Today I attended the announcement by Lord Sainsbury of the Governments
response to the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering Report. That
report took over year, involved input from civil society and was
surprisingly precautionary in its reccomendations to government. I've
just finished reading the governments disappointing response (its 25
pages) and summarised below the key points (and my own glib analysis).
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: A quick informal analysis of UK govts new 'nanotech issues' policy
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 23:04:14 +0000
From: Jim Thomas
To: techdemocracy@dgroups.org, Techne
Hello
Today I attended the announcement by Lord Sainsbury of the Governments
response to the Royal Society/Royal Academy of Engineering Report. That
report took over year, involved input from civil society and was
surprisingly precautionary in its reccomendations to government. I've
just finished reading the governments disappointing response (its 25
pages) and summarised below the key points (and my own glib analysis).
A more interesting overview is on Howard Lovy's blog at
http://nanobot.blogspot.com as a discussion (more of an agreement)
between myself and pro-nano writer Richard Jones.
You can get the original RS/RAE report at www.nanotec.org.uk
Today's government response is at
http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/index.htm#Nanotechnology
A report on the BBC is at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4294681.stm
best
Jim
Here's the boiled down version:
The Government wimps out: It says thankyou politely, offers some nice
words and another set of reviews but commits to very little right
across the board, kicking any possible future regulatory proposals into
next year or the year after (or later...?)
It fails to:
- offer any specific regulations,
- deal with products on the market,
- offer new money or a centre of excellence for nanotoxicology research,
- respond at all to any societal concerns raised
- consider nanotechnology beyond particles (eg nanobiotech or even
nanocapsules, dendrimers, devices, nanofluidics etc).
At the same time UK government has set up a potentially fragmented
policy landscape for nanotech in which different agencies and advisory
groups will tackle the field in a fragmented way and those considered
not to be dealing with 'risk' are being excluded (eg Dept for
International Development, Disability Rights Commission and Department
for Work and Pensions).
specifically
The UK government has:
1) Started another review into the detail of which regulations need
to be tweaked and which agencies, departments and advisory bodies need
to be thinking about nano-risks. (by end of 2005)
2) Set up a new Nano Issues co-ordination body based in Office of
Science and Technology (OST) called the Nano Issues Dialogue Group
(NIDG) who will co-ordinate between different departments, agencies and
advisory bodies.
3) Set up a nanotech research co-ordination group chaired by DEFRA
(Dept of Food, Environment, Regions and Agriculture) who will
co-ordinate between research councils and departments to draw up a list
of what research is neccesary (and maybe fund some of it).(By Autumn
2005.)
The UK Government will:
1) Publish an outline proposal for a "properly targeted and
sufficiently resourced public dialogue" on Nanotech facilitated by the
OST. (Spring 2005 with fuller proposal in Autumn 2005).
2) Work with industry and others to minimise environmental release of
engineered nanoparticles (eg in waste streams)and to prevent the
release of nanoparticles for environmental remediation (except for
small experimental releases). They will also assess regulatory
mechanisms to acheive this. (Assesment by end of 2005)
3) Work with 'the public and other interested parties' to consider
whether labelling of nano consumer products is feasible or neccesary.
(no timescale)
4) Facilitate a dialogue on nanoremediation. (in next 2 years)
5) initiate via DEFRA a 'thorough independent study' into the
implications of nanotechnologies on environmental regulations
(published during 2005)
6) Ask European assesment committees (eg on cosmetics) to insist on
public disclosure of methodologies for safety studies. (no timescale)
7) Ask the new OST-based centre of excellence in science and technology
horizon scanning (previously announced) to identify health, safety,
environmental, social, ethcial and regulatory issues associated with
emerging technologies. (no timescale- establishing of the centre is
already underway)
8) Undertake a detailed and ongoing review of the extent to which
nanoparticles and nanotubes are being manufactured and used in UK
(DEFRA) (end of 2005)
9) Help develop methods and standards to measure and describe
nanoparticles - for metrology and assessing vehicle emissions.
(ongoing?)
10) Review its approach to Nanotechnology in 2 years and in 5 years.
(review to be undertaken by Council for Science and Tehcnology - a
government body).
The reponse includes the following Sstatements on Nanoparticles and
Risk:
"The government.. accepts that safety testing on the basis of a larger
form of the chemical cannot be used to infer the safety of the
nanoparticulate form of the same chemical and therefore individual
regulations within the existing framework will need to be reviewed to
reflect the possibility that nanoparticulate material may have greater
toxicity than material in the larger size range" - para 22
"Their properties will be dependent upon both their size and shape and
of the material of which they are made" - para 14
"There is some evidence that some materials are more toxic in a
nanoparticulate form, possibly because of their greater surface area" -
para 14
"The government accepts the reccomendation of the RS/RAEng that a
precautionary approach should be taken [to deliberate release for
environmental remediation] - para 46
"Exposure in the workplace and releases to the environment should be
minimised until the possible risks posed by nanoparticles and nanotubes
are better understood" - para 17
"The government agrees that ingredients in the form of manufactured
free nanoparticles should undergo a through safety assesment by the
relevant scientific advisory body before they are used in consumer
products" - para 24 and 62
"The government recognises.. that there is much baseline fundamental
science to be done" - para 33
"The government agrees that there is a need for further work on
environmental fate and potential bioaccumulation of nanoparticles and
nanotubes, recognising that these will be as varied as the range of
products and compounds of which they are made" - para 40
"It is likely that sector specific regulations will be needed to ensure
that products produced as nanoparticles are appropriately regulated" -
para 56
Statements on Governance and Dialogue:
"It is also clear that there is an international dimension to the
issues raised by developments in nanotechnologies and that we need to
introduce mechanisms for broader discussions and collaboration on how
to address these issues in an efficient way." para 9
"We need to have rational and mature public dialogue informed by good
science" - para 27
"The government agrees that properly targetted and sufficiently
resourced public dialogue will be crucial in securing a future for
nanotechnologies" - para 80
"Their [RS/RAEng] rejection of a moratorium is based on the assumption
that Government will secure an appropriate and effective regulatory
regime as rapidly as possible" - para 16