The question was, considering the amount of money invested in nanotechnology, whether there are any results.
First of all, there is investment in nanotechnology not only in the U.S. In fact, government funding in both Europe and Asia is larger than it is in the U.S.
Second, the first activities in nano-EHS started in the U.S. at the National Science Foundation in 2000, when we had program solicitation and a centre created in this area. Initially there was the problem to develop that basic science, and now we have reached the following conclusions. First of all, we have five years of results from a national toxicology program. In 2003 we tested nanoparticles, nanotubes, and quantum dots and we found that the results are so different as a function of particle size that only a predictive approach could address the problem.
Second, you need an integrated approach for different sectors, different materials, and different industries. One cannot solve the problem by testing one by one. This means that one has to develop a system, a theoretical framework, and thereafter have several tests, and the ability to interpolate and extrapolate from that.
At this moment in the U.S., we are also planning to create three centres that are dedicated to modelling and simulation, and that will track predictive approaches for toxicity. The first is at UCLA. The second is at Rice University, and the third is at Duke University. Also, we plan to expand the user facilities where the general knowledge is shared. And we have two user facilities supported by NSF and one by NIH so far.
That means that for the long term, I think more international collaboration is needed because of the large amount of work involved in testing. At the same time, you cannot jump the science. Even if one puts in ten times more money, the advancement will not be ten times faster, because you need to develop that basic knowledge, for instance, about particles and cell interaction, different tools, and different modelling techniques. So I think it is a continuing process.
Thank you.