Slashdot Mirror
FDA Asked to Regulate Nanotechnology
WillAffleckUW writes "According to the Washington Post, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups has asked the FDA to look at regulating nanotechnology. They point out that there are more than 100 nanotechnology products and that nanoparticles can penetrate cells and tissues, migrate through the body and brain and cause biochemical damage."
How about the FDA regulate... food and drugs? This is kind of broad, don'tcha think? I mean, jeez, "nanotechnology" encompases a whole load of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the FDA, including the equipment that I'm writing this message with, and the equipment you're reading this with. Hell, why not ask the FCC to regulate nanotechnology. It would make just as much sense. Or the Department of Homeland Security. Or any other government bureaucracy with interests to protect.
Or better yet, how about the government just stay the eff out of things for a change and let's see what happens, and deal with issues as they arise? That would be a novel idea, wouldn't it? The last thing I need is the FDA telling me I can't buy the latest and greatest geeky ballpoint pen because the ink might be poisonous - or, god forbid, get me high.
Of course, maybe TFA just failed to mention that they only wanted things that actually deal with F&D regulated. I guess neither would surprise me at this point.
A community-oriented lyrics site
This is probably going to end up as an excellent way to make sure that no one bothers to do nanotechnology research in the United States.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
and ask for a trillion more a year, to regulate and enforce limits on a fast breaking technology, but only when done in the USA, meaning everyone cutting edge, or sloppy, or lazy, or with imperfect tools, starts working outside the USA, blunting the edge of this countries technological advantage a little more-- and when a self-replicating oil eating VonNeumann get's loose, anyone who might have had the skills to defeat the new micro-overloads will have never developed said skills, as they had to expend too much frustration/energy/life forces learning about red-tape processes.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Now we want to regulate things that could cause problems
Hopefully, in the future we'll regulate things that could lead to technology that could cause problems.
Instead of doing things on the 10-9 scale, the'll switch to 10-8 or 10-10.
I can imagine the FDA breaking out their electron microscopes, deciding if a molecule falls within their scope of focus.
Considering nanotechnology is, so far, often just a fancy name for thin-film application of chemicals, of course it should be governed by the regulations applying to those chemicals. The FDA certainly has some say in that.
I know, I've sat in on about twenty nanotechnology seminars at the UW over the past six months.
My point is, this is a real news story, the FDA has been asked by multiple groups to investigate nanotechnology for those products which may - or may not - be able to cross over into humans.
Until they research it, they won't know if it's possible, and - if so - what safeguards or regulations are or should be necessary.
At that point, after input from bioethicists - and I've attended a few panels and seminars on bioethics, as well as journal clubs - recommendations would be made and model legislation would be drafted.
At that point, slashdotters would be able to publicly comment on any such proposed legislation.
It's like when autos were invented - there were no traffic rules for a long time. Then, once they reached a certain level, people created regulations concerning driving, driving ages, rules of the road, railroad crossings, brakes, horns, and so on.
Since we now have more than 100 nanotechnology patents, it's likely we are - in fact - at that point where we need to investigate whether or not we need regulations - and, if so, at what level. Perhaps we need such regulation at the creation side, perhaps at the manufacturing side, perhaps on the consumer side. We don't know yet.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Currently, many nanotech applications are in products (or proposed to be in products) that would come in direct contact with our bodies. Take sunscreen, for example. Some brands of sunscreen are being made with nanoparticles (thus making them nanotechnology) that can penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Do we have a clue what happens when those nanoparticles interact with our brain cells? Hell no! Has that stopped it from being on the market? Hell no!
The issue at stake here is that we have a whole slew of products that have a significantly larger potential impact on our health. I'm not talking about the "smart" counter-top that will make plates out of itself just before dinner (although that would be cool -- I think Popular Science came up with that gem). I'm talking about practical applications of nanotech NOW. Nanoparticle sunscreen is just the first part. You'd better bet that the whole biomedical industry is looking into more advanced, more invasive nanotech applications. The jurisdiction would fall under the FDA sooner or later. Better sooner than later so they're not caught with their pants down.
(I'm sure I'll get modded down for this one, but I think that we need to be cautionary to some degree. Otherwise we may have another DDT or thalidomide on our hands.)
Per Square Mile, a blog about density
The FDA regulates (see their homepage) things marketted to treat and to prevent disease, generally, including both drugs and (though its not part of the name) non-drug biological products and medical devices (they also regulate food -- obviously -- cosmetics, animal feed and veterinary drugs, and radiation-emitting devices.) Nanotech is sometimes currently and quite likely more in the future applied to prevent and treat disease, and to that extent comes under the FDA's scope of responsibility, as either a "drug" or a "medical device", depending on how you look at it. Expanding their brief to explicitly include nanotechnology designed for use on or in the human body would make a lot of sense even if it isn't, per se, a "drug" or "medical device".
Well, nanotechnology is a pretty broad field.
The nanotechnology the article refers to is primary nanoparticles added directly to food and drugs, so it seems reasonable that the FDA might oversee this area. For instance, if they're putting nanoparticles into sunscreen or cosmetics made with Titanium or Zinc, then it seems reasonable that the FDA would make sure those are safe.
By design, nanoparticles are often far more reactive to surface chemistry than the same chemicals in other forms, so I'd want some regulations or at least basic studies. As the field evolves, there's also many very advanced medical applications for nanotechnology (such as tissue repair or targeted tumor attacks) that also should fall under their normal medical regulation and testing requirements.
That said, the FDA certainly doesn't need to regulate IT-oriented applications such as telecommunications, nanobots, quantum computers or fields like metallurgy.
It's like Arsenic. The FDA should regulate it in foods and drugs, but they don't have much to say about the GaAs semiconductor industry.
The problem is more that the cosmetic industry has embraced the nanotechnology buzzword to make their new products seem super-high-tech and this makes the FDA a natural candidate for initial regulations, but they certainly won't be the only agency regulating them!
The Constitution of the USA is very specific on exactly what the federal government can and cannot do. Among "internal" issues, i.e. everything that does not concern the relations of the USA with other countries, there is very little that the federal government has the authority to do, although no one would guess it from the way Washington acts.
Unless someone finds a way to put nanotechnology in what has been used as the mother of all catchalls in Article I, section 8, "To regulate Commerce
I am not going to differentiate between nano-tech and nano-particles here even though I understand there is a difference between the two, but in the case of this post, I don't think the two terms need to be differentiated. To do so would be hair-splitting.
I can see how the FDA could regulate nano-tech if it is an ingredient in food, medicine, cosmetics or if it is a "medical device". I can not see how they would be involved if it was a more "industrial" component (say an ingredient in paint or a component in some high tech alloy).
It is the use more than the component that really makes a difference here. I really doubt that nano-tech used in electronics will ever be considered able to be regulated by the FDA until it is incorporated into something like a pacemaker.
I hope I am correct in this but with our current state of government in the U.S.A. it is really hard to tell. It is probably only a matter of time until the FDA comes under the umbrella of "Homeland Security" then who knows what will happen.
It's funny, but when the nanoparticles are produced by internal combustion engines - the source of the most potent non-radioactive carcinogens known - or from plasticisers used in plastic goods etc., the US government is positively glacial in its response.
:v)
Start developing a new technology that promises to completely revolutionise the manufacturing and supply industries as we know them, and POW! Suddenly there is activity to ban it because it might produce nasty chemicals if done in an inconsiderate manner.
So much for US industry.
At this rate the US will be buying its nanotechnology from Venezuela.
Vik
The mere existence of the FDA is proof that this is not free-market capitalism. It's State-capitlism with protections put in place to shield corporations from any liability. Your blame is sorely misplaced.