John Kerry cares about Nanotechnology funding
Most people don't know it, but nanotechnology funding has been a hot topic at the federal level. GAO just released a report that indicated that 3% of funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative has been directed towards environmental, health, and safety (EHS) questions. In the past few weeks there have been several legislative hearings about EHS and nanotechnology. In a story by the Daily Environment, John Kerry is quoted as saying "Funding for EHS research will be a top priority as we move forward with this reauthorization process" (i.e. the NNI). EHS experts, environmental groups, think-tanks, and many academics have been concerned that 3% is not enough, given the special properties of nanomaterials and their abilities to penetrate and react given their small size. This is a societal question--a policy question about priorities in S&T funding. How much for any technology development program should be directed towards studying the consequences of products? The Human Genome Project directed about 4% for studying Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications (ELSI), and the NNI has done the same. Is this enough? What is the balance between promoting technology development and ensuring safe and responsible use? This is a difficult question, and answers depend on affiliations, value systems, and social and cultural contexts. In the same Daily Environment article, a call for regulatory certainty for nanoproducts is made. Currently, we do not have a coordinated plan for nanotechnology oversight. Two articles that I co-authored with students and colleagues just came out that address oversight systems for emerging technologies. 1) Talukder, K. and J. Kuzma. �A multi-perspective analysis for regulatory policy for Bt cotton in India as a case study�. Science and Public Policy 35(2): 121-138. (2008). and 2) Paradise, J., Wolf, S., Ramachandran, G., Kokkoli, E., Hall, R., and J. Kuzma. “Developing Oversight Frameworks for Nanobiotechnology,� MN Journal of Law, Science, and Technology 9 (1): 399-416 (2008). More are on the way...Important work is being done by C. Bosso and W. Kay at NEU. Susanna Priest at UNLV, D. Guston at ASU, D. Baird and J. Besley at USC, B. Herr-Hawthorne at UCSB, and others.
So, the question is how do we get academic ELSI and EHS nano work into the hands of decision makers? Articles from academicsoften go unnoticed. However, academics are largely encouraged to only publish peer-reviewed articles, not policy briefs or other dissemination documents.
I am attending a small group brainstorming session about these issues May 19-20th hosted by the University of South Carolina. A bunch of ELSI-nano academics will get together to develop strategies for connecting with decision makers and starting a society for ELSI-nano work. In the meantime, we will strive to do the relatively unbiased work (at least conflict-free,as most of us take no money from NGOs or industry) needed to holistically and openly address questions of EHS, ELSI, and emerging technologies.
