Global Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Comparison of the Nanoethics Environments of the EU and China

The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People’s Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity—the official debate on benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions’ approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR’s predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making

The impact of species and cell type on the nanosafety profile of iron oxide nanoparticles in neural cells

Background: While nanotechnology is advancing rapidly, nanosafety tends to lag behind since general mechanistic insights into cell-nanoparticle (NP) interactions remain rare. To tackle this issue, standardization of nanosafety assessment is imperative. In this regard, we believe that the cell type selection should not be overlooked since the applicability of cell lines could be questioned given their altered phenotype. Hence, we evaluated the impact of the cell type on in vitro nanosafety evaluations in a human and murine neuroblastoma cell line, neural progenitor cell line and in neural stem cells. Acute toxicity was evaluated for gold, silver and iron oxide (IO) NPs, and the latter were additionally subjected to a multiparametric analysis to assess sublethal effects. Results: The stem cells and murine neuroblastoma cell line respectively showed most and least acute cytotoxicity. Using high content imaging, we observed cell type-and species-specific responses to the IONPs on the level of reactive oxygen species production, calcium homeostasis, mitochondrial integrity and cell morphology, indicating that cellular homeostasis is impaired in distinct ways. Conclusions: Our data reveal cell type-specific toxicity profiles and demonstrate that a single cell line or toxicity end point will not provide sufficient information on in vitro nanosafety. We propose to identify a set of standard cell lines for screening purposes and to select cell types for detailed nanosafety studies based on the intended application and/or expected exposure

The multi-facets of sustainable nanotechnology : lessons from a nanosafety symposium

An international symposium for nanosafety was held recently at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. Topics relating to understanding nanomaterial properties, tools, and infrastructure required for predicting hazardous outcomes, measuring nanomaterial exposure levels, systems approach for risk assessment and public's perception of nanotechnology were covered. The need for a multidisciplinary approach, across both natural and social sciences, for developing sustainable nanotechnology solutions was heavily emphasized. This commentary highlights the major issues discussed and the commitment of the nanosafety research community in Singapore to contribute collectively to realise the vision of sustainable nanotechnology

nanoSTAIR: a new strategic proposal to impulse standardization in nanotechnology research

Nanotechnology is considered one of the key technologies of the 21st century within Europe and a Key-Enabling Technology (KET) by Horizon 2020. Standardization has been identified in H2020 as one of the innovation-support measures by bridging the gap between research and the market, and helping the fast and easy transfer of research results to the European and international market. The development of new and improved standards requires high quality technical information, creating a fundamental interdependency between the standardization and research communities. In the frame of project nanoSTAIR (GA 319092), the present paper describes the European scenario on research and standardization in nanotechnology and presents a proposal of a European strategy (nanoSTAIR) to impulse direct "pipelines" between research and standardization. In addition, strategic actions focused on integration of standardization in the R&D projects, from the early stages of the design of a future business (Project Proposal), are also described.European Commission, through the Seventh Framework Programme (GA 319092)

A methodology on how to create a real-life relevant risk profile for a given nanomaterial

With large amounts of nanotoxicology studies delivering contradicting results and a complex, moving regulatory framework, potential risks surrounding nanotechnology appear complex and confusing. Many researchers and workers in different sectors are dealing with nanomaterials on a day-to-day basis, and have a requirement to define their assessment/management needs. This paper describes an industry-tailored strategy for risk assessment of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products, which builds on recent research outcomes. The approach focuses on the creation of a risk profile for a given nanomaterial (e.g., determine which materials and/or process operation pose greater risk, where these risks occur in the lifecycle, and the impact of these risks on society), using state-of-the-art safety assessment approaches/tools (ECETOC TRA, Stoffenmanager Nano and ISO/TS 12901-2:2014). The developed nanosafety strategy takes into account cross-sectoral industrial needs and includes (i) Information Gathering: Identification of nanomaterials and hazards by a demand-driven questionnaire and on-site company visits in the context of human and ecosystem exposures, considering all companies/parties/downstream users involved along the value chain; (ii) Hazard Assessment: Collection of all relevant and available information on the intrinsic properties of the substance (e.g., peerreviewed (eco)toxicological data, material safety data sheets), as well as identification of actual recommendations and benchmark limits for the different nano-objects in the scope of this projects; (iii) Exposure Assessment: Definition of industry-specific and application-specific exposure scenarios taking into account operational conditions and risk management measures; (iv) Risk Characterisation: Classification of the risk potential by making use of exposure estimation models (i.e., comparing estimated exposure levels with threshold levels); (v) Refined Risk Characterisation and Exposure Monitoring: Selection of individual exposure scenarios for exposure monitoring following the OECD Harmonized Tiered Approach to refine risk assessment; (vi) Risk Mitigation Strategies: Development of risk mitigation actions focusing on risk prevention.This work was supported by ongoing projects that received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no 646155 (INSPIRED), grant agreement no 646296 (Hi-Response) and grant agreement no 691095 (NANOGENTOOLS)

The eNanoMapper database for nanomaterial safety information

Background: The NanoSafety Cluster, a cluster of projects funded by the European Commision, identified the need for a computational infrastructure for toxicological data management of engineered nanomaterials (ENMs). Ontologies, open standards, and interoperable designs were envisioned to empower a harmonized approach to European research in nanotechnology. This setting provides a number of opportunities and challenges in the representation of nanomaterials data and the integration of ENM information originating from diverse systems. Within this cluster, eNanoMapper works towards supporting the collaborative safety assessment for ENMs by creating a modular and extensible infrastructure for data sharing, data analysis, and building computational toxicology models for ENMs. Results: The eNanoMapper database solution builds on the previous experience of the consortium partners in supporting diverse data through flexible data storage, open source components and web services. We have recently described the design of the eNanoMapper prototype database along with a summary of challenges in the representation of ENM data and an extensive review of existing nano-related data models, databases, and nanomaterials-related entries in chemical and toxicogenomic databases. This paper continues with a focus on the database functionality exposed through its application programming interface (API), and its use in visualisation and modelling. Considering the preferred community practice of using spreadsheet templates, we developed a configurable spreadsheet parser facilitating user friendly data preparation and data upload. We further present a web application able to retrieve the experimental data via the API and analyze it with multiple data preprocessing and machine learning algorithms. Conclusion: We demonstrate how the eNanoMapper database is used to import and publish online ENM and assay data from several data sources, how the “representational state transfer” (REST) API enables building user friendly interfaces and graphical summaries of the data, and how these resources facilitate the modelling of reproducible quantitative structure–activity relationships for nanomaterials (NanoQSAR)

Exposure assessment based recommendations to improve nanosafety at nanoliposome production sites

The NANOFOL concept aims at creating nanodevices containing a drug for inflammatory disorder treatment. This paper provides recommendations for nanosafety based on a measurement campaign which aimed at identifying exposure risks with respect to two specific phases of the products lifecycle, that is, production of the device and its waste management. The nanoparticles presence both in air and in liquid phase was studied. While no emissions were detected during the production period, many recommendations have been made, particularly regarding the nanowaste treatment, based on nanosafety guidelines.Eugenia Nogueira (SFRH/BD/81269/2011) holds scholarships from Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT). The authors thank the EC for funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement NMP4-LA-2009-228827 NANOFOL