Tag Archives: nanomaterials inventory

Update on Health Canada’s public consultation on its Interim Policy Statement on a Working Definition for Nanomaterials

A reader sent in a response to a query about the public consultation’s status since it closed Aug. 31, 2011.

Consultation Results – Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials

Dear [XXX],

Thank you for your interest in the Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials (Interim Policy Statement). Extensive comments were received from a wide-range of stakeholders.

Health Canada is currently reviewing and considering all comments, and any necessary revisions to the Interim Policy Statement. Further information on how Health Canada will address these comments, including any possible amendments to the policy statement will be made available on Health Canada’s Web site soon. Stakeholders will be notified at that time. [emphasis mine]

Thank you

Science Policy Directorate/La direction des politiques scientifiques
Strategic Policy Branch/Direction générale de la politique stratégique
Health Canada/Santé Canada

Thank you to my reader. I wonder how they define a stakeholder?

After receiving the message, I checked out the Health Canada website page again and found this under Reporting to Canadians,

Health Canada will make the results of this consultation available on this Web site. Health Canada will take further steps to illustrate how the policy statement will be applied in specific contexts. These steps could include guidance documents for specific products or substances, targeted workshops and postings of answers to frequently asked questions. The Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials will be updated as comments are received, as the body of scientific evidence increases, and as international norms progress.

In my April 26, 2010 posting, I published an interview with a Health Canada representative (Christelle Legault) about Canada’s nanomaterials definition, a nanomaterials inventory that was announced in January 2009 (but not yet implemented), and a proposed nanoportal for Spring 2010 (still not launched). I’m hopeful they will find it easier to publish the results of the consultation than they have found the implementation of their other initiatives. Perhaps the inventory and the nanoportal are contingent on a nanomaterials definition?

US Government Accountability Office chimes in on the nanomaterials regulatory debate

Yet another jurisdiction (US) and government agency (Government Accountability Office [GAO]) has released a report about regulating nanomaterials. From the news item on Nanowerk,

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report “Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely Used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk” (pdf) in which it recommends that EPA complete its plans to modify its regulatory framework for nanomaterials as needed.

As usual, Canada is mentioned for its ‘nanomaterials inventory plan’ but for the first time it’s described as a plan and not a fait accompli,

Australia and the United Kingdom have undertaken a voluntary data collection approach whereas Canada plans to require companies to submit certain types of information.

Thank you to whoever authored the GAO report for getting it right. Meanwhile, I wonder when the Canadian government will choose to notify Canadians (or at least our companies) of this plan.

If you want an overview of the report do go to Nanowerk; I’ve started reading the report and will comment on it tomorrow.

One last note, I remember (having worked in a library and filed their documents) when GAO stood for Government Accounting Office.

Science communication in Canada (part 4b); NanoArt 2009; future nanoelectronics

Most science public relations (pr) and marketing efforts (including public engagement) in Canada are made by government agencies.  There is a communications officer (actually, it’s usually a team of communications officers) in every government-funded science-oriented agency (e.g. National Research Council, the National of Institute of Nanotechnology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, etc.)

In part 3 of this series (Sept. 21, 2009), I mentioned the impact a gag order placed on Environment Canada scientists in January 2008 has had on Canadian science journalism. It’s fair to assume that the gag order also has had an impact on people whose government agency job is science pr.

My guess is that an already cautious science pr and marketing community has become more controlling and more worried.  Take for example the nanomaterials inventory (mentioned in earlier postings) that was announced not by Environment Canada but, in February 2009, by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies based in Washington, DC. It’s somewhat disconcerting to have a Canadian government initiative announced in the US first. It’s possible that there’s no connection to the gag order but I cannot recall any Canadian government initiative being announced in another country first.

I have another example of a science pr oddity but it’s based on memory because I didn’t think to save the article and I can’t find it online. As memory serves, months after the 2008 federal election there was an article in a paper that I read stating that an important Canadian science advance done in conjunction with (US) NASA had been suppressed during the election campaign. The information was announced later in the US (again). The article noted this was the first time that information about an advance attributable to Canadian scientists was suppressed during an election campaign, apparently, due to concerns that the announcement would be prejudicial.

In what universe does someone read about a scientific advance and immediately praise or condemn (depending on how you view the advance) a political party? I cannot recall the last time a local candidate got a boost or fell  in the polls when the government announced a scientific advance. Even a biotechnology advance (with biotech being one of the most contentious science sectors in terms of public perception) would not be likely to have that kind of impact. Note that I said unlikely not impossible and that is where the problem lies. There are risks associated with science pr and marketing.

Whether it’s a government, a business, or a non-for-profit agency, there’s always the risk of embarrassment (your data is incorrect), the risk that popular opinion will rise against you, and/or the risk that someone more persuasive will slant your data to prove the case against you. These risks don’t pertain to science alone but there is a specific problem associated with science. Most of us are intimidated by it and, if you’re not, it’s hard to get information that is slanted for an adult who doesn’t have a science background. (Tomorrow’s installment will feature some current science pr initiatives and it will  be last of this series.)

Now for a couple of quick announcements. Chris Orfescu’s NanoArt 2009 competition  is calling for submissions (from the Azonano news item),

The artists can participate with up to 5 images (artworks). All submitted works will be exhibited on the nanoart21.org site until March 31, 2010, together with artist’s name, a short description of the artistic process, and artist’s web site and e-mail. The top 10 artists will be exhibited on nanoart21.org site for one full year and will be invited to exhibit at the 3rd edition of The International Festival of NanoArt. The previous editions of the festival were held in Finland and Germany.

There are more details on the Azonano website.

Michael Berger (Nanowerk Spotlight) has an article on future nanoelectronics which contradicts much that you may have learned about electricity and electronics in high school. From the article on Nanowerk,

Nanotechnology-enabled electronics of the future will be invisible, i.e. transparent (see “Invisible electronics made with carbon nanotubes”), or flexible, or both. One of the areas [John Rogers’ group at the University of Illlinois] focus on is creating materials and processes that will allow high-performance electronics that are flexible and stretchable (see our previous Spotlight “Gutenberg + nanotechnology = printable electronics”)

That’s it.