Research on Environmental and Safety Impacts of Nanotechnology

Opening Statement By Chairman Brian Baird

This morning’s hearing is the third one in three years the Science Committee has held on federally sponsored research on the health and environmental risks that may arise from applications of nanotechnology. The Committee’s attention to this issue reflects our view of its importance to the development of nanotechnology and to capturing the enormous promise of this technology.

The previous hearings have shown that there is wide agreement on two main points:

• First, nanotechnology will advance faster and receive public support if the environmental, health, and safety implications of the technology are understood.
• Secondly, the interagency National Nanotechnology Initiative must include a prioritized and adequately funded research component focused on environmental, health, and safety issues – or EHS issues.

So the question before us today is not whether EHS research is important nor whether the NNI should fund research on environmental and health risks. The question is how effectively is the NNI carrying out the planning and implementation of the EHS research component of the interagency program.

With regard to the adequacy of funding, the outside witnesses at the previous hearings either recommended that the NNI substantially increase funding for EHS research or expressed frustration that they were unable to determine exactly what EHS research was being supported by the NNI. The basic position of most outside observers from industry and non-governmental organizations is that the funding level should be on the order of 10% of the initiative’s total funding, rather than the current 4%.

More important than funding level is the concern that the EHS research component has not been well planned and executed. At the Committee’s November 2005 hearing, the Administration’s witness indicated that an interagency working group was developing a coordinated approach to nanotechnology research on EHS that included input from industry and other non-governmental entities.

We were told the working group was in process of producing a document that would identify and prioritize research needs to assess the risks associated with engineered nanomaterials and be sufficiently detailed to guide researchers and research managers in making project-level decisions.

The estimated completion date for the document was the spring of 2006. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for that detailed implementation plan for EHS research.

At the Committee’s hearing last September, then-Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member Gordon both expressed frustration at the slow pace in developing this research plan. But they were assured that the agencies were hard at work and that the plan would soon be forthcoming.

Nearly a year later – this past August – an "interim report" was released for public comment. Although this report makes some progress in defining research goals, once again it is not a research plan laying out goals and timelines, funding levels, and defined agency roles and responsibilities for achieving those goals. The report suggests this is all coming in the "next steps", although it does not provide a target date for completion of these next steps.

Meanwhile, more and more products containing engineered nanoparticles continue to enter the marketplace – the number of such products has doubled to 500 over the past year according to surveys by the Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Simple prudence suggests the need for urgency in having the science of health and environmental implications catch up to, or even better surpass, the pace of commercialization.

The bottom line is that this is simply not an acceptable situation. We are basically still waiting for the EHS research strategy and detailed implementation plan that we were told would be available 18 months ago.

I am genuinely puzzled why more progress has not been made to develop this research strategy and plan that everyone believes is necessary for the successful development of nanotechnology.

Today, I want to determine how the mechanisms in place for planning and implementing the interagency EHS research component of the NNI can be made to work better, and what steps are needed to accomplish that outcome.

On the other hand, if the process is flawed or is intrinsically unable to function satisfactorily, I invite our witnesses to suggest alternative approaches and mechanisms. I am looking for concrete suggestions that the Committee can use as it develops legislation to reauthorize the NNI over the next few months.

I want to thank our witnesses for their attendance at today’s hearing, and I look forward to our discussion of this important set of issues.

Witnesses

Panel

1 - Dr. Clayton Teague
Director National Nanotechnology Coordination Office National Nanotechnology Coordination Office
Download the Witness Testimony

2 - Mr. Floyd Kvamme
Co-Chair President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
Download the Witness Testimony

3 - Dr. Vicki L. Colvin
Executive Director, International Council on Nanotechnology Professor, Chemistry and Chemical Engineering Rice University Professor, Chemistry and Chemical Engi
Download the Witness Testimony

4 - Dr. Andrew Maynard
Chief Science Advisor Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Woodrow Wilson
Download the Witness Testimony

5 - Dr. Richard Denison
Senior Scientist Environmental Defense Environmental Defense
Download the Witness Testimony

6 - Mr. Paul D. Ziegler
Chairman, Nanotechnology Panel, American Chemistry Council Global Director, PPG Industries, Inc. Global Director, PPG Industries, Inc.
Download the Witness Testimony