Copyright 2003 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved.
June 30, 2003
On May 1, the House Science Committee marked up H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, which would authorize $2.4 billion in federal research funds through fiscal year (FY) 2006 in support of interagency nanotechnology activities. On June 19, the Senate Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee marked up the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (S. 189). While both chambers strongly endorse the field of nanotechnology, the events highlight differences within Congress over funding for research into ethical and societal impacts.
By far the most interesting engagement during the House mark-up centered around an amendment sponsored by Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Chris Bell (D-TX) that would have devoted 5 percent of the total federal nanotechnology budget to research into the ethical, legal, and societal impacts (commonly referred to as ELSI). The 5 percent allocation mirrors a similar set-aside for ELSI programs in the interagency Human Genome Project established in 1988.
Opponents to the Sherman/Bell amendment, such as Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), argued that such a percentage was arbitrary and unnecessary in light of statutory language in H.R. 766 that federal programs include activities that "ensure that societal and ethical concerns…will be addressed as the technology is developed."
Others, such as Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Joe Barton (R-TX), raised the specter of establishing a "social elite" of PhDs analyzing societal implications that, according to their view, should be done by the public-at-large. "We don't need a bunch of pontificators," argued Rep. Rohrabacher. He further noted that it is also the role of Congress to debate and determine ethical issues.
Rep. Baird, who is a PhD psychologist, was quick to come to the defense of social scientists. "I'd like to disassociate myself from my colleague's comments," he stated. "We need bright people" in order to realize the full potential of this burgeoning field. Baird further emphasized that as a member of the House Science Committee "we should not demean the contributions of scientists."
Ultimately, the Sherman/Bell amendment failed to pass, but this did not stop the debate on ethical issues from creeping back onto the House floor. During intense discussions over an amendment introduced by Rep. Bell to require the inclusion of toxicological and environmental impact studies, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) opined, "I want to make sure we are not turning loose upon the world a molecular, atomic kudzu." The Bell amendment was rejected by a vote of 214-209, but the bill as a whole passed the House by a wide margin, on a vote of 405-19.
Nanotechnology research involves manipulating matter at the atomic and molecular level. One nanometer is a billionth of a meter. Researchers foresee promising applications in a diverse array of science and engineering fields, including electronics, medicine, and environmental technology. Proponents of nanotechnology envision improved water filtration devices for cleaning the environment, and nano-sized robots injected into the body that can deliver drugs to targeted cells.
Others, however, express concern that unleashing these promising products prematurely could unintentionally lead to new health and environmental hazards that science and society will be ill-prepared to handle.
While the House bill places the responsibility of defining and managing ELSI issues among the participating agencies to be coordinated through an Interagency Committee, the Senate bill would elevate the ethical and societal components of the federal program.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, introduced by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and George Allen (R-VA), would create a separate American Nanotechnology Preparedness Center funded through the National Science Foundation at $5 million annually. Such a center would conduct studies to help decision-makers better anticipate ELSI issues likely to arise as the field matures.
The center was heartily endorsed by Dr. Davis Baird, a professor of philosophy at the University of South Carolina, who stated at a May 1 Senate hearing that it was "important for a centralized voice to be heard above the roar of science" when considering the ethical and social implications of nanotechnology.
The House bill authorizes three-year funding for NSF, the Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and Environmental Protection Agency between FY 2004-2006. The Senate bill would also extend authorization to the National Institutes of Health, Department of Justice, Department of Transportation, and Department of Agriculture. When initially introduced, the Senate bill provided funding for a single year at $677 million. During the June mark up, they passed an amended version that would authorize a $4.7 billion program over a five-year period beginning in FY 2004.
Another key difference between the House and Senate legislative visions is the management and composition of an external advisory committee to provide oversight and assessment of the progress of the interagency research programs. The House bill would give responsibility to the existing President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), who would tap nanotechnology and ethical experts as appropriate. The Wyden bill, on the other hand, would create a separate stand-alone National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel that would include such experts as part of its membership.
PCAST has already taken steps to establish its role as an oversight committee. At a June 10 meeting, it discussed a Nanotechnology Work Plan. The plan includes the creation of three task forces comprised of PCAST members, each to explore a special topic: Materials/Electronics/Photonics, Energy/Environment, and Medical/Bio/Social.
There was no word as to when the Senate bill will go to the floor or a conference committee is likely to convene, but aides in both the House and Senate acknowledge that they must reconcile numerous differences before any bill can be signed into law. •••[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Copyright 2003 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. |