Some groups are calling on Congress to regulate engineered nanoscale materials and derivative products to control potential EHS risks, arguing that lack of federal regulation might increase the risks of unanticipated adverse consequences. The cost to the nanotechnology industry also could be great, if consumers responded by indiscriminately rejecting all products of nanotechnology, rather than the offending nanomaterial or an individual application. Others oppose federal regulatory requirements, arguing that they might unnecessarily delay the environmental, health, and economic rewards expected from nanotechnology. Questions about the need for, and ideal form of, regulation for nanotechnology are exceedingly difficult to address, given the current state of scientific understanding of engineered nanoscale materials. For more information about the national nanotechnology research agenda, appropriations, and authorizing legislation, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues , by [author name scrubbed]

		The Nature of Nanotechnology

"Nanotechnology" encompasses a broad range of techniques for producing and manipulating tiny particles, thin films, and other materials at such minute dimensions that quantum effects have a measurable influence on the constituent atoms. At this scale, the basic chemical, physical, and biological properties of materials can vary with slight increases and decreases in dimensions between 1 and 100 billionths of a meter. The remainder of this report describes some of the challenges faced by these groups as they strive to define the characteristics of nanomaterials, the risks they might pose, and how possible risks might be addressed under existing statutory authorities. The U.S. approach to standards development is voluntary. Possibly Inadequate Statutory Authority

A final potential obstacle to federal risk management for nanotechnology is a lack of clear statutory directives or appropriate regulatory frameworks to guide federal risk managers. The cost of such consequences would depend on their actual, as well as publically perceived, severity, frequency, and reversibility. Conclusion

The need for additional research to identify the potential hazards that might be associated with nanotechnology and to evaluate risks related to the environment and human health and safety (EHS) is not in dispute. These difficulties may be surmounted over time without legislative action, or Congress may choose to intervene. If it does, it might choose any of several approaches. Selected approaches include increasing funding for workshops in standardization and other EHS research, changing the allocation of research money among agencies, adopting and implementing a national and/or international research strategy, or enacting legislation that authorizes, mandates, or constrains agency actions to require information collection or to restrict production, sale, use, or disposal of nanomaterials.
Scientists and engineers can now examine, design, and manipulate materials at the molecular level, termed "nanoscale," between 1 and 100 billionths of a meter. The U.S. government has invested heavily to ensure that American industry remains a global leader in the field, because the products of nanotechnology are seen to have great economic potential and offer possible solutions to national problems ranging from energy efficiency to detection of agents of biological warfare. Optimism about nanotechnology is tempered, however, by concerns about the unknown potential of nanoscale materials to harm the environment and human health. Some have called for federal regulation of potential environmental, human health, and safety (EHS) risks, arguing that the lack of federal EHS regulations increases the risks of unanticipated adverse consequences due to human or environmental exposure to engineered nanomaterials. The cost of such consequences would depend on their actual, as well as publicly perceived, severity, frequency, and reversibility. The cost to the nanotechnology industry could be great, if consumers responded to a potential threat of harm by indiscriminately rejecting all products of nanotechnology, rather than the offending nanomaterial or an individual application. Others oppose federal regulatory requirements, arguing that they might unnecessarily delay the environmental, health, and economic rewards expected from nanotechnology.
Questions about the need for, and ideal form of, nanotechnology regulations are exceedingly difficult to address, given the current state of scientific understanding of engineered nanoscale materials. This report considers certain challenges faced by scientists, entrepreneurs, and government officials involved with nanotechnology research, as they strive to define the characteristics of nanomaterials, the potential EHS risks, and how they might be addressed. Challenges include the wide variety of nanomaterials and applications; lack of basic information about their properties; lack of conventions for naming, measuring and identifying nanomaterials; the proprietary nature of some critical information; the need to prioritize federal resource needs; and a possible lack of clear statutory authority or appropriate regulatory framework to anticipate or respond to any identified risks. For more information about the national nanotechnology research agenda, appropriations, and authorizing legislation, see CRS Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by [author name scrubbed]
These difficulties may be surmounted over time without significant legislative action, or Congress may choose to intervene. If it does, it might choose any of several approaches. Possible approaches include increasing funding for workshops in standardization or other research relevant to identifying and possibly ameliorating any environmental or human health and safety concerns associated with nanomaterials; changing the allocation of research money among agencies or the interagency research management structure; adopting a national or international research strategy; or enacting legislation that authorizes, mandates, or constrains agency actions to require information collection or to restrict production, sale, use, or disposal of nanomaterials. Each risk management approach has potential positive and negative consequences that Congress may want to consider.