Tag Archives: TNT log

Nanotechnology regulatory framework for India

It looks like a wave of nanotechnology regulatory frameworks is developing. In mid-October 2010, India announced at a conference that a draft was in the works. From the news item on The Times of India website,

The two-day conference, titled Nanotechnology, materials and composites for frontier applications’, was inaugurated by Chavan at a city hotel. The conference is being hosted by the Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University, in association with the North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, US, Tuskegee University, Albama, US, and the Centre for Materials for Electronics Technology and the Department of Information Technology, Government of India.

Chavan said, “The nanotechnology field is very exciting, and tremendous impetus will be given for the R&D in this area. A regulatory framework will help in sorting out issues of ethics and copyrights, which are currently being faced by experts in the country.”

He said Rs 1,800 crore have been spent on nano mission and there are close to one thousand researchers working in nanotechnology across the country and a handful of discoveries have been made in the field. “Some potential discoveries from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi and the Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI), Hyderabad, have been successful and has been commercialised as well,” Chavan said.

“India spends about 1 per cent of gross domestic product on research and development (R&D), which is not very encouraging compared to other countries like the US, which spends 4 to 5 per cent on R&D. We are trying to double it, but at the same time, we would also like to see more participation from the public sector in this area. Of the 1 per cent about 75 to 76 per cent comes from the private sector which is exactly opposite in the western countries. The share of public sector is more there and so should happen in India,” Chavan said.

I find the focus on commercialization and intellectual property unexpected since the discussion on regulatory frameworks in Europe and the US tends to focus on environment, health, and safety issues. For an example about the latest on Europe and nanotechnology and regulatory frameworks, I found this in Tim Haper’s Sept. 29, 2010 posting on his TNTlog,

Plastics & Rubber Weekly reports that the Belgian Environment Minister, Paul Magnette proposed five elements that should be included in nanotechnology legislation, including

* A register of nanomaterials used within the EU is established, so regulators can trace the origin of any nanoparticles to their source if they cause health or environmental problems.

* Manufacturers and retailers inform consumers of the presence of nanomaterials in their products

* Regulations provide for risk evaluation and management of nanomaterials at an EU level

* Member states also draft integrated national strategies for nanotechnology risk management, information dissemination and monitoring

* Claims made on labels of products containing nanomaterials are controlled

What makes the contrast interesting for me is that Harper is the principal for the company, Cientifica (from the About page),

Cientfica is distinct from all other companies providing consulting and information services in its knowledge of both the science and business of emerging technologies. Cientifica employees are from a variety of backgrounds, but all are highly experienced technical project managers and familiar with the commercialization of technology and the transfer of science from the laboratory to the market place.

Cientifica’s numerous reports on commercial aspects of nanotechnology and other emerging technologies are well known for cutting through the hype and getting to the root of the issues. In the same way, Cientifica uses its experience in the reality of commercializing technologies and its wide network of international science and technology practitioners to provide down-to-earth and practical advice to companies, academics and governments.

Cientifica also provides advice to investors who are considering investment in emerging technology companies.

Through this experience Cientifica has a deep understanding of the drivers and associated risks associated with investment and management of cutting edge technology projects.

As you can see the company’s focus is on commercializing emerging technologies, including nanotechnology. By the way, I’m not trying to suggest that Harper doesn’t discuss regulatory frameworks with regard to commercializing nanotechnology. I’m pointing out my own unconscious expectations when the words ‘nanotechnology’,  ‘regulatory’, and ‘framework’ are put in the same sentence.

European nanotech communication roadmap and Canada’s silence

Michael Berger in one of his articles on the Nanowerk website critiques a 188 page roadmap published March 2010 and  titled Communicating Nanotechnology: Why, to whom, saying what and how? from the European Commission. From Berger’s article,

“You cannot have an appropriate social dialogue on nanotechnology without an open-minded, consistent and even audacious communication roadmap aiming to bring everyone in.” So begins the foreword to a new Communication Roadmap by the European Commission on communicating nanotechnology in Europe. Very true! But coming from an organization that is not exactly known for a coherent and consistent, not to mention timely, approach to communicating across its many members, cultures and languages, it’s going to be interesting to see what they have come up with now.

I’ve not had time to do much more than a skim a few pages of the roadmap but, as Berger later points out, it’s good to see an attempt to list all of the nanotechnology communication activities undertaken by the European Commission to date. The list is specific to European Commission activities, I did not see any UK-based efforts listed, which means there’s communication about nanotechnology, not included on the roadmap, taking place that’s country- and or region-specific.

About the US, Berger had this to say,

… (the situation in the U.S. isn’t much better; on the contrary, they don’t even have this kind of communications roadmap) …

Meanwhile, the best I can say about the Canadian situation is that most of the communication about nanotechnology takes place behind closed doors. If anyone out there knows differently, please do let me know.

If you want to download the roadmap, go here (Berger noted some problems downloading but I didn’t have any when I tried later).

ETA (June 15, 2010): Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast offers some thoughts about this roadmap and other European efforts in their cycle of reports about nanotechnology (from his June 15, 2010 posting),

I have worked for the last six years at a European-based company where much of its work has been in consulting on nanotechnology. As an American in these circumstances I have come into contact with what at times has seemed to be the bewildering sensibilities of the European bureaucrat.

…  [mention of Michael Berger’s article about the European Commission’s latest nanotechnology communications report/roadmap]

This odd habit of always starting from scratch in these road mapping exercises seems to be one practiced in the UK as well.

Dexter goes on to extend the conversation with a discussion of the latest move by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ban the use of nanosilver and long multiwalled carbon nanotubes in products and he includes a reference to Tim Harper’s latest posting about the matter on TNT log.