The NSTC is  managed by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy  (OSTP), who also serves as the Science Advisor to the President. In  2003, the NSET subcommittee further established a Nanotechnology  Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. The NNI’s annual Supplement to  the President’s Budget, prepared by the NSTC, includes EHS research  figures from the agencies and a general description of the research  conducted by the agencies in each of the areas. Eight of the 13 agencies that  funded nanotechnology research in fiscal year 2006 reported having  devoted some of those resources to research that had a primary focus on  potential EHS risks. Almost One-Fifth of Reported EHS Research Projects Were Not Primarily Focused on Studying the EHS Risks of Nanotechnology

About 18 percent of the total research dollars reported by the agencies as  being primarily focused on the study of nanotechnology-related EHS risks  in fiscal year 2006 cannot actually be attributed to this purpose. Specifically, we found that 22 of the 119 projects funded by five federal  agencies were not primarily related to studying EHS risks. We found that the primary purpose of many of  these 22 projects was to explore ways to use nanotechnology to remediate  environmental damage or to identify environmental, chemical, or  biological hazards not related to nanotechnology. We found that the miscategorization of these 22 projects resulted largely  from a reporting structure for nanotechnology research that does not  easily allow agencies to recognize projects that use nanotechnology to  improve the environment or enhance the detection of environmental  contaminants, and from the limited guidance available to the agencies on  how to consistently report EHS research. In addition to research reported to the NNI as being primarily focused on  the EHS risks of nanotechnology, some agencies conduct research that is  not reflected in the EHS totals provided by the NNI either because they are  not considered federal research agencies or because the primary purpose  of the research was not to study EHS risks. This type of research  provides information that is needed to understand and measure  nanomaterials to ensure safe handling and protection against potential  health or environmental hazards; however, such research is captured  under other PCAs, such as instrumentation, metrology, and standards. Processes to Identify and Prioritize Needed EHS Research Appear Reasonable and Are Ongoing but a Comprehensive Research Strategy Has Not Yet Been Developed

All eight agencies in our review have processes in place to identify and  prioritize the research they need related to the potential EHS risks of  nanotechnology. In addition to the efforts of individual agencies, the NSET subcommittee  has engaged in an iterative prioritization process through its NEHI  working group. NEHI issued a report  summarizing the results of this analysis in February 2008. Although a comprehensive research strategy for EHS research had not  been finalized at the time of our review, the prioritization processes taking  place within individual agencies and the NNI appeared to be reasonable. In addition, we found that the primary purposes of agency projects  underway in fiscal year 2006 were generally consistent with both agency  priorities and the NEHI working group’s research categories. These two general  research categories accounted for 70 percent of all projects focused on  EHS risks. Coordination Processes Have Fostered Interagency Collaboration and Information-Sharing

Agency and NNI processes to coordinate research and other activities  related to the potential EHS risks of nanotechnology have been generally  effective, and have resulted in numerous interagency collaborations. Furthermore, the NEHI working group has adopted a number of practices  GAO has previously identified as essential to helping enhance and sustain  collaboration among federal agencies. Finally, all agency officials we spoke with expressed satisfaction with their  agency’s participation in the NEHI working group, specifically, the  coordination and collaboration on EHS risk research and other activities  that have occurred as a result of their participation. A  number of the members have served on the body for several years,  providing stability and continuity that contributes to a collegial and  productive working atmosphere.
Why GAO Did This Study

In March 2008, GAO issued a report entitled Nanotechnology: Better Guidance Is Needed to Ensure Accurate Reporting of Federal Research Focused on Environmental, Health, and Safety Risks (GAO-08-402). In this report, GAO reviewed the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a multiagency effort administered by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The NNI coordinates the nanotechnology-related activities of 25 federal agencies that fund nanoscale research or have a stake in the results. A key research area funded by some agencies related to studying the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks that may result from exposure to nanoscale materials. For this testimony statement, GAO was asked to summarize the findings of its March 2008 report, focusing on (1) the extent to which selected agencies conducted EHS research in fiscal year 2006; (2) the reasonableness of the agencies' and the NNI's processes to identify and prioritize EHS research; and (3) the effectiveness of the agencies' and the NNI's process to coordinate EHS research.

What GAO Found

In fiscal year 2006, federal agencies devoted $37.7 million--or 3 percent of the $1.3 billion total nanotechnology research funding--to research that was primarily focused on the EHS risks of nanotechnology, according to the NNI. However, about 20 percent of this total cannot actually be attributed to this purpose. GAO found that 22 of the 119 projects identified as EHS in fiscal year 2006 were not primarily related to understanding the extent to which nanotechnology may pose an EHS risk. Instead, many of these projects were focused on how to use nanotechnology to remediate environmental damage or detect hazards not related to nanotechnology. GAO determined that this mischaracterization is rooted in the current reporting structure that does not allow these types of projects to be easily categorized and the lack of guidance for agencies on how to apportion research funding across multiple topics, when appropriate. In addition to the EHS funding reported by the NNI, federal agencies conduct other research that is not captured in the EHS totals. This research was not captured by the NNI because either the research was funded by an agency not considered to be a research agency or because the primary purpose of the research was not to study EHS risks. Federal agencies and the NNI, at the time of GAO's review, were in the process of identifying and prioritizing EHS risk research needs and the overall process they were using appeared reasonable. For example, identification and prioritization of EHS research needs was being done by the agencies and the NNI collaboratively. The NNI also was engaged in an iterative prioritization effort through its Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. Through this process, NEHI identified five general research categories as a priority for federally funded research. GAO found that most of the research projects that were underway in fiscal year 2006 were generally consistent with agency and NEHI priorities. NEHI released its new EHS research strategy on February 13, 2008. Agency and NNI processes to coordinate activities related to potential EHS risks of nanotechnology have been generally effective. The NEHI working group has convened frequent meetings that have helped agencies identify opportunities to collaborate on EHS risk issues, such as joint sponsorship of research and workshops to advance knowledge and facilitate information-sharing among the agencies. NEHI also has incorporated several practices that GAO has previously identified as key to enhancing and sustaining interagency collaborative efforts, such as defining a common outcome and leveraging resources. Finally, all agency officials GAO spoke with expressed satisfaction with the coordination and collaboration on EHS risk research that has occurred through NEHI. They cited several factors they believe contribute to the group's effectiveness, including the stability of the working group membership and the expertise and dedication of its members. Furthermore, according to these officials, this stability, combined with common research needs and general excitement about the new science, has resulted in a collegial, productive working environment.