Health Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Absolutely.

[Dr. Mihail Roco]

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.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

I have four people who would like to ask questions, and we have about 15 minutes left in our meeting. So I'm going to ask each of the questioners to keep it down to one question. Thank you.

Mr. Dufour.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to begin by saying that this is an extremely interesting debate. I am part of a generation which, to some extent, made its appearance at the same time as nanotechnology. This issue is going to become increasingly important. My comments are along the same lines as those made by Mr. Malo, but I will focus more on the economic side of things.

Do we have any idea of the amount of money invested by companies in nanotechnology? Do we know the size and growth of the investment?

Mrs. Maniet, we have, for the past little while, been discussing Canada compared with Europe, but I would be interested in knowing the differences that exist between the U.S. and Canadian regulations.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Dr. Petersen has an interest in responding.

[Dr. Nils Petersen]

I'll just very briefly respond to the investment side. Today I think it's true that more than half of all investments globally in this technology are by the private sector, so it's clearly a very large amount of money.

The expectation is that there are going to be large profits coming out of this. The current forecast is that it's going to be a multi-trillion-dollar market in the next five or ten years. Mr. Roco might have more specific numbers, but I believe the 2007 profits made out of this were in the multi-hundreds of millions of dollars. People are starting to make money on these things now, so it is an economic driver.

In Alberta alone the aim is to have a $20 billion nano-enabled industry by 2020, so it is a significant economic driver.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Dr. Roco, go ahead, please.

[Dr. Mihail Roco]

I would just add that industry has exceeded federal public investment in nano research and development in 2006. And now in North America and Japan, industry is spending more than the federal government is. Only in Europe, mainly because they supported industry and as a counter-effect, as a negative effect, industry is funding only about half of public money.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Madame Maniet, you had a comment.

[Françoise Maniet]

Yes, but I might disappoint you. Indeed, as far as the American system is concerned, I cannot tell you very much, because my comparative analysis really focused on the European Union and Canada. However, I am going to be working on the third aspect, no doubt starting in September, which will focus on the situation in the United States. The little that I do know leads me to believe that the legal system is more advanced than the one in Canada. That is clear. From what I have heard—and Mr. Roco may be able to confirm this—a few months ago, a bill on nanotechnology products was tabled. I think that it will be really worthwhile to follow developments in this area.

To complete what Mr. Roco was saying, generally speaking, environmental and health risks are the subject of numerous studies in the United States. I have noted that it is the United States that is carrying out 56% of the funded studies on health and environmental risks in the world. The Americans really are well ahead of everyone else in terms of the toxicity analysis of nanoparticles.

As for the more economic aspect of the question, I am not in any position to respond because it is really difficult to have an overall view of the investments made in Canada by both the private and public sectors. Indeed, there is no coordinated system for nanotechnology research. However, I do know that in Europe, only 5% of the total nanotechnology research budget is earmarked for health and safety issues. I believe that Mr. Roco talked about 8% in the case of the United States, but perhaps I misunderstood.

In a nutshell, 5% is really very little. The primary focus is the development of nanotechnologies, but the issue of toxicity is set aside. Now I believe that everyone agrees that we need to earmark more money for these issues. That is about all I can tell you on the issue.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thank you.

Dr. Carrie.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I will try to be as quick as I possibly can.

I want to thank all the witnesses for finally being here. This is a topic that I've been very much interested in for some time. To have you actually in front of the committee is wonderful. I hope that this is really more or less an introductory group, and that perhaps in the future we may be able to sit down and talk in a little more detail on this.

Some of the reading I've done has had to do with innovation and with the potential for different industries--cancer therapies, pharmaceuticals, things along those lines. I'm wondering if you could tease us a little bit here in committee and just tell us some of the things that you see coming over the horizon, some of the innovation that's happening, some of the successes that we've had around the world.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Would anybody like to address that?

Dr. Petersen.

[Dr. Nils Petersen]

I'd be happy to stick my neck out first.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Sure.

[Dr. Nils Petersen]

We think about it in three phases. The first one is products already on the market. These are the low-hanging fruit--the cosmetics industry, some of the food industry, and so on--or what we think about as the trivial applications of nanotechnology.

For the next decade or so, we think about the introduction of new materials, new products, in existing consumer products. It would be a better cellphone, a faster cellphone, or a better computer and what not. It would be developing the technology in a different way within that scale frame of what we know.

When you go another 15 to 20 years down the road, we're looking at what we think about as the transformative aspects of nanotechnology, where we start getting into “smart” things--things that are self-regulating, self-propelling, and what not.

For example, we have at our institute a person who is looking at what he thinks about as an intelligent nanoparticle. It doesn't have self-intelligence, but nevertheless.... The idea is to have multiple functions in it. On the one hand, it will be used as a tool that will target itself to a particular part of the body. When it's there, it will be used as a signal to tell you that it's there, and when it is there and you know where it is, you can use it as a therapeutic agent. So it's building multi-functionality into a small device that can then function in that regard.

I think there's lots of excitement in the health area. I think we'll see lots in the energy sector. We also see an emerging bio-materials sector. We're starting to look at using sustainable green resources, such as trees and plants, to replace the hydrocarbon sources that we're currently using from the oil. This is a matter of trying to get materials into the production line and taking it from sustainable sources.

So there's a....

I could go on for hours, but I won't.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Thanks.

Dr. Duncan, it's your turn.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses.

This has been wonderful.

I have so many questions. I'm wondering whether I may do a brain dump and just put the questions on the table. May I do that? We could get any of the answers tabled.

Is that okay?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Well, what's the primary question you would like discussed?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

I think I'd really just like to put a batch of questions out there. Can I do that?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Sure.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay.

I'm wondering what the long-term health studies are on the issue. Are we getting the first studies out? What do the animal studies show? It's such important technology, but I think we need to know that.

I'm wondering what specific federal agencies are working to address the issues related to the impact of nanomaterials on human health and the environment. What's our current spending on health safety and environmental research and our current spending on nanotechnology research?

I'm wondering what systems, if any, are currently in place for evaluating whether to proceed with projects involving nanoparticles--for example, the DuPont system.

Do cosmetic drugs or other products manufactured with nanotechnology require special regulations or labelling?

There are a couple of others.

What monitoring and protective strategies are already in place, and what might we need for the future of industrial hygiene and nanotech?

What is currently known about engineered nano-material hazards and measures that can be taken to minimize workplace exposures, including occupational health surveillance, exposure assessment, exposure control procedures? And what recommendations has the government made?

I have one last one.

Do we have guidance concerning medical screening of workers potentially exposed to engineered nanoparticles in the manufacture and industrial use of nanomaterials?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Joyce Murray]

Which one of those would you like answered?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

It's such an important subject. I'll just pick one: the issue around regulation of cosmetics and drugs. What regulations are needed, if any?