A full 8 months after publication of the RS/RAEng study into the benefits and risks of nanotechnology, the UK government has finally produced its 26 page initial response, launched to coincide with the opening of a nanotechnology exhibit at The Science Museum, London.
With a few caveats, the response is broadly supportive of the 21 RS/RAEng recommendations. Here are some of the key points:
Better co-ordination of research into the health, safety and environmental impacts nanotechnology is needed. To this end, Defra will chair a Research Co-ordination Group consisting of the Research Councils, NPL, relevant government departments and regulatory agencies.
The remit of this group will be to establish international links to promote dialogue and draw on and facilitate exchange of relevant information-e.g. toxicity databases. Although recommended by the RS/RAEng, this group will not serve as a UK centre of advice on HSE impacts of nanotechnologies.
The government considers that measurement and detection technologies, and the development of appropriate toxicological methods for nanoscale materials are the main priority areas for research.
Defra will initiate a thorough and independent study into the implications of nanotechnologies on environmental regulations, and the outcome of this study will be published during 2005. The results of this study will be used to determine suitable regulation of chemicals in nanoparticulate form-the government considers it likely that sector specific regulations, in addition to REACH may be required.
No additional funds have been allocated for any of the above!
So, the UK government endorses the RS/RAEng report and believes that nanotechnology needs to be regulated appropriately to ensure protection of consumers, the environment and industry. It acknowledges that we dont have the information currently to be able to do this, however isnt willing to stump up any additional cash in order to obtain it.
Europhobes will be dismayed to find out that all of this is exactly what the European Commission HAS been doing, and funding over the last year. While the UK led the way in commissioning the study, the inability to come up with a coherent response after eight months highlights the chaos at the heart of UK nanotechnology policy. The constant dithering has made the Department of Trade and Industry unpopular across the whole political spectrum from environmental groups to the research community.
Its a shockingly long time to spend on such a meagre document, perhaps the authors were too busy playing Duckboy in Nanoland?