To the Editor

The current interest in ensuring that nanomaterials are characterized and reported on more completely (Editorial, Nature Nanotech. 7, 545; 2012) is a most welcome sign of the development of the field. In a number of applications, there is also a growing awareness of the need to synthesize and ultimately manufacture nanomaterials in a more reproducible way for nanotechnology to deliver its potential. Furthermore, after some early uncertainty, the nanosafety community is now increasingly mobilized to improve the quality of reporting of studies related to the impact of nanomaterials on living organisms and the environment. These most important efforts are being supported by a number of specialized journals, as well as international programmes (for example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Union NanoSafety Cluster and others).

However, in my opinion, the field has a critical need for other types of support. This new and exciting arena of science is still in its early days and we are still discovering the paradigms that govern the interactions of nanomaterials with living organisms and the environment. It is primarily in this arena of uncovering the principles that Nature Nanotechnology can and should contribute. There is little doubt that authors in this journal will wish to maintain the highest standards of reporting. The fact that radically new findings can emerge means that the authors themselves will often best understand the most appropriate aspects of characterization for their work. Nature Nanotechnology is recognized in the broader domain of scientific discovery, and its readership and impact are key assets to the whole community in promoting this emerging area of science. Indeed, as suggested in your Editorial a number of common parameters should be included in all papers (although as we learn more they may continue to evolve) but the choice of some key characterization parameters will have to be based on their particular relevance to the study itself.