Greater transparency and public engagement about the potential opportunities
and risks presented by nanotechnology is required, according to a new report
by The Australia Institute.
While still an emerging field, nanoscale sciences and technologies (nanoST)
are already
present in our daily lives, with more than 1000 consumer products identified
as containing
nanomaterials. While the science has been quickly adopted in products such as
cosmetics,
sunscreens, household appliances and cleaning products, the health and environmental
risks associated with nanoST are still hotly contested.
What you should know about nano by Dr Fern Wickson recommends an 11-point
plan of
action for policymaking on nanoST development.
Dr Wickson is presenting today at the Asia-Pacific Science, Technology and
Society
Network Conference. She will be available for comment between 10 – 11am
in the
foyer of the Brisbane Convention Centre.
"There is no dispute that nanoST offers exciting and diverse opportunities,
but there should
also be no dispute that there are far too many unanswered questions for us to
have blind
faith in the new technology," said Dr Wickson.
"Worryingly, early research has shown a similarity between the way the
body responds to
carbon nanotubes and asbestos. While there is still such a degree of uncertainty
about
potential risks, consumers are entitled to greater transparency about their
exposure to
nanoST."
In a recent report comparing regulatory governance of nanotechnology in the
US, Canada,
the UK, Australia and Europe, Australia was not described as setting 'best
practice'
standards in the coordination of governance, information gathering, weighing
risks against
benefits and having an accountable and transparent approach.
Included in Dr Wickson's recommendations are:
- Mandatory reporting on all products containing nanotubes and other
nanomaterials
- A parliamentary inquiry into nanoST
- Health surveillance and environmental monitoring of high potential
exposures
- Adopting a precautionary approach to the commercialisation of the
technology in cases
where the potential for harm has been demonstrated, significant uncertainties
remain and
social benefits appear marginal.
"The experiment in nanoST has clearly already begun and as consumers
and workers we
are already involved," said Dr Wickson. "The question is, do we
want to be and if so, how do
we want to be?"
Posted November 25th, 2009
