Introduction - Research Progress on Environmental Health and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials - page 4

The committee identified financial resources needed to implement research in those categories. In
examining resources, it recognized the differential level of research funding for the applications of
nanotechnology and the potential implications, but it took a pragmatic approach, recognizing funding
constraints, that was centered on current funding levels and informed by expert judgment. The committee
recognized a gap between the amount of federal funding and the level of activity required to support the
research strategy. It concluded that the core EHS research and development funding 1 by federal agencies
should remain constant for at least 5 years because any reduction in funding would be a setback for EHS
research. Moreover, additional modest resources from public, private, and international initiatives should
be made available for 5 years in five critical categories: informatics ($5 million per year), nanomaterial
characterization ($10 million per year), developing benchmark ENMs ($3-5 million per year),
characterization of sources ($2 million per year), and development of networks to support collaborative
research ($2 million per year). These additional resources would total $22-24 million per year.
The committee discussed the need for mechanisms to ensure implementation of the research
strategy and evaluation of research progress. Mechanisms for effective implementation of an EHS
research strategy are as essential to the success of the strategy as is the substance of the identified research
(NRC 2009). Integration of domestic and foreign participants involved in nanotechnology-related
research—including the NNI and federal agencies, the private sector (for example, ENM developers and
users), and the broader scientific and stakeholder communities (for example, academic researchers)—was
seen as critical for implementation.
Mechanisms identified for implementation included fostering interagency interaction,
collaboration, and accountability; developing and implementing mechanisms for stakeholder engagement;
advancing integration among sectors and institutions involved in EHS research, such as public-private
partnerships; and structural changes that address conflicts of interest.
In considering its task, the committee developed indicators that would serve as criteria for
gauging the extent of research and implementation progress in this second report (see Boxes 1-1 and 1-2
for summaries of indicators of research and implementation progress, respectively). Given the short
timeframe between the first and second reports, the committee considered that it would be sufficient to
anticipate progress in initiating research in each of the four high-priority categories identified and in
developing the infrastructure, accountability, and coordination mechanisms needed for implementation of
the research strategy. The interval was far too short for substantial new research programs to be in place,
let alone for evaluation of research outcomes (NRC 2012).
With regard to evaluation of research over the longer term, the committee considered that criteria
developed by the National Research Council Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate
Matter 2 (NRC 1998, 1999) should be applied in evaluating research progress periodically. Those criteria
are listed below and discussed in more detail in the committee's first report (see NRC 2012, pp. 182-187)
 Scientific value : Does the research fill critical knowledge and data gaps?
 Decision-making value: Does the research reduce uncertainties and inform decision-making
by key stakeholders, for example, decisions about risk assessment and risk management?
 Feasibility and timing: Is the research technically and economically feasible, and can it be
done in a timeframe responsive to stakeholder and decision-maker needs?
 Interaction and collaboration: How well does the research agenda foster the collaboration
and interaction needed among scientific disciplines, agencies, academe, and private sector, especially in
addressing cross-cutting issues? Are the scientific expertise, capacity, and resources appropriately used to
enhance scientific creativity, quality, and productivity?
1 The committee estimated this funding to be about $120 million on the basis of the requested FY 2012 budget.
However, the president's 2013 budget revised the 2012 estimate to $102.7 million (NSET 2012).
2 That committee was asked by Congress to address uncertainties in the scientific evidence related to airborne
particulate matter (PM) after the 1997 decision to establish a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard for fine
PM.