A new synopsis of findings from the ICON workshop on Eco-Responsible Design and Disposal of Engineered Nanomaterials has been published in ACS Nano (subscription required). First a little history: ICON has had since its inception in 2004 an interest in identifying and closing critical knowledge gaps that currently limit our ability to predict the impacts of engineered nanomaterials on living systems. Toward this end, we have convened a series of workshops to identify and highlight these gaps, with the aim of focusing governmental and other resources and attention on the most pressing issues. The first two workshops (full report here) addressed impacts on living organisms; the third held on March 9-10, 2009 near Rice University addressed the environment explicitly.
Convened with support from the UK Science and Innovation Network (our friends at the British Consulate-General Houston), the National Science Foundation, the TX-UK Collaborative and Nanonet, the environmental workshopattracted 57 experts from the United States, United Kingdom, Europe and Australia. The first theme covered what by now is fairly standard fodder for a nanoEHS workshop:
Metrology, Quantification and Tracing NPs in the Atmospheric, Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment
Structure-Activity Relationships for Nanoparticles in the Environment
Toward Predicting Multimedia Fate and Transport
Computational Modeling of Nanoparticle Modifications in the Environment
The second theme on disposal has seen far less discussion and analysis and it was here that I felt significant new ground was broken.
Theme 2: Eco-Responsible Disposal—Waste Management of Nanomaterials throughout Lifecycle
Responsible Minimization and Disposal of Nanomaterial Production Wastes
Release and Exposure Scenarios/Source Dynamics
Impact of Nanoparticles on Ennvironmental Protection Infrastructure
Information Needs for Waste Disposal Companies and Recyclers
Authored by workshop planning team members Pedro Alvarez and Vicki Colvin (Rice), Jamie Lead (University of Birmingham) and Vicki Stone (Edinburgh Napier University), the ACS Nano Focus reiterates some of the major themes from the first workshop report, which just serves to highlight how little has changed in the two years since its publication.
Here's an excerpt from the abstract:
Critical research needs to advance this urgent priority include (1) structure-activity relationships to predict functional stability and chemistry of MNMs in the environment and to discern properties that increase their bioavailability, bioaccumulation, and toxicity; (2) standardized protocols to assess MNM bioavailability, trophic transfer, and sublethal effects; and (3) validated multiphase fate and transport models that consider various release scenarios and predict the form and concentration of MNMs at the point of exposure. These efforts would greatly benefit from the development of robust analytical techniques to characterize and to track MNMs in the environment and to validate models and from shared reference MNM libraries.
Sound familiar? Yeah, I know. Stay tuned for the full report, which, like all ICON products will be freely available at our website.
Those of us who have been working in nanotechnology since the beginning of the decade have witnessed the remarkable growth and evolution of research into engineered nanomaterials' environmental, health and safety impacts. In 2001, there were virtually no papers addressing the impacts of intentionally manufactured nanomaterials.
Fast forward to now. This graph shows the explosive growth of research papers covering aspects of nano-EHS between 2001 and 2008. In a few short years we've gone from no data to, one could argue, too much data. Too much data, you say? Then explain why every newspaper article and policy report I read on the subject ends up saying basically the same thing: we still don't know enough about engineered nanomaterials to quantify risks.
The reasons are myriad and include the slow development and acceptance of standards for toxicity testing, materials characterization and even terminology; the dearth of validated protocols for testing; and other ripples of the culture clash that ensued when materials scientists, aerosol physicists, environmental engineers, and toxicologists all started to learn to collaborate.
People who have witnessed the emergence of other interdisciplinary fields of inquiry could have told us it would take some time to work out and then propagate the best research practices. But there seems to be a special urgency to nano-EHS research as governments, NGOs, companies, attorneys and other interested parties grapple with how this body of data should be used to inform decision-making. The various "solutions to the nano-EHS issue" being bandied about, including regulation, insurance policies, voluntary codes, risk markets, etc., all rely upon good quality data that is interpreted correctly. Journalists need to get a feel for what a reasonable community of experts thinks about this or that new paper that demonstrated the hazards of a particular nanomaterial in a particular laboratory experiment.
In short, context and analysis are critical.
Once upon a time, ICON thought it could provide this context and, indeed, we've produced a few backgrounders that review and analyze hot topics in nano-EHS. But this function is best performed by the community at large, those of you who are also wrestling with questions about choice of medium, dose, exposure route, particle sizing technique and other minutiae of life in the lab.
Starting this week, the ICON Virtual Journal aims to provide you the opportunity to shape future nano-EHS research practice by commenting on papers in our database. Despite an overwhelmingly positive response to this idea from people we surveyed during the conception and development phase, there remains some discomfort with the idea of people passing judgment on papers that have already passed through peer review. (Because we all know the peer review process is perfect.) Here are the top two reasons your peers gave for wanting this rating system:
Papers of high quality should be recognized so they can serve as models for other researchers in this field
This will help journalists, the public and other lay audiences know which research is the best, which will inform the public dialogue over nano’s risks and benefits
Now what could be wrong with recognizing papers of outstanding quality so that the field as a whole gravitates toward the best practices and people on the outside understand the implications of new work? Yes, yes, we still have issues to work out with respect to standards, etc. but in addition to giving a snapshot of where the field is now, the ratings could actually advance the discussion of best practices and broaden it to include underrepresented voices. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."
Unless you're a troll, I invite you to register at the site and rate 5 papers with which you are very familiar. Then email 10 colleagues and encourage them to do the same. (Start with the cranky ones who are always griping to you about the @#^% that gets published these days in the vanity journals.) Choose a non-identifying username if you want (students seeking future employment) or publish under your own name as a way of demonstrating how smart and thoughtful you are (consultants, tenured professors). Either way, we'll be able to pull inappropriate content off the site as needed.
The American Industrial Hygiene Association held its annual meeting this year in Toronto with a theme of Discoveries Beyond Borders. After the Monday morning keynote address by Dr. Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X PRIZE Foundation, the next two keynotes were on issues AIHA has identified as “two major challenges in the field: sustainability and nanotechnology.” Addressing the issue of sustainability was Edward L. Quevedo, JD, special counsel chair for the sustainability group at Farella Braun and Martel. (An interview with Mr. Quevedo about his keynote is posted here.)
My talk kicked off Wednesday’s focus on nanotechnology. Before and after the keynote talk I was able to hang out at NIOSH’s exposition booth where I was graciously provided an internet-connected computer on which to live-demo the GoodNanoGuide to passersby. But the invitation to speak before a crowd of about 1000 occupational safety professionals provided an ideal opportunity to formally launch the GoodNanoGuide, an international online collaborative wiki designed to create a forum for people seeking to work with engineered nanomaterials safely. The format of the keynote address did not allow for questions, so AIHA set aside a separate time and place for an “Ask the Expert” session later on Wednesday morning. This session was attended by about a hundred people and we eschewed the formal structure of me sitting up on a dais for a more informal conversational mode. This involved me running up and down the aisles passing the microphone back and forth among the questioners, myself and others in the audience better equipped to answer a given question. (Most times, this was Chuck Geraci, Laura Hodson or Donna Heidel from NIOSH who could report on specific research being done at the institute to inform occupational practice.)
Feedback to the talk and to the GoodNanoGuide was positive and we noted a major spike in visits to the site during the meeting. But even more importantly, we are already beginning to field requests to join the GoodNanoGuide community. (We map their locations here.) This is vital because the site will only grow into the knowledge base we all want it to become if a diverse and robust community of experts contributes. Join us by visiting the GoodNanoGuide here and registering as a contributor.
I need your help. ICON is preparing a modification to our Virtual Journal of Nano-EHS to allow users to rate papers they have read. While our survey on this topic generated an overwhelmingly positive response, we recognize that allowing the community to rate papers that have already passed through peer review is potentially sensitive. We want to make it clear that thoughtful, incisive commentary is welcome and trolls will be banned. Please help by submitting your thoughts on how to construct a useful Comment Guidelines policy that helps raters understand the purpose of the ratings and the "rules" for playing nice in the sandbox. If there are good examples out there relevant to scientific discussions (as opposed to consumer product sites such as Amazon) that would be helpful as well.
Here is my first pass at a Comment Guidelines policy.
Only rate papers you have read. Merely reading the abstract is not enough to evaluate a paper’s merits. ICON provides a link to the paper’s listing in the source journal where you may find it posted in its entirety or can purchase it if you are not a subscriber. We are unable to provide you with copies of papers in the VJ.
Only rate papers you are qualified to assess. This resource allows people with knowledge of nanomaterials, metrology, toxicology, environmental impact, etc. to bring that expertise to bear in evaluating the technical literature. If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter or the methods, don’t rate the paper.
Refrain from rating your own papers. If you are an author, please do not rate your own work. (Or get your mother or cousin or fishing buddy to do so.) You may leave a response to other raters in the comments box, in which case you should identify yourself as an author. Evaluate each paper on its scientific merits. Well-meaning people can disagree about the attributes of the ideal nano-EHS paper. But well-meaning people do not slam a paper because the author prevailed over them in a proposal competition or turned them down for a post-doc position. If you are pursuing any agenda other than well-intentioned critique of nano-EHS research, do so elsewhere. For guidance on rating papers, please review our Recommended Criteria for Rating Papers in the Virtual Journal.
Use common courtesy and tact. Be professional, especially when submitting a less than flattering review. Remember, nano-EHS researchers are people too. Specific, constructive feedback will be received better than withering criticism. Substantive, well-written comments will earn you a following in the VJ as people seek out trusted experts to help them filter through the literature.
Do not pass yourself off as someone else. You are free to choose a username that obscures your identity but do not choose one that falsely identifies you as another real person or associates you with an organization with which you have no affiliation. Do not misrepresent the sector in which you work.
Do not abuse the comment box. The comment box is not the place to plug your work, promote your blog, sell your product, hurl insults, use profane language, etc. Any comments that are deemed inappropriate can be flagged and will be removed. Offenders will be barred from posting.
I spent most of yesterday in a dimly lit room of Houston's George R. Brown Convention Center, attending the EHS track of the NSTI Nanotech 2009 conference, for which I organized the afternoon session on workplace practices. I have done this kind of thing before for NSTI, having put together a session on Nanotechnology and Society for the 2005 meeting in Anaheim. What a difference four years makes.
Then: Keynotes focused on enormous potential of nanotech to solve societal problems. Now: Keynote speaker from Bayer Materials Science spent much of his time talking about safety, minimizing exposure and engineering controls before getting to Baytubes.
Then: The EHS session was billed as a special symposium and was a hodgepodge of science, standards, regulation and policy. Now: The EHS session was a stand-alone track and there were enough submissions to have separate sessions on toxicology, workplace practices and regulatory/policy issues.
Then: This session garnered a smallish crowd. Now: The room was packed for toxicology and full enough for occupational practices.
Then: The crowd was excited about nanotech's potential but curious about why we needed to discuss "societal" impacts. Now: The attendees were savvy about the complexity of issues associated with understanding nanomaterials' impacts.
On that last point, I was pleased to hear attendees pressing the toxicology speakers during Q&A to be explicit about what type of nanomaterials were tested, what dose metrics were employed, whether residual metal particles were present, etc. The questions demonstrated a level of sophistication not seen back in 2005 when most people wanted to know: Are these things dangerous or not?
OK so one person asked Val Vallyathan, a NIOSH researcher talking about the nanotube-asbestos comparison, the naive question, "So, are carbon nanotubes 'the next asbestos' or not?" To which he replied, "The current studies are inconclusive. We can't say without systematic studies varying the dose, animal model, etc."
I know there are now whole meetings devoted to nanoEHS research, and that societies such as SOT are offering extended tracks on nanotoxicology. One of my colleagues in the nanoEHS space said that he goes to a lot of these meetings where he feels like he's preaching to the choir. The NSTI meeting has always had a more optimistic, business development, applications orientation where raising safety issues can feel more like missionary work in hostile territory. So seeing the EHS issue penetrate the NSTI meeting to this extent leads me to the conclusion that these communities are finally coming together in a way that bodes well for nanomaterial stewardship. Back to the meeting!
ten individuals with substantial expertise in environmental, health and safety issues related to engineered nanomaterials. We expect these individuals to play leading roles in nanotechnology law and business.
I am pleased to report that five out of the ten experts listed participate on ICON's steering or executive committee.
BUILDING A BETTER MOUSETRAP: PATENTING BIOTECHNOLOGY IN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITYVicki Colvin (Rice University), Barbara Karn (US EPA), Kristen Kulinowski (me, Rice University), Andrew Maynard (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies), and Mary Beth Miller (Unidym).
Thanks to all these experts for their contributions to ICON and the wider NanoEHS community. And thanks to Matthew Jaffe for sending this news along.
The Nanotech Conference and Expo 2009 (May 3-7) organized by NSTI promises to be a week filled with nano goodness. For those who haven't yet planned every last minute here is a schedule of activities that ICON is hosting or involved with:
Monday 1:30-3:30 pmEHS Workplace Practices [Room 351 CF]
[This is part of a whole track on EHS that begins at 10:30 am with a session on Nano Toxicology Studies]
Tuesday 2:00-4:00 pm I will be in the Expo [Rice Booth 901] to answer questions about CBEN or ICON.
5:00-6:00 pm ICON reception at the Expo [Rice Booth 901]
Wednesday 10:30 am GoodNanoGuide Sneak Preview [Room 361 CF]: A hands-on demo of our newest project. Please bring your wireless-enabled laptop to take the GoodNanoGuide for a spin.
The International Council on Nanotechnology is a multistakeholder forum for developing and communicating information about nanomaterial risk. Please visit us at http://icon.rice.edu.
