Monthly Archives: April 2011

Interview with Dr. Seyed Gh. Etemad about the International Conference on Nanotechnology: Fundamentals and Applications

I mentioned the 2nd annual International Conference on Nanotechnology: Fundamentals and Applications (ICNFA) in my Sept. 28, 2010 posting. Recently, I decided to interview one of the organizers to find out more about the conference. Dr. Seyed Gholamreza Etemad, who heads the ICNFA 2011 Scientific Committee, very kindly provided answers to my questions. First, a little bit about Dr. Etemad (from the ICNFA’s Keynotes page,

Seyed Gholamreza Etemad is a professor of chemical engineering department at Isfahan University of Technology (IUT-Iran). He is also a co-founder and a member of Center of Excellence of Nanotechnology in Environment at IUT (Iran).Professor Etemad received his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in chemical Engineering from Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnique, Iran). He obtained his PhD from McGill University (Canada) in 1995.

He has served as the chair of the 1st Nanotechnology and Environment Conference in 2007 and the chair of Nanotechnology Workshops in 2009 held at IUT. He acted as the head of the scientific committee for the 1st International Conference on Nanotechnology: Fundamentals and Applications in 2010 (University of Ottawa-Canada). Currently, he is an active member of the scientific and organizing committees of ICNFA 2011. He teaches transport phenomena related courses, renewable energy, and nanotechnology at IUT and university of Ottawa.

Here is a brief preamble from Dr. Etemad describing the conference in more detail before he proceeds to the questions:

Let me first explain a little bit about International ASET Inc. International ASET Inc. was founded in year 2009 as a partnership in Ottawa, Canada. This partnership was formed to perform scientific activities internationally. After holding the First International Conference on Nanotechnology: Fundamentals and Applications in the University of Ottawa, International ASET established an Incorporation and became International ASET Inc.
12 Keynote speakers and approximately 180 papers were presented at ICNFA 2010 in three consecutive days. ICNFA 2010 was able to attract researchers from all around the world.

After successfully holding the first conference, International ASET Inc. decided to organize the 2nd conference of the ICNFA conference series.

a) There are a lot of nanotechnology-themed conferences, why organize
this one?
Nanotechnology is a very fast growing subject which is multi-disciplinary and covers a wide range of scientific fields and applications. Since nanotechnology is a relatively new technology, fundamental approaches are very important. This technology has begun to find different applications in various areas such as: Engineering, Medicine, Arts, Agriculture, and Environment.

The aim of the 2nd International Conference on Nanotechnolgy: Fundamentals and Applications is to gather scholars from all over the world to present advances in the field of nanotechnology and to foster an environment conducive to exchanging ideas and information. This conference will also provide a golden opportunity to develop new collaborations and meet world nanotechnology experts on the fundamentals, applications and products.

b) Usually international conferences are held in various countries over the years but this conference is being held for the second year in a row in Ottawa and the conference is only 2 years old. What is the reasoning behind this?
Since International ASET Inc. was founded in Ottawa, for the first few conferences, we decided to set the venue to the city of Ottawa and the University of Ottawa. We are already negotiating with some of our colleagues in other universities and we will look forward to having some of the future conferences in other countries.

c) Your keynote speakers are covering a very wide range of topics from nanoeducation to nanoelectronics to drug delivery and more. What is the strategy behind offering such a wide range? (In other words, why?)
As mentioned in part (a), Nanotechnology is a multi-disciplinary subject and we expect to attract attendees from different Nanotechnology related areas. Therefore, the Keynotes were chosen from different fields of Nanotechnology.

d) What kinds of results or outcomes did you see as a consequence of the first conference?
ICNFA 2010 brought together Scientists and Researchers from different scientific organizations of various countries and could foster an environment conducive to exchanging ideas and information.

e) Is there anything about the conference that hasn’t made it to the website yet that you are excited about?
We are mostly exited about meeting the engineers, scientists, researchers, and university students from all around the world. We have received interesting manuscripts and we look forward to the presentations of the accepted manuscripts.

f) What was the attendance for the first conference and do you have any idea what numbers to expect for this one?
Approximately 200 people attended the first conference. So far we have received more papers and we expect to have more attendees compared to last year. Our attendees include scientists and engineers from research centers and industries, university professors, and graduate students.

g) Is there anything you’d like to add?
We would like to add that International ASET Inc. is also holding a conference on Environmental Pollution and Remediation (ICEPR’11) this year. This conference is the first of its series and will also be held yearly just like ICNFA.

In the end we would like to thank the University of Ottawa and CSA (Canadian Standards Association) for their support of the ICNFA conference series.

Thank you Dr. Etemad for satisfying my curiousity and, even, anticipating an additional question or two with your preamble. (At the end of almost of every interview, there’s almost always another question or two that I wished I’d had the forethought to ask.)

Vanished; a mystery game

Leave a reply

Vanished sounds like a game where you won’t even notice that you’re being educated. (Having looked at a few ‘education’ games, that’s a major kudo from me.)

April 4, 2011 is the date that the Smithsonian Institute and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) launched an eight-week online game for middle school children that was two years in the making. From the Feb. 22, 2011 MIT news release,

The Smithsonian Institution and MIT announced the April 4 launch of VANISHED, an 8-week online/offline environmental disaster mystery game for middle-school children, meant to inspire engagement and problem solving through science.

Developed and curated by MIT’s Education Arcade (a research group of Comparative Media Studies) and the Smithsonian Institution, VANISHED is a first-of-its-kind experience where participants become investigators racing to solve puzzles and other online challenges, visit museums and collect samples from their neighborhoods to help unlock the secrets of the game. Players can only discover the truth about the environmental disaster by using real scientific methods and knowledge to unravel the game’s secrets.

To navigate through the mystery game’s challenges, participants will gain access to Smithsonian scientists from such diverse disciplines as paleobiology, volcanology, forensic anthropology and entomology.

This project is a consequence of a conclusion reached by researchers at the US National Science Foundation that people learn most of their science informally, i.e., outside the classroom. David Zax’s April 19, 2011 article on the Fast Company website notes,

Over many years, after conducting many surveys, the NSF made an intriguing conclusion: A good deal of the public’s understanding of science derives from outside of the classroom. NSF developed a program in “Informal Science Education,” and Osterweil’s team–jointly housed by MIT’s Comparative Media Studies program and its Scheller Teacher Education Program–nabbed an NSF grant to work on a game, back in 2009. Two years later, more than 5,000 students are playing the game, Vanished, and leaving about 4,000 posts a day on the sites forums.

There’s more about Vanished here (including Frequently Asked Questions) and you can register here. The game ends on or about May 31, 2011. It is still possible to sign up. Players must be 10 1/2 to 14 years old. People of other ages may sign up as observers.

FrogHeart on science blogging panel at Northern Voice 2011 Conference

Leave a reply

Friday, May 13, 2011 is the date for what I believe is a first anywhere: a panel about Canadian science blogging. It’s going to be held at the 2011 Northern Voice Personal Blogging and Social Media Conference (May 13 – 14, 2011) at the University of British Columbia’s Life Sciences Centre.

FrogHeart (aka Maryse de la Giroday) will be on the panel titled: The Naked Truth: Canadian Science Blogging Scene. My fellow panelists will be:

Rosie Redfield of RRResearch and author of the post that raised a storm of interest in the science blogosphere by bringing into question some research published by NASA (US National Aeronautics and Space Administration) scientists in Science magazine;

Beth Snow of The Black Hole (co-written with David Kent) where she writes about what happens after you get your graduate science degree and other issues of interest to science trainees; and

Eric Michael Johnson, The Primate Diaries in Exile, who writes about evolutionary biology and its relationship to politics;

and moi.

Our moderator is Lisa Johnson, a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Coroporation) reporter who specializes in science and environmental issues.

Here’s the description for the session:

Bloggers are changing what was the tightly controlled world of science communications — dominated by peer-reviewed journals and mainstream media — into a two-way street.

Join four popular science bloggers to hear how social media lets them tell their stories without compromise. The panelists will tell you about political science and apes during the 2011 federal Canadian election; about what you do after you get your graduate science degrees and start developing your post-school career; about running a science lab and writing one of the most incendiary science blog posts of 2010; about the very well kept secret that is the Canadian nanotechnology community. We anticipate a lively (rowdy) interactive session with lots of questions from the audience to the panel and from the panel to the audience.

The panel will be on from 1:45 pm to 2:30 pm.

Café Scientifique in Vancouver on April 19, 2011: Trapping antimatter

Leave a reply

Vancouver’s Railway Club at 579 Dunsmuic St. is welcoming this month’s Café Scientifique tonight, April 19, 2011, at 7:30 pm. The meeting is held in a backroom and last month’s meeting was SRO (standing room only). April 2011’s speaker is Andrea Gutierrez, a PhD student at TRIUMF, a subatomic physics laboratory, located at the University of British Columbia. From the announcement,

Let’s trap antimatter! An overview of how it is done and its applications.

Our world is made of matter: protons, neutrons and electrons. Each of these particles has a “twin” particle (antiprotons, antineutrons and antielectrons) that looks just like a mirror image of it, with the same mass but opposite charge. When matter gets close enough to antimatter, they both disappear in a puff of energy. To trap antimatter it is fundamental to keep it away from matter, which is what makes it a really challenging task. Last November, we were able to catch cold antihydrogen for the first time (antiatoms composed of an antiproton and an antielectron) at ALPHA (Antihydrogen Laser PHysics Apparatus). In this talk, we will discuss how to produce, trap and detect antihydrogen!

According to the announcement, this project was ranked as the #1 breakthough in 2010 by Physics World journal.

Myrmecological comic book: Romance of the Ants

Leave a reply

There’s a great article (Serious Science, Comic-Book Style) by Catherine Clabby in American Scientist about an exhibit at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History that combines graphic novel/comic book storytelling and the science of entomology, The Romance of Ants. From the article,

When I [scientist Corrie Moreau] was first approached about the exhibit I was very interested in sharing my science. When I learned that the team planned to tell much of the story using a graphic novel format, I was caught a bit off guard. I am quite comfortable sharing my science, but initially felt a bit uncomfortable about the exhibit being about my journey. In the end it became as much about my journey as it was about highlighting the amazing insects I work on and my scientific research.
…

I’ve [the artist Alexandra Westrich] been a committed enthusiast of both nature and art since childhood. While a student at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I favored science electives such as “The Insect World” and “Animal Behavior” over studio classes. This was when I started to seriously consider applying my artistic abilities to the sciences, first through very basic avenues such as scientific illustration, but gradually extending to alternative media (such as comics and “zines”) that could appeal to a wider audience.

Here’s an image from the show,

Romance of Ants (image dowloaded from American Scientist)

You can find out more about the Romance of Ants here, there’s a slide show here, and a PDF of the Romance of the Ants graphic novel here.

Funds raised for thermoelectric materials company, GMZ Energy

Leave a reply

GMZ Energy is a nanotechnology-based company that’s been spun off from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology). There was an announcement yesterday, April 18, 2011, that the company has received $7M in funding in its first institutional round. From the announcement,

Newton’s [Massachusetts] GMZ Energy Inc., a maker of thermoelectric materials based on nanotechnology developed at MIT, has raised $7 million from a planned $13 million investment round, the first institutional round for the company.

While the three backers in the round were not identified in the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, GMZ Energy has been backed with seed capital by West Coast venture capital giant Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers.

The company’s technology (from the announcement),

GMZ Energy uses it nanotechnology to produce thermoelectric material that turn waste heat into electrical power using an environmentally friendly alloy. The material optimizes cooling in refrigerators and air conditioners, generates power from heat sources such as automotive exhaust systems, and enables electricity generation from renewable sources, according to company statements.

The company website can be visited here.

I’ve included this item as it relates to business and investment in nanotechnology and I don’t cover that end of the topic often enough.

Science policy an issue in the Canada 2011 election?

5 Replies

It’s only in my dreams or, perhaps, my nightmares that science policy is considered an important issue in a Canadian federal election. Being an election issue can be a two-edged sword, you get more attention but that can work for you and/or against you. On balance, I think it’s better to be considered an election issue than to be ignored and it seems to me that there’s a lot more effort (not from the political parties) this election to put science policy in the limelight.

For anyone interested in asking candidates about their position on science and science policies, Peer Review Radio; Bringing Science Back to the People, will be webcasting interviews with four candidates from difference parties and constituencies (in the Ottawa region) and they are inviting questions both from Canadians and ‘informed World Citizens’ to be submitted by Weds., April 20, 2011. The interviews will be broadcast April 21 – 25, 2011. Here’s some more information about Peer Review Radio,

Science plays an increasing role in our daily lives, yet the average North American receives less than a minute of science news for every five hours of cable TV.

Peer Review Radio was established by a group of motivated graduate students with a desire to spread their love of science. By breaking down complicated concepts into bite-sized morcels, the ‘Peers’ hope to spark the curiosity of their listeners with relevant, reliable information. The end goal of this programme is to provide an outlet where anyone and everyone can understand current scientific issues and generate their own informed opinions. In addition, Peer Review Radio promotes careers in research and science and serves as a training ground for future scientists to acquire invaluable communication skills.

If you feel you need more information or a refresher, I’ve got some summaries and portions of commentaries culled from other blogs about the science policy and party platforms for the Canadian 2011 election.

For an overall analysis of what the various political parties are offering, you can check out Rob Annan’s April 11, 2011 posting where he offers an overview and specifics of the various parties’ research policy as described in their election platforms. The overviews have been excerpted, if you’re interested in reading the specifics, please see Rob’s posting,

The Conservative plan (pdf here) is slightly more detailed than the others, as they’ve rolled their recently tabled budget into their platform. The platform document includes a subsection devoted to R&D, in which they trumpet their track record (e.g. “made substantial new investments in R&D through Canada’s granting councils”, which I guess is technically true if you ignore the funding cuts that preceded – and exceeded – said “investments”).

The Liberals (pdf here) are pretty ambiguous about research policy, though they do have one idea that may be innovative (though probably isn’t).

The NDP (platform pdf here) doesn’t seem to have much of a plan for research, with nary a mention in the platform. Weird.

The Greens’ platform (pdf here) is described in detail in their Vision Green document, which includes their goals up to 2020. Of all platforms, it contains the most research-related content, and it is the most descriptive. Unlike the others, it also describes something akin to a “vision” for research in this country, which is predictably aligned with environmental and social justice politics. Oddly, this means that health research, a multi-billion dollar undertaking in this country and our largest research sector, is barely mentioned.

Bloc Québecois edit: an earlier edition based the Bloc positions on an executive summary of their platform.

I’m not sure why he removed the executive summary but for anyone interested in a summary of the Bloc Québécois science policy, it can be found at Agence Science Presses on the Élections Canada: La science des partis webpage written up in French (my stumbling translation follows) by Rob Annan and Pascal Lapointe,

Le Bloc Québécois considère que les politiques énergétiques et environnementales doivent s’appuyer sur des faits solidement démontrés par la science plutôt que sur des idéologies à courte vue. il mettra tout en œuvre pour que les scientifiques puissent communiquer directement avec les médias sans être censurés et sans risque de représailles.

Here goes the translation: The Bloc Québécois believes that energy and environmental policies should be based on scientific evidence rather than short-term political ideologies. As well, the party will free scientists to communicate directly to media without fear of censure or reprisal.

Nassif Ghoussoub on his Piece of Mind blog offers more analysis of the Liberal and Conservative party platforms re: science policy during this 2011 election season. From his April 15, 2011 posting about the Liberals and their science policy,

You expect that a Harvard Professor and a former Astronaut would cherish an opportunity to step up for a more serious, more vigorous, more rigorous, more scientifically driven, and less politically motivated research policy for the Government of Canada. Wrong! Ignatieff has been back in Canada long enough, and Garneau has been in politics long enough to know that a major discourse on research policy does not move votes. Remember the debates?

He goes on in more detail about a policy statement that he describes as ‘wishy-washy’.

In his April 18, 2011 posting, Nassif focuses on the Conservatives,

Unlike the other parties, the Conservatives have now a 5-year track record on research policy. Their proposed 2001 budget may also be considered as their platform, at least for the short term. Their research policies are de-facto more detailed, hence more open to scrutiny. The Tories’ record is mixed: Continuation of successful federal programs, more government interference in research prioritization and targeted funding, less emphasis on peer-review and the Tri-council, resistance to basic research, new elitist programs, yet major support for colleges.

He goes on to detail what he terms: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly elements of their science policy.

As for my take on things, I’m not a policy wonk. That said, I have looked at the various policies (can’t find the Bloc Québécois electoral platform [plateforme électorale] in either English or French) and don’t find that any of the parties view science as being important. A couple of paragraphs are devoted to it in the Liberal platform and there’s some mention in the Conservative platform too but the NDP and the Greens have folded science policy into other platform issues. As Nassif points out, science is not a vote-getter. For some anecdotal support of that comment, as I have mentioned elsewhere, I had one NDP constituency assistant describe science policy to me as a ’boutique’ issue.

I notice there’s no mention of reinstituting a science advisor (there was a position until the Conservatives cut it in their first term) or educating MP’s about science (they offer workshops in the UK) or even (other than the Bloc Québécois summary on the Agence Science Presses website) what role science advice or evidence may have in policy decisions where scientific information should play a key role e.g. regulating nanotechnology. Nor is there any discussion (again, other than from the Bloc Québécois) about federal scientists being allowed to freely discuss their work with the media. ETA April 18, 2011: One more question: What role do you see for science in Canadian society? (Aside: I may have just given myself the question I want for Peer Review Radio. Better take another look at the rules!)

If you too have questions for Peer Review Radio’s last webcast of the season, ETA April 18, 2011: I’ve added more information about how to post questions and comments. First some rules from the Peer Review Radio website,

Rules for #SciLxn41 Question Submissions
1. Must relate vaguely to funding and/or plans of action regarding to science, science education, science communication, research, health and innovation. 2. Must not be targeted questions at single candidates or parties, but must ask questions that can be posed to all four candidates equally. Deadline: April 20th we will openly publish the list of questions submitted to the candidates. That’s it! So please, post your comments with the #SciLxn41 hashtag on Twitter, share them on our Facebook Page, Reblog them at the Ottawa Orbital Tumblr, or drop a comment right here!

Rainbows, what are we going to do with them?

Leave a reply

The title is attention-getting initially then quickly leads to confusion for anyone not familiar with plasmonics, “Trapping a rainbow: Researchers slow broadband light waves with plasmonic structures.” I have to confess to being more interested in the use of the metaphor than I am in the science. However in deference to any readers who are more taken by the science, here’s more from the March 14, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

A team of electrical engineers and chemists at Lehigh University have experimentally verified the “rainbow” trapping effect, demonstrating that plasmonic structures can slow down light waves over a broad range of wavelengths.

The idea that a rainbow of broadband light could be slowed down or stopped using plasmonic structures has only recently been predicted in theoretical studies of metamaterials. The Lehigh experiment employed focused ion beams to mill a series of increasingly deeper, nanosized grooves into a thin sheet of silver. By focusing light along this plasmonic structure, this series of grooves or nano-gratings slowed each wavelength of optical light, essentially capturing each individual color of the visible spectrum at different points along the grating. The findings hold promise for improved data storage, optical data processing, solar cells, bio sensors and other technologies.

While the notion of slowing light or trapping a rainbow sounds like ad speak, finding practical ways to control photons—the particles that makes up light— could significantly improve the capacity of data storage systems and speed the processing of optical data.

The research required the ability to engineer a metallic surface to produce nanoscale periodic gratings with varying groove depths. This alters the optical properties of the nanopatterned metallic surface, called Surface Dispersion Engineering. The broadband surface light waves are then trapped along this plasmonic metallic surface with each wavelength trapped at a different groove depth, resulting in a trapped rainbow of light.

You can get still more scientific detail in the item but I found a later posting, April 12, 2011 news item, also on Nanowerk, where the researcher Qiaoquiang Gan (pronounced “Chow-Chung” and “Gone”) gave this description for his work,

An electrical engineer at the University at Buffalo, who previously demonstrated experimentally the “rainbow trapping effect” [emphasis mine] — a phenomenon that could boost optical data storage and communications — is now working to capture all the colors of the rainbow.

In a paper published March 29 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Qiaoquiang Gan (pronounced “Chow-Chung” and “Gone”), PhD, an assistant professor of electrical engineering at the University at Buffalo’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and his colleagues at Lehigh University, where he was a graduate student, described how they slowed broadband light waves using a type of material called nanoplasmonic structures.

Gan explains that the ultimate goal is to achieve a breakthrough in optical communications called multiplexed, multiwavelength communications, where optical data can potentially be tamed at different wavelengths, thus greatly increasing processing and transmission capacity.
…
“Light is usually very fast, but the structures I created can slow broadband light significantly,” says Gan. “It’s as though I can hold [emphasis mine] the light in my hand.”

I like the notion of ‘holding’ a rainbow better than ‘trapping’ one. (ETA April 18, 2011: The original sentence, now placed at the end of this posting, has been replaced with this: There’s a big difference between the two verbs, trapping and holding and each implies a difference relationship to the object. Which would you prefer, to be trapped or to be held? What does it mean to the one who does the trapping or the holding? Two difference relationships to the object and to the role of a scientist are implied.

It’s believed that the metaphors we use when describing science have a powerful impact on how science is viewed and practiced. One example I have at hand is a study by Kevin Dunbar mentioned in my Jan. 4, 2010 posting (scroll down) where he illustrates how scientists use metaphors to achieve scientific breakthroughs. Logically, if metaphors help us achieve breakthroughs, then they are quite capable of constraining us as well.

Meanwhile, this gives me an excuse to include this video of a Hawaiian singer, Israel Kamakawiwo’ole and his extraordinary version of Somewhere over the Rainbow. Happy Weekend!

The original (April 15, 2011) sentence:
It’s more gentle and implies a more humble attitude and I suspect it would ultimately prove more fruitful.

Nanosilver risk assessment in Germany and a new approach to risk assessment suggested at Univ. of Michigan

2 Replies

There’s a move to ban the use of nanosilver in food and articles used daily (think of the socks you don’t have to wash very often because they don’t smell) in Germany until there’s been a full risk assessment. From the April 14, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

In its opinion on toxicity aspects of nano silver, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) had recommended to waive the use of nano silver in foods and articles of daily use until the data situation allows for a final assessment of the health risks. Mainly industry objected to this assessment by BfR that enough data were available for the evaluation of the health risks of nano silver in consumer products and foods. For that reason BfR had invited experts from research and science as well as representatives of associations and industry to a workshop in order to discuss existing risks and possible options for a comprehensive consumer protection. “The discussion confirmed the words of caution of BfR”, said BfR President Professor Dr. Dr. Andreas Hensel, “because the situation continues to be characterised by the fact that not enough secured scientific findings about the specific effects of nano-sized silver particles are available.

” Metallic silver and different silver compounds are used, for instance, in cosmetic agents as well as in different consumer products, mainly because of their anti-microbial effect. For textiles not only medical/therapeutic applications but increasingly also hygiene aspects play a role. The anti-microbial finishing of textile fibres is mainly to act against odour formation as a result of the microbial decomposition of sweat. In the meantime nano-sized silver particles are increasingly being used. Nano particles are particles with a diameter of less than 100 nanometres.

This is interesting in light of yesterday’s April 14, 2011 posting about the European Commission’s attempts to establish a definition for nanomaterials before any attempts to regulate their use. Then today I came across a posting by Dr. Andrew Maynard, Director of the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor titled Why we don’t need a regulatory definition for nanomaterials. His comments represent a significant shift in opinion since I first started following his work in 2007,

Engineered nanomaterials present regulators with a conundrum – there is a gut feeling that these materials present a new regulatory challenge, yet the nature and resolution of this challenge remains elusive. But as the debate over the regulation of nanomaterials continues, there are worrying signs that discussions are being driven less by the science of how these materials might cause harm, and more by the politics of confusion and uncertainty.

…

Yet the more we learn about how materials interact with biology, the less clear it becomes where the boundaries of this class of materials called “nanomaterials” lie, or even whether this is a legitimate class of material at all from a regulatory perspective.

In an evidence-driven society, now would be the time to take stock – to ask what the science tells us about risks associated with exposure to materials more generally, and to reformulate the problems we are trying to address when it comes to nanomaterials. But increasingly, evidence is taking a backstage role in the process of developing definitions for regulatory purposes. This was highlighted recently by Henrik Laursen [quoted in my April 14, 2011 posting] , coordinator of the nano team in the European Commission’s environment department, who was reported on Euractiv.com as stating that ultimately, the decision on a regulatory definition of nanomaterials would be a policy decision.

This should ring alarm bells throughout the scientific community.

Andrew has been heavily involved with the nanotechnology effort and discussion for many years. This is the biographical information available from his faculty page (it is by no means comprehensive),

Prof. Maynard is a leading authority on the responsible development and use of emerging technologies. His research interests span identifying, assessing and managing emergent risks, to exploring innovative solutions to established and emerging human health and environmental risks, to equipping people with the tools they need to make informed decisions in the face of risk and uncertainty. Prof. Maynard is a member of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on the Challenges of Emerging Technologies, serves on numerous review and advisory panels around the world, and has testified on a number of occasions before U.S. Congressional committees.

Andrew explains why his ideas about regulation changed and how he wants to approach it,

Five years ago, the state of the science was such that it still seemed feasible that a regulatory definition of nanomaterials could be crafted. Today, that hope is looking increasingly tenuous. We know that size matters when it comes to understanding the risks presented by materials generally – and particles more specifically – and that characteristics such as physical form and chemistry are also important. But these are relevant from diameters of tens of micrometers – where particles begin to be able to penetrate organisms – down to the nanometer size range. At different length scales, different material-biology interactions lead to different mechanisms of action that have the potential to cause harm in different ways. But there are no rules that are generalizeable to the nanoscale specifically – that much the science is clear on. And this alone calls into question the scientific-basis of enforcing nanoscale-specific regulations.

Rather, the science suggests that we have a bigger task in hand – how do we develop a better understanding of how any particle capable of entering or otherwise interacting with an organism might cause harm, and how do we codify this in evidence-based guidelines that will inform regulation?

Here’s his proposal in a nutshell,

Difficult as it may be given the momentum of current efforts to define nanomaterials for regulatory purposes, now is the time to shift toward evidence-based regulation of sophisticated materials.

Andrew has written a paper about this proposal along with David B. Warheit and Martin A. Philbert, The New Toxicology of Sophisticated Materials: Nanotoxicology and Beyond (behind a paywall), in the journal Toxicological Sciences, (2011) 120 (suppl 1): S109 – S129, doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfq372, in 50th Anniversary Issue.

I am intrigued but not yet convinced. I really must make time to read the paper. In any event, I encourage you to read Andrew’s full posting on the topic.

Europeans wrangle over nanomaterials definitiion

3 Replies

There seems to have been a bit of kerfuffle in Europe about a nanomaterials definition for Europe at the 4th annual Nano Safety for Success Dialogue; Assessing the science & issues at the science/regulation interface workshop which took place March 29 and 30, 2011. From the April 12, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

The European Commission’s hesitance to define nanotechnology underscores diverging opinions among stakeholders and is causing uncertainty in the sector.

Participants in a Brussels-based international conference, the Safety for Success Dialogue, discussed the Commission’s ongoing search to revise a draft definition of nano that went out to public consultation last year, but made clear that no answer has yet been found.

Henrik Laursen, coordinator of the nano team in the Commission’s environment department, said the EU executive had received around 200 replies to the consultation.

He said: “It is clear that at a certain level many stakeholders are saying different things, and there is no absolute scientific definition.” He said the Commission would not be rushed into making a decision because, once made, it would not be a working model but would immediately have a significant binding effect.

But Chiara Giovanini, a spokeswoman for ANEC, the European Consumer Voice in Standardisation, noted that the “lack of an agreed definition is creating legal uncertainties for regulatory purposes, and hindering the development of adequate safety test and measurement methods”.

She called on the Commission to adopt the draft definition of nanomaterials contained in the consultation at the end of last year “without further delay”.

Unusually for an item of this nature there’s reference to behind the scenes discussions. From the news item,

The Commission is believed to be attempting to frame a definition before the end of the summer. However, the finer detail of how to define nanomaterials is the subject of fervent [emhasis mine] disagreement between stakeholders behind the scenes.

Wim de Jong, vice-chair of the SCENIHR [Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks], told EurActiv that his organisation had recommended to the Commission that the number of particles, rather than the weight of the particles, be used as a guide for determining the definition.

“This is important because the potential hazards of using these particles relates to the number of them within a particular product,” he said.

But other stakeholders are opposed to using numbers as a guide to defining nanomaterials. For example, the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) has recommended to the Commission that weight be used instead.

Cefic’s reply to the Commission consultation reads: “Weight is generally used in all chemical legislation and test procedures and should therefore be used instead of particle number concentration.”

Giovanini’s desire to adopt a draft statement for the purposes of getting something done seems similar to the approach Health Canada has taken with its adoption of the Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials.

Laursen’s comment that a draft statement would not be treated as such but instead would have a “significant binding effect,” certainly accords with my experience of how these things work. At the same time, I sympathize with Giovanini’s position as one can’t wait forever to come to an agreement.

I thought the introductory description for the workshop helped to illuminate why details of a dispute which usually remains somewhat behind closed doors have been made public (from the workshop’s introduction page),

Many market modelers identify nanotechnologies as drivers of economic growth. Consequently, most governments in the industrialized and industrializing world adopted ambitious strategic, research and innovation, plans to ensure the commercial success of nanotechnologies and to harvest their fruits.

Nanoscience and the nanotechnologies are progressing at a rapid pace. The number of potential and real applications is increasing rapidly, even when accounting for those claims relating to marketing rather than added-value.

…

The international community has organized itself to address the potential safety aspects of nanomaterials, in particular under the auspices of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, and with the support of national and European scientific advisory bodies like the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks of the European Commission. Moreover, a number of regulatory developments have taken place, while the science was also advancing. The European Commission is therefore convening this international conference
• to take stock of the fast advancing science needed for appropriate and effective policies; and
• to analyze how these advances allow progress with respect to intelligence gathering, risk assessment, risk management, and safe design …

It’s hard to tell if this is a new introduction or one that’s been used for all of the workshops regardless, it does convey a sense of urgency.

Note: I’ve added the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) link in particular as this has been an excellent source of material about the Canadian situation.