Policy Statements

H.R.554 - National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009

The National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendment Acts of 2009 authorizes funding and activities for support of nanotechnology research and development. Because of advocacy by SNNI's director, Jim Hutchison, the current bill incorporates language that calls for developing proactive research strategies to ensure greener, safer design of nanomaterials by considering the environmental, health and safety impacts during the design process. For more information, check out OpenCongress.

SNNI's statement regarding the NRC report, December 2008

A National Research Council (NRC) panel recently criticized the federal government stating that it was not doing enough to identify the potential health and environmental risks from engineered nanomaterials and called for a sweeping new effort from individuals in and out of the government to assess them. The report calls for greater investment in research to address nanoEHS. It also points out, repeatedly, the need for collaboration and cooperation between the scientific and broader stakeholders and also suggests key research focus areas needed to address the problem.

For the past four years, SNNI has been assessing how to implement the strategy the NRC recommends. SNNI and Oregon serve as successful models to guide agencies as they look toward implementing the strategies proposed by the NRC panel. For example:

Coordination: We have these broad groups working together - nanomaterials synthesis, nanometrology (characterization) experts, toxicologists, biologists, chemists and physicists sharing expertise and challenging each other across disciplinary lines. This was the primary focus of a perspective SNNI recently published in ACS Nano.

Stakeholder involvement: We are working closely with industry to determine which of the research challenges/areas we should address to help them bring safer materials to market. Companies like Invitrogen, HP, and FEI have been actively involved with SNNI and have been active participants in the Greener Nano conference series that we host annually to (re)define the research agenda and promote industrial adoption. Our representatives have also been very active throughout the scientific community working with federal agencies and coalitions to promote a more coordinated research agenda. In addition, we collaborate with non-governmental organizations and participate in public awareness seminars and focus groups.

Key research areas: SNNI has pioneered research in nearly all of the key areas pointed out in the report - health impacts, nanometrology, materials design for safety, just to mention a few areas. As an indicator of success, SNNI has leveraged its initial $8M investment into more than $30M in research funding and >70 papers submitted or published.

Strategies and Research Needs for EHS (2007)

I. Design for safety – Chemical principles and first level risk assessment

1. Examine the properties of molecular and microscale analogs. Can anything be learned from an understanding of those hazards?
2. Pay attention to elemental composition and carefully examine any claims regarding the availability of those elements. What are the odds that these materials will become disperse in the environment in a form that can cause harm? What are the odds of human exposure?

II. Precautions in the face of uncertainty

1. If no data are available, and especially if elemental composition or analogies to smaller or larger materials suggests harm, is exposure measured?
2. Consumer products need appropriate testing. What is this testing? Who is responsible for carrying out the testing? Who will judge the quality of these approaches?

III. Design for safety – Fact finding

1. A battery of tests need to be done to ascertain the likely impacts of engineered nanomaterials on human health and the environment. What are those important tests? How will concentration be determined [molarity, surface area, number of particles]?
2. Testing needs to be done on the appropriate materials. While it is tempting to study commercially available nanomaterials, synthetic libraries will be needed to explore the many structural parameters and correlate structure with biological impact. Testing on both types of materials should be carried out, but must be done carefully, ensuring that the materials used are structurally well-characterized [e.g. core composition, size, shape] and pure. The effects of impurities can mask the effects of the nanomaterial. A lack of definition in the material structure prevents establishment of the predictive relationship that testing should inform.
3. Mechanisms need to be put in place to share data. These data are key to formulating products and necessary to design new nanomaterials with defined properties. What is the best dissemination mechanism? A database? Who will manage the database? How to avoid IP issues related to these data? How should the data be managed to facilitate their use in QSAR [Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship] studies?

IV. Design for safety – synthetic strategies, purity

1. In parallel with the development of the SARs, new synthetic nanoparticle fabrication processes and functionalization methods need to be developed. Functionalized nanoparticles are new, complex materials requiring significant production method development. New methods are needed to expand the available compositions for cores and shells, for controlling functionality, and for influencing core shape and size. It is essential that these capabilities be developed in parallel to the SAR work to avoid delays in material development – we need capacity to respond when desired modifications become clear.
2. Nanomaterial purity is essential to assessment of biological impacts (as well as most physical properties). Greater attention to material purity is necessary to make rapid progress in developing SARs. It is critical to develop appropriate methods of assaying nanomaterial purity and developing new, efficient purification strategies (for example, nanofiltration). The lack of convenient methods of purification and assessment are both significant barriers to producing high purity nanomaterials at this time.

V. Design for safety – need for adequate materials characterization

1. There needs to be a suite of characterization tools and some consensus on which methods are the most appropriate for each material class.
2. In situ methods needed to monitor syntheses in order to gain better control over batch-to-batch variation. This is essential, because usually manipulating synthetic parameters is easier than trying to invoke size separations later.