Tag Archives: nano reporting plan

Peter Julian’s interview about proposing Canada’s first nanotechnology legislation (part 2 of 3); more on the UK Nanotechnologies Strategy; Dylan Thomas, neuroscience and an open reading

This is part 2 of an interview with Member of Parliament, Peter Julian, NDP (New Democrat Party) who tabled the first Canadian bill to regulate nanotechnology. Yesterday’s part of the interview featured some biographical notes about Mr. Julian and his answers to questions about why he, in particular, tabled the bill; the NDP’s shadow science minister’s (Jim Malloway) involvement; and the NDP’s commitment to science policy. Today, Julian explains why he favours the application of the precautionary principle to nanotechnology, notes the research he used before writing his bill, and comments on a national inventory scheme. NOTE: As some folks may prefer other media or summaries/commentaries on these reports, in situations where I have additional material, I’ve taken the liberty of giving links, clearly marking my additions.

Why do you favour applying the precautionary principle which has received some criticism as it favours the status quo?

I believe that the precautionary principle does not favour the status quo. The status quo hinders appropriate applications of precaution. Environmental, health, and safety gaps in the application of Nanotechnology are a shared concern between countries, as reflected in recent reports to Congress and the EU and at the OECD. Precaution towards discovery, product, production, use and eventual disposal is simple common sense.

The precautionary principle deters action without reflection. When a product is massively put on the market we have to be sure that it will not have adverse effects on health and the environment, and not just a short lived positive effect on the bottom line.

What research materials support your (BILL) and are these materials that you would recommend interested citizens read?

I have a list of links concerning these materials:

ED. NOTE:  I offered some commentary here and links to other commentaries here about this report.

  • The Chatham House briefing paper, Regulating Nanomaterials: A Transatlantic Agenda (September 2009) an excellent eight page read:

http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/papers/view/-/id/774/

ED. NOTE: There is a Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN)webcast of a presentation by the folks who authored the report. The webcast and speaker presentations can be found here and my commentary on the webcast here.

ED. NOTE: PEN webcast a presentation by J. Clarence Davies on Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology available here along with a speaker’s presentation and additional materials.

  • The National Nanotechnology Initiative document lays out a substantive, and sound, research program. Canada’s strategy remains limited in scope and vision.

http://www.nano.gov/NNI_EHS_Research_Strategy.pdf

I noticed mention of a public inventory for nanomaterials and it reminded me of a proposed Environment Canada nanomaterials inventory or reporting plan that was announced in January 2008. Do you know if this inventory ever took place or what its current status is?

The inventory is not completed yet. The bill develops a mandatory requirement for an inventory and there have been no prior operational inventories regarding nanotechnology products, which is why this bill is so important.

I would like to stress that in addition to the precautionary principle, Bill C-494 is built on a definition of Nanotechnology that adopts a broader and more inclusive definition of nanomaterials. This is consistent with the findings of the UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee:

  • We recommend that the Government should work towards ensuring that any regulatory definition of nanomaterials proposed at a European level, in particular in the Novel Foods Regulation, should not include a size limit of 100nm but instead refer to ‘the nanoscale’ to ensure that all materials with a dimension under 1000nm are considered.A change in functionality, meaning how a substance interacts with the body, should be the factor that distinguishes a nanomaterial from its larger form within the nanoscale.

UK House of Lords Science and Technology Committee
Nanotechnologies and Food (8 January 2010)
Recommendation 12, p.76

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldsctech.htm

This is in contrast with Health Canada policy which looks at narrow definition of nanomaterials:

  • Health Canada’s Science Policy Directorate announced the adoption of the Interim Policy Statement on Health Canada’s Working Definition for Nanomaterials and its posting on the Health Canada website 2 March 2010. This Government of Canada policy adopts a 1-100nm “inclusive” regulatory benchmark, effective immediately, with a public comment period underway.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/consult/_2010/nanomater/index-eng.php

ED. NOTE: I made an error in my question, the proposed nano inventory by Environment Canada was announced in Jan. 2009. My postings on the announcement are here and here. The odd thing about the announcement was that it was made initially by PEN which is located in Washington, DC and subsequently picked up by Canadian news media. As far as I know, Environment Canada has never offered comment about its 2009 plan for a nanotechnology inventory.

Tomorrow Julian wraps up with answers to questions about why someone who’s shadow portfolio includes international trade is interested in nanotechnology and the potential costs for his proposed legislation.

Peter Julian interview Part 1, Part 3, Comments: Nano Ontario, Comments: nanoAlberta

More on the UK 2010 Nanotechnologies Strategy Report

Dexter Johnson over on Nanoclast has done some detective work in a bid to understand why the market numbers used in the report differ wildly from anyone else’s. From Dexter’s posting,

It [the report] quotes market numbers for nano-enabled products that are such a drastic departure from most estimates that it leaves one questioning why tens of billions of dollars are being poured in by governments around the world to fund research.

If you have it, do take the time to follow along as Dexter  trails the company that the UK government used as its source for their market numbers. Amongst other names, I recognized one, ObservatoryNANO. (It was an organization I followed briefly and dismissed as being frivolous.)

One other commenter has emerged, Tim Harper. Now as the  principle of a nanotechnology business consulting company (Cientifica) some might be inclined to dismiss his comments but they have the ring of honest frustration and a sincere desire to contribute. From Harper’s posting,

Every UK nanotech report to date has excluded any data provided by UK companies. Even offers of free copies of our market research to government committees looking into various bits of nanotechnology provoke the same response as if we’d offered them a fresh dog turd wrapped in newspaper.

And now for a complete change of pace,

Dylan Thomas and neuroscience

There‘s an event tonight  (Thursday, March 25, 2010) in Vancouver being put on by the Dylan Thomas Circle (he lived in North Vancouver for a time as he worked on Under the volcano). It’s being held at the Red Dragon Pub at the Cambrian Hall on 17th & Main St.  Doors open at 6:45 pm and the presentation starts at 7:30 pm followed by an open reading. From the news release,

THE DYLAN THOMAS CIRCLE OF VANCOUVER presents

“Dylan Thomas, Creativity and Neuroscience”

Ariadne Sawyer will lead an exploration into creativity and the creative process as manifest through the works and the life of Dylan Thomas. She will investigate why we are creative, what happens during the creative process and what effect it has upon us.

This will be followed by an intermission and an: ‘OPEN READING’: an invitation to everyone who is interested to read aloud a poem or literary excerpt of their choice. This can be your own work, Dylan’s work or any other writer’s material. Most importantly, it is our chance to indulge in a little of our own creativity and to do it in a relaxed and in a friendly atmosphere.

About Ariadne Sawyer:

Ariadne has done on line Performance Plus Coaching with trainees from England, France, Canada and the United States for the last two years. She has received the Award of Excellence given by McLean-Hunter for the Brain Bulletin Series. Ariadne publishes an electronic newsletter called: Ariadne’s Performance Plus Newsletter along with Performance Plus Tips which are sent to all the participating trainees. She also co-hosts a weekly radio program on CFRO 102.7 FM, which has been on the air for the past two years. The Performance Plus Mini Course has been presented on the show with astounding success. She has two electronic courses available soon on the Internet. Performance Plus Level One and the Performance Plus Diplomacy Course. Ariadne has worked with trainees from Europe, the US and across Canada.

Nanocosmetics, interactive maps, Norway’s nanomaterials reporting initiative, and a little dash of poetry

I found a new nano website this week for a group called the Nanotechnology Citizen Engagement Organization, located in Wisconsin, US. I was directed to their nanocosmetics page by a local (Vancouver, BC-based) hairdresser and salon owner, Urs Eichenberger. He’s found what looks to be an excellent site if you’re interested in researching potential nanomaterials risks. The nanocosmetics page provides an overview which they seem to keep up-to-date. The article they list on zinc oxide particles (found in sun screens and other products) damaging mouse stem cells shows that these particles can pose a danger and more research is needed.

Urs has long followed  the nanocosmetics and beauty products debates in Europe and has adopted a precautionary principle with regard to his own product lines. In short, none of the products that he uses or sells at his Vancouver salon Strands have any nanomaterials. If you’re interested, you can find Strands hair salon website here or you can follow Urs on Twitter here.

Courtesy of Rob Annan, I’ve found an interactive map for Knowledge Infrastructure Projects across Canada. (The map is still being developed by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada so you may notice a few errors or inconsistencies.)  A visual representation of where the funding has been or is being distributed across Canada, the map is in keeping with this week’s theme about both visualizing information and adopting more multimodal means of conveying it.

The government of Norway has just announced a reporting scheme for companies using nanomaterials. From the media release on Nanowerk News,

The scheme is not strictly mandatory. …
First, it is unclear what should be regarded a nanomaterial. One example is nanoparticles manufactured from natural minerals. A company can then assume that the nanoparticles are equal to the mother substance, and do not reward special attention or a new entry to the Product Register.
A legal commitment to declare a product arises only if a significant risk has been identified. Few nanomaterials will qualify under this criterion in the short term.

This reminds me a little of the Environment Canada initiative which requires a one time only mandatory report from companies. I posted about this initiative Feb.3, 2009 here. The Canadian plan is not about risks per se but seems to be an attempt to establish an inventory of companies and the nanomaterials currently in use. I haven’t heard about the Environment Canada initiative since, has anyone else? Please do let me know. The Norway plan is related to other nanotechnology initiatives taking place in Europe which is discussed further in the media release.

At last, the poetry. Heather Haley (yes if you go to her site, she really is that gorgeous) is going to be featured in a writer’s event on Bowen Island near Vancouver, BC. Details:

AURAL Heather @ the Write On Bowen Festival

AURAL Heather @ the Write On Bowen Festival
AURAL Heather is the new weather, a unique, sublime fusion of song and spoken word by firey iconoclast-poet-vocalist Heather Haley and dazzling guitarist-producer, Roderick Shoolbraid.
Date:
Friday, July 10, 2009
Time:
7:30pm – 11:00pm
Location:
Cates Hill Chapel
City/Town:
Bowen Island, BC
Phone:
778-8614050
Email:
hshaley@emspace.com

Bowen Island has been inspiring writers for almost a century. Maybe it’s the beautiful natural surroundings or maybe it’s the welcoming community that gets the creative juices flowing. Either way (or both!), Bowen Island is the place to be for aspiring and experienced writers on the weekend of July 10 to 12. Come spend the day or the whole weekend! All you need to bring is your notebook and your imagination!

Get here the fast, easy and fun way, on the Bowen Express from Granville Island:
http://www.giwt.ca
Sponsored by the Bowen Island Arts Council, Write on Bowen! kicks off at 7:30pm on Friday, July 10 at Cates Hill Chapel with an intense and exciting evening of readings and performances featuring Bowen’s own Spider Robinson, Pauline LeBel, AURAL Heather (with Heather Haley and Roderick Shoolbraid), Keath Fraser, Susanna Braund, and Nick Faragher.
http://www.heatherhaley.com/aural_heather
Bowen Island Arts Council
http://www.biac.com

Have a nice weekend!

How are Canadian businesses responding to this fuzzy reporting plan?

It’s really one response and I thank Howard Lovy (nanobot.blogspot.com) for pointing me to his interview with Neil Gordon (entrepreneur and ex-president of the defunct Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance) in Small Times here.  Not unexpectedly, Gordon feels that this new requirement (although it’s a one-time request at this point) will chase nano-based business out of Canada. I have mixed feelings about the comment; I’m mildly sympathetic and at the same time exasperated.

On the sympathy side, this sounds like a very poorly thoughtout plan for some sort of registry. Maybe there’s more to it than we know but now Environment Canada scientists are no longer allowed to talk with journalists directly (since Feb. 2008, all queries have to be sent to a central communications office and then you get an email answer or possibly granted an interview with someone), it’s less easy than it used to be to get information. in any event, implementation is the key to these things and I’m not sure how you could implement it. Here are a few sample questions: Do you send out a form? (Anyone who’s ever designed a form or a questionnaire from scratch can tell you that it’s not easy.)  Who fills it out? Are you going to fine businesses that don’t fill it out? What happens if you do get information? Did you ask questions that would give you useful information?

If it’s not done well, businesses will lose time, money, and energy for absolutely no purpose. I’m not against information-gathering exercises per se but you’d better do it the right way otherwise it is a colossal waste.

As for the exasperation, I’ve heard this type of ‘business will leave’ comment before (many times). These kinds of government information-gathering exercises exist because they need the information. Ultimately, it could prove helpful to Canadian business.

As for Gordon’s disgruntlement over nanotechnology funding and how all the money goes to university and government laboratories … hmm. I think the problem goes a little deeper. As far as I’ve been able to find out, there is no nanotechnology funding strategy for Canada. The whole thing seems rather higgledy piggledy. Also, research in Canada has mostly been done traditionally in university and government laboratories and not in business laboratories. There are exceptions but those laboratories have disappeared or are disappearing (as they seem to be even in the US [Bell Labs] where they have a tradition of business laboratories).

I might be somewhat biased in my view of Canadian business since I come from British Columbia and the business model for high technology (I’m shoving nano into the high tech category) is pretty simple. You graduate from university or work there, get a good idea, create a startup company, become successful, and sell it to a large US company for a fortune. Creating a substantive and ongoing research laboratory (e.g. IBM, HP Labs, and Xerox PARC), is not part of the equation.

For some of Howard Levy’s other February and January 2009 postings about the proposed information-gathering about nanotechnology use in business exercise, go here. Or for more specific posting addresses, see the comments to my Feb. 2, 2009 posting.

World’s first mandatory reporting of nanotechnology use in Canada?

Maybe. This bit of news was first reported (near as I can tell) on the Canadian Press news wire and on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) website on January 28 and, after much hunting, I determined that the Canadian Press article was written by John Cotter. Earlier (Jan.12.09), I posted about a story of his here where I analyzed what seemed to be a flurry of interest in a failure by the Canadian government to respond to a nanotechnology report. This latest story would seem to be related.

Here’s the story lede from this article which is the only one I could find which included  Cotter’s byline,

Canada is poised to become the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of potentially harmful nanomaterials in their products.

The other articles open with similar ledes. here (Google News) and here (CBC News).  The lede differs somewhat here (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies [PEN]); the writer  is more nuanced in their approach.

Other than John Cotter’s authorship of the ‘source’ article this time and last, there are another couple of interesting points. The announcement is being made by PEN (located in Washington, DC) and not by any Canadian government agency. Although Environment Canada  officials did not comment directly on the PEN announcement, they did say that there is a plan to send out a notice requiring companies and institutions that used more than 1 kilogram of nanomaterial in 2008 to provide information that may include: how the nanomaterials are managed, data on chemical and physical properties, and any other information that could be helpful.

It sounds a little vague and there’s no indication that this is anything more than a once only request. Plus, I’m wondering how the officials are going to define the terms. Is one company’s quantum dot another company’s nanoparticle?

That earlier article by John Cotter citing a nanotechnology report for the Canadian government? One of its authors, Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor for PEN and Dr. Pekka Sinervo, another of the authors, are the only two experts listed in this latest article.

The whole thing smacks of a campaign (public relations, communications, or whatever else you want to call it). In principle, I think it’s useful to have a registry of products using nanomaterials (unfortunately this whole project seems a bit tenuous). I also find it interesting to note how various agencies and special interest groups get their points across in the media. One final thing, the announcement on PEN’s website points to reports about how the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Administration should be applying oversight to nanotechnology use in the US.