The Responsible NanoCode

The market for nanotechnology is rapidly expanding and has been predicted to be associated with 15% of all manufactured goods by 2014, worth roughly $2.6 trillion and equating to 10 million jobs worldwide [1].
This growth is occurring against a relatively slower pace of research into the risk [2], toxicology [3], fate and ecotoxicology of manufactured nanomaterials [4]. The risk governance of nanotechnology applications in food
and cosmetics has recently been detailed and the need for a voluntary code was highlighted in order to earn a ‘licence to operate’ in an attempt to avoid a restrictive cycle developing in the nanotechnology debate [5].

A nanoscale particle (for example see Figure 1) has at least one dimension in the range of 1nm to 100nm (note 1nm =10-9m). In this range, materials can have substantially different properties compared to the same
substances at larger sizes, due to the significantly increased ratio of surface area to mass as well as the role of quantum effects which become significant towards the lower end of this range, leading to significant changes in
several types of physical properties [6].

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESPONSIBLE NANOCODE
In 2006, the Royal Society, Insight Investment and the Nanotechnology Industries Association began a partnership to develop a voluntary code of conduct for businesses involved in nanotechnologies as a result of concerns raised by the Royal Society. Alongside this, the investment community, notably Insight Investments, had also identified potential investment issues. It was believed that it was important that the business community participated in the development of a Code of Conduct related to the safe use of nanotechnology and nanomaterials based products. Later on the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network also joined the partnership.

The code was developed by an independent working group comprising experts from business, non-governmental organisations and academics:-

Companies:- BASF, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson Matthey, Oxonica, Smith & Nephew, Tesco, Thomas Swan and Unilever.

Academics/Scientists: Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh Napier University, University of Sheffield and University of Cardiff.

Unions/NGOs:- Amicus, Which? and Practical Action.

It was not intended that this Responsible NanoCode should replace or prevent the development of future regulation for nanotechnologies; however, given the absence of comprehensive appropriate legislation, it aimed to provide clear guidance about the expected behaviour of companies in relation to their nanotechnology activities. It was believed that the Code and the process of its development might assist with the evolution of such legislation by clarifying the principles that could underpin more detailed, verifiable, regulations.

The Responsible NanoCode, like other principles-based codes, illustrates expected behaviours and processes rather than the standards of performance. The Responsible NanoCode was not intended, however, to be an auditable standard; it does not detail levels of performance expected of companies, nor does it give guidance on definitions, characterisation and measurement. The voluntary code was aimed at promoting best practice within this emerging industry (i.e. from research and development to manufacturing, distribution and retailing) with the overall aim that compliance with the Responsible NanoCode would be seen as a beneficial exercise for a company enabling them to demonstrate responsible use and growth.