Wanted: An agency to lead federal nanotech risks research

Giving management responsibility and budgetary authority to a single federal agency would accelerate progress on research into the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) aspects of nanomaterials, says a new report from the National Research Council (NRC). But the committee that wrote the report did not specify which of the 20 participating agencies in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) should take on that role.

“If all agencies are responsible, to some degree, for nanotechnology EHS research, no single agency can be held clearly accountable for its management and progress,” the NRC report said. “The committee considers that progress could be accelerated if one of the NNI agencies that has EHS in its mission were designated as the lead agency for directing EHS research throughout the federal government. Alternatively, a new entity could serve that function.” Securing a sustained funding commitment over at least a decade will be an important task for the chosen agency, it noted.

The existing National Nanotechnology Coordination Office lacks the authority to direct the implementation of EHS R&D among the NNI agencies or to ensure integration of the EHS research with that being undertaken nationally and abroad, the report said.

Other reviews of NNI and its strategy, including a 2012 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and one by the Government Accountability Office, also have identified a need for a stronger authority to direct EHS research efforts conducted under the NNI.

The committee that wrote the report found that since its previous 2012 assessment of the subject, the US and European Union had made substantial headway on just one of the 20 indicators of progress that it had formulated for nanomaterials EHS research—developing methods for detecting, characterizing, tracking, and monitoring nanomaterial transformations in simple, well-characterized media. Progress made on the other 19 was deemed to have been either moderate or minimal.

Little or no progress

The committee found little or no progress toward creating well-defined, effective public–private partnerships in EHS research, which it said are needed to leverage federal funding and to collaborate with industry stakeholders. The closest current US examples of such partnerships are the exposure surveys that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducts at nanomaterial-manufacturing facilities. A non-nanotechnology analog is the Health Effects Institute, a nonprofit organization chartered to provide science on the health effects of air pollution. The institute is funded 50:50 by the Environmental Protection Agency and the motor-vehicle industry.

Public–private partnerships must include an independent and accountable governance structure, adequate and shared funding, specific and agreed-on goals, and shared results and information. Moreover, the report states, these partnerships must forge appropriate confidentiality agreements that balance the proprietary needs of industry participants with the public need to share information and make decision-making processes transparent.

The NNI has made little progress in establishing a clear separation (in the categories of management, budgetary authority, and accountability) between the functions of developing and promoting applications of nanotechnology, and those of understanding and assessing its potential health and environmental implications, the report said. The committee noted in its 2012 report that the dual functions pose tension or even actual conflict between its respective goals.

But it also acknowledges that, without a change to the NNI’s statutory mandate, establishing wholly separate management and budgetary structures and authorities for the dual functions may not be realistic. Nonetheless, the report concludes, agencies should create and adhere to strong scientific integrity policies governing both intramural and extramural research. The report also recommended creating an ombudsperson position to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints or concerns about bias and conflicts of interest related to nanotechnology research.