Big questions on tiny, tiny technology

YOU KNOW those smell-resistant socks you plan to wear hiking? Well, the materials that eliminate the stink in your sportswear may soon be registered with your hometown public health department.

After nearly a year of considering complex regulatory and scientific topics, the Cambridge Public Health Department is currently crafting a program with other local agencies that will evaluate the use and production of nanomaterials in the city. These amazing, engineered materials are too small for the human eye to see but hold the promise of fixing everything from damaged airplane wings to blood vessels, and are fundamental to the emerging field of nanotechnology.

But the emerging field may carry risks as well. And Cambridge is right to step in and start setting rules, because the federal government has failed to do so, leaving consumers potentially unprotected, companies in the dark about what is expected of them, and investors and insurers at risk.

Nanotechnology allows scientists to manipulate matter at an atomic level, creating whole new substances and forms of existing substances with novel properties. The downside is that nanomaterials can behave in unpredictable ways. Until the science and risk assessments catch up with the stream of commercial products and production processes underway, citizens at the least should know what is going on in their own communities.

Included in the Cambridge's plan is the establishment of an inventory of engineered nanoscale materials that are manufactured, handled, processed, or stored in the city; an offer of technical assistance for nano-businesss; up-to-date health information to residents on products containing nanomaterials; and a tracking system for the rapidly changing developments in research concerning possible health risks from various engineered nanomaterials.

Cambridge isn't the first city to address uncertainties surrounding nanotech. Nearly two years ago Berkeley, Calif., put in place the nation's first ordinance requiring nanotech firms to disclose their activities. Berkeley's mayor explained that the absence of federal action on nanotechnology and paucity of research into nanotechnology's potential long-term human health and environmental effects forced the city's hand: "If the federal government isn't going to do anything, it is up to us to step up."

Anti-stink clothes aren't the only nanotech goods on the market. In 2007, the global market for nanotechnology-based products totaled $147 billion, from cosmetics to sporting goods to, well, smell-resistant socks. By 2015, this figure is expected to grow to $3.1 trillion, according to the forecasting firm Lux Research. Over 600 manufacturer-identified consumer products are available for purchase now, along with at least as many commercial applications in pharmaceuticals, building materials, and electronics.

So while we wait for a coherent national oversight system for nanotechnologies to be designed and implemented - a process that could take years - there are actions the federal government can take now to improve awareness of the potential risks posed by engineered nanomaterials. A strong and direct start would be the promulgation of a presidential executive order that requires federally owned facilities that handle nanomaterials to disclose what they know about the toxicity of those materials and the measures they are taking to manage potential risks - a recommendation that was outlined in a recent report published by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Federal regulators and lawmakers in Washington have been avoiding the development of regulations that will ultimately result in a better understanding of the risks posed by nanomaterials, clearer guidance for both businesses and investors, and increased consumer confidence. At this point in time, the dangers of under-regulation far outweigh those of over regulation.

With nanomanufacturing ramping up across the United States and hundreds of nano-based products on the market, the federal government is taking a risky path. History tells us that transparent disclosure of potential risks is the best way of encouraging responsible handling of nanomaterials and will help the public better understand the emerging technology. Without transparency, public backlash could limit the commercialization of a wide range of nano-engineered products and compromise future generations of promising applications.

David Rejeski directs the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and is a member of the advisory committee that oversaw the Cambridge recommendations.