wolbring

Posts Tagged ‘Law’

Bill Introduced to Ensure Safety of Nanotechnology, Transparency of Research, USA

In Law, nano, Nanoscale, NBICS on January 15, 2009 at 11:13 pm

(Washington, DC, January 15, 2009) – Today, the House Science and
Technology Committee introduced H.R. 554, National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2009
. Identical to H.R. 5940
, which passed
the 110th Congress
by 407 to
6, H.R. 554 will strengthen and provide transparency to the federal
research effort to understand the potential environmental, health, and
safety risks of nanotechnology. It requires the agencies participating
in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to develop a plan for
the environmental and safety research, and a roadmap for implementing
it, which includes explicit near-term and long-term goals and the
funding required, by goal and by agency. The bill also seeks to leverage
private sector investments in nanotechnology and facilitate technology
transfer by strengthening public/private partnerships.

“The range of potential applications of nanotechnology is broad-from
solar cells to sunscreen, from electronics to energy transformation and
storage, to medicine and health,” stated Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN).
“It is important that potential downsides of the technology be addressed
from the beginning in a straightforward and open way, both to protect
the public health and to allay any concerns about the validity of the
results. A thorough, transparent process that ensures the safety of new
products will allow both the business community and the public to
benefit from the development of these new technologies.”

The NNI is multi-agency federal research program established in 2003
though the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003 (P.L.
108-153). It addresses all aspects of nanotechnology, including
environmental, health and safety (EHS) research. A December 2008
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report concluded that the NNI still
lacks an adequate strategic plan and planning process for EHS research.
Over the past several years the House Science and Technology Committee
has carried out numerous oversight activities to encourage the
development and implementation of such a plan, with limited success.
H.R. 554 addresses the key recommendations in the NAS report. In
addition, the legislation requires that responsibility for overseeing
the development and implementation of an EHS research plan be assigned
to a single senior official at the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.

The legislation originally developed from the recommendations from other
formal reviews of NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and the
advisory panel of NNI.

Please see the Committee’s website
for more information on the
Committee’s work on Nanotechnology in the 110th Congress, including
hearings
and markups
.

Bill Introduced to Ensure Safety of Nanotechnology, Transparency of
Research

(Washington, DC, January 15, 2009) – Today, the House Science and
Technology Committee introduced H.R. 554, National Nanotechnology
Initiative Amendments Act of 2009
. Identical to H.R. 5940
, which passed
the 110th Congress
by 407 to
6, H.R. 554 will strengthen and provide transparency to the federal
research effort to understand the potential environmental, health, and
safety risks of nanotechnology. It requires the agencies participating
in the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) to develop a plan for
the environmental and safety research, and a roadmap for implementing
it, which includes explicit near-term and long-term goals and the
funding required, by goal and by agency. The bill also seeks to leverage
private sector investments in nanotechnology and facilitate technology
transfer by strengthening public/private partnerships.

“The range of potential applications of nanotechnology is broad-from
solar cells to sunscreen, from electronics to energy transformation and
storage, to medicine and health,” stated Chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN).
“It is important that potential downsides of the technology be addressed
from the beginning in a straightforward and open way, both to protect
the public health and to allay any concerns about the validity of the
results. A thorough, transparent process that ensures the safety of new
products will allow both the business community and the public to
benefit from the development of these new technologies.”

The NNI is multi-agency federal research program established in 2003
though the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of
2003 (P.L.
108-153). It addresses all aspects of nanotechnology, including
environmental, health and safety (EHS) research. A December 2008
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report concluded that the NNI still
lacks an adequate strategic plan and planning process for EHS research.
Over the past several years the House Science and Technology Committee
has carried out numerous oversight activities to encourage the
development and implementation of such a plan, with limited success.
H.R. 554 addresses the key recommendations in the NAS report. In
addition, the legislation requires that responsibility for overseeing
the development and implementation of an EHS research plan be assigned
to a single senior official at the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.

The legislation originally developed from the recommendations from other
formal reviews of NNI by the National Academy of Sciences and the
advisory panel of NNI.

Please see the Committee’s website
for more information on the
Committee’s work on Nanotechnology in the 110th Congress, including
hearings
and markups
.

http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2338

No regulatory void on nanotech, says European Commission

In Law, nano, Nanoscale, NBICS on October 13, 2008 at 7:40 pm

While knowledge gaps remain regarding the potential risks of nanotechnologies, the European Commission again expressed confidence that existing EU regulation can be applied to this emerging sector, stressing that the challenge ahead lies in their implementation.
more here

Oscar Pistorius and the Future Nature of Olympic, Paralympic and Other Sports

In Ableism, Bionic, Disabled People, nano on May 20, 2008 at 10:31 pm

in SCRIPT-ed – A Journal of Law, Technology & Society
Gregor Wolbring, pp.139-160

Oscar Pistorius is a Paralympic bionic leg runner and record holder in the 100, 200, and 400 meters who wants to compete in the Olympics. This paper provides an analysis of a) his case; b) the impact of his case on the Olympics, the Paralympics and other –lympics and the relationships between the –lympics; c) the impact on other international and national sports; d) the applicability of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It situates the evaluation of the Pistorius case within the broader doping discourse and the reality that new and emerging science and technology products increasingly generate internal and external human bodily enhancements that go beyond the species-typical, enabling more and more a culture of increasing demand for, and acceptance of modifications of the human body (structure, function, abilities) beyond its species-typical boundaries and the emergence of new social concepts such as transhumanism and the transhumanisation of ableism.

online open access here
Technorati Tags: , , ,

Pistorius decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sports: Some reflection

In Bionic, Disabled People on May 17, 2008 at 1:07 am

see here for the Court of Arbitration for Sports decision
and here the press release

My two main thoughts after reading the ruling and the press release are

1) The ruling I assume will be interpreted to be a ruling against the scientific data claiming that the cheetah legs lead to an unfair advantage. The ruling leaves the door open that one could exclude a runner with prosthetics from competing in a ‘natural leg’ running event if it can be proven that the ‘artificial’ legs lead to an unfair advantage.
This makes sense . So far the process of investigating theses new ‘artificial’ legs is not developed enough to be called a golden standard so its open for interpretations. Once tests are developed that are accepted as the golden standard and they show an unfair advantage one can see that that runner won’t be allowed to run against the ‘biological leg’ runners.

2) However the ruling seems to give the answer to another question. Are the Olympics about athletes who have a body adhering to the norm of the homo sapient species? In other words is the Olympics about athletes with a ‘normal biological body’? The ruling cements the view that the Olympics are not about biological bodies per se. So one can compete in the Olympics independent of whether certain biological parts are replaced by artificial parts.
If the replacement does not lead to a competitive advantage athletes with artificial body parts can compete against athletes where the body part in question is biological and not artificial.
If the replacement does leads to a competitive advantage one could see the ruling opening the door for the scenario where the athletes with artificial body parts compete against each others in the Olympics
whereby the artificial body parts are treated like a pole used in pole vaulting…
Cheers
Gregor

Double-amputee sprinter can pursue Olympic dream: ruling

In Bionic, Disabled People, nano on May 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

In a unanimous ruling, the Court of Arbitration for Sport announced Friday that double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius will have a chance to represent South Africa at the Beijing Olympics this summer.
more here

Environmental Nanotechnology/Nano Environment, Health and Safety Bibliography

In Health, nano on May 15, 2008 at 12:24 am

my April 30 2008 column here

Oscar Pistorius and the Future Nature of Olympic, Paralympic and Other Sports

In Bionic, Disabled People, nano on May 15, 2008 at 12:22 am

in SCRIPT-ed – A Journal of Law, Technology & Society
Gregor Wolbring, pp.139-160

Oscar Pistorius is a Paralympic bionic leg runner and record holder in the 100, 200, and 400 meters who wants to compete in the Olympics. This paper provides an analysis of a) his case; b) the impact of his case on the Olympics, the Paralympics and other –lympics and the relationships between the –lympics; c) the impact on other international and national sports; d) the applicability of the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It situates the evaluation of the Pistorius case within the broader doping discourse and the reality that new and emerging science and technology products increasingly generate internal and external human bodily enhancements that go beyond the species-typical, enabling more and more a culture of increasing demand for, and acceptance of modifications of the human body (structure, function, abilities) beyond its species-typical boundaries and the emergence of new social concepts such as transhumanism and the transhumanisation of ableism.

online open access here

Three article on Genetics

In Disabled People, Health on May 12, 2008 at 2:43 pm

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Genetic, And Moral, Enhancement
online here
From the issue dated May 16, 2008

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Years of Toil in the Lab Yield a New Field
online here
From the issue dated May 16, 2008

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Medical Genetics Is Not Eugenics
online here
From the issue dated May 16, 2008

Groups Demand EPA Stop Sale Of 200+ Potentially Dangerous Nano-Silver Products

In Health, nano on May 4, 2008 at 12:22 am

more here

Code of Conduct Nanotechnology by Swiss Retail Organizations Published

In nano on April 21, 2008 at 3:21 am

morehere

DOE Inspector General report critical of the Energy Department for failing to follow the recommendations of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in protecting workers who work with nanomaterials at DOE facilities.

In Health, nano on April 3, 2008 at 4:28 am

morehere

Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Calls for Nanotechnology Regulation

In nano on April 3, 2008 at 3:51 am

more here

Majority of nanotechnology companies do not perform any form of risk assessment

In Health, nano on April 3, 2008 at 3:49 am

more here

Federal Toxics Reporting Statute Could be Applied to Production and Commercialization of Nanotechnology

In nano on March 1, 2008 at 12:18 am

more here

1st Annual Conference on Nanotechnology Law, Regulation and Policy

In nano on February 18, 2008 at 1:48 am

Co-Sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies In partnership with Arizona State University and Burdock Group
February 28-29, 2008
Program Description

Nanotechnology was incorporated into more than $50 billion in manufactured goods last year, according to Lux Research. By 2014, the market will grow to $2.6 trillion. By 2011, over $15 billion in nano-enabled drugs and therapeutics will be sold—up from more than $3 billion in 2006. And industry experts project that nanotechnology will be incorporated into $20 billion worth of consumer food products by 2010.

Yet, despite this rapid commercialization, no nano-specific regulation exists anywhere in the world. Most regulatory agencies remain in an information-gathering mode—lacking the legal and scientific tools, information and resources they need to adequately oversee exponential nanotechnology market growth.

Now, for the first time, you’ll get to meet all the top officials from these government departments in one place and learn of their plans for regulating food and drug nanotech products. You’ll hear what’s really happening in Europe and Asia, on Wall Street, in the corridors of major corporations, in the more advanced laboratories, at forward-thinking universities and in the halls of Congress.

And you’ll also get the answers to those questions you’ve been talking to your colleagues about for the last several months:

* How is FDA going to implement its Nanotechnology Task Force Report?
* How is OSHA going to deal with nanotech issues in the workplace?
* Is Congress ready to act on nanotechnology if federal regulators don’t?
* What first and second generation nanotechnology products are already on the market, and what’s to come?
* Do Europe and Asia approach nanotechnology safety and oversight differently
than the United States?
* When it comes to nanotechnology, should size make a regulatory difference?

see

New regulations for novel foods proposed

In nano on January 15, 2008 at 2:57 pm

which would include nano…
morehere

Nanomaterials Included on ATSDR List of Proposed Substances for Toxicological Profile Development

In nano on November 3, 2007 at 11:15 pm

more here