Reader TTS

The UK has dropped the ball on research into the health and safety aspects of nanomaterials, but green nanotechnology presents opportunities for researchers and companies around the world.

Writing reports can be a thankless task. Authors spend months gathering evidence, analysing scenarios and writing up their findings and recommendations, and then have to wait to see what

impact, if any, their work will have. Reports commissioned by governments would appear to have an advantage over those produced by organizations with their own agendas because the authors

can reasonably expect their recommendations to feed into policy making, although this is far from guaranteed. Only time will tell what fate befalls recent reports of both types released over

the past month by the Council for Science and Technology (CST) in the UK and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in the US. The CST review1 is actually the third in a series that

started with a widely cited2 report published by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2004. The original report called for, among other things, increased investment in

research into the environmental, health and safety (EHS) aspects of nanotechnology. In its response to the 2004 report the UK government promised an immediate programme of research in this

area, with independent reviews of progress after two and five years (ref. 1, annex D). The CST report is the first of these reviews, and although it praises the government's performance

in some areas, such as standards and metrology, it is critical of the “lack of progress on research into toxicology, health and environmental effects of nanomaterials”. > Most observers 

will surely argue that it is time for action not more > words. The CST repeats the recommendation made in the 2004 report that the UK should spend a minimum of £5–6 million per year over

the next ten years on EHS, and criticizes the government for waiting for such a programme to emerge from 'responsive mode' grant applications (although the US government's top

science adviser, John Marburger, recently defended this bottom-up approach, arguing that the research capacity needed for larger programmes was not yet in place). Somewhat unrealistically

the CST calls for “championship of the issues surrounding nanotechnologies within government, at ministerial level”, and it also floats the idea that the Nanotechnology Research Coordination

Group — a body with a distinctly low profile — might become more directly involved in decisions about funding for EHS research. Aficionados of reports will be heartened by the fact that the

government has promised to respond to the CST report, although most observers will surely argue that it is time for action not more words. Low profile is certainly not a problem for the

Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Wilson Center in the US. Having already taken a lead in efforts to raise the profile of EHS research in the US and beyond3,4, the project

published two further reports at the end of April5. _NanoFrontiers: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology_ is a lively document, which its authors hope “can be understood and appreciated

by an audience that goes beyond the scientific community”. It also puts forward some intriguing ideas about nano-informatics, although the report admits that support for such ideas is not

widespread. However, a second report, _Green Nanotechnology: It's Easier Than You Think_, may be pushing against an open door. Building on existing work on green chemistry and

engineering, green nanotechnology is almost as broad as nanotechnology itself. Rather than simply making products that do not harm human health or the environment, the aim is to develop

technology that can tackle environmental and energy challenges, for example with new solar energy and water treatment technologies (although there are also low-tech challenges to overcome as

well6). Moreover, there is scope for nanotechnology to reduce the amount of energy, water and chemicals used in a whole range of manufacturing processes. For instance, it has been estimated

that it takes 1.7 kg of fossil fuel and chemicals to make a memory chip that weighs just 2 g (ref. 7), so there is certainly room for improvement. REFERENCES *

www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/news/Files/nano_review.pdf * www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm * Maynard, A. et al. _Nature_ 444, 267–269 (2006). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * _Nature Nanotech._ 1,

151 (2006). * www.nanotechproject.org * _Nature Nanotech._ 2, 71–72 (2007). * _Environ. Sci. Technol._ 36, 5504–5510 (2002). Download references RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Room for improvement. _Nature Nanotech_ 2, 257 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.126 Download citation * Issue Date: May 2007 * DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.126 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable link is not

currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative