In October the RSC held a workshop looking at health and safety issues surrounding nanotechnology. Feedback from this workshop was fed into an RSC response to the Council of Science and Technology, who are conducting a review of Government performance in this area. At a time when nanomaterials are starting to take off commercially, the RSC found concerns with the progress in measuring and testing the safety of these new materials. 

The purpose of the workshop was to bring together opinion regarding the state of UK nanotechnology research in relation to health and safety issues. The workshop was organised with the network 'NANOsafeNET', the Institute of Physics and Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.

In 2004 the Royal Society (RS) and Royal Academy of Engineering's (RAEng) produced a report, Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. This stressed the need for speedy Government action to investigate risks at an early stage in the development of new nanotechnologies. 
The report was well received and was seen as putting the UK ahead of others in terms of engagement with the wider issues connected to the introduction of a new technology. But lack of progress has followed and the UK is now falling behind through lack of funding, infrastructure, co-ordination and collaboration.

Nanoparticles

Nanotechnology describes a spectrum of very different technologies that function at the nanometre scale. The structural, electronic, magnetic, chemical, and mechanical properties of matter are often different at this scale and nanotechnology looks to harness these novel properties. A nanometre is one millionth of a millimetre which is about the size of 10 atoms.

Chemistry is central to most nanotechnologies although it is very much a multidisciplinary field. One of the main areas that chemists have been involved in is the synthesis of nanoparticles. They are already being used in products such as sunscreens and are being developed for medical applications - as drug delivery agents and cancer treatments.

Nanoparticles have an extremely large surface area relative to their volume. This leads to unusually high reactivity in comparison to the material in bulk. This increased reactivity has lead to questions about their toxicology. As nanoparticles behave differently to the bulk phase, can we assume they will produce the same physiological responses? Can nanoparticles penetrate the skin and make their way into human cells?

There are certainly well-known health risks associated with the inhalation of air-borne nanoparticles found in our urban environment (mainly derived from traffic exhaust). Such particles cause respiratory problems and are also responsible for cardiovascular disease.

Another asbestos?

The similarity between carbon nanotubes and asbestos fibres has also been highlighted by the toxicology community and is an issue of potential concern. Carbon nanotubes exhibit some characteristics that are similar to asbestos fibres with regards to shape, size and biopersistency. Whether this indicates a similar toxicity is not known at present.  

Carbon nanotubes show similarities to asbestos fibres in size, shape and biopersistency

Funding and co-ordinating research  

Whilst the potential benefits from nanotechnologies are immense, the lack of authoritative information on the risks posed by engineered nanoparticles is an issue that needs addressing. 

In its 2005 response to the 2004 RS/RAEng report: Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, the Government expressed a commitment to "filling gaps in knowledge through an immediate programme of research", but this commitment has not been fulfilled.

Since the RS/RAEng report, the Government have set up several committees including the Nanotechnologies Research Co-ordination Group (NRCG). In December 2005 it produced its first report which included 19 research priorities for characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles. This has been followed by a report (October 2006) describing work carried out by its five task forces to co-ordinate research. The report confirms progress has been slow.

Over the last two years, no additional funding has been made available for basic research on the toxicology of nanoparticles, but rather the Government has relied on research councils to support such research through standard open funding programmes (responsive mode).

The research necessary to ascertain the nature of the risks posed by nanoparticles and to quantify these risks, cannot be easily funded this way. Such research, although crucial, does not compete well against research proposals in other areas that will often appear more novel or exciting to selection panels. Additionally, the multidisciplinary nature of the research can lead to proposals falling between the boundaries of research council remits, where obtaining funding is notoriously difficult.

The RSC workshop concluded that ring-fenced funding is needed for a programme of research characterising the potential risks posed by engineered nanoparticles. The multidisciplinary nature of the research is a key factor in the lack of progress made and co-ordination across research councils will enable a truly multidisciplinary approach. 

Oxidative stress

One of the most profitable research avenues seems to be oxidative stress. This is a general term used to describe oxidative damage to cells, tissues or organs which leads to inflammation.

It is caused by reactive species such as free radicals or peroxides. Such species may be formed by the interactions of nanoparticles (such as carbon black) with organic species and/or metals. Different types of nanoparticles will cause different types of oxidative stress.

Oxidative stress can be measured quantitatively and this may provide a short-term testing strategy for identifying and measuring the toxicity of nanoparticles. But there may be other mechanisms at play in the toxicity of nanoparticles and funding must look to cover all research angles. 

Nanometrology and standards

The workshop also concluded that there is an immediate need to formulate short-term toxicity testing protocols. At present there are no standardised methods for assessing the risks - the toxicological methodologies used for other types of materials would not be appropriate and until new tests are in place, little progress can be made in assessing substances.

Research is urgently required to develop standardised characterisation techniques for engineered nanoparticles. Some progress has been made in this area with the work of the British Standards Institution (BSI) committee on the development of internationally recognised standards and metrology in the nanosciences.

But obviously the UK can not work in a vacuum. Global harmonisation is vital for the development of effective risk management and control policies. The UK Government has engaged with the EU, and other groups such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which held the first meeting of its working party on manufactured nanomaterials in London in October 2006. The BSI is also providing the secretariat for the International Organisation for Standards nanotechnologies committee. 

Regulation

The need for new regulations to cover the use and handling of nanomaterials has become a contentious issue, with pressure groups such as Greenpeace calling for a moratorium on their use until the hazards are better understood.

There is still debate and doubt as to how well current regulations cover risks from nanoparticles. At present, regulation makes no explicit distinction between a chemical in a bulk or nano-form, but we do know that their properties can vary considerably. To date no new regulations have been introduced that relate specifically to nano-phases. It is not clear how REACH (the new European legislation on registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemical hazards) will handle nanomaterials.

From a health, safety and environment perspective it is important to remember that in many cases nanoparticles will be bonded or encapsulated within a matrix suggesting low risk of exposure during most scenarios of normal use. Disposal protocols will of course still need to be developed carefully.

While the aim of control measures should be to reduce or eliminate exposure to harmful particles as far as is practicable, regulation must not stifle innovation or create unnecessarily high costs for SMEs where many advances in nanotechnologies are being made. The benefits of nanotechnologies also need to be weighed up in relation to the risks. 

Engaging the public

 Nanotechnology will need a supportive environment in which to flourish and this will depend on the Government, industry, scientists and policy-makers embarking on a dialogue to understand public concerns surrounding the development of new nanotechnologies.

Fears have been expressed in some circles that nanotechnologies will acquire the same sort of negative connotations as GMOs. In its response to the 2004 RS/RAEng report, the Government supported "properly targeted and sufficiently resourced public dialogue". But since then, although several small-scale initiatives have taken place, the majority of the public are still unaware of the potential benefits and risks that nanotechnologies may offer.  

CST review

RSC evidence is contributing to the CST review - their final report will be produced in Spring 2007. We hope that this may spur the Government into further action.

It is in the interests of science, industry and the public that a greater effort is made to face the health and safety challenges nanotechnologies pose. Many feel that much of the early progress has been squandered by a lack of Government funding and co-ordination, but these issues must now be tackled.