- Email: [email protected]
It's the functionality that matters
Nano Today (2009) 4, 288—289
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nanotoday
NEWS AND OPINIONS
It’s the functionality that matters John Lawton, Laura Pleasants ∗ 55 Whitehall, London, United Kingdom Received 14 May 2009; received in revised form 12 June 2009; accepted 15 June 2009 Available online 15 July 2009
In November 2008, the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) published the outcome of a 2-year investigation into the effects of novel materials in the environment. This investigation was prompted by concerns about potential releases to the environment from industrial applications of metals and minerals that have not previously been widely used, and from the use of manufactured nanomaterials in a wide variety of products and applications. The RCEP is an independent standing body established in 1970 to advise the UK Sovereign and Parliament on environmental pollution issues. Its 13 Members are drawn from a variety of backgrounds, including academia, law, medicine, economics and industry. As such, it is a ‘Committee of Experts’ rather than an ‘Expert Committee’. The RCEP is free to investigate subjects it deems warrant in-depth investigation; it consults widely on potential topics, but ultimately makes its own decision. Reports are submitted to the Queen and Parliament, and the Government is obliged to respond formally to the Commission’s recommendations. During the course of the investigation into nanomaterials, over 100 organisations and individuals submitted evidence to the RCEP. The resulting report, ‘Novel Materials in the Environment: The case of nanotechnology’, makes a series of recommendations to the Government regarding the governance of fast-paced technological development, using nanomaterials as an exemplar.
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 300 068 6472. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Pleasants).
No evidence of harm but some cause for concern The Commission looked at the properties of nanomaterials currently being used or developed and the functionalities derived from those properties, which provide the basis for the introduction of new or improved products or performance. The Commission found no evidence of actual harm from nanomaterials but recognised that we would not necessarily detect such impacts at this stage. The Commission did conclude that there is a plausible cause for concern about some classes of nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes, Buckminsterfullerenes (Buckyballs) and nanosilver. The Commission has concerns that the latter, a strongly biocidal and toxic substance, is being used in a number of commercially available products while virtually nothing appears to be known about its possible effects on microorganisms in the environment when products are abraded or discarded at the end of their life. In the case of carbon nanotubes, which are being used in sensors and electronics, we were aware of emerging work, including that by Professor Ken Donaldson of the University of Edinburgh, indicating that in some circumstances some carbon nanotubes could exhibit asbestos-like behaviour (personal communication with Prof. Donaldson, July 2007). These examples demonstrate how the rate of innovation and commercial application in the sector is outpacing the rate at which knowledge about the potential health or environmental impacts of the substance can be supplied—–the Commission’s report highlights the absence of adequately standardised tests for different classes of nanomaterials. The Commission is also concerned about the scarcity of
1748-0132/$ — see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2009.06.011
It’s the functionality that matters trained toxicologists and ecotoxicologists who would be able to carry out this work; although we are aware that the UK Government department with primary responsibility for environmental policy, Defra, is undertaking a review of the adequacy of supply of trained toxicologists.
Governance of emergent technologies and the reach of existing regulations One of the major conclusions of the Commission’s report is that nanomaterials are hugely variable in their nature. As nanomaterials are not a uniform class of material, attempts to regulate or legislate solely on size may be misguided. The Commission has identified three areas of particular concern regarding the governance and regulation of nanomaterials. The first (as we have already noted) is the profound ignorance and uncertainty about the behaviour of some types of nanomaterials in the environment and the risks that they may pose for human health. Second, the nanoform of a material may have considerably different properties to the bulk form—–nanosilver, for example. Third, the Commission is concerned that in the longer term, more sophisticated third- and fourth-generation nanoproducts may represent a further step change in functionalities and properties, which would be even more difficult to capture in a regulatory system primarily focussed on the bulk chemical properties of a material. Many aspects of nanomaterials are already covered (for the European Economic Area) by the regulatory regime known as REACH—–Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemical substances. This regulation, which covers all chemicals other than those regulated by specific rules, such as pesticides, imposes a responsibility on those who manufacture and sell the products to identify and understand potential threats to human health and the environment. The Commission is concerned that the most significant potential limitation of REACH for effective governance of nanomaterials is the 1 tonne threshold for registration. Given that there are vast numbers of particles present even in tiny quantities of a nanomaterial, this is likely to be too high a threshold to capture potentially harmful effects. The Commission is in favour of an early warning system for nanomaterials, which could be managed by the competent authorities for REACH, as a vital component of governance of nanomaterials. This reporting should be kept as simple as possible—–the Commission has proposed a check-
289 list aimed at capturing those nanomaterials not currently covered by REACH. All importers or manufacturers of such materials would be required to complete the checklist in as much detail as possible—–it should elaborate the special properties (functionality) of the nanomaterial, including the reasons for use, and should consider the pathways to human or environmental exposure, throughout the entire life cycle. Manufacturers or importers who complete the checklist would gain protection against legal action if the material subsequently proves to be harmful. It is the Commission’s view that such checklist reporting would have to be mandatory if it is to be effective. The Commission’s report serves to highlight the gap that exists between the pace of innovation in the field of nanotechnology and the regimes in place for testing the environmental impact of such materials. The Commission concludes that new governance arrangements are necessary to deal with ignorance and uncertainty in this area. The general principles underlying these governance arrangements could also be applied in areas of technological development other than nanomaterials, where similar issues might arise. The Government response to the Commission’s report was published on 2 June 2009 (www.official-documents. gov.uk/document/cm76/7620/7620.pdf). The Research Councils have indicated to RCEP that there is increasing inter-research council activity in the area of nanotechnology. The full report on Novel Materials in the Environment is downloadable from the Commission’s website (free of charge) at www.rcep.org.uk.
John Lawton trained as a Zoologist in Durham and then worked successively in Oxford, York and Imperial College, before taking up the post of Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. He became Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2005. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and was knighted for services to ecological science in 2005. He is a Japan Prize Laureat. In 2008 John was elected as a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. John is married to Dot; they have two grown up children and five grandchildren.
Laura Pleasants is Communications Manager at the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nanotoday
NEWS AND OPINIONS
It’s the functionality that matters John Lawton, Laura Pleasants ∗ 55 Whitehall, London, United Kingdom Received 14 May 2009; received in revised form 12 June 2009; accepted 15 June 2009 Available online 15 July 2009
In November 2008, the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) published the outcome of a 2-year investigation into the effects of novel materials in the environment. This investigation was prompted by concerns about potential releases to the environment from industrial applications of metals and minerals that have not previously been widely used, and from the use of manufactured nanomaterials in a wide variety of products and applications. The RCEP is an independent standing body established in 1970 to advise the UK Sovereign and Parliament on environmental pollution issues. Its 13 Members are drawn from a variety of backgrounds, including academia, law, medicine, economics and industry. As such, it is a ‘Committee of Experts’ rather than an ‘Expert Committee’. The RCEP is free to investigate subjects it deems warrant in-depth investigation; it consults widely on potential topics, but ultimately makes its own decision. Reports are submitted to the Queen and Parliament, and the Government is obliged to respond formally to the Commission’s recommendations. During the course of the investigation into nanomaterials, over 100 organisations and individuals submitted evidence to the RCEP. The resulting report, ‘Novel Materials in the Environment: The case of nanotechnology’, makes a series of recommendations to the Government regarding the governance of fast-paced technological development, using nanomaterials as an exemplar.
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 300 068 6472. E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Pleasants).
No evidence of harm but some cause for concern The Commission looked at the properties of nanomaterials currently being used or developed and the functionalities derived from those properties, which provide the basis for the introduction of new or improved products or performance. The Commission found no evidence of actual harm from nanomaterials but recognised that we would not necessarily detect such impacts at this stage. The Commission did conclude that there is a plausible cause for concern about some classes of nanomaterials, including carbon nanotubes, Buckminsterfullerenes (Buckyballs) and nanosilver. The Commission has concerns that the latter, a strongly biocidal and toxic substance, is being used in a number of commercially available products while virtually nothing appears to be known about its possible effects on microorganisms in the environment when products are abraded or discarded at the end of their life. In the case of carbon nanotubes, which are being used in sensors and electronics, we were aware of emerging work, including that by Professor Ken Donaldson of the University of Edinburgh, indicating that in some circumstances some carbon nanotubes could exhibit asbestos-like behaviour (personal communication with Prof. Donaldson, July 2007). These examples demonstrate how the rate of innovation and commercial application in the sector is outpacing the rate at which knowledge about the potential health or environmental impacts of the substance can be supplied—–the Commission’s report highlights the absence of adequately standardised tests for different classes of nanomaterials. The Commission is also concerned about the scarcity of
1748-0132/$ — see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2009.06.011
It’s the functionality that matters trained toxicologists and ecotoxicologists who would be able to carry out this work; although we are aware that the UK Government department with primary responsibility for environmental policy, Defra, is undertaking a review of the adequacy of supply of trained toxicologists.
Governance of emergent technologies and the reach of existing regulations One of the major conclusions of the Commission’s report is that nanomaterials are hugely variable in their nature. As nanomaterials are not a uniform class of material, attempts to regulate or legislate solely on size may be misguided. The Commission has identified three areas of particular concern regarding the governance and regulation of nanomaterials. The first (as we have already noted) is the profound ignorance and uncertainty about the behaviour of some types of nanomaterials in the environment and the risks that they may pose for human health. Second, the nanoform of a material may have considerably different properties to the bulk form—–nanosilver, for example. Third, the Commission is concerned that in the longer term, more sophisticated third- and fourth-generation nanoproducts may represent a further step change in functionalities and properties, which would be even more difficult to capture in a regulatory system primarily focussed on the bulk chemical properties of a material. Many aspects of nanomaterials are already covered (for the European Economic Area) by the regulatory regime known as REACH—–Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemical substances. This regulation, which covers all chemicals other than those regulated by specific rules, such as pesticides, imposes a responsibility on those who manufacture and sell the products to identify and understand potential threats to human health and the environment. The Commission is concerned that the most significant potential limitation of REACH for effective governance of nanomaterials is the 1 tonne threshold for registration. Given that there are vast numbers of particles present even in tiny quantities of a nanomaterial, this is likely to be too high a threshold to capture potentially harmful effects. The Commission is in favour of an early warning system for nanomaterials, which could be managed by the competent authorities for REACH, as a vital component of governance of nanomaterials. This reporting should be kept as simple as possible—–the Commission has proposed a check-
289 list aimed at capturing those nanomaterials not currently covered by REACH. All importers or manufacturers of such materials would be required to complete the checklist in as much detail as possible—–it should elaborate the special properties (functionality) of the nanomaterial, including the reasons for use, and should consider the pathways to human or environmental exposure, throughout the entire life cycle. Manufacturers or importers who complete the checklist would gain protection against legal action if the material subsequently proves to be harmful. It is the Commission’s view that such checklist reporting would have to be mandatory if it is to be effective. The Commission’s report serves to highlight the gap that exists between the pace of innovation in the field of nanotechnology and the regimes in place for testing the environmental impact of such materials. The Commission concludes that new governance arrangements are necessary to deal with ignorance and uncertainty in this area. The general principles underlying these governance arrangements could also be applied in areas of technological development other than nanomaterials, where similar issues might arise. The Government response to the Commission’s report was published on 2 June 2009 (www.official-documents. gov.uk/document/cm76/7620/7620.pdf). The Research Councils have indicated to RCEP that there is increasing inter-research council activity in the area of nanotechnology. The full report on Novel Materials in the Environment is downloadable from the Commission’s website (free of charge) at www.rcep.org.uk.
John Lawton trained as a Zoologist in Durham and then worked successively in Oxford, York and Imperial College, before taking up the post of Chief Executive of the Natural Environment Research Council. He became Chairman of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 2005. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and was knighted for services to ecological science in 2005. He is a Japan Prize Laureat. In 2008 John was elected as a Foreign Associate of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. John is married to Dot; they have two grown up children and five grandchildren.
Laura Pleasants is Communications Manager at the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.