Studies and Cautions

• Author: Ken Geiser
• Position: Professor of Work Environment and Co-Director of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts
• Pages: 39-39

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2010 ❧ Page 39

Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Jan./Feb. 2010

anoTher view

formation is worth a hundred dollars

spent cleaning up after it. How much,

for instance, is EPA dedicating? An

optimistic estimate covering both

the areas of nanotechnology and syn-

thetic biology is about .2 percent of its

f‌iscal year 2010 budget of $10.5 bil-

lion and about .3 percent of the over

17,000 people in the agency. Probably

not enough, given what is at stake and

the nature of the challenges EPA, and

other regulatory agencies, will face.

e molecular economy will be

dominated by what Peter Bernstein,

in his fascinating history of risk, called

the “wildness” — a world of imper-

fections, outliers, and uncertainties

that confounds easy decisions, under-

mines predictions, and can often lead

to embarrassing miscalculations by

decisionmakers. Besides rampant un-

certainty, this new technological fron-

tier shares one similarity with other

frontiers — bad things can and will

happen. Accidents are “normal” on

the frontier, a point that sociologist

Charles Perrow noted years ago.

What could go wrong? e old

manufacturing economy produced

the f‌irst generation of chemical, bio-

logical, and nuclear weapons. e

molecular economy could produce a

new generation of threats which in-

clude: resynthesizing diseases af‌fecting

humans or livestock that have been

eradicated (polio was resynthesized

from scratch in 2002 and the deadly

Spanish f‌lu in 2005), augmenting

the contagiousness of existing viruses

such as avian f‌lu, or developing new

toxins and ways to deliver bioagents

deep into the body though nanoscale

engineering.

Early on, the molecular economy

may be more brown than green as new

processes emerge. Most engineered

production systems take time to per-

fect and are not necessarily optimized

for environmental performance. In

1769, the steam engine required 30

pounds of coal per horsepower, but

this was reduced to 7.5 pound by

1776 and 2.5 pounds by 1850.

ere are presently over 40 pro-

cesses used to make f‌irst-generation

ers and consumers. For instance, we

should increase our administrative

and physical protection programs

for currently exposed employees

in research labs and production fa-

cilities. We should also better inform

manufacturers and downstream us-

ers about nanomaterials in products.

France and Canada have instituted

labeling programs to inform con-

sumers about nanomaterials.

We also know enough to be more

prescriptive in directing nanotech

research toward priority social needs

such as renewable energy sources,

energy and resource conservation,

pollution prevention, health promo-

tion, and sustainable food produc-

tion. We should move social and

environmental consideration up-

stream into the labora-

tory to avoid nanoscale

research on materials

that we already know

to be highly hazardous,

such as lead, cadmium,

chromium, and cobalt.

Instead we should fund

NNI’s green chemistry

research in areas where

there are serious health or environ-

mental problems or few alterna-

tives to the use of chemicals of high

concern. Additionally, we should

develop decision support tools such

as rapid hazard screening and alter-

natives assessment to assist manufac-

turers in determining whether nano-

materials are preferable to currently

used substances.

A responsible approach to nano-

technology requires both long- and

short-term strategies dedicated to

expanding our economic capaci-

ties and increasing our social learn-

ing while remaining cautious about

what we do not know.

Ken Gei ser is Professor of Work Environ-

ment and Co-Director of the Lowell Center

for Sustainable Production at the University

of Massachusetts.

Nanotechnology prom-

ises many commercial

benef‌its, but there are

real concerns about the

hazards of manufac-

tured nanomaterials and their social

and economic implications. e re-

sponsible development of nanotech-

nology requires national policy that

guides long-term studies of health,

environmental, and social ef‌fects

and of‌fers short-term precautions.

e 2007 National Nanotech-

nology Initiative Strategic Plan listed

support for the responsible devel-

opment of nanotechnology as one

of its four primary goals. However,

in 2008 the NNI awarded some

$1.4 billion in grants for nanotech

research, with just 4 percent going

for research on health or

environmental ef‌fects.

EPA’s Nanomate-

rial Research Strategy an-

nounced in June proposes

a broad-ranging research

program in support of

risk assessment and man-

agement. However, the

absence of information

on the hazards of nanomaterials and

the dif‌f‌icult task of characterizing

exposures presents challenges to the

ef‌fective use of risk assessment.

e strategy does focus a major

portion of EPA’s research on further

characterizing the hazards and en-

vironmental fate of manufactured

nanomaterials. is is badly need-

ed. Our knowledge of the adverse

ef‌fects of nanomaterials needs to

catch up with our understanding of

their potential applications. In the

meantime, national nanotechnology

policy should focus on what we can

accomplish today. We need policies

that are cautious about the research

we currently do, and point to where

we need research in the future.

While suf‌fering from data gaps,

we do know enough to craft mini-

mally precautious policies for work-

Studies and Cautions

Ken Geiser