In a recent Observation from Scientific American, it is reported that while the United States leads the pack at patenting nanotech inventions, the slow pace of bringing the technology to market puts countries like China, Russia, Japan, Germany and South Korea at an advantage. The information supporting this forecast comes from Lux Research. Federal funding for nanotech research has held steady for the last few years but Lux researchers see those funds dwindling in the future. Venture capitalists, whose money is needed to move the technology from the lab to commercial productions, have already substantially reduced their investment in nanotechnology (and in other emerging technologies as well). Rather, the money for nanotechnology will come from funding that is set aside to improve very specific technologies such as hydrogen storage systems, military applications, and batteries. Countries like Japan, Germany and South Korea, on the other hand, surpassed the United States in commercializing nanotechnology and products. Russia also distributed $757 million in 2009 to fund research and to support commercialization, including the construction of research and manufacturing infrastructure. Lux sees a possible collaboration between the United States and China where each country can use its own strengths to jointly commercialize many new nanotechnologies.

Dr. Pere Santamaria of the Julia-McFarlane Diabetes Research Center at the University of Calgary injected mice infected with Type 1 diabetes with a nanoparticle vaccine that slowed the onset of the disease. The mice showed no weakening of their general immune systems and they did not acquire infections or other diseases at a higher rate than mice not included in the study. Type 1 diabetes occurs when T cells in the body attack insulin-producing cells in the pancreas, incorrectly identifying such cells as invaders. As a result, insufficient levels of insulin are distributed in the body and glucose levels rise. The typical form of treatment is to inject insulin into the body. Less invasive and more permanent solutions such as a vaccine have been difficult to produce because such solutions often decrease the effectiveness of the body’s immune system, leaving the patient vulnerable to other diseases. The new nanoparticle vaccine has been licensed to Parvus Therapeutics which hopes to bring it into commercial production.

EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention recently sent the White House Office of Management & Budget, a first-time policy that would require industries to provide more detail on nanoscale ingredients used in pesticides. The policy is expected to outline EPA’s plans to use its authority under section 6(a)(2) of FIFRA to request this additional information. EPA developed the new policy after concerns were raised over health and environmental effects. Industry, on the other hand, is not in favor of any policy that stigmatizes a product solely because of the presence of certain ingredients that may not, in and of themselves, be harmful. EPA also indicated that any pesticide containing a nanoscale material would be considered new and therefore subject to heightened agency scrutiny. Thus, nanosilver would be considered “new” even though silver is already a registered pesticide ingredient.

In the August 13, 2010 Federal Register, EPA announced a 45-day public comment period on its draft Nanomaterial Case Study: Nanoscale Silver in Disinfectant Spray. The draft report identifies what is known and not known about nanoscale silver and is intended to help identify and prioritize scientific and technical information that could be used to conduct comprehensive environmental assessments of nanoscale silver in all of its potential uses. EPA has previously conducted a similar case study on nanoscale titanium dioxide used in drinking water treatment and in topical sunscreens.

The draft nanoscale silver study was issued by the National Center for Environmental Assessment within EPA’s Office Research and Development. It is part of EPA’s continued effort to understand the science and information gaps associated with nanotechnology. It is important to understand what the draft report does not do – it is not a preliminary assessment of the use of nanoscale silver in disinfectants and it is not intended to serve as a basis for making risk management decisions on this material. It has the limited purpose of simply identifying what we do and do not know about nanoscale silver as used in disinfectants. The document was prepared using a comprehensive environmental assessment (CEA) framework, which starts with the product life-cycle and then considers the numerous possible fate and transport processes for the use being studied. For each stage of the product life cycle (feedstocks, manufacturing, distribution, storage, use and disposal), and after each chapter addressing fate and transport processes, exposure-dose characterization and ecological and health effects, questions are posed that might lead to further investigation and study. EPA is soliciting comment on the questions that are posed, and questions that should be posed. Specific information concerning the procedure for submitting comments can be found in the Federal Register link above.

As the number of industries and products using nanotechnology grow exponentially, insurers are faced with an ever changing landscape that is difficult if not impossible to evaluate. Some estimates suggest that by 2015, the global market for nanotechnology will reach almost one trillion dollars. Yet, at this stage in the evolution (one could even argue revolution) of nanotechnology, regulators cannot keep pace with the technology. Currently, there is relatively little oversight over many of the products that contain nanotechnology. Exceptions do exist. For example, Canada requires companies to report the use of nanomaterials, and the European Union requires cosmetics to include in their labels whether the product uses nanoparticles. If regulators are having problems assessing the potential harm of certain nanomaterials, how can we expect insurers to properly evaluate the risks of this new and exciting technology. This is especially difficult for reinsurers, which rely almost entirely on comprehensive risk evaluation to properly function. In a young industry, without any claims history, how are reinsurers supposed to evaluate the risk?  See here for more