News
Goldston Nature editorial calls for increased regulation of nanotechnology risks
David Goldston, a Scholar in Residence at the Woodrow Wilson School’s Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, has authored the editorial "Small Advances," in the December 19 edition of Nature.
In the article Goldston examines why, despite concern in the policy and scientific communities that the environmental and health effects of nanoparticles and related exposure need a lot more study, little progress has been made in studying nanoparticles despite a concerted call and Congressional support for a well-funded research program. A nanoparticle is a microscopic particle with at least one dimension less than 100 nm. Nanoparticles have a wide variety of potential applications in the biomedical, optical, and electronic fields – and according to Nature, nanotechnology is rapidly advancing, with more than 300 nanoproducts already on the market.
Goldston writes, “The problem in this case is not ideological conflict, or indeed opposition of any kind.” Rather, the author notes, “with no divisive fight over regulation (partly because agencies don't know enough yet to figure out how to regulate), nobody has been screaming for research either to settle a policy debate or to forestall action, as has been the case with climate change, for example.”
However, Goldston argues, “The status quo will never result in an adequate programme because no agency views the research as a high enough priority, given pressures to address immediate problems and ongoing programmes with limited funds.
Moreover, the author states, “In this case there's yet another hurdle: basic-research agencies are suspicious of efforts that try to direct research to answer specific questions formulated by the government to address policy needs.” While Goldston agrees that such inclinations to remain independent are healthy, “they are maladapted for situations that call for focused research to resolve societal issues that need to be faced with some urgency, such as those associated with nanotechnology.”
The author argues that “In such cases, the White House or, failing that, Congress needs to cajole, prod and even mandate agencies to move forward quickly, and in unison.” However, Goldston points out, this has yet to be done sufficiently.
Goldston concludes, “Inertia, which is to say the standard interagency process, is not a strong enough force to overcome those failings, but that's what's been relied on so far. The plans for learning about the possible societal consequences of nanotechnology are simply too small.”
In the article Goldston examines why, despite concern in the policy and scientific communities that the environmental and health effects of nanoparticles and related exposure need a lot more study, little progress has been made in studying nanoparticles despite a concerted call and Congressional support for a well-funded research program. A nanoparticle is a microscopic particle with at least one dimension less than 100 nm. Nanoparticles have a wide variety of potential applications in the biomedical, optical, and electronic fields – and according to Nature, nanotechnology is rapidly advancing, with more than 300 nanoproducts already on the market.
Goldston writes, “The problem in this case is not ideological conflict, or indeed opposition of any kind.” Rather, the author notes, “with no divisive fight over regulation (partly because agencies don't know enough yet to figure out how to regulate), nobody has been screaming for research either to settle a policy debate or to forestall action, as has been the case with climate change, for example.”
However, Goldston argues, “The status quo will never result in an adequate programme because no agency views the research as a high enough priority, given pressures to address immediate problems and ongoing programmes with limited funds.
Moreover, the author states, “In this case there's yet another hurdle: basic-research agencies are suspicious of efforts that try to direct research to answer specific questions formulated by the government to address policy needs.” While Goldston agrees that such inclinations to remain independent are healthy, “they are maladapted for situations that call for focused research to resolve societal issues that need to be faced with some urgency, such as those associated with nanotechnology.”
The author argues that “In such cases, the White House or, failing that, Congress needs to cajole, prod and even mandate agencies to move forward quickly, and in unison.” However, Goldston points out, this has yet to be done sufficiently.
Goldston concludes, “Inertia, which is to say the standard interagency process, is not a strong enough force to overcome those failings, but that's what's been relied on so far. The plans for learning about the possible societal consequences of nanotechnology are simply too small.”