8:30 – 9:00 a.m.

Welcoming Remarks

Richard Appelbaum, CNS-UCSB, Conference Organizer

Richard Freeman, Harvard University Labor and Worklife Program

Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director, CNS-UCSB

Michael Witherell, Vice Chancellor of Research, UCSB

9:00 – 10:40 a.m.

Session 1: What is Nanotechnology and What Are the Workplace Risks?

Moderator:

Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director, UCSB Center for Nanotechnology in Society; Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Anthropology, UC Santa Barbara

Presenters:

Brad Chmelka, Professor of Chemical Engineering, UC Santa Barbara. “What is Nanotechnology, and Why Does It Matter?”

John Froines, Director, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and Professor of Environmental Health and Safety, UCLA. “Nanotechnology – How to Define Risks and Control Them”

Paul Schulte, Coordinator, NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Director, NIOSH Education and Information Division (EID). “Potential Workplace Hazards of Nanotechnology”

Commentators:

John Monica, Partner, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP; Defends national and international products liability claims for Fortune 500 companies

David Weil, Professor of Economics, Boston University and Co-Director, Transparency Policy Project at Harvard University Kennedy School of Government

Jackie Nowell, Director, Occupational Health and Safety Office, United Food and Commercial Workers

10:40 – 10:50 a.m.

Morning Break

 
10:50 a.m. – 12:40 p.m.

Session 2: Present and Future Nanoparticle Risk Measurement

Moderator:
John Froines, Professor of Environmental Health and Safety; Director, UCLA  Centers for Occupational and Environmental Health, Southern California Particle Center, and Fogarty Program in Occupational and Environmental Health

Presenters:

Andre Nel, Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of NanoMedicine, UCLA; Director, Cellular Immunology Activation Laboratory in the Johnson Cancer Center and the Laboratory for Nanosafety Research and Testing in the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI), UCLA. “Predictive Toxicological Paradigms for the Assessment of Nanoparticle Toxicity.”

Vince Castranova, Chief of Pathology and Physiology Research Branch, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. “Critical Toxicity Parameters for Nanoparticles vs. Conventional Particles”

Patricia Holden, Professor of Environmental Microbiology, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, UC Santa Barbara; Lead PI, ICON-CNS Study of Nanotechnology in the Workplace. “Environmental Considerations in Nanomaterials Health and Safety”

Lynne Zucker, Director of the Center for International Science, Technology, and Cultural Policy and Professor of Sociology, UCLA; Research associate, National Bureau of Economic Research; Michael Darby, Professor of Policy and Director of the John M. Olin Center for Policy, UCLA; Ali Emre Uyar, Postdoctoral Researcher, UCLA. “Commercial Adoption of Nano-Titanium Dioxide Production”

Commentator:

Frank Mirer, Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health, Hunter College at City University of New York

12:40 – 1:30 p.m.

Lunch, Lagoon Plaza (Behind Corwin Pavilion)

1:30 – 3:45 p.m.

Session 3: Lessons of History and Aspects of Workplace Risks

Moderator:

John (Jack) Trumpbour, Research Director, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard University

Presenters:

Gerald Markowitz, Professor of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Graduate Center, City University of New York. “‘A Gift of God?’ The Promise and Peril of New Technologies in the 20th Century”

Barbara Herr Harthorn, Director, NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and Anthropology, UC Santa Barbara. “Biased Judgment About Risk as a Regulatory Matter”

Claire Auplat, Postdoctoral Researcher, Imperial College. “Risk Management and Institutional Emergence in Nanotechnologies: Looking at Public Engagement Experiences”

Vivian Weil, Director, Center for Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology. “Report on NanoEthicsBank Survey of Workplace Safety Policies in Nanotechnology Businesses”

Thomas K. Epprecht, Director, Swiss Reinsurance Company. “Risk Governance and Risk Dialogue – an Insurer’s View”

Bill Freudenburg, Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology, UC Santa Barbara. “What the Field of Nanotechnology Can Learn from the Nuclear Power Experience”

3:45 – 4:00 p.m.

Afternoon Break

4:00 – 5:45 p.m.

Session 4: Current Regulatory Practice Framework: What Would Informed Policy Approaches Look Like?

Co-Moderators:

Elaine Bernard, Executive Director, Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program

John Froines, Director, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and Professor of Environmental Health and Safety, UCLA

Presenters:

Jim Willis, Division Director, Chemical Control Division of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “EPA and Nanotechnology”

Larry Busch, Professor of Sociology, Michigan State University. “Problems and Prospects of Nanotechnologies in the Workplace”

Michele L. Ostraat, Principal Investigator & NOSH Consortium Technical Leader, DuPont Engineering Research and Technology. “DuPont-Environmental Defense Nanorisk Framework and the Nanoparticle Occupational Safety and Health Consortium”

John Barlow Weiner, Associate Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration. “FDA Nanotechnology Report on Oversight for FDA Regulated Products That Use Nanotechnology”

Commentator:

Lee Dillard Adams, Deputy Regional Director, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

5:45 – 7:00 p.m.

Evening Reception, Corwin Pavilion

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Dinner and Keynote Address

Nano: “We Are What We Were Then”

Joan Denton, Director, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), State of California and Member, California Green Chemistry Leadership CouncilSaturday, November 17MultiCultural Center Theater

8:45 – 10:30 a.m.

Session 5: The Global Context

Moderator:

Richard P. Appelbaum, Co-Principal Investigator, NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society; Professor of Sociology and Global and International Studies, UC Santa Barbara

Presenters:

Joe Conti, Graduate Research Fellow with the NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society and Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Sociology, UC Santa Barbara. “Report on ICON’s ‘Survey of Current Practices in the Nanotechnology Workplace’”

Jaideep Raje, Analyst, Lux Research, Inc. “The Developing Nanotechnology Occupational Safety and Health Landscape”

Nancy J. Jennerjohn, Ph.D. Student, Environmental Health Sciences, UCLA; research centers on the lab-based generation of aerosols containing nanoparticles for characterization. “Report from the 3rd International Symposium on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health, August 2007, Taipei”

Garrett Brown, Inspector, Cal OSHA and Coordinator, Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network. “Whatever the Regulations – Will There Be Any Real Enforcement?”

Commentator:

Kevin Rowan, Regional Secretary, North British Trades Union Congress (representing some 69 trade unions and half a million trade union members in the north of England)

10:30 – 10:45 a.m.

Morning Break

10:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.

Session 6: Benefits Enhancement and Risk Reduction

Moderator:

Michael Darby, Professor of Policy and Director of the John M. Olin Center for Policy, UCLA

Presenters:

Susan Hackwood, Professor of Electrical Engineering at UC Riverside and Executive Director of the California Council of Science and Technology. “Nano Takes Root In California: Benefits, Enhancements and Risk Reduction”
Sam Lipson, Director of Environmental Health, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts. “Local Oversight of Emerging Technologies: The Cambridge Experiment”

Javiera Barandiaran, MPP Candidate, Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley. and Coordinator, Roundtable on the Environmental Risks of Nanotechnology. “Local Disclosure Ordinances as Regulatory Catalysts: Early Insights from the Berkeley, California Nanoscale Materials Ordinance”

Jacqueline Isaacs, Associate Director, Center for High-Rate Nano-Manufacturing, Northeastern University. “Modeling Uncertain Health Impacts and Production Costs of SWNT Manufacturing”

Commentator:
John (Jack) Trumpbour, Research Director, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard University

12:30 – 1:30 p.m.

Lunch, Lagoon Plaza (Behind Corwin Pavilion)

1:30 – 3:00 p.m.

Session 7: Looking to the Future: Health and Safety in the Lab and Workplace; Final Thoughts

Moderator:

John (Jack) Trumpbour, Research Director, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard University

Presenters:

Jeffrey Birkner, Vice President, Technical Services, Moldex-Metrix, Inc. “Current Respiratory Protection Standards and Devices:  Can They Meet the Needs for Nanoparticle Exposures?”

Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics, Harvard University; Co-Director, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School. “Always Read the Small Print: Economics of Risk Assessment in Nanotech OSHA Issues”

Commentator:

Nancy Lessin, Health and Safety Consultant, United Steelworkers

John Froines, Director, Center for Occupational and Environmental Health and Professor of Environmental Health and Safety, UCLA.

3:30 – 4:30

Exhibit Tour (for those who are interested): “Too Small To See”

(Traveling Exhibit on Nanoscale Science Education)

California NanoSystems Institute, UC Santa Barbara

Abstracts

Session 1: What is Nanotechnology and What are the Workplace and Laboratory Risks?

Nanotechnology - How to Define Risks and Control Them

The purpose of this presentation is to define a series of issues and questions that will have to be addressed as the society moves forward to implement the promise of nanotechnology and limit health consequences associated with exposure to potentially toxic materials.  The talk will briefly review the status of our knowledge of carbon nanotubes and suggest there are concerns for workers health from exposure.  The traditional approach to regulatory strategies will be reviewed with comments on the scope of standards that have been addressed, the limitations of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the findings of the recent National Academy of Sciences on new approaches to toxicity testing.  The needs for toxicity evaluation and risk assessment will be addressed.  Finally, there will be an argument presented that suggests the need for a broad based governance structure to cope with long term public health protection.

In the workplace, the primary health concern about nanotechnology pertains to exposure to engineered nanoparticles.  The basis for the concern derives from two bodies of evidence.  One is a history of human and animal research on fine and ultrafine incidental particles that demonstrates pulmonary and cardiovascular effects from exposure.  The second is the relatively recent experimental investigations of engineered nanoparticles in various animal models that show a variety of serious pulmonary and cardiovascular effects and the capability of entering the systemic circulation and reaching various organ systems.  The body of scientific evidence suggests that the biological activity and potential toxicity of nanoparticles are greater than larger particles of the same material (on an equivalent mass basis).  However, the impact of particle size on biological activity may be influenced by other parameters such as surface reactivity, functional group attachments, and other physico-chemical characteristics of the particles.  Although much more research is needed to identify and characterize hazards, extent of exposures and degree of risk, there is sufficient information to warrant that exposures be strictly controlled.  In general, airborne nanoparticles appear to conform to the laws of classic aerosol physics and should be amenable to control by conventional dust control measures; however, the limits of these controls and other mitigating factors still need to be determined.  Additionally, the potential for skin exposure and absorption of engineered nanoparticles is not well understood but preliminary research indicates that nanoparticles can penetrate some protective clothing and the skin.  Also, studies of neuronal translocation of nanoparticles to the brain require further investigation.  All of these findings and conclusions pertain to the first generation of passive nanoparticles.  It is not known if the ensuing generations of engineered nanoparticles which will have various interactive capabilities will present additional hazards.

Because of the large number of new nanomaterials that are being produced, it is of increasing importance to develop a platform for safety and risk assessment.  It is probably not advisable to follow the example of chemical industry where the production of more than 80,000 industrial chemicals has overwhelmed toxicological screening capabilities. Toxicity testing has only been achieved for a few hundred chemicals and as a result, new examples of chemical toxicity show up every year, often with devastating consequences to humans and the environment. One of the principal stumbling blocks in assessing chemical toxicity has been the cost and the logistics to perform animal and in vivo studies. An intuitively more enlightened approach for nanotechnology would be to develop high throughput screening methods that incorporate a relevant toxicological injury mechanisms that can be related to the physicochemical properties of nanomaterials. 

I will discuss the emerging paradigms of toxicity that can be linked to the physicochemical properties of engineered nanoparticles with a view to outlining scientific principles that originate at the nano/bio interface and could determine whether interactions fail to occur, are biocompatible or injurious in nature. The major toxicological paradigm that have emerged from nanoparticle toxicity relates to the semiconductor, electronic, UV activation, and redox cycling chemistry of the particles, which allows them to induce tissue damage through the generation of oxygen radicals, electron-hole pairs and oxidant injury.  It is possible to follow the oxygen radical generation and oxidant stress injury by abiotic methods as well as a set of hierarchical cellular responses that reflect protective, pro-inflammatory, mitochondrial damaging and pro-apoptotic outcomes.  An oxidant injury pathway could translate into adaptive, pro-inflammatory or pro-apoptotic cellular effects in the lung, cardiovascular system, skin and the brain.  Another important paradigm relates to the ability of nanoparticles to absorb circulatory or cellular proteins as a function of particle size, surface area, functionalized surface groups, charge, hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity etc. This could induce protein unfolding, protein fibrillation, thiol crosslinking and loss of function, which could lead to neurotoxicity, loss of enzymatic activity, and generation of immunological responses.  The thermodynamic properties and free surface energy of nanoparticles as a function of particle size, composition, phase and crystallinity could be responsible for particle dissolution in a biological environment, leading to the generation of cytotoxicity through the release of toxic ions or chemicals.  Data are also emerging that indicate that cationic nanoparticles exert toxicity through the so-called proton sponge hypothesis, which postulates that particle uptake via acidifying endosomes leads to cellular toxicity through endosomal rupture, cytosolic deposition and mitochondrial targeting. The particle size, state of aggregation/dispersion, functional surface groups and hydrophobicity also plays an important role in determining the route of cellular uptake, subcellular localization and targeting of subcellular organelles. 

I will demonstrate that it is possible to devise high throughput screening methods to capture each of these toxicological mechanisms, which can then be used to classify nanoparticles into potentially hazardous and potentially safe.  If used as a preliminary screen for newly emerging nanomaterials, these predictive science-based approaches can help to determine which materials should undergo priority testing in animal and in vivo exposure models. The knowledge gained from this approach will also reveal which nanomaterial properties are useful to promote biocompatibility.

Nanotechnology is a system of innovative methods to control and manipulate matter at the near-atomic scale to produce new materials, structures, and devises.  Nanoparticles are a specific class or subset of these new materials, having at least one dimension that is less than 100 nanometers.  Nanoparticles exhibit unique physical and chemical properties due to their nanoscale dimensions.  Nanotechnology offers the potential for tremendous improvements and advances in many areas that may benefit society, such as integrated sensors, semiconductors, medical imaging, drug delivery, structural materials, sunscreens, cosmetics, coatings, environmental remediation, and many other uses.  Nanotechnology is one of the most rapidly growing industries across the world.  By 2015, the global market for nanomaterials and nanotechnology-related products is expected to reach $1 trillion and employ 1 million workers in the United States alone. 

Because of their small size and large surface area, engineered nanoparticles may have chemical, physical, and biological properties distinctly different than fine particles of the same composition.  Such properties may include a high rate of pulmonary deposition, the ability to translocate from the lung to systemic sites, the ability to penetrate dermal barriers, and a high inflammatory potency per mass.
 
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has developed a Nanotechnology Safety and Health Research Program in 2004.  This Program involves multi-disciplinary research in development of methods to measure and characterize nanoparticles, exposure assessment, hazard identification, and risk assessment.  This presentation will describe NIOSH research concerning the pulmonary, cardiovascular, central nervous system, and dermal effects of exposure to various nanoparticles.

The external environment constitutes an important destination for engineered nanomaterials with many and diverse implications for human society.  Benefits of nanomaterials and nanotechnology broadly to the environment are in environmental quality and pollution monitoring, pollution cleanup or remediation, clean energy production, energy conservation, and efficient water purification.  Such beneficial applications involve deployment of nanomaterials into air, water or soil either as nano-sized particulates or embedded within matrices.  As with any manufactured material either deployed or released into the environment, additional considerations regard the spatial extent of either controlled or uncontrolled transmission, physical or chemical modifications, longevity, effects on organisms by either native or modified forms, and society’s ability to manage outcomes when needed.  In this presentation, environmental benefits and concerns of engineered nanomaterials are reviewed.  Primary data in support of relevant potential biological interactions in the environment are used to exemplify specific nanomaterials fates.  Additional environmental considerations, beyond those commonly delineated in the nano-safety and risk literature, are discussed.  Needs for new information are suggested against the backdrop of how society already manages analogous concerns with existing, particulate and non-particulate, industrial materials. 

This paper will investigate trends in commercial Titanium dioxide (TiO2) usage in nanotechnology related applications as well as make projections about the rate of adoption as the TiO2 industry transforms from traditional to increasingly nano-based. The purpose is to produce a reasonable upper bound for nano-TiO2 usage in the coming years to be used in toxic risk assessments.
 
Being an innovation driven field, traces of future trends in commercial nanotechnology applications can be found in the past indicators of knowledge accumulation. Using USPTO patents by application date, articles published in academic journals by affiliated scientists, and awarded government grants, we deduce how the amount of innovative activity in titanium dioxide moves from traditional areas to new, nanotechnology specific uses. Comparing this rate of transformation in innovation to those of other high-tech fields (such as biotechnology) enables us to make estimations about the rate of transformation in production. These estimates are used to produce projections about the share of nano-specific activity within the total TiO2 production. We argue why the estimates provide reasonable upper bounds for future nano-TiO2 usage and how they can provide a reasonable basis for assessing the potential toxic and/or exposure risk in the near future.

This presentation will explore cases from the twentieth century where new technologies or substances have been adopted and how public health and industry representatives have struggled over the potential harms and benefits of such changes. It will explore the historical antecedents of the modern arguments over the precautionary principle and specifically, the tension between public health principles and the interests of corporations who have extolled the benefits of new technologies and argued that their economic interested should not be undermined until science has proven that their new product or technology is dangerous.  

Science, government, and industry are all concerned about the possibilities for social amplification of nanotech risk perception among the US public. Congressional aims for nano societal implications research “to avoid public misunderstanding” and mandated public participation in nanotech R&D reflect such concerns, and the CNS-UCSB is engaged in the study of nanotechnologies’ potential for such amplification.

However, lessons from other worker risk perception research point to a far less frequently discussed problem in hazards research—that of the attenuation of risk. California farmworkers exposed to agricultural chemicals in the workplace display forms of attenuated risk perception (optimistic bias) about their exposures and likelihood of sustaining harm. California’s pesticide regulation system is widely regarded as the best in the country, yet worker exposures are frequent and many go undocumented. Consistent with the privatization of risk in many other spheres of society, strong emphasis has been placed on worker self protection as the preferred method to reduce workplace exposures. However, workers displaying optimistic bias about risks are not going to take self protective measures. Similarly, attenuation of perceived risk is a widespread finding among many kinds of experts. If neither experts nor workers in the nanotech context are likely to engage in adequate self and other protection from workplace exposure risks, then such protection should be a matter for policy makers.

The purpose of this paper is to explore new dynamics in risk management around the development of nanotechnologies. The development of any new technology raises issues relating to the process of measuring or assessing risk and developing strategies to manage it. Nanostructures are at present difficult to measure or assess. Indeed, a consideration of the possible risks presented by these emerging technologies is taking place at the very early stages of their trajectories, in many cases before commercialization and large-scale production. We first outline what makes nanotechnology applications different from previous innovations, particularly in terms of metrology and risk assessment. Then, we analyse two public engagement experiments undertaken in the last five years in the nanotechnology field and how these relate to the emergence of new dynamics in risk management. We show that the development of nanotechnologies appears to have engendered an aggregation of the expectations of the various stakeholders which is shaping the institutional responses to challenges posed by these technologies.

The focus on occupational health and safety must include attention to workplace practices. Standards of care announced or embedded in workplace practices are especially important in the face of rapidly advancing nanotechnology commercialization. These standards are even more crucial when, as now, there is little government regulation and little is known about health effects on humans. Workplace safety policies express standards of care and levels of commitment to responsible practice in the workplace. Hence, such policies should be looked at with regard to two related concerns: occupational health and safety and responsible workplace practices.

A major contribution from the Illinois Institute of Technology component of the Harvard/UCLA CNS NSEC is the creation of NanoEthicsBank (NEB), an innovative, selective database of ethics-related material. In the course of developing NEB, the librarian of the IIT Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions conducted a survey of nanotechnology businesses to learn about their workplace safety policies. Questionnaires prepared in consultation with social scientists were sent to 300 companies (76% U.S., 24 % international) selected from the NEB and a directory of firms and startups on Nanotechnology Now Web site. Companies ranged from large multinationals to small startups, chosen neither by type of product nor size of company.

The response rate of 12% requires caution in interpreting results, but responses nevertheless merit attention. 40% of the companies surveyed reported frequently carrying on discussions about potential problems and 46 % reported having adopted workplace safety guidelines. Yet, 30% included written comments explaining that their nanotechnology was unlikely to pose health or environmental risks.  Respondents worried that the entire field of nanotechnology might become over-regulated because, as one respondent stated, “We’re concerned that guidelines will be developed for nanotechnology that are narrowly applicable to nanoparticles.”
 
Rather than picking up the questionnaire’s slant toward voluntary standards, these respondents voice a familiar business concern about prospective restrictions from government regulation. Applying the famously ambiguous term ‘nanotechnology’ to their enterprises, the responders apparently want to exempt their activities from regulation that they seem to admit is appropriate for nanoparticles.  As observers note, the definition of ‘nanotechnology’ is both “contentious and consequential” (Davies, J.C. 2007 EPA and Nanotechnology:  Oversight for the 21st Century. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: Washington, DC. ) There is no settled definition, and how it is defined has consequences for the management, marketing, and oversight of nanotechnology.

Regarding voluntary standards, a future task for NEB is to seek applicable existing statements of good practices (e.g., from the chemical industry) and examples of nanotechnology companies that foster good practices. Regarding the definition of ‘nanotechnology’, the efforts of standards setting organizations may help to produce agreement. Conferences such as this may contribute needed clarification.

Nanomaterials are opening up opportunities that seem as limitless as the nanometre is minuscule. Enthusiasm has spread beyond the small group of nano-experts to growing numbers in the business and scientific communities who claim that a real industrial revolution is under way, embracing one sector after another.

Some of this is hype; much is not – and great opportunity is always accompanied by risk. Insurers, as risk-carriers, must be able to recognize and understand emerging risks; only in that way will they be in a position to safeguard their clients over the long term against the financial consequences of adverse events, and so enable economy and society to take the risks that allow them to move forward.

Nanotechnology currently occupies a position with more than a little resemblance to a status that nuclear technologies once enjoyed.  This may seem surprising, given that nuclear power may offer the 20th Century’s clearest illustration of the loss of scientific credibility, but for decades after the splitting of the atom, nuclear technologies enjoyed widespread and even enthusiastic support, being endorsed not just by the scientific elite, but also by many of the leading environmental activists of the day, including the Sierra Club.  Nuclear technology was also supported by a “public education” budget that present-day proponents of nanotechnology can only envy —- all during the pre-Watergate years when the government enjoyed considerably more credibility than it does today.

The high levels of public support continued for roughly forty years.  The support, however, quickly became a matter of history after less favorable kinds of “education” were produced by what Slovic has called “signal” events —- those sending “signals” that nuclear technologies were not being managed with the degree of vigilance that the public saw as being necessary.

As the nuclear experience illustrates, trust is easy to lose, but difficult to build —- even for a field of technology that initially appears to have a nearly boundless future.  Given that a small number of unfortunate incidents can create a major problem of credibility, it stands to reason that the persons with the strongest incentives for preventing even “minor” lapses in the protection of human health and the environment would be precisely those who care the most about the long-term future of nanotechnology.

 
In early 2007 EPA issued a white paper on nanotechnology describing the Agency’s science and research needs to support EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment.  The white paper has provided a springboard for cross-agency engagement in a number of areas, including the review of new chemical nanomaterials before they come onto the market; the development of a nanoscale material stewardship program (NMSP) to get reporting on and testing of nanomaterials currently on the market; the exploration of life-cycle issues associated with nanomaterial manufacture and use; and, international leadership through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in advancing international cooperation, harmonization and burden sharing in understanding and mitigating the potential risks of nanomaterials to human health and the environment.  The presentation will describe these initiatives and provide a forward-looking report on their status and future development. 

The world of Occupational Health and Safety (OSH) is changing rapidly.  The global socioeconomic environment for OSH is shifting as a result of increased trade.  The boundaries and limits of risk analysis are shifting as national and sectoral differences become more apparent and legal frameworks are modified.  Similarly, the tools and techniques of risk analysis are not themselves static but are in flux.  In addition, the technologies of governance are changing as much of the world moves from direct government regulation to certification and accreditation with government oversight.  Furthermore, the new nanotechnologies pose a number of critical issues for OSH in that they (1) are largely novel and as yet ill-defined, (2) demand the creation of new or modified measurements and measuring devices, and (3) are peculiarly reflexive in the sense that they may be used to enhance measurement of and testing for OSH, and perhaps to improve OSH even as they pose OSH issues.  Finally, these technologies raise important issues of control over testing:  As nanotechnologies shrink the size and reduce the cost and time involved in testing – as agencies can be put on a chip – who will control which tests will likely be highly contested.  An informed policy would be based in part on the expectation that the current tools, organization, and division of labor for OSH is likely to change, perhaps in some unpredictable ways.

This presentation will discuss two collaborative efforts, including i) the development of a versatile and flexible Nanorisk Framework for evaluating and addressing the potential risks of nanoscale materials and ii) the findings from a multi-stakeholder consortium that focuses research on occupational safety and health associated with aerosol nanoparticles and workplace exposure protocols.

Environmental Defense, an environmental advocacy organization, and DuPont, a science-based products and services company, have developed a comprehensive, practical, and flexible framework for evaluating and addressing the potential risks of nanoscale materials. The intent of this framework is to define a systematic and disciplined process for identifying, managing, and reducing any environmental, health, and safety risks of engineered nanomaterials across all stages of a product’s lifecycle. Our framework offers guidance on the key questions an organization should consider in developing applications of such materials, and on the key information needed to make sound risk-evaluation and risk-management decisions. The framework allows users to move ahead despite areas of incomplete or uncertain information, by using reasonable assumptions and by compensating for knowledge gaps with appropriate risk-management practices. Further, the framework describes a system to guide information generation and update assumptions, decisions, and practices with new information as it becomes available.  The framework also offers guidance on how to communicate information and decisions to key stakeholders.  The framework is intended to be relevant to a broad range of materials and applications, so that it can be accepted, endorsed, and adopted or adapted for use internationally by a wide range of stakeholders, including other companies, other public interest groups, academia and government agencies.

The Nanoparticle Occupational Safety and Health (NOSH) Consortium of international industrial, government and non-governmental organizations has focused research during the last two years upon generating science-derived knowledge on occupational safety and health questions associated with aerosol nanoparticles and workplace exposure monitoring and protocols. The technical goals of the NOSH Consortium include 1) generating well-characterized aerosols of solid nanoparticles and measuring aerosol behavior as a function of time; 2) developing an air sampling method that can be used to conduct worker exposure assessments in workplace settings; and 3) measuring barrier efficiency of filter media to specific engineered aerosol nanoparticles.  With the completion of the main phase deliverables, several technical advances have contributed significant understanding of the synthesis and behavior or aerosol nanoparticles, the monitoring of aerosol nanoparticles in the workplace, and the performance of specific filter media upon exposure to aerosol nanoparticles.

The US Food and Drug Administration regulates a wide range of products, including foods, cosmetics, drugs, devices, and veterinary products.  In July, 2007, FDA's Nanotechnology Task Force released a report on oversight for FDA regulated products that use nanotechnology.  The Task Force reports that nanoscale materials potentially could be used in most product types regulated by FDA and that those materials present challenges similar to those posed by products using other emerging technologies. The challenges, however, may be complicated by the fact that properties relevant to product safety and effectiveness may change as size varies within the nanoscale.  The report concludes that the emerging and uncertain nature of nanotechnology and the potentially rapid development of applications for FDA-regulated products highlight the need for ensuring transparent, consistent, and predictable regulatory pathways.  The report recommends consideration of agency guidance that would clarify, for example, what information to give FDA about products, and also when the use of nanoscale materials may change the regulatory status of particular products.  In addition, the report calls for assessment of data needs for regulation of products using nanotechnology, including data on biological effects and interactions of nanoscale materials.  The report also calls for development of in-house expertise and for the agency to ensure consideration of relevant new information on nanotechnology as it becomes available.  In addition, the report recommends that FDA evaluate the adequacy of current testing approaches to assess safety, effectiveness and quality of nanoscale materials.  In addition to its internal efforts, FDA is working with other federal agencies, with its foreign counterparts, and multilaterally to address regulatory issues relevant to the agency's mission to protect and promote the public health.  This presentation will discuss the Nanotechnology Task Force's report and these other efforts.

This presentation reports key findings of an international survey of nanomaterials organizations regarding environmental health and safety (EHS) training, engineering controls, personal protective equipment (PPE), exposure monitoring, waste disposal, product stewardship practices, and risk characterization.  While many organizations reported disbelief that the nanomaterials they either handle or produce pose special risks, most organizations reported implementing some nano-specific safety measures.  Further, while there were some reports of innovation in nano-specific EHS, the details of reported nano-specific health and safety workplace protocols appeared mostly derived from conventional practices when compared to existing industry and government EHS recommendations and conventional chemical hygiene practices.  Justifications for employing reported practices ranged from strictly precautionary to nano-specific concerns for workplace hazards. The overwhelming majority of organizations expressed a need for greater information and guidance from researchers and governments towards improving health and safety and product stewardship practices for handling nanomaterials.  The study reaffirms calls for research on nanotoxicology and best EHS practices, including examination of novel nano-specific EHS practices identified in this study, and the degree to which conventional chemical hygiene protocols are protective in the workplace and beyond.

While the spotlight on nanotech’s impact on the end user and the environment continues to wax and wane, the discussion around its impact on the workforce is just starting in earnest. Despite growing interest, however, limited progress has been made. Uncoordinated research hasn’t clarified the picture on real risks significantly, while interest groups are driving perceptual risks in contrary directions. Regulatory agencies are reaching out to the nanotechnology community for data, but the process of formulation regulations will take years to draw to a conclusion. In the interim, nanotechnology firms should escalate efforts to understand real risks of the nanomaterials they produce and use – and aim to be free with their findings to both the public and regulators. The resulting data can contribute to shaping a balanced regulatory environment, and enable a more informed public dialogue which balances benefits of nanotechnology with the risks.

The talk will establish a framework whereby nanotech EHS and OSH issues can be studied, review the global nanotechnology-related safety and health initiatives surrounding different nanomaterial classes, delve into the key outstanding issues and propose a path forward.

How are researchers in science and industry throughout the world the same and different in how they view their responsibilities for worker health and safety in the nanotechnology workplace, and in their concern over the effect of their industrial activities on their own natural and urban environments?  This conference is designed to bring speakers from around the world together for two days of presentations, followed by an all day “industrial forum” on the third and final day.  What happened at this conference?  Was a consensus reached, or did dialog fail?  Find out, as Ms. Jennerjohn summarizes the main events and also shares her perspective on the nanotechnology industry’s response to its workers and the environment in a broader global context.

When nanotechnologies make the leap to mass production, among the places they will surely land are developing countries like China and Mexico.  These two nations actually have an adequate framework of occupational safety and health regulations and governmental agencies empowered to enforce the laws.  But in both countries there is zero enforcement of workplace safety regulations.  This non-enforcement is due to several related factors: the desperate need of foreign investment for economic growth to reduce poverty and/or pay off foreign debts; widespread governmental corruption, particularly at a local level; and lack of human, financial and technical resources to implement health-protective laws.  The health and well-being of high-tech workers in China, Mexico and elsewhere in the “nano era” will depend on recognizing and addressing the real-world constraints of regulating imperfectly-understood hazards, especially in mass production centers in the developing world.

 
There is increasing evidence of state’s taking a regional leadership role in creating and sustaining a new industry. This has often been considered the domain of the federal government or internal to an industry, but now states are more often taking the lead. The Pew Center for the States, the National Governors Association, the National Academies and the AAAS have recently recognized this trend and have weighed in with reports and analyses. The California Council on Science and Technology advises the state on all aspects of S&T that are important for policy makers to know about. We directly bridge the gap between the S&T community and policy makers. Using as examples our experience in the emergence of interest in nanotech, biotech and stem cell initiatives in California, we will discuss how the sudden concern and interest in a topic affects the outcomes of support for a technology. Importantly, the relatively short attention span of state politics affects the sustainability of initiatives, especially those that are outside of the sphere of federal support. We are often simultaneously supporting and defending a technology – and often repeating the message many times. This is particularly true for workforce development, physical infrastructure support, intellectual property and the regulatory environment. We will outline the key factors needing sustained attention. Keeping an eye on the ball requires constant awareness and often the redefining of issues. For example, how will the new interests in climate change and alternative energy affect the support of nanotech research and industries? We will end the discussion by posing the question “what is the role of the research community in both keeping attention high, and preventing issues from getting out of hand?”

 
The public response to risks introduced by emerging technologies is historically shaped by the novelty of that risk, the perceived benefits associated with that research or manufacturing, and the extent to which that sector is seen as a good-faith participant in efforts to establish reasonable public accountability and assurance in three areas: occupational and public health risk, environmental risk, and consumer risk.  The agencies responsible for product and drug safety (federal) or for environmental compliance and management (mostly state and federal) are struggling to address the challenging uncertainties posed by nanomaterials and the products or therapies that utilize these materials.  It is widely accepted that there must be a framework for understanding and managing risk and uncertainty from these processes, materials and products that is capable of working around the extensive absence of data for evaluating these risks.  Strategic plans for filling in the most critic gaps in toxicological information and occupational exposure dynamics are being plotted as we meet.  This is not an easy task and there is a great risk posed by the hydra-headed nature of this enterprise.
 
Protection of workers and residents from local hazards, unlike consumer protection or environmental enforcement, has been commonly recognized as a responsibility that is shared between state, federal and local officials with public health responsibilities.  These agencies include OSHA, NIOSH, EPA, and many state-level enforcement offices.  When there is an enterprise that is perceived to have insufficient or absent oversight at the state or federal level some communities have a history of local regulation of these hazards or practices.  The decision to take on a vanguard policy to address perceived public risk in an emerging technology sector is familiar to the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 
In 1977, after a tumultuous debate that resulted in a moratorium on recombinant DNA experimentation or gene-splicing, Cambridge established the first local biological safety regulation in the world.  The form of this oversight has evolved from a setting in which this work was rarified and found only in a select number of academic laboratories to the present time, with a large biopharmaceutical sector  in the community (over 60 firms or institutions holding permits).
 
As we are now evaluating local oversight options to address uncertainties around nanomaterials exposures I look back on the lessons learned from the evolution and enforcement of the Cambridge Recombinant DNA Technology Ordinance.  I will discuss the mistakes and great successes that accrued to Cambridge by enacting local rules to address risk from the emerging biotech sector and consider the parallels and incongruities with the nanotechnology sector. 

In this paper, we analyze the Berkeley Manufactured Nanoscale Material Health and Safety Disclosure Ordinance (“Nano Ordinance”) as an example of a local disclosure ordinance (LDO). LDOs are a type of targeted transparency regulation that recent research documents is increasingly prominent in U.S. policy (Fung et al. 2007).  Mandatory disclosure laws have been particularly important in California risk policy; examples include the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972, the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (also known as Proposition 65), and the 1997 Los Angeles County restaurant hygiene law.
 
By adopting the Nano Ordinance in December 2006, the Berkeley City Council became the first government entity in the U.S. to approve a specific law requiring the reporting of nanomaterials used in local facilities. The ordinance amends the municipal hazardous materials code to compel “facilities that produce or handle manufactured nanoscale materials” within city limits to report what nanoscale materials they are working with, describe any known toxic effects, and give a plan for how the materials will be handled safely. The ordinance defines manufactured nanoscale materials as “manufactured chemicals that are engineered and have one dimension less than 100 nanometers.”  The first wave of reporting is due to occur in June 2007.
 
The Berkeley Nano Ordinance reflects societal ambivalence and uncertainty about the risk-benefit tradeoffs involved in the development of nanotechnology. Nanomaterials have the potential to improve currently available technologies and new applications in areas such as environmental remediation, sensors, manufacturing, energy production and delivery, drug delivery, and optics (Roco 2005). On the other hand, research related to the fate and transport, exposure, and toxicity of nanoparticles, both natural and engineered, indicates that nanotechnology may pose important environmental and human health-related risks (Dunphy-Guzman et al. 2006; EPA 2007, Biswas and Wu 2005).  A consensus exists that these research efforts need to be greatly increased (Roco 2005; Maynard et al. 2006; Renn and Roco 2006; Sherman 2006; EPA 2007).  Factors other than mass such as size, surface area, surface chemistry, solubility and possibly shape may determine the potential risk, although the most important risk-related characteristics are not yet determined (Oberdörster et al. 2005).

Numerous examples exist in the history of the environmental implications of new technologies in which opportunities were missed to act upon early warnings of environmental and health risks (Harremoës et al. 2001).  Awareness of this fact has prompted a number of calls for proactive risk management regarding the rapidly evolving set of nanotechnologies.  Key priorities include creating knowledge to inform risk assessment and management, establishing scientifically and legally usable definitions and categorizations for nanomaterials, and disseminating accurate information about nanotechnology to the public (Maynard et al. 2006).
 
Professional societies, national government agencies, intra-national governmental bodies, non-governmental organizations, and international institutions are all engaged in different parts of an important dialogue concerning the nomenclature, metrology, and relevant technical attributes that would support the creation of nanotechnology standards.  What is unusual about the Nano Ordinance is that it is not a deliberative body that slowly works toward the development of technological standards (e.g., the ASME standard setting process); it is instead an externally imposed change on standard operating procedures for organizations involved in nanotechnology science and commerce that may help create important knowledge artifacts for later technological standards.  The Nano Ordinance imposes new costs on compliers above and beyond whatever voluntary knowledge organizing efforts by industry and scientists cost.

The question, therefore, is what a low-cost LDO adds to the dialog that may be different than what is contributed by other entities interested in effective proactive risk management of this emerging technology.  The hypothesis is that the small number of actors in the local industry and government will facilitate practical learning about nanomaterial risk-related data collection.  In particular, we theorize that the Nano Ordinance will change the dialogue about nanomaterial risk in the following ways: (1) it will engage new participants; (2) it will change the focus of the discussion to more practical concerns such as cost and implementation; and (3) it will develop key concepts and categorizations as well as identify gaps in our risk understanding at a faster pace than other extant standard-setting processes.

We test these three hypotheses using qualitative data, including the content analysis of public records and applicable multi-media accounts (including online blogs) as well as stakeholder interviews with actors embedded in relevant policy networks, including city council staff, entrepreneurs, environmental health services personnel, organizational spokespersons, and scientists.  Our overall aims in doing this are to: (1) document and understand the emerging landscape of nanotechnology governance even as the science, commerce and public perceptions of nanotechnology continue to evolve, and (2) to use the Nano Ordinance case to shed light on the feasible and appropriate roles that LDOs can play in shaping risk policies more generally.

As nanotechnology moves from development to commercialization, there has been growing interest in understanding production costs and occupational health risks associated with various nano-manufacturing processes.  Recent papers (EPA 2007; Maynard 2006) indicate that engineered nanomaterials may present potential risks to human health. Nanomaterials that are most likely to present health risks include nanoparticles, agglomerates of nanoparticles, and particles of nanostructured material.

Commercialization of nanotechnology continues to progress, however, with limited guidelines on safe work practices (NIOSH 2006). Because it may take several years to generate information and consensus, Monte Carlo (MC) simulation risk models may help explore the potential consequences of and tradeoffs between manufacturing costs and health risks, given the uncertainty about occupational exposure and EHS regulations. 

Using classical risk analysis and Bayesian uncertainty approaches, we have developed a preliminary Monte Carlo simulation model to explore the potential range of production costs and health effects associated with various levels of occupational safety requirements (engineered controls, personal protective equipment, etc.). Production costs for alternate manufacturing processes (HiPco, arc ablation, chemical vapor deposition) of single wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) were calculated for four alternatives in industrial hygiene practice. Uncertainties in the extent and the timing of possible requirements and the occupational health dose-exposure relationship are represented by probability distributions and chance events. Since the risks for commercializing SWNTs are likely to remain unclear for the foreseeable future, these models allow analysis of various scenarios and economic-safety-health tradeoffs.  Preliminary results suggest that in some cases, voluntary adoption of standards higher than initially required can lead to the lowest expected cost with the least uncertainty.

This lecture will review the current respiratory protection standards including OSHA’s 29CFR1910.134.  It will also briefly review NIOSH certifications and the types of respiratory protective devices that are currently available on the market.  Discussed will be some of the basic concepts of aerosol science with relation to filtration and what has been seen as a “most penetrating particle size shift” towards a particle more in the range of nanoparticles rather than the currently accepted 0.3 μm.  Addressed will be the types of devices which may meet the needs of nanoparticle exposures.  Finally, research needs will be addressed with regard to filters, respiratory protection, release of particles from filters, and handling, care and disposal of respiratory protection devices.

There are two fears about the interrelation between nano-technology and occupational health and safety. The first is that some currently unforeseen risk will surface and cost worker health and huge expenses to firms, per asbestos.  Imagine the impact of a headline "sperm count down because of reproductive toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. The second is that unfounded fear of the technology will reduce its spread and investments of firms.  Five decision-making groups will determine social response to these fears:  firms, and insurers; workers and union organizations representing them; regulators and administrators; consumers; and scientists and engineers. Economic analysis applies benefit-cost calculations to these issues. In addition to the basic knowledge/estimates of benefits and costs of health, the analysis highlights the potential that nano-particles can affect social behavior, per the contribution of lead to crime.  It depends critically on the discount rate applied to benefits and costs (per debates over the economics of global warming) and of risk aversion that depends on the whole distribution. The big problem is that most distributions of risk have fat tails. I propose that analyses focus on worst case scenarios and that betting markets be used to combine the disparate information of various experts for risk assessment.  

Adams, Lee Dillard: Commentator, Session 4
Deputy Regional Director, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Lee Dillard Adams currently serves as the Deputy Director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office.  She manages permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities for air quality control; hazardous and solid waste management; industrial wastewater management; and toxics use reduction -- primarily with respect to industrial and commercial entities.  She is also responsible for Massachusetts’ oversight of the clean up and redevelopment of the former Ft. Devens Army base.

Lee managed MassDEP’s project to develop streamlined operational environmental regulations for the biotech industry.  DEP’s biotech regulations, part of a larger initiative lead by the Executive Offices of Environmental Affairs and Economic Development in collaboration with the Mass Biotech Council, were promulgated in Fall 2005.


Appelbaum, Richard: Moderator, Session 5
Co-Principal Investigator, NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society
Professor of Sociology and Global & International Studies, UC Santa Barbara

Richard P. Appelbaum is Professor of Sociology and Global and International Studies at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He is currently a Principal Investigator and member of the Executive Committee of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society and serves as Director of the M.A. program and Ph.D. emphasis in Global & International Studies. He received his B.A. from Columbia University, M.P.A. from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. His books include States and Economic Development in the Asian Pacific Rim (with Jeffrey Henderson; Sage, 1992); Behind the Label: Inequality in the Los Angeles Garment Industry (with Edna Bonacich; University of California Press, 2000); Rules and Networks: The Legal Culture of Global Business Transactions (co-edited with William L.F. Felstiner and Volkmar Gessner; Oxford, England: Hart, 2001), and Towards a Critical Globalization Studies (co-edited with William I. Robinson, Routledge, 2005). He is currently engaged in a multi-disciplinary study of supply chain networks in the Asian-Pacific Rim, as well as the development of nanotechnology in China.


Auplat, Claire: Presenter, Session 3
Postgraduate Researcher, Imperial College, United Kingdom

Claire Auplat is Agrégée de l’Université (National competitive examination at Post Master’s level) and she received a PhD in policy and institutions from Paris-Sorbonne University. She has held academic positions in the Grandes Ecoles system (France), London University (UK) and Rice University (US). She currently shares her time between Imperial College London and Sciences-Po Paris. She has worked closely with several multilateral organizations including the Commonwealth and the EU.

Dr. Auplat’s areas of interest cover institutional change, entrepreneurship and the development of nanotechnologies. Her research explores how the interactions between various stakeholders at the institutional and human levels affect entrepreneurship in the field of nanotechnology ventures.


Barandiaran, Javiera: Presenter, Session 6
MPP Candidate, Goldman School of Public Policy, UC Berkeley
Coordinator, Roundtable on the Environmental Risks of Nanotechnology

Javiera Barandiaran is a student of public policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Her interests include science, technology and research policy, and their interaction with higher education and social policy. Her work on nanotechnology has focused on its regulation, in particular the adequacy of information-based systems, for the management of risks. For Prof. Margaret Taylor, she coordinated a Roundtable on the Environmental Risks of Nanotechnology and is secretary of UC Berkeley's Nanotechnology Club.

Prior to coming to Berkeley, Javiera participated in the design and execution of several opinion surveys on attitudes towards science and technology in Europe.


Bernard, Elaine: Co-Moderator, Session 4
Executive Director, Labor and Worklife Program, Harvard Law School

Before being recruited by Harvard in 1989, Elaine Bernard was the Director of Labour Programs at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia. Bernard has a B.A. from The University of Alberta, a M.A. from University of British Columbia, and a Ph.D. from Simon Fraser University. She is author of Technological Change and Skills Development (Deakin University Press, Australia, 1991), The Long Distance Feeling: A History of the Telecommunications Workers Union, (New Star Books, Vancouver, 1982) and numerous articles on labor and the role of unions in promoting civil society, and democracy.


Birkner, Jeffrey: Presenter, Session 7
Vice President, Technical Services, Moldex-Metrix, Inc.

Jeff Birkner specializes in industrial hygiene, regulatory affairs and product liability evaluation.  His experience includes hazard assessment, environmental monitoring, emergency response, spill response, respirator program evaluation, and asbestos program management.  He has successfully managed quality assurance, technical service, and research and development programs.

Since 1988, he has managed his own environmental health and safety consulting practice, performing in-depth analysis of documentation and testimony of plantiffs alleging exposure to substances including asbestos, radiation, and other chemicals. 

As Vice President for Technical Services at Moldex Metric Inc., he provides in-house industrial hygiene and safety services, including the identification and abatement of areas containing asbestos containing materials, as well as advising customers on the use of safety products manufactured by Modex.

He earned a bachelor’s degree in biology and a master’s degree in environmental health science from NYU, and a Ph.D. in environmental health science from UCLA.  He is a certified industrial hygienist in comprehensive practice with the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.


Brown, Garrett, Presenter, Session 5
Inspector, Cal OSHA
Coordinator, Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network

Brown currently works as a compliance officer in the Oakland District Office of the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). In his fourteen years with Cal/OSHA, Brown has conducted more than 500 inspections in Alameda County and as part of statewide teams inspecting California’s Central Valley agricultural fields and garment sweatshops in Los Angeles and Orange County.
Since 1993, Brown has served on volunteer basis as Coordinator of the Maquiladora Health and Safety Support Network (MHSSN), which includes more than 400 occupational health and safety professionals in Canada, Mexico and the United States. The Network provides information, technical assistance and Spanish-language trainings, all pro bono, to Mexican workers in maquiladoras on the U.S. border, as well as ongoing projects in Central America and Asia.

In October 2003, Brown was a guest co-editor of a special issue of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health on occupational safety and health in China. Another article on the impact of “lean manufacturing” production techniques on workplace safety in China will be published in the IJOEH in September 2007. In December 2004, Brown authored two major reports issued by the MHSSN on the failure of the NAFTA trade agreement to protect Mexican workers’ health, and what is needed in international trade and investment treaties to effectively protect workplace safety and health in the global economy. Brown has published articles on global occupational health and safety issues in the IJOEH, New Solutions, Multinational Monitor, Occupational Hazards, Social Justice, The Synergist, and the Industrial Safety and Hygiene News. He has an undergraduate degree in U.S. history from the University of Chicago, a Master in Public Health degree from the University of California at Berkeley, and is a Certified Industrial Hygienist in comprehensive practice, as certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene.


Busch, Larry: Presenter, Session 4
Professor of Sociology, Michigan State University

Prof. Busch directs the Institute for Food and Agricultural Standards and specializes in the sociology of food and agriculture.  His current research involves (1) the role of private sector Third Party Certification of food and agricultural products in both industrial and developing nations, and (2) the growing role of agrifood nanotechnologies in transforming food and agriculture globally.  Both projects are part of a series of studies of how grades and standards for food products are implicated in restructuring the social world including (re) distribution of income wealth, status, prestige and power.  In addition, Dr. Busch maintains his longstanding interest in agricultural biotechnologies and the standards governing the use of these technologies.


Vince Castranova: Presenter, Session 2
Chief, Pathology and Physiology Research Branch,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Vincent Castranova, Ph.D., is the Chief of the Pathology and Physiology Research Branch in the Health Effects Laboratory Division of the National Institute for Safety and Health, Morgantown, West Virginia.  He holds the grade of a CDC Distinguished Consultant.  He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Physiology and Pharmacology and the Department of Basic Pharmaceutical Sciences at West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia and the Department of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh.

Dr. Castranova received a B.S. in biology from Mount Saint Mary’s College, Emmitsburgh, Maryland in 1970, graduating magna cum laude.  He received a Ph.D. in physiology and biophysics in 1974 from West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia before becoming an NIH fellow and research faculty member in the Department of Physiology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.  In 1977, Dr. Castranova received a research staff position at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and an adjunct facility position at West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia.  He has served at these institutions since that time.
 
Dr. Castranova’s research interests have concentrated in pulmonary toxicology and occupational health.  He has been coordinator of the Nanotoxicology Program in NIOSH since its inception.  He has been a co-editor of four books and has co-authored over 450 manuscripts and book chapters.


Chmelka, Brad: Presenter, Session 1
Professor of Chemical Engineering, UC Santa Barbara

Professor Chmelka graduated summa cum laude from Arizona State University in 1982 with a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering. From 1982 to 1984 he worked as a startup engineer with Unocal Corporation at the Parachute Creek Shale Oil Project. He received his Ph.D. degree in Chemical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley in 1990. Postdoctoral fellowship awards from the Division of Chemistry of NSF and from the NSF-NATO Program supported his postdoctoral research work in applications of NMR spectroscopy to inorganic and polymeric solids at Berkeley (1990) and at the Max-Plank-Institüt fur Polymerforschung in Mainz, Germany (1991). Dr. Chmelka joined the faculty at UCSB in 1992. His research is motivated by the need to understand at a molecular level the fabrication and functions of new catalysts, adsorbents, porous ceramics, and heterogeneous polymers. These broad categories of technologically important materials are linked by their crucial dependencies on local order/disorder, which often governs macroscopic process or device performance. His research group is broadly interested in heterogeneous solids, whose sizable variations in local ordering and dynamics have pronounced influences on the adsorption, reaction, optical, or mechanical properties of these materials. Through development and application of state-of-the-art techniques of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, we observe many common molecular features among these diverse systems, which provide new insights and design intuition for our materials chemistry and engineering objectives. His research group benefits from close collaborative research relationships with a number of industrial partners and foreign laboratories.


Conti, Joe: Presenter, Session 5
Graduate Research Fellow, NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society
Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Sociology, UC Santa Barbara

Prior to becoming a graduate fellow, Joe was already a familiar face at CNS-UCSB. He was among the researchers in the 2006 ICON-CNS study of nanotechnology in the workplace in which the team found that workplaces lack empirical data about environmental, health and safety practices of nanotechnologies. In addition to the CNS-UCSB graduate student fellowship, he has also received the NSF Doctoral Improvement Grant, the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation Dissertation Fellowship, and the Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy Dissertation Research Grant. As a sociologist, Joe is interested in globalization, U.S. foreign policy, sociology of law, research methods, and political sociology. He earned a master’s degree in sociology from UC Santa Barbara, and graduated magna cum laude from Regis University with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy.


Darby, Michael: Presenter, Session 2
Professor of Policy, Director of the John M. Olin Center for Policy, UCLA

A recognized authority in macroeconomics and international finance, Michael Darby has achieved great success in both the academic and public sectors. From 1986 to 1992, Darby served in a number of senior positions in the Reagan and Bush administrations including Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy, Member of the National Commission on Superconductivity, Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs, and Administrator of the Economics and Statistics Administration. During his appointment, he received the Treasury’s highest honor, the Alexander Hamilton Award.

Dr. Darby is the widely-cited author of eight books and monographs and numerous other professional publications. His most recent research has examined the growth of the biotechnology industry in the United States and in California, and the role that universities and their faculties play in encouraging local economic development.  Concurrently he holds appointments as chairman of The Dumbarton Group, research associate with the National Bureau of Economic Research, and adjunct scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. He is also director of UCLA’s John M. Olin Center for Public Policy, a position he has held since 1993. Previous to his Anderson School appointment in 1987, Darby held faculty positions or fellowships with UCLA’s department of economics, Stanford University, and Ohio State University. From his schooling to 1982, he also was vice president and director of Paragon Industries, Inc., a Dallas manufacturer of high-temperature kilns, furnaces, and refractories.


Denton, Joan
Director, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), State of Calif.
Member, California Green Chemistry Leadership Council

Joan Denton, Ph.D. has been the director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) since November, 1997.  She earned a bachelor's degree in zoology from the University of San Francisco in 1968 and a master's degree in biology from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas in 1973. She earned a Ph.D. in biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1979.
 
Denton was a senior air pollution specialist for the California Air Resources Board from 1987-1997. In this position, she has worked to plan and implement the various programs of the toxic air contaminant identification program and has managed the technical staff who develop reports on exposure to toxic air contaminants.  Previously, she was a research specialist for the Air Resources Board executive office, stationary source division and the research division.  Prior to that, Denton was a research associate for the Indiana University School of Medicine Laboratory for Experimental Oncology from 1979 to 1982.

Denton has received numerous awards and honors for her work, including: the Dill Scholarship Award in Biology; Outstanding Supervisory Performance Award, Air Resources Board (received twice); and Cal/EPA Certificates of Appreciation and Recognition. Denton is widely published in the area of toxics and air quality control.

The director of OEHHA is responsible for the performance of the scientific risk assessments for the regulation of chemicals in the environment, and for providing information about the health and environmental risks of chemicals to government agencies and the public. The director is also responsible for providing overall scientific guidance and consultation to the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency.  OEHHA also oversees the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.


Epprecht, Thomas: Presenter, Session 3
Director, Swiss Reinsurance Company

Thomas K Epprecht earned his doctorate in biochemistry and is an expert on emerging risks in the Product Services Department at Swiss Re. He is the Director responsible for bio- and nanotechnology, and brings his expertise and consulting skills to bear in risk assessment and in defining and implementing strategies for these lines. He represents Swiss Re on various national and international expert bodies dealing with the business, social and political impacts of these young technologies. Thomas authored several Swiss Re publications and publishes regularly in journals and newspapers.
 
Before joining Swiss Reinsurance Company, Thomas was a researcher and lecturer at the Biochemistry department of Zurich University. During his subsequent time with two different planning and engineering enterprises, he provided expertise in environmental risks and industrial hazards of client companies.


Freeman, Richard: Presenter, Session 7
Professor of Economics, Harvard University; Co-Director, Labor and Worklife Program at the Harvard Law School

Richard B. Freeman is Professor of Economics at Harvard University, Co-Director of the Labor and Worklife Program at the Harvard Law School, Program Director of Labor Studies at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Professorial Research Fellow at the Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics.

Professor Freeman is a fellow of the AAAS. He is currently serving as a Member of the AAAS Initiative for Science and Technology, as a Member of the Carnegie-IAS Commission on Mathematics and Science Education, and as a Member of the International Advisory Panel of the Regional Flagship on Tertiary Education and Economic Growth & Competitiveness in Africa. He is an Affiliated Scholar of the Center for the Advancement of Scholarship on Engineering Education at the National Academy of Engineering. Freeman served on the study on Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States (NAS, NAE, IM joint COSEPUP Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy). He has also served on five panels of the National Academy of Sciences, including the Committee on National Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists.

His research interests including the job market for scientists and engineers; the growth and decline of unions; self-organizing non-unions in the labor market; restructuring European welfare states; international labor standards; transitional economies; Chinese labor markets; crime; employee involvement programs; the effects of immigration and trade on inequality; and income distribution and equity in the marketplace. He is currently directing the NBER / Sloan Science Engineering Workforce Project (with Daniel Goroff).


Freudenburg, Bill: Presenter, Session 3
Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology, UC Santa Barbara

Dr. Freudenburg, the 2004-05 President of the Rural Sociological Society, has devoted most of his career to the study of environment-society relationships. He is particularly well-known both for his work on coupled environment-society systems in general and for his work on more specific topics, including resource-dependent communities, the social impacts of environmental and technological change, and risk analysis. He has held official positions with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Sociological Association, and the National Academy of Sciences, among others. He is the winner of Awards from the American Sociological Association, Rural Sociological Society, Pacific Sociological Association, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as being listed in numerous reference works, including Who's Who in Science and Engineering, Who's Who in America, and Who's Who in the World. Recent and forthcoming publications have focused on topics ranging from the social impacts of U.S. oil dependence to the polarized nature of debates over spotted owls, with a special emphasis on “disproportionality,” or the tendency for a major fraction of all environmental impacts to be associated with a surprisingly small fraction of the overall economy.


Froines, John: Presenter, Session 1; Moderator, Session 2; Co-Moderator, Session 4
Professor of Environmental Health Sciences, UCLA; Director, UCLA Center for Occupational and Environmental Health, Southern California Particle Center, UCLA Fogarty Program in Occupational and Environmental Health, UCLA segment of the Southern California Environmental Health Sciences Center, and Consortium on Asthma and Air Pollution

Professor Froines joined the faculty of the UCLA School of Public Health in 1981. He received a B.S. in chemistry from UC Berkeley (l963), a M.S. in chemistry (1964) and Ph.D. in physical-organic chemistry (1967) from Yale University. Before coming to the UCLA School of Public Health, Dr. Froines served as Director of Toxic Substances at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Deputy Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Dr. Froines is currently the Director of the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health.  Dr. Froines also directs the Southern California Particle Center, the UCLA Fogarty Program in Occupational and Environmental Health, the UCLA segment of the Southern California Environmental Heatlh Sciences Center, and the Consortium on Asthma and Air Pollution. He chairs the State’s Scientific Review Panel which is responsible for identification of Toxic Air Contaminants.

Dr. Froines' area of expertise is Chemical Toxicology and Exposure Assessment. His research interests are in the qualitative and quantitative characterization of risk factors in occupational and environmental disease. His current focus is on mechanistic factors in the health effects associated with air pollution. Historically his research has included the toxicity of arsenic, chromium and lead.  He is currently developing a new effort in sustainable technology and green chemistry.


Hackwood, Susan: Presenter, Session 6
Executive Director of the California Council of Science and Technology
Professor of Electrical Engineering, UC Riverside

Professor Susan Hackwood is currently Executive Director of the California Council on Science and Technology. CCST is a non-profit corporation sponsored by the key academic institutions in the State.   The Council operates as an independent 30-member assembly of corporate CEOs, academicians, scientists and scholars of the highest distinction.  Modeled after the National Research Council, CCST is a unique State Institution that is governed by a 10 member Board of Directors composed of representatives of the sponsoring academic institutions.

She received a B.Sc. (with Honors) in 1976 in Combined Science and a Ph.D. in Solid State Ionics in 1979 from DeMontfort University, UK.  In 1979 she received the Royal Society Ambassador of Science Award and was invited as Visiting Researcher at UC Berkeley and Chalmers Institute of Technology.   From 1980 to 1984, Dr. Hackwood was a member of the technical staff at AT&T, Bell Laboratories.  From 1983 to 1984, Dr. Hackwood was Department Head of Device Robotics Technology Research.  In 1985, she received the AT&T Bell Laboratories Award for Technology Transfer.  In 1984, she joined the University of California, Santa Barbara as Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering.  At UCSB, she was founder and Co-Director of the Center for Robotic Systems in Microelectronics.

In 1990, Dr. Hackwood became the founding Dean of the Bourns College of Engineering at the University of California, Riverside.   At Riverside, she has overseen the development of all research and teaching aspects of five degree programs.  She is a Fellow of the IEEE. In 1993, Dr. Hackwood received a Doctorate in Engineering (Honoris Causa) from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and a Doctorate of Science (Honoris Causa) from her Alma Mater, DeMontfort University, UK.  She is currently Adjunct Professor of Applied Sciences at DeMontfort University.

Dr. Hackwood's current research interests include multimedia technologies, distributed asynchronous signal processing, cellular robot systems, computer vision, 3D modeling and image processing.  In addition to over 100 technical publications and 7 patents, Dr. Hackwood is co-editor and co-founder of the Journal of Robotic Systems.

Dr. Hackwood is an active participant in regional and state economic partnerships.  She was initiator of the California Manufacturing Extension Program, the Center for Environmental Research and Technology and the Consortium for Crime Control and Public Safety Technology.  In 1996, Governor Wilson appointed her to the California Information Technology Commission.  Dr. Hackwood was recently recognized and awarded the 1998 Inland Valley ATHENA Award for professional accomplishment, community service and mentorship of women.


Harthorn, Barbara Herr: Presenter, Session 2
Director, NSF Center for Nanotechnology in Society
Associate Professor, UC Santa Barbara, Departments of Women's Studies and Anthropology

Professor Harthorn's research examines the social production of health inequality, and in particular looks at the intersections of gender, ethnicity/race, and transnational migration in health and health risk perception. Her current work examines technological risk perception among diverse US and comparative UK populations. She was a member of the Executive Committee of the National Science Foundation Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science and leads an international network on health risk perception and spatial analysis.  She has conducted research in East Africa, Polynesia, Melanesia, and urban and rural California. She is author (with Laury Oaks) of Risk, Culture, and Health Inequality: Shifting Perceptions of Danger and Blame (2003) and has published in many social science and public health journals.  She has a doctorate in medical anthropology and transcultural psychiatry from UCLA and a bachelor’s degree in anthropology from Bryn Mawr College; she also completed postdoctoral research in social psychology at UCSB.  This year, Harthorn was named Fellow with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.


Holden, Patricia: Presenter, Session 2
Professor of Environmental Microbiology, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UC Santa Barbara

Patricia Holden leads multidirectional research that is centered on a single overall problem: pollution. Her group examines the microbial ecology of the vadose zone to better understand bacteria and create more realistic paradigms for modeling bacterial processes that can naturally attenuate organic and inorganic pollution in what are relatively under-studied subsurface soils. Holden's group also researches water quality toward understanding the presence, origins, and consequences of human waste in coastal zones. Holden's research into nanotoxicology is aimed at generating knowledge to preempt negative effects of engineered nanomaterials in the environment. The philosophy behind all these efforts is that improved understanding leads to better predictions of processes that govern rates and extents of pollution migration and transformation in the environment. While the research is most related to environmental bacteriology and engineering, approaches and thinking are from many disciplines, often through collaborative research.


Isaacs, Jacqueline: Presenter, Session 6
Associate Director, Center for High-Rate Nano-Manufacturing, Northeastern University

Dr. Jacqueline Isaacs is an Associate Director of the NSF-funded Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for High-rate Nanomanufacturing (CHN) and an Associate Professor of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Northeastern University. Dr. Isaacs has a B.S. in Metallurgical Engineering and Materials Science from Carnegie Mellon University and M.S and Ph.D. Degrees in Materials Science and Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Since joining Northeastern University, she has worked on assessing the economic, environmental and technological tradeoffs for existing and emerging technologies, and was awarded a National Science Foundation Career Award for her work. Her role in the CHN involves leading the societal implications research thrust team, whose research includes screening and monitoring of nanomaterials, applying life cycle assessment methods to manufacturing processes, assessing economic viability as well as the regulatory and social implications of emerging technologies. She is a Co-PI on an NSF Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team award entitled: “Nanotechnology in the Public Interest: Regulatory Challenges, Capacity, and Policy Recommendations”. Dr. Isaacs has been an invited speaker to numerous workshops and forums on environmental health and safety issues related to nanomaterials, and serves as a liaison to the Boston Museum of Science NSF-funded Nanotechnology Informal Science Education Network (NISE-Net).


Jennerjohn, Nancy: Presenter, Session 5
Ph.D. Student, Environmental Health Sciences, UCLA 
 
Nancy Jennerjohn is a doctoral student in UCLA’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences. Prior to coming to UCLA, Nancy spent over 5 years in research and development in the pulmonary drug delivery industry. Before that, she earned a Masters Degree in Physics at San Francisco State University. She also holds bachelors degrees in both physics and nursing. She is fascinated by aerosols, and her current research interests center around the lab-based generation of aerosols containing nanoparticles for characterization, and in the search for strategies that may prove effective at detecting airborne nanoparticles potentially escaping confinement in the nanotechnology manufacturing setting. She is especially interested in nanotubes as well as quantum dots.
Lessin, Nancy: Commentator, Session 7
Center for Safety, Health and Environmental Education
United Steelworkers 

Ms. Nancy Lessin is employed by the United Steelworkers' (USW’s) Tony Mazzocchi Center for Safety, Health and Environmental Education. She has worked in the field of occupational health and safety for twenty-eight years. Prior to her employment with the USW, she served as the Massachusetts AFL-CIO’s Health and Safety Coordinator, and before that as Senior Staff for Strategy and Policy for the Massachusetts Coalition for Occupational Safety and Health.  She has an MSc in Labor Studies from the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. She currently serves on the AFL-CIO's Staff Subcommittee on Occupational Safety and Health, and on the Advisory Board for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Occupational Health Surveillance Program. She served for five years as a member of the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH); and also served for five years on the NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda "Organization of Work" Workgroup.

She has presented programs on occupational safety and health issues for unions in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Brazil and Australia.


Lipson, Sam: Presenter, Session 6
Director of Environmental Health, City of Cambridge, Massachusetts

Sam Lipson serves as the Director of Environmental Health for the Cambridge Public Health Department. In this capacity he has overseen the enforcement of the Cambridge Recombinant DNA Technology Ordinance since 1997. This local statute (c.1977) codifies the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules within the city of Cambridge, MA.

Responsibilities include administration of the Cambridge Biosafety Committee, a citizens panel with statutory authority to issue permits, and performance of all required laboratory inspections. Mr. Lipson has also worked closely with the biotech community to present the Cambridge Biosafety Forum in the fall of 2002. This 16-hour, 4-evening workshop drew on the deep pool of local biosafety experience in the Cambridge/Boston area. Mr. Lipson has been tasked by the Cambridge City Council to lead a review process and then make a recommendation on the establishment of a local nanomaterials oversight ordinance. This process will commence shortly and a formal policy recommendation with be forwarded in the fall of this year. Other biosafety related work has included participation in the NIH Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC) as an ad hoc panelist during a special session on IBCs; membership on the Boston Biosafety Advisory Committee to review changes in the 25 year-old language of the current regulation, and to examine the potential public health impact of the recently proposed, Biosafety Level 4 Biocontainment laboratory at the Boston University Medical Center. Mr. Lipson has also consulted with researchers and public health officials interested in drafting and implementing local biosafety regulations in Seattle, San Francisco, Tokyo, and several smaller communities across Massachusetts. Mr. Lipson received his undergraduate degree from University of California at Berkeley and completed his Masters work in Toxicology at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. His biosafety training continued with a 40-hour Biohazard Control course offered by John Hopkins University and the Eagleson Institute’s 8-hour Viral Vectors workshop.


Markowitz, Gerald: Presenter, Session 3
Professor of History, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Graduate Center, City University of New York

Prof. Markowitz is author of eleven books, including Are We Ready? Public Health Since 9/11 (with David Rosner) (Berkeley: University of California Press/ Milbank Memorial Fund, 2006). Deadly Dust: Silicosis and the On-Going Struggle to Protect Workers' Health (New and Expanded edition) (with David Rosner) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006). Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution (University of California Press, 2002), (with David Rosner) and Dying for Work: Workers’ Safety and Health in Twentieth Century America (Indiana University Press, 1987) and Slaves of Depression: Workers Letters About Life on the Job (Cornell University Press, 1987).

Prof. Markowitz has also published extensively in academic journals and has delivered conference lectures for the American Association for the History of Medicine, the American Public Health Association, the American Society of Environmental History and other professional societies. In 2000, Prof. Markowitz was honored by the American Public Health Association's Medical Care Section with the Viseltear Prize for "Outstanding Contributions to the History of Public Health." In 2006 he was honored by the New York Committee on Occupational Safety and Health Award for “Outstanding Scholarship Exposing the Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution.” In 2005 he was honored by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Social Concerns Committee, “For Outstanding Health, Safety, and Environmental Investigative Journalism.” He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin.


Mirer, Frank: Commentator, Session 2
Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health
Hunter College, City University of New York 

Franklin E. Mirer is a toxicologist and certified industrial hygienist.  His primary scientific interest is exposure and risk assessment in the occupational environment and regulatory policy. 

Dr. Mirer is Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at Hunter College. Previously he served as Director of the UAW Health and Safety Department.  Dr. Mirer participated in each round of automobile industry collective bargaining since 1976. Dr. Mirer received a Ph.D. in organic chemistry from Harvard University in 1972, and trained further as a Research Fellow in Toxicology at the Harvard School of Public Health.  He joined the UAW staff in 1975. Dr. Mirer serves on the NAS Committee to Review NIOSH Research Programs. Previously, he served on the NIOSH National Occupational Health Research Agenda liaison committee, the OSHA Metalworking Fluid Standards Advisory Committee, the Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences Research and Training, the National Academy of Sciences Committees on Institutional Means for Risk Assessment, the Board of Scientific Counselors of the National Toxicology Program, an IARC Working Group, the CDC Injury Advisory Committee and the NIH Safety and Occupational Health Study Section.

Dr. Mirer developed and delivered testimony before OSHA regarding a dozen health and safety standards, and has testified before House and Senate Committees on occupational safety and health and regulatory policy matters.  He has co-authored scientific papers in exposure assessment, risk assessment and epidemiology.
Dr. Mirer was inducted into the National Safety Council’s Health and Safety Hall of Fame, and is a Fellow of the Collegium Ramazzini and the American Industrial Hygiene Association.
 

Monica, John: Commentator, Session 1
Partner, Porter Wright Morris & Arthur, LLP

Mr. Monica has considerable litigation experience in defending national and international products liability claims for Fortune 500 companies. He is a nationally recognized authority on nanotechnology product liability issues. As a member of ANSI and ASTM, Mr. Monica participates in the development of voluntary international nomenclature and EHS standards for the nanotechnology industry. Additionally, he has successfully represented numerous clients in commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts.


Nel, Andre: Presenter, Session 2
Professor of Medicine
Chief, Division of NanoMedicine, UCLA

Andre Nel is a Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of NanoMedicine at UCLA.  He runs the Cellular Immunology Activation Laboratory in the Johnson Cancer Center and the Laboratory for Nanosafety Research and Testing in the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) at UCLA.
 
Dr. Nel’s chief research interests are: (i) Nanomedicine and Nanobiology, including nanomaterial properties that may assist nanomaterial safety testing; (ii) The role of air pollutants in asthma, with particular emphasis on the role of oxidative stress in the generation of airway inflammation and airway hyperreactivity.  These studies are funded by personal RO1 grants from the NIH, the NIAD-funded Asthma and Immunology Disease Clinical Research Center, an EPA STAR award, and a UC Lead Campus Program for Nanotoxicology Research. Dr. Nel is the Principal Investigator of the UCLA Asthma and Immunology Disease Center, Co-Director of the Southern California Particle Center and Director of the UC Lead Campus Program for Nanotoxicology Research and Training.


Nowell, Jackie: Commentator, Session 1
Director, Occupational Health and Safety Office
United Food and Commercial Workers 

Jackie Nowell, MPH, CIH is Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Office, Collective Bargaining Department, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) in Washington, DC.  She joined the UFCW in 1990. A Certified Industrial Hygienist, Jackie earned her MPH at the University of California, Los Angeles.  She previously served as Assistant Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Division at Hunter College, CUNY; and as Staff Industrial Hygienist, New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health, a coalition of labor unions that provides technical assistance and training on occupational safety and health to member local unions.

The UFCW has been an important player in the fight for the recognition and control of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).  Jackie has been involved in the development and monitoring of the major ergonomic programs in the red meat and poultry industries.   


Michele L. Ostraat: Presenter, Session 4
Principal Investigator & NOSH Consortium Technical Leader
DuPont Engineering Research and Technology

Michele Ostraat joined DuPont in 2003 in the DuPont Engineering Research and Technology group at the Experimental Station in Wilmington, Delaware with primary responsibilities in the aerosol synthesis and characterization of sub-micron and nanoparticles for a variety of applications.  In 2004, she drafted initial proposals on nanoparticle occupational safety and health that have formed the basis for the Nanoparticle Occupational Safety and Health (NOSH) Consortium.

Prior to joining DuPont, Michele was a Member of Technical Staff at Bell Labs and Agere Systems where she examined the synthesis of rare-earth doped aerosol nanoparticles and investigated the behavior of chalcogenide phase change materials.  Michele earned her Ph.D. (2001) and M.S. (1998) degrees in Chemical Engineering from the California Institute of Technology with her Ph.D. thesis entitled “Synthesis and Characterization of Aerosol Silicon Nanoparticle Nonvolatile Floating Gate Memory Devices” and her M.S. thesis entitled “Production and Characterization of a Two-Dimensionally Ordered Monolayer of Uniformly-Sized Spherical Silicon Nanocrystals.”  She holds a B.S. Chemistry degree from Trinity University.  She has participated in several research programs, including the Hughes Summer Program at the University of New Mexico, the SMART Program at Baylor College of Medicine, and has interned at Sandia National Laboratories.

Michele has authored 10 research publications in the areas of aerosol nanoparticle synthesis, characterization, and electrical properties, holds 3 patents, and has given over 20 conference presentations within the U.S. and Europe, including 6 invited talks.  She is active in a number of professional organizations, including Materials Research Society, American Association for Aerosol Research, and the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.  Her awards include a Materials Research Society Graduate Student Gold Medal and a National Science Foundation Graduate Student Fellowship, as well as being a member of Phi Beta Kappa and a Trinity University Murchison scholar.


Raje, Jaideep: Presenter, Session 5
Analyst, Lux Research, Inc. 

As an Analyst at Lux Research, Jaideep conducts interviews with senior executives, entrepreneurs, and decision-makers at the vanguard of the nanotechnology field as well as monitoring global nanotech innovation through secondary research. His research and analysis aid the strategic efforts of Lux Research clients.
 
Jaideep joined