ICON releases global research needs assessment for nanotechnology (5/5/2008)

Diverse group of stakeholders takes on challenge of predicting nanotechnology's risks

A report on the findings of two international workshops aimed at defining a set of research needs for assessing potential nanotechnology risks was released this week by the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON).

ICON is an international, multistakeholder organization based at Rice. ICON issued the report Thursday in Washington, D.C. at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. ICON is associated with Rice's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN).

Held in January and June of 2007, the ICON workshops brought together more than 70 experts from academia, industry, government agencies and nongovernmental organizations and 13 countries in an unprecedented international collaboration. Their goal centered on a global research strategy for understanding nanotechnology's environmental and health impacts.

"Our 'grand challenge' - producing computational models that predict interactions of engineered nanoparticles with organisms - will take some time, perhaps 10 years," said ICON Executive Director Vicki Colvin, professor of chemistry and in chemical and biomolecular engineering and director of CBEN. "But the systematic approach taken in these workshops, of breaking the big challenge into component areas, will provide a solid foundation for further research, enable risk management and guide commercial development."

ICON sponsored the workshops in response to the growing commercialization of nanotechnology applications and the accompanying concerns about the lack of research conducted into the safety of the relatively new science. By virtue of their size, shape or surface characteristics, many nanoparticles exhibit properties that aren't observed in the bulk form of the same material. While these properties make nanotechnology promising in medical, environmental and energy applications, they are also causing many researchers to wonder about adverse effects nanoparticles may have on living organisms or the environment.

"The broad participation in these workshops represents the kind of decision-making process that is essential to determining how nanotechnology can be used safely," said Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser to the Wilson Center's Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and a member of ICON's executive committee.

Workshop participants identified 26 research needs to predict nano-biointeractions, a second set of six research needs for risk management, and outlined two-, five- and 10-year goals for producing tools to help all stakeholders characterize the risks of emerging nanotechnologies. In addition, participants agreed on the need for a shared language, as well as defined research methods and materials, for researchers to be successful in developing predictive models.

"Independent efforts such as this one add tremendous value to the work we're doing at the governmental level," said Sally Tinkle, senior science adviser to the acting director at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH). "The ICON report provides a detailed road map for addressing a specific grand challenge and can inform the federal strategy."

The first workshop, which was hosted by the NIH in Bethesda, Md., focused on classifying nanomaterials and exploring whether existing information about physical and chemical properties is adequate for determining biointeractions. Participants identified the following research needs: tools and models to describe the dynamic nature of nanomaterials throughout their lifecycle; screening tools to correlate the functional properties of nanomaterials with their potential for biological interactions; and exposure assessment studies to determine the net dose for various biointeractions.

The second workshop, which was hosted by Swiss Reinsurance Company at the Centre for Global Dialogue in Rüschlikon, Switzerland, focused on identifying the research needed to predict the biological effects of an engineered nanoparticle and defining strategies to develop predictive models. They include: quantitative models to describe the way the properties of nanoparticles affect biomolecular interactions; independent validation of dose and dose rate for nanomaterials; biomarkers to address the vast diversity of nanoparticle types; and strong correlative models for predicting biological effects based on laboratory results.

The diversity of participants, international scope and recognized importance of the goals of the ICON workshops has generated extensive interest and support from both the research and public policy communities worldwide.

"These workshops demonstrated an impressive commitment to international cooperation and harmonization, especially considering the collective necessity to develop and use standardized materials and reference methods operational at the nanoscale," said Gérard Rivière, president of the European Committee for Standardization and Research. "Such broad engagement will be vital to addressing nanotechnology's impacts in the future."

Support for the research assessment was provided by the National Science Foundation.

The full ICON report is available at http://icon.rice.edu/projects.cfm?doc_id=12220.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by Rice University

Post Comments: