(NHI Nanoblog) As regulators, industry, academia and activists wrestle with how to safeguard workers, the public and the environment in the exploding field of nanotechnology, Daniel J. Fiorino has a few ideas.
The main thrust is simple: start with self-policing, then build and expand on early best practices to create a government-led regulatory framework.
American University
Fiorino (pictured) is director of the Center for Environmental Policy at American University’s School of Public Affairs. He presents his proposals in a study that was released by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies last week. Its title, “Voluntary Initiatives, Regulation, and Nanotechnology Oversight,” uses a word he said he’s not really comfortable with.
“I don’t particularly like the word ‘voluntary,’ but so far nobody’s come up with something better,” Fiorino said. To him, “voluntary” means something that isn’t required by law, but not necessarily completely optional.
“People tend to say ‘oh, we either need to regulate or we need to do voluntary things,’ which I think is not a constructive approach and sort of a false distinction,” he said.
What is important, he said, is getting as much data as possible about the benefits of risk of nanotechnology as quickly as possible. Nanotechnology — which uses materials at the atomic level to build or develop structures and substances with amazing properties and uses — is such a broad category that an immediate governmental regulatory scheme is basically impossible, he said.
Getting control of the field is crucial, Fiorino said, because it is one of many emerging areas where traditional regulatory methods might not be applicable. He also puts climate change on that list.
“It’s sort of hard to pin down a specific regulatory model that always works because they are rapidly changing and we’re always sort of running to catch up,” Fiorino said.
For example, nearly everyone in the nano field is hungry for more data, about the materials themselves, and especially how they interact with the human body and the environment, both in the short and long term. Fiorino said that gathering information from the industry and academia can aid the government in figuring out what needs to be regulated.
“They can help prepare the way for regulation,” he said. “It’s sort of like test-driving a car.”
A second way that voluntary initiatives can be helpful, he said, is to complement hard regulations once they are developed. The third and final leg of Fiorino’s proposed stool is work that’s completely separate from formal laws, and is instead wholly governed by industry or non-governmental organizations that have an interest.
Fiorino pointed to the Forest Stewardship Council, a non-governmental organization that’s funded by private foundations, as an example. The organization puts its logo on wood products that meet a number of criteria, including good forest management and fair labor practices. Such partnerships can fill the void left by governments, he said.
“I think it’s possible for government to learn from these kinds of voluntary approaches, and collaboration is not necessarily a dirty word,” he said.
The term “voluntary” often gets a negative reaction, he said: “If you collaborate, then you’re giving in, which is not the case at all.”
These partnerships are already emerging in nanotechnology. The Environmental Defense Fund has been working with DuPont for five years, and has developed the “Nano Risk Framework,” a six-step process to identify and assess risks associated with nanotechnology.
Fiorino describes other such partnerships in his report, and while he acknowledges that the efforts have not met with universal acclaim, he thinks that they are an important start.
The biggest potential problem is companies that don’t follow available guidelines, either out of ignorance or plain unwillingness.
“We talk about leaders and laggards in the regulatory field, and it’s the laggards you need to worry about,” Fiorino said.
There are also major issues of trust, he said. Will companies that lead in creating guidelines then resist government regulations? There will have to be efforts made to be sure that everyone is on the same playing field, Fiorino said.
But overall, he thinks it’s better to move ahead than wait for the perfect scenario. Fiorino, a former top official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said fields like nanotechnology defy the existing regulatory structure. It’s not like the old days, he said, when regulators were looking at mass-produced chemicals or other easily understood compounds.
“Nanotechnology is interesting because on the one side you have all these risks, but on the other side you have all of these benefits,” he said. “I think we just need to think more creatively about it, and try and get past some of the old reactions.”