Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
ensuring that such development is socially and environmentally responsible. The dual mission contrasts
with other big science initiatives that focus principally or exclusively on technology development and
application, such as the aforementioned Human Genome Project and, more recently, the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) and the
multiagency Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century (Tox21) Initiative. Separation of applications research
and implications research in those fields naturally allays concerns that the drive to commercialize
emerging technologies could overshadow the fledgling understanding of possible risks. In
nanotechnology, however, concerns regarding conflicts of interest between the dual objectives, the
disparities in resource allocations, and the differential rate of research progress are important to a number
of stakeholders.
Strong governance that separates the management of technology development from the
management of EHS risk research is a potential solution. The risks associated with early-stage technology
are intrinsically riddled with uncertainties; as this report alludes to in earlier chapters, the science needed
to provide definitive answers is highly complex and integrative. Conclusions are not revealed in a single
study but develop from a laborious and consistent set of work that may span years. When faced with the
nuances of risk research, an organization that is in large measure evaluated by its success in technology
development may not be perceived as able to set priorities effectively among either resources or topics for
risk research.
If the potential research synergies and cross-fertilization between applications research and
implications research are to be realized, concerns about the true equality of the dual objectives of
“responsible development” must be addressed. Only then can all stakeholders trust that there is an
equitable allocation of resources and an appropriate focus on the most risk-relevant questions.
One symptom of weak governance is the challenge of maintaining regular communication and
coordination at all levels—between researchers in the United States, foreign researchers, and relevant
stakeholders. In the United States, many research activities on ENMs have been under way for some time
and are supported through coordinated efforts that include conferences and workshops. But the level of
information-sharing and communication among the participants and with other stakeholders remains
primarily informal and in the committee's judgment is insufficient. That is also true globally; effective
alignment in nanotechnology EHS research strategies could provide enormous leverage to many countries
that have active nanotechnology-research portfolios. It is important to recognize that constructive
collaborative initiatives between the United States and the European Union are already under way
(Finnish Institute of Occupational Health 2012).
With or without infusion of additional funds, the value of communication among investigators
who are generating new nanomaterials and those who are studying EHS issues will need to be
substantially improved. Improvements in collaboration and coordination among federal and nonfederal
researchers would enhance the likelihood that research produces information that supports effective
public-policy and private-sector decisions and ultimately protects the environment and human health. An
integrated and well-coordinated program on both national and global scales would help to ensure that
research findings provide the evidence needed to inform decisions so as to effectively manage and,
ideally, prevent EHS risks. The continued challenges of communication and coordination, in spite of
many good-faith efforts, are notable. There have been many efforts in the United States and abroad to
identify and address research needs related to the safe use of nanotechnology but little continuity and
follow-through to ensure that the needs are being addressed.
The committee summarizes below several core aspects of effective governance that reinforce
recommendations that it offered in its first report (NRC 2012). The suggestions help to address the
challenges of coordination among researchers, communication with external stakeholders, and
perceptions of conflict of interest.
Empowered leadership. If all agencies are responsible, to some degree, for nanotechnology EHS
research, no agency can be held clearly accountable for its management and progress. Our nation needs
empowered leadership for nanotechnology risk research directed through a governance structure that
Search WWH ::




Custom Search