A report from the Council for Science and Technology (CST), which berates the government for failing to fund sufficient research into the hazards and risks of nanotechnology, has prompted widespread approbation and a clarion call for targeted funding into safety research.

How any funding should best be directed is still up for debate, however.

Health failure

The CST’s Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: a review of government’s progress on its policy commitments(1) congratulates the government on its support for research into nanotechnology standards and metrology, on minimising workplace and public exposure to nanomaterials, on its international nanotechnology role, and on dialogues with industry and the public. It is less impressed, however, by the progress made on research into toxicology, health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.

‘Over the last five years government has spent an average of only £600,000 per year to research the toxicology, health and environmental impacts of nanomaterials. This compares with total government funding of £90 million in 2004 alone to advance research in nanoscience and nanotechnologies and promote their commercialisation,’ says CST. It points the finger at an over-reliance on responsive-mode funding and calls for a strategic programme of spending directed at these research areas.

Academies’ support

The Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering backed the report’s findings. Professor Ann Dowling, chair of the academies’ working group which produced the 2004 report, Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, said: ‘This report reinforces the academies’ serious concerns about the government’s lack of progress in ensuring that these exciting technologies develop in a way that maximises their benefits while minimising any potential risks.’

She reiterated the call for targeted research funding to reduce the health and environmental uncertainties, saying this would be ‘a vital step to ensuring that nanotechnologies are well regulated and inspire the confidence of the public and investors.’

Industry backing

The Nanotechnologies Industry Association (NIA) also endorsed the review, agreeing that ‘more needs to be done to support the responsible advancement of nanotechnology innovation in the UK’, including assessing the potential hazards. It backed calls for ring-fenced funds for lifecycle analyses and risk assessments.

Dr Steffi Friedrichs, the Director of the NIA, explained: ‘The emphasis should be to conduct the right tests at the right time – i.e. to test those substances that are closest to commercialisation. The nanotech industries recommend that toxicologists (and funding bodies) work together with the industries and other stakeholders so that tests can be prioritised according to their commercial status. We strongly support the multi-stakeholder debate in nanotechnology.’

The issue of how to deal with toxicology research data would need to be addressed too. ‘The release of research data into the public domain must be handled carefully,’ explained Dr Friedrichs, adding that previous codes of conduct between toxicology labs and companies have successfully tackled the problem and that the NIA is confident it can be solved.

Reference

1. The CST’s Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: a review of government’s progress on its policy commitments (PDF)

Vanessa Spedding is the Shorts Editor