Given these challenges, there is clearly a role for policymakers to play in advancing the application of nanotechnology toward improving water quality.
It is anticipated that a suite of policy actions is needed that are both coordinated and integrated across a range of disciplinary boundaries and local, state, national, and international actors. One theoretical approach useful in conceptualizing such governance options is the “Frame One” and “Frame Two” context developed in a White Paper from the International Risk Governance Council [ 18 ] and a conference report from the Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue. The notion is that addressing nanotechnology’s oversight and public risk perception may shift from a situation where “existing risk management approaches are directly applicable” (Frame One) to a situation where “a set of new risks could emerge through the profound shift in technical capabilities that nanotechnology off ers” (Frame Two) [ 19 ].
Such changes in governance strategies are critical to adequately respond to the complex and interrelated impacts of these nanotechnology applications. As Olson and Rejeski [ 20 ] note, “traditional policy approaches based on hierarchical systems of command and control and market interventions will need to be complemented by the use of networks to steer change.” In practice, this change of mindset has started to occur through the proliferation of voluntary codes of conduct—for example, the Responsible Nano Code in the United Kingdom [ 21 ]—and industry and nongovernmental risk management frameworks—for example, the Nano Risk Framework created by Environmental Defense and DuPont Corporation in the United States [ 22 ]. Such oversight experimentation will work to ensure that there is a commitment toward pursuing nanotechnology water applications in a coherent and sustainable manner. Although the options presented here are not the only ones available that could jump-start innovation aimed at addressing such long-term problems, they do center on actions that could be undertaken in the short term and that could foster cooperation among a range of interested stakeholders.
Savage_Ch33.indd 513
Savage_Ch33.indd 513 11/11/2008 2:33:37 PM11/11/2008 2:33:37 PM
One way to address the challenges outlined earlier is to off er innovation inducement awards and prizes—a topic that has gained considerable attention from policy analysts over the past few years in reports from Kalil [ 23 ] and The National Academies [ 24 ]—in the area of nanotechnology applications for improving water quality. Such a prize could establish key scientifi c and technical benchmarks that would need to be achieved in order to receive the monetary amount of the prize or the award. As Schmidt states in Green Nanotechnology:
It’s Easier Than You Think [ 25 ], such a prize would fi t well under the concept of green nanotechnology, an approach to risk mitigation that encompasses three complementary goals of advancing the development of clean technologies that use nanotechnology, minimizing potential environmental and human health risks associated with the manufacture and use of nanotechnology products, and encouraging the replacement of existing products with new nanotechnology products that are more environmentally friendly throughout their life cycles.
Such a “ GreenNano Water Award” could help elevate green nanotechnology’s visibility in a number of ways and, in turn, stimulate further innovation. For instance, recognizing innovative approaches to improving water quality based on nanotechnology would reward scientists and engineers working in this emerging area, may attract more scientists to the fi eld, and help retain them over the course of their careers. Off ering a fi nancial award could help researchers and developers commercialize their green nanotechnology innovations and make green nanotechnology a visible national and international priority. An award program could also increase knowledge on eff orts in green nanotechnology by consolidating and, in a sense, creating an inventory of ongoing activities.
Anastas and Zimmerman [ 26 ] note in their report “Green Nanotechnology:
Why We Need a Green Nano Award & How to Make It Happen” that such a prize would take advantage of the unprecedented opportunity to “green” the wider emerging nanotechnology production infrastructure and, in terms of applications that improve water quality, would have the opportunity to positively shape investments in environment-friendly facilities, foster open intellectual property arrangements, and create mutual responsibility across supply-chain relationships. In short, an award that recognizes green nanotechnology water applications would signifi cantly infl uence key production choices that will become “locked-in” over the next 5–10 years.
Second, funding nanotechnology water research and applications could become a strategic investment goal of government agencies in the United States, including the EPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program, and the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program. Ideally, such funding eff orts could be conducted in collaboration with international partners, in the European Union (EU) and East Asia, and through organizations such as UN-Water and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Such joint funding projects on a particular topic, such as nanotechnology and water, would be a novel way to stimulate the creation of international research networks
Savage_Ch33.indd 514
Savage_Ch33.indd 514 11/11/2008 2:33:37 PM11/11/2008 2:33:37 PM
and share technical, logistical, and commercialization expertise across leading developing countries, such as India and China [ 27 ]. In his report EPA and Nanotechnology: Oversight for the 21st Century [ 28 ], J. Clarence Davies noted that a renewed emphasis on international eff orts, such as the ones described earlier, would be necessary to help the United States maintain and continue its leadership in nanotechnology over the next 2–5 years. Such collaborations are rapidly occurring between developing countries [ 29 ] and between countries in the developed and developing world [ 30– 31 ] and could easily be focused around an organizing topic such as nanotechnology and water. However, without policy changes and a renewed emphasis on technical assistance programs, diff usion of such cutting-edge technologies to the developing world will fall short and the problem of poor water quality will persist. Therefore, formal collaborations are needed at the micro-level (between individual researchers), meso-level (between individual universities or companies), and macro-level (between nations or groups of nations), and they could culminate in an International Year of Water Nanotechnology that brings increased attention to nanotechnology’s environmental applications.
This concept of an “International Year” of nanotechnology leads to a third policy action, which centers on developing an advanced outreach and communication strategy for nanotechnology water applications. Although viewing communications as a policy tool may not appear, at fi rst glance, to be a worthwhile endeavor, it is evident that the lack of public awareness about nanotechnology’s potential applications can hinder its growth and potentially lead to backlash or rejection of the technology [ 9– 10 ]. Disseminating information about such research and potential applications can be a powerful advancement tool, particularly when using interactive, new media outlets, such as podcasts, video links, blogs, and video games. For example, a podcast on nanotechnology and clean water applications—“Plenty of Clean Water at the Nanofrontier” [ 32 ], featuring researcher Eric Hoek (see also Hoek and Ghosh, Chapter 4)—is available online at the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies website. There may also be other strategies—such as a word-of-mouth information campaign focusing on nanotechnology and water—that use the power of personal conversation to spread information about this emerging area of research. Such a word-of-mouth campaign could help diff use knowledge of new ideas by targeting individual trendsetters that can inform larger groups of people through their own infl uential networks. The advantage of launching an informational nanotech campaign on the topic of water applications using word-of-mouth is that the communication infrastructure, know-how, and evaluation systems are already in place, and are rapidly improving. An innovative word-of-mouth campaign could place nanotechnology water applications into the world of everyday conversation, where messages are built on trust and understanding rather than on hype and jargon.
Finally, concerns about potential health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology water applications can be addressed by encouraging companies to undertake robust life cycle assessments (LCAs) of their products before
Savage_Ch33.indd 515
Savage_Ch33.indd 515 11/11/2008 2:33:37 PM11/11/2008 2:33:37 PM
they enter the market. A cradle-to-grave look at the health and environmental impact of a material, chemical, or product, LCAs can be essential tools for ensuring the safe, responsible, and sustainable commercialization of nanotechnology, provide the advantage of making potential problems known early in the innovation process, and encourage confi dence in the consumer that companies have practiced due diligence and foresight. In particular, LCAs conducted in partnership between government and industry—or by independent, third parties—have the power of presenting a degree of objectivity about the scientifi c and technical fi ndings. Such public–private partnerships also encourage the sharing of information among participants, with government gaining early information about new kind of products and with industry gaining experience in responding to and addressing critical questions about environmental safety and health.
Nanotechnology products designed to improve water quality are natural candidates for LCA analysis because they could potentially have long-term eff ects across multiple stages of use, from generation to consumption to disposal. A report from a workshop on this topic, “Nanotechnology and Life Cycle Assessment: A Systems Approach to Nanotechnology and the Environment” [ 33 ], points out that wisely implemented assessment tools, such as LCA, can help enable governments, industry, and consumers to compare the environmental performance of a novel nanotech product with that of conventional products already on the market. However, the report also points out that major future eff orts related to data gathering, protocol implementation, and practical measurement methodologies are needed if potential risks are to be fully addressed by LCAs. Options are available to fi ll in these gaps, through the undertaking of LCA case studies of representative materials and the adoption of standardized LCA reporting mechanisms and terminologies, but action is needed soon if such information is going to signifi cantly impact early stage innovation.