keep pace with the rapid development of the science, and expressed concern about the apparent lack of collaboration between government and industry to develop safety testing or public dialogue activities.

The DEFRA report can be viewed here.