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."
"Concerned buckyball-momites asked, 'won't someone think of the chelates?'"
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
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
Only you can prevent Grey Goo
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.
In both cases, the industry in question is regulated not at the results level but at the process level. To change the way an airplane is manufactured, you have to get your manufacturing process recertified by the FAA. It's a great way to prevent technological progress. To put this into perspective, modern piston airplanes are still using mechanical fuel injection. We're talking technology that was first put into use in the 1950s.
As a result, it takes the financial commitment of basically building an entirely new company in order to manufacture composite airplanes (as opposed to using aluminum sheetmetal and rivets). Manufacturers aren't allowed to truly compete with each other by continuously improving their products in meaningful ways because the cost of improving the product is too high. Everything has to be recertified when a real improvement is made.
And the same is true for medical equipment, which is one of the big reasons your out of pocket expense for a simple MRI session is several thousand dollars.
So if we want to make sure that the U.S. is dead last in nanotech, the best way to do it is to regulate it the way we regulate medical equipment and aviation.
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
is micro management.
---southpaw
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
I know Slashdot likes to blindly bash things that might prohibit technological advance. But it's been said that the effects of nanotubes could be as dangerous as asbestos.
/ 77/1/126
Here's a study conducted by researchers from NASA, Wyle Labs, UofT Medical:
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full
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