It’s getting hard to keep up with the material on nanotechnology regulatory frameworks these days but here’s my latest effort (in no particular order).

Nanowiki published a July 7, 2011 roundup of the discussion about the recent FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) and EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) initiatives along with a list of selected articles and blog postings to supply context (yes, my blog posting Nano regulatory frameworks are everywhere! of June 22, 2011 was included!). Please do check out their roundup as they mention articles and commentaries that I haven’t.

Also included in the Nanowiki roundup was Andrew Maynard’s (Director of the University of Michigan Risk Science Center) draft of an article for Nature magazine  on the topic of nanomaterial definition and nanotechnology regulatory frameworks. The final version of the article is behind a paywall but a draft version can be viewed on Andrew’s 2020 Science blog. From his July 6, 2011 posting,

Five years ago, I was a strong proponent of developing a regulatory definition of engineered nanomaterials.  Today I am not.  Even as policy makers are looking for clear definitions on which to build and implement nano-regulations, the science is showing there is no bright line separating the risks presented by nanometer and non-nanometer scale materials.  As a result, there is a growing danger of science being pushed to one side as government agencies strive to regulate nanomaterials and the products they are used in.

I have mentioned Andrew’s perspective vis à vis bypassing a definition of nanomaterials and getting on with the task of setting a regulatory framework in my June 9, 2011 and my April 15, 2011 postings. I expressed some generalized doubts about this approach in the earlier posting while noting that both Andrew and Dexter Johnson (Nanoclast blog on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers]  Spectrumwebsite) have a point when they express concern that the definition may be based on public relations concerns rather than science.

Also chiming into the debate is Scott Rickert (president and chief executive officer of Nanofilm) in his July 8, 2011 article, Six Ways I Know Nanotechnology Is Here To Stay, for Industry Week,

Have you been keeping up on recent government developments that have the nanotechnology industry in an uproar? First there was a dust-up when Clayton Teague stepped down as Director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. There were rumors that the anti-nano forces had run him out. (Not true, by the way.) Then an announcement that the Food and Drug Administration would be looking at nanotechnology safety guidelines got some folks twitching. The same day, the White House released principles to guide the regulation and oversight of nanotechnology applications. That had people running for the exits.

Colleagues who’ve been in nanotechnology for a decade without incident were considering shutting down businesses, afraid a nano-boogieman was going to target them for billion-dollar lawsuits. Start-ups were in fear that the trickle of investment money would completely dry up. Any day I expect to see black armbands popping up in university labs in mourning over lost research grants.

Rickert goes on to suggest that all this recent regulatory activity can be attributed to ‘growing pains’ which he supports with various facts and figures. He has commented on this topic before as I note in my June 17, 2010 posting.

Happy Weekend!