GAO
A new audit says federal government is spending more on research exploring the potential environmental, health and safety implications of ultra-tiny materials, but needs to track projects better and offer clearer goals for how to best answer the main questions about these substances and their use in a wide variety of products.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) did the audit, tracking spending by seven of the 26 agencies involved in the National Nanotechnology Initiative between 2006 and 2010. (Click here to read it.)
The GAO found that funding earmarked for environment, health and safety, or EHS, research more than doubled over that time, from $38 million to $90 million. But auditors raised questions about the numbers, and the impact those dollars are having.
For example, the audit says that for 18 percent of the EHS projects funded in 2010, it was unclear whether the research was primarily looking at safety issues. Those 43 projects made up $15 million of the $90 million spent on such work in 2010.
In addition, the NNI’s administrative White House-based parents, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Science and Technology Council, have not offered hard-and-fast advice on how to report on safety research, leading to different interpretations from each agency. The report recommends working with the White House Office of Management and Budget to create consistent, concrete rules.
The audit found that the National Institutes of Health’s internal rules don’t allow it to cross-classify research that might stretch across categories. That means an entire project might be flagged as EHS-related, when in fact only a portion of the research, and the funding, is being used that way. Meanwhile, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, which studies potential impacts on workers, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration apparently report all of their nanotechnology-related research as safety work because that’s their core mission.
These discrepancies make the spending — and outcomes — even more difficult to track, the audit says. And the numbers are rarely updated on the NNI’s website once budget projections have become actual dollars spent.
“Agencies, policymakers, and stakeholders do not have access to accurate, consistent, and
complete data on the federal government’s investment in nanotechnology EHS research,” the report concludes.
Without that information, federal officials won’t be able to figure out whether these programs are meeting the targets set out for them, the report says.
The GAO noted these administrative issues in a similar 2008 report, and recommended that the NSTC work on better guidelines for the NNI member agencies. According to the audit, White House officials said there have been extensive conversations about the need for more consistent information, and that formal guidelines are in progress.
The NNI released a brief statement about the report, saying officials at the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office are still digesting it.
“Based on our initial review of the report, the GAO’s recommendations are consistent with our ongoing and planned efforts in EHS. The representatives of the NNI and the NNCO look forward to a thorough review of the GAO report and to forging a path forward that considers the recommendations therein, in order to better achieve the NNI goal of responsible development of nanotechnology,” the statement said.
Nanotechnology is a broad term that encompasses a wide variety of uses of very small materials (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter). These substances can make better batteries or lighter and stronger bike frames, as well as new medical instruments and medicines that can save lives. They’re increasingly common in consumer products, from “mineral-based” sunscreens to stain-repellent pants to boat paints that resist algae growth.
Nanomaterials are believed to hold great promise for a wide variety of applications. Their ultra-tiny size often gives them different properties, which is inherent to their appeal; scientists are struggling to figure out whether that can make them dangerous in the process, and how and why it happens.
Safety has climbed the priority list at the federal level over the past few years, as evidenced by the growth in research funding. The NNI released a strategic plan late last year aimed at boosting health and environmental research, with a particular emphasis on following nanomaterials, and the products they’re used in, from manufacture to disposal to track any problems.
Last month, the NNI announced the creation of a “Nanotechnology Knowledge Infrastructure,” which will promote safety through better understanding of nanomaterials, their properties and their behavior, as its fourth “signature initiative.”
The NNI has gotten used to taking advice: In January, a National Academy of Sciences report urged the government to spend more on EHS issues. Late last month, a group of presidential science advisers echoed those suggestions.
The GAO audit was prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which had asked the GAO to look at funding levels, which nanomaterials are being studied and how well the NNI is working with academia and industry to spread information about safety-related issues.
The GAO found that the vast majority of safety-related research projects funded in 2010 focused on carbon-based nanomaterials, such as carbon nanotubes, and metallic substances, such as titanium dioxide. That’s not surprising, since some types of carbon nanotubes have been flagged as a potential safety issue, and metal-based nanoparticles such as nanosilver and nanoscale titanium dioxide have also raised health or environmental questions.
NIOSH has advised manufacturers to avoid exposing their employees to carbon nanotubes, and has also classified nanoscale titanium dioxide as a “potential occupational carcinogen.”
The GAO report notes that the NNI has not identified particular nanomaterials as more important to study than others, but that its EHS strategy document does list some criteria for making some of those judgments. They include the potential hazard and the likelihood of exposure — the classic recipe for estimating actual risk.
It’s too soon to know whether those criteria will help researchers, and their funders, make choices, the report says. It goes on to say that it’s uncertain whether the information needed to make those calls is even available, given the difficulty of testing nanomaterials.
“As we reported in May 2010, predicting and assessing the potential hazards, exposures, and resulting risks from nanomaterials is difficult, and current understanding of nanomaterial toxicity and exposure is limited. For example, the findings from completed toxicity studies of a nanomaterial constructed in one manner may not be applicable to understanding the risks posed by the same nanomaterial constructed in a different manner and, therefore, studies of similar nanomaterials may not be comparable,” the report says.
The GAO praises the cooperation among the agencies in the NNI, saying the goal of fostering collaborations has worked. The examples include an effort by NIOSH and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to study the effects of aerosol sprays containing nanoscale titanium dioxide on the lungs. The CPSC got the spray, then NIOSH conducted the testing.
The auditors also asked people outside the federal government their opinion of the NNI. The project got good marks for sharing information and setting priorities. But the respondents also raised a common complaint, particularly among manufacturers: the uncertainty surrounding whether nanotechnology will be regulated, and how.
Coordinating and decoding the efforts of a variety of federal agencies — all of which have their own rules, systems and practices, is not easy, the report concludes. But the task is an essential one.
“Not having performance information that is aligned with the strategic goals and research needs of the NNI makes it difficult for agencies, policymakers, and stakeholders to determine the collective progress of the national nanotechnology program,” the report says.
Click here for more Independent articles on nanotechnology.