.jpg)
|
Dr. Steven M. Hankin, Director of Operations & Senior
Consultant in Risk Assessment, SAFENANO
Corresponding author: steve@safenano.org |
There is increasing consensus that for nanotechnology to reach its maximum
potential, we must work not only to understand the hazards and exposure routes
in order to minimise the risks, but to employ responsible and reasonable
protective measures whilst there is still uncertainty. Amongst the many lessons
which the asbestos legacy provides nanotechnology, arguably one of the most
important is need to adopt and document the implementation of safe practice(s)
in the light of new evidence confirming the existence of a risk. It is prudent
for industry to see the 'bigger picture' and sustain or implement practices to
remain aware of the emerging scientific evidence and act to mitigate potential
risks to health, the environment and business continuity.
The holistic process of risk analysis, advocated and practiced by SAFENANO - the UK's MNT Centre
of Excellence in Nanotechnology Safety - is the basis of the assessment,
management and communication of potential harm from substances, processes or
technologies. Underpinning this process are a range of emerging and evolving
recommendations and codes of practice for researchers handling nanomaterials,
practical-based resources, guidance & standards, and accreditation schemes
for organisations wishing to demonstrate publicly 'due diligence'.
The benefits to industry in adopting a proactive and comprehensive approach
to nanotechnology risk management, using a life-cycle thinking approach, are
that it provides i) a basis for responsible stewardship of nanoproducts and
nanotechnologies, providing evidence of compliance with existing (and
anticipated) legislation; ii) foresight of emerging issues along the supply
chain which can influence how risk is identified and controlled; and iii) help
to support strategic decision-making, investment, market access and
product/process developments.
The objective of evaluating the attributes of a risk is to gain a better
understanding by determining the expected impact, probability and timeframe of
the risk. However, decisions about the significance of risk are influenced by
the degree of residual uncertainty. The problem of defining operational criteria
for "acceptable" and "unacceptable" risks is especially important in relation to
human health and the environment in the absence of exposure thresholds. Defining
'acceptable' risk requires scientific knowledge as well as an appreciation of
the limits of that knowledge. It requires a good understanding of the context of
the risk and it requires willingness, by companies and regulatory agencies where
appropriate, to deal openly with these difficult, variable and value-laden
issues. This is perhaps the most emotive and one of the most challenging aspects
of risk management which continues to evolve with influencing societal and
political factors.
In conclusion, on-going research into the health and environmental effects of
nanomaterials is identifying concerns and gaps that warrant precautionary action
and further study. Safenano and its collaborators continue to identity and fill
the gaps by working with a range of industry, academic and government
stakeholders to assure the safe, responsible and informed development of
nanotechnology. More information about how SAFENANO can support you in the sustainable development of
nanotechnology underpinned by a documented, comprehensive and responsive
approach is available at our website www.safenano.org.
Copyright AZoNano.com, Dr. Steven M. Hankin
(SAFENANO)