Anticipating Opportunities and Concerns

Challenges

An increasing number of products containing nanomaterials are coming on to the market. At present they are being used in a relatively limited number of areas.  However, research is underway into a much more diverse range of nanomaterials and potential applications.  Such developments could offer significant benefits to the UK, but also raise a range of concerns. Responsible development of nanotechnologies requires the anticipation of both potential opportunities and concerns.

There is still much that we do not know about the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnologies and responsible development requires an early understanding of both.  Opportunities include the possibility of solutions to pressing economic, social and environmental challenges. Concerns include potential environmental, health and safety risks. While some nanomaterials may be safe, others may have the potential to cause harm to people or the environment. Establishing intelligent and robust ways to anticipate and balance these opportunities and concerns is essential if; businesses are to be able to plan their product development and marketing with confidence; investors are to be able to commit funds with confidence and; insurers are to be able to have an accurate understanding of risks and risk appetite. Businesses can then harness nanotechnologies to enhance economic, social and environmental welfare while avoiding harm during the production, use or disposal of products containing nanomaterials.

This section discusses how we are currently tackling the research challenges, in particular how we might understand the implications of individual developments at the earliest stage.  This is of course challenging and will become increasingly so as more advanced types of nanomaterials are developed.  We would welcome your help in identifying innovative but practicable ways forward.

What has been done so far?

Because nanotechnologies are still at a relatively early stage of development, research is important and the UK is investing significant sums to -

• develop the UK’s research community (particularly through inter-disciplinary collaborations);

• advance basic science;

• develop new products and technologies;

• better understand and evaluate the potential risks and uncertainties (including enabling work in the areas of detection, standards and risk assessment methods); and

• understand public aspirations and concerns.

Understanding the opportunities

The Government is currently supporting research of around £50 million per annum towards these objectives.  Of this, around £5 million supports research to understand the potential implications of some of the diverse range of nanomaterials being developed.  Funding of around £1 million per annum supports the development of the underpinning measurement techniques.

Through the Research Councils, the Government funds a large programme of research to advance the basic science including Grand Challenge projects on energy, healthcare and carbon capture. As a result of previous investments there are now many opportunities for research across a wide range of disciplines and applications In addition there is a cross Council research programme aimed at providing a focus for nanotechnology research; the aims of this programme are described in the EPSRC Nanotechnology Strategy.

The Research Councils and the Technology Strategy Board also fund more applied work, usually in partnership with industry and have supported collaborative research and development projects between business and academia.  Further detail can be found in the section on innovation and business climate.

Understanding the implications

Coupled with the development activities is a strong need to develop our understanding of the implications of nanotechnologies.  A wide range of Government departments and agencies contribute to a publicly-funded programme of research into potential human health and environmental risks.  The Nanotechnology Research Coordination Group (NRCG) brings together the funders of Government research and has identified key research objectives and encouraged capacity building and coordination of the work programme.  Members of the group also participate in international activities so that UK research complements (and does not duplicate) research being done elsewhere.  The Group has issued two research reports.

An important part of the programme of research is the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative (ENI).  This programme is a good model of cross-Government working and is being expanded through Phase II.  It will benefit from significantly increased funding including $4m from the USA, to investigate the fate and behaviour of nanoparticles in the environment.

However, despite recent progress, there remains a need for a substantial amount of work on the health implications.  Two key problems are -

• the shortage of toxicologists and ecotoxicologists;
• the lack of grants from Research Councils to support this type of research. This is in part due to the reluctance of researchers to apply for responsive mode funding for such work as it is perceived (incorrectly) as not being sufficiently academically challenging;
• the possibility that Research Council funding is not appropriate for vital but basic toxicology work as it may not be the most innovative or cutting-edge area of research.

The Government is -

• funding an assessment of the current and future demand for toxicologists and ecotoxicologists and how this might be met.  The report is due in July and the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council will jointly respond to its conclusions; and

• seeking ways of encouraging research into the health implications.  For example, the highlight notice that the Medical Research Council issued in 2007 has led to around £3 million of work in this area.  The Council has now refined that notice to encourage, in particular, studies which investigate the effects of engineered nanoparticles in vivo.

The UK’s programme of publicly funded research has been reviewed recently.  The EMERGNANO report concludes that although progress has been made towards all of the NRCG’s original research objectives, there remain a number of significant knowledge gaps.  It also points to the need for better dissemination of research results and a refocusing of priorities.

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), in its report on novel materials in the environment, noted that the functionality of each nanomaterial will determine whether or not (and to what extent) it may cause harm.  A key research need is to develop predictive models based on functionality.  On the basis of functionality, we already suspect that some nanomaterials may pose greater risks than others.  The RCEP therefore recommended that research should focus on these as a priority. This is the aim of Phase II of the ENI.

The NRCG is reviewing its research objectives and will take account of the recommendations from these reports as well as the views you express here.

International dimension

The UK’s work contributes to a much larger international agenda on nanotechnologies research and this is prioritised through -

• the OECD which provides a forum to avoid duplication of effort by agreeing research priorities and sharing results.  By leading a collaborative research project, which aims to understand the characteristics and likely ecological impacts of cerium oxide and zinc oxide, the UK is making a contribution to the OECD priority nanomaterials sponsorship programme which aims to assess the 14 most commonly used nanomaterials; and

• the EU’s Framework Programmes that provide significant funding for multi-disciplinary and collaborative projects.  The UK leads on several projects.  As with the UK programmes, the majority of the funding supports the development of engineered nanomaterials with new functionalities, with a smaller amount seeking to understand the health, safety and environmental implications.

Business intelligence

Inevitably our understanding of the implications of any new material or technique lags behind the development.  However, if nanotechnologies are to be developed in a responsible manner, this time lag must be as short as possible.  To this end, the Government introduced the Voluntary Reporting Scheme to obtain information about the properties of nanomaterials under development or in use.  The aim was for those involved in the research, manufacture or use of engineered nanoscale materials and those who manage wastes consisting of them to provide early intelligence on the properties.

We had hoped that the information would inform the priorities for publicly funded research and regulation.  However, there has been a disappointing level of responses and alternatives to the scheme are currently being considered.  The Government’s preference is for a voluntary scheme, but it may be that a mandatory scheme will be the only way of ensuring that the necessary information is supplied.  Indeed, RCEP recommended that a mandatory scheme be introduced, along with a simple checklist to provide an early warning system.

Other options include a register of products placed on the market, as favoured by the consumer organisation Which?, and a notification scheme.  A notification scheme will be introduced by the updated EU Cosmetics Directive, requiring manufacturers of cosmetics containing nanomaterials to notify the European Commission before they place them on the market.

Societal intelligence

An understanding of the public aspirations and concerns around nanotechnologies is important if decisions, whether by business, Government or others, are to be fully informed.  A number of public dialogue exercises have therefore been undertaken.  In response to initial dialogue activities, the Government issued a Statement in 2008, explaining the respective roles and activities of organisations in the public sector in respect of nanotechnologies.  This also described how the Government and others are responding to the aspirations and concerns that were raised.

More specific public dialogue has influenced the content of the Research Councils’ Grand Challenge call for proposals where nanotechnologies could make a significant contribution to healthcare.  The Government is also funding a pilot scheme to trial a method of more continuous dialogue between the public and others with an interest in nanotechnologies.

Future challenges

Keeping abreast of developments and understanding their implications will become increasingly challenging.  Not only will the diversity of functionalities increase but nanomaterials will become increasingly complex, for example as the ability to self-assemble or self-repair is introduced.  These developments may in turn lead to new benefits and new risks of harm to health or the environment and to new social and ethical implications.

The UK has begun to explore new ways of reconciling these challenges.  For example, the Research Councils are trialling an anticipatory risk management approach (where innovation and its responsible development are considered alongside one another rather than as separate issues with different priorities and timelines).  In its Grand Challenge call on nanotechnologies for carbon capture and utilisation, the EPSRC is asking applicants to identify any potential environmental, health, safety, ethical or other impacts or concerns that may result from the innovation process and to assess the risk and uncertainty around each.  These can then be managed through further research where necessary.  The Technology Strategy Board is also seeking to achieve similar outcomes with the projects it supports.  The outcomes of such upstream risk uncertainty analysis might inform programmes of research such as the Environmental Nanoscience Initiative, allowing Research Councils to work in a more integrated way that fosters more joined-up and anticipatory risk governance approaches.

Your views

We would welcome your views on how the UK can identify and investigate the implications (health, safety, environmental, social, ethical) of developments in nanotechnologies at the earliest stage.  The SWOT analysis below summarises Government understanding, from discussion with stakeholders, of the major strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the UK in this area. This (and the questions to the right hand side) is intended to help you think about the issues and steer future actions and shape the UK nano environment.