Commentary

More coherence and structure in the way research is conducted should be introduced in nanotoxicology, and all stakeholders must do their part.

The European Commission should be regulating nanosilver, not asking for yet another report on its impact on health and the environment.

Nanotechnology has the potential to lead to healthier, safer and better tasting foods, and improved food packaging, but the hesitation of the food industry and public fears in some countries about tampering with nature may be holding back the introduction of nanofoods.

There is a growing literature on the use of science to inform decisions on the environmental, health and safety implications of nanotechnology, but little has been published by those who make such decisions. Here, as officials of the US Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we discuss the types of decision facing government regulators, the new considerations nanotechnology brings to decision-making, the role of science in informing decisions, how regulators cooperate internationally on policy issues, and the challenges that lie ahead.

It is essential to recognize the heterogeneous nature of 'the public' in engagement activities and to treat people as citizens rather than as mere laypersons, consumers or stakeholders.

New regulations concerning nanomaterials should consider the details of individual materials, applications and environments to avoid generalizations that might stifle the entire field.

An online survey shows that most researchers do not use suitable personal and laboratory protection equipment when handling nanomaterials that could become airborne.

Calls for more data on the impact of nanomaterials on human health and the environment reflect a failure to accept that there will always be unknowns associated with any new technology. Effective governance of emerging nanotechnologies will require an acknowledgement of these unknowns, an open and adaptive approach to regulation, and the courage to make decisions.

By analysing publication and citation data, it is possible to explore the relationships between nanoscience and nanotechnology and the rest of science and technology.

We propose a proactive approach to the management of occupational health risks in emerging technologies based on six features: qualitative risk assessment; the ability to adapt strategies and refine requirements; an appropriate level of precaution; global applicability; the ability to elicit voluntary cooperation by companies; and stakeholder involvement.

Discussions of the potential risks and hazards associated with nanomaterials and nanoparticles tend to focus on the need for further experiments. However, theoretical and computational nanoscientists could also contribute by making their calculations more relevant to research into this area.

It is important to consider the ethical aspects of nanotechnology, but it is equally important to ensure that these considerations do not end up as 'speculative ethics'.

The commercial success of products based on giant magnetoresistance is often cited as a reason for supporting basic physics research. The reality is more complex, given the range of bodies, including IBM and the US military, involved in developing new technologies based on this Nobel-prize-winning discovery.

International standards have a crucial role in supporting global trade and protecting human health and the environment. US government agencies and the private sector must become more involved in international efforts to establish such standards, and representatives from all nations must ensure that all standards are based on sound science.

A new technology will only be successful if those promoting it can show that it is safe, but history is littered with examples of promising technologies that never fulfilled their true potential and/or caused untold damage because early warnings about safety problems were ignored. The nanotechnology community stands to benefit by learning lessons from this history.

Scientists often invoke comparisons with nature when discussing developments in nanotechnology, but the relationship between the two is more complex than it first appears, and can be broken down into nine different narratives.

Nanomedicine offers new opportunities to fight diseases but a global effort is needed to safely translate laboratory innovation to the clinic. Seven priority areas have been identified for this endeavour.

An analysis of 30 years of data on patent publications from the US Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office and the Japan Patent Office confirms the dominance of companies and selected academic institutions from the US, Europe and Japan in the commercialization of nanotechnology.

The enormous difference in scale between our everyday world and the nanoworld could explain why so few members of the general public seem to know about nanotechnology.

The increasing emphasis on commercialization and market forces in modern universities is fundamentally at odds with core academic principles. Publicly funded academics have an obligation to carry out science for the public good, and this responsibility is not compatible with the entrepreneurial ethos increasingly expected of university research by governments and funding agencies.