Nanotechnology: Accuracy of Data on Federally Funded Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Could Be Improved
Published: 2008-04-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In March 2008, GAO issued a report entitled Nanotechnology: Better Guidance Is Needed to Ensure Accurate Reporting of Federal Research Focused on Environmental, Health, and Safety Risks (GAO-08-402). In this report, GAO reviewed the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a multiagency effort administered by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The NNI coordinates the nanotechnology-related activities of 25 federal agencies that fund nanoscale research or have a stake in the results. A key research area funded by some agencies related to studying the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks that may result from exposure to nanoscale materials. For this testimony statement, GAO was asked to summarize the findings of its March 2008 report, focusing on (1) the extent to which selected agencies conducted EHS research in fiscal year 2006; (2) the reasonableness of the agencies' and the NNI's processes to identify and prioritize EHS research; and (3) the effectiveness of the agencies' and the NNI's process to coordinate EHS research.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2006, federal agencies devoted $37.7 million--or 3 percent of the $1.3 billion total nanotechnology research funding--to research that was primarily focused on the EHS risks of nanotechnology, according to the NNI. However, about 20 percent of this total cannot actually be attributed to this purpose. GAO found that 22 of the 119 projects identified as EHS in fiscal year 2006 were not primarily related to understanding the extent to which nanotechnology may pose an EHS risk. Instead, many of these projects were focused on how to use nanotechnology to remediate environmental damage or detect hazards not related to nanotechnology. GAO determined that this mischaracterization is rooted in the current reporting structure that does not allow these types of projects to be easily categorized and the lack of guidance for agencies on how to apportion research funding across multiple topics, when appropriate. In addition to the EHS funding reported by the NNI, federal agencies conduct other research that is not captured in the EHS totals. This research was not captured by the NNI because either the research was funded by an agency not considered to be a research agency or because the primary purpose of the research was not to study EHS risks. Federal agencies and the NNI, at the time of GAO's review, were in the process of identifying and prioritizing EHS risk research needs and the overall process they were using appeared reasonable. For example, identification and prioritization of EHS research needs was being done by the agencies and the NNI collaboratively. The NNI also was engaged in an iterative prioritization effort through its Nanotechnology Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. Through this process, NEHI identified five general research categories as a priority for federally funded research. GAO found that most of the research projects that were underway in fiscal year 2006 were generally consistent with agency and NEHI priorities. NEHI released its new EHS research strategy on February 13, 2008. Agency and NNI processes to coordinate activities related to potential EHS risks of nanotechnology have been generally effective. The NEHI working group has convened frequent meetings that have helped agencies identify opportunities to collaborate on EHS risk issues, such as joint sponsorship of research and workshops to advance knowledge and facilitate information-sharing among the agencies. NEHI also has incorporated several practices that GAO has previously identified as key to enhancing and sustaining interagency collaborative efforts, such as defining a common outcome and leveraging resources. Finally, all agency officials GAO spoke with expressed satisfaction with the coordination and collaboration on EHS risk research that has occurred through NEHI. They cited several factors they believe contribute to the group's effectiveness, including the stability of the working group membership and the expertise and dedication of its members. Furthermore, according to these officials, this stability, combined with common research needs and general excitement about the new science, has resulted in a collegial, productive working environment.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on the future  direction of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI). As you know,  the NNI was established in 2001 as a federal, multiagency effort intended  to accelerate the discovery, development, and deployment of nanoscale  science, engineering, and technology to achieve economic benefits,  enhance the quality of life, and promote national security. One of the key  roles of the NNI is to coordinate the nanotechnology-related activities of  25 federal agencies. These agencies include both those that fund nanoscale  research as well as those that have a stake in the outcome of this research,  such as agencies that regulate products containing nanomaterials. While  the NNI is designed to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and  identify goals and priorities for nanotechnology research, it is not a  research program. It has no funding or authority to dictate the  nanotechnology research agenda for participating agencies or to ensure  that adequate resources are available to achieve specific goals. Instead,  participating agencies develop and fund their own nanotechnology  research agendas, and in fiscal year 2006, 13 of the 25 agencies  participating in the NNI allocated a total of about $1.3 billion from their  appropriated budgets to nanotechnology research and development  activities. Of this total in fiscal year 2006, the NNI reported that $37.7  million (or about 3 percent of the total) was used to fund research to study  the potential environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks that might  result from exposure during the manufacture, use, and disposal or recycle  of nanoscale materials. As you know, while the use of nanoscale materials  holds much promise, the small size and unique properties of these  materials raise questions about their potential EHS risks, and research is  needed to fill current gaps in scientific information about their risks.
At the request of the full committee and members of the Congressional  Nanotechnology Caucus, we just completed a report that is being released  today on the NNI’s and federal agencies’ efforts to study the potential  environmental, health, and safety risks of nanotechnology. My testimony  is based on the findings of this review and will cover the following three  areas: (1) the extent to which selected research and regulatory agencies  conducted research in fiscal year 2006 that primarily was focused on the  potential EHS risks of nanotechnology; (2) the reasonableness of the  processes that agencies and the NNI use to identify and prioritize federal  research on the potential EHS risks of nanotechnology; and (3) the  effectiveness of the processes that agencies and the NNI use to coordinate  their research. For our review, we collected data from five federal  agencies that provided 96 percent of fiscal year 2006 funding for EHS  research—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National  Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute for Occupational Safety  and Health (NIOSH), the National Institute of Standards and Technology  (NIST), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). We also contacted  three regulatory agencies—the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission  (CPSC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Occupational  Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—that do not have specific  research budgets to determine whether they conducted any research on  their own relative to potential EHS risks. We conducted this performance  audit from June 2007 to February 2008 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we  plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to  provide a reasonable basis for our finding and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a  reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives.
In summary we found the following:    About 20 percent of the over $37 million in fiscal year 2006 research  expenditures that the NNI reported as being primarily focused on the EHS  risks of nanotechnology cannot actually be attributed to this purpose. We  found that 22 of the 119 projects identified as EHS-related by EPA, NIH,  NIOSH, NIST, and NSF in fiscal year 2006 were not primarily related to  understanding the extent to which nanotechnology poses an EHS risk.  These 22 projects, funded by NSF and NIOSH, accounted for about $7  million of the $37 million that the NNI reported as being primarily focused  on EHS risks. The focus of many of these projects was to explore how  nanotechnology could be used to remediate environmental damage or to  detect a variety of hazards unrelated to nanotechnology. We determined  that this mischaracterization was the result of the current reporting  structure that does not allow these types of projects to be easily  categorized in another more appropriate category, and also the lack of  guidance for agencies on how to apportion research funding across  multiple topics, when appropriate. To address this issue, we  recommended that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in  consultation with the NNI and the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), provide better guidance to agencies regarding how to report  research that is primarily focused on understanding or addressing the EHS  risks of nanotechnology. In commenting on this report, OSTP asserted that  it already provides extensive guidance, but it agreed to review the manner  in which agencies respond to the current guidance.
In addition to the EHS funding totals reported by the NNI, we found that  federal agencies conduct other EHS research that is not captured in the  NNI totals. This research was not captured by the NNI because either the  research was funded by an agency not generally considered to be a  research agency or because the primary purpose of the research was not  to study EHS risks. Because the agencies that conduct this research do not  systematically track it as EHS-related research, we could not establish the  exact amount of federal funding that is being devoted to this additional  EHS research.
Federal agencies and the NNI were, at the time of our review, in the  process of identifying and prioritizing EHS risk research needs; overall, we  believe that the process they were using was reasonable. For example,  identification and prioritization of EHS research needs was being done by  the agencies and the NNI collaboratively. The NNI was also engaged in an  iterative prioritization effort through its Nanotechnology Environmental  and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. As a result of this effort,  NEHI had identified five general research categories that should be the  focus of federal research efforts and five specific research priorities under  each general category. Our analysis of the 97 research projects that were  underway in fiscal year 2006 that were primarily related to studying EHS  risks found that the focus of these projects was generally consistent with  agency priorities as well as NEHI’s five general research categories.  However, we did find that, while agency funded research addressed each  of the five general research categories, it focused on the priority needs  within each category to varying degrees. As our report was in production,  NEHI released a new EHS research strategy on February 13, 2008, which is  intended to provide a framework to help ensure that the highest priority  EHS research needs are met.
Agency and NNI processes to coordinate activities related to potential  EHS risks of nanotechnology have been generally effective. The NEHI  working group has convened frequent meetings that have helped agencies  identify opportunities to collaborate on EHS risk issues, such as joint  sponsorship of research and workshops to advance knowledge and  facilitate information-sharing among the agencies. These types of  exchanges, according to most agency officials we spoke with, have helped  advance knowledge and facilitated information-sharing among the  agencies. In addition, NEHI has incorporated several practices that we  have previously identified as key to enhancing and sustaining interagency  collaborative efforts, such as defining a common outcome and leveraging  resources, but it had not, at the time of our review, completed its  overarching strategy to help better align agencies’ EHS research efforts.  Finally, all agency officials we spoke with expressed satisfaction with the  coordination and collaboration on EHS risk research that has occurred  through NEHI. They cited several factors they believe contribute to the  group’s effectiveness, including the stability of the working group  membership and the expertise and dedication of its members.  Furthermore, according to these officials, this stability, combined with  common research needs and general excitement about the new science,  has resulted in a collegial, productive working environment.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Nanotechnology encompasses a wide range of innovations based on the  understanding and control of matter at the scale of nanometers—the  equivalent of one-billionth of a meter. To illustrate, a sheet of paper is  about 100,000 nanometers thick and a human hair is about 80,000  nanometers wide. At the nanoscale level, materials may exhibit electrical,  biological, and other properties that differ significantly from the properties  the same materials exhibit at a larger scale. Exploiting these differences in  nanoscale materials has led to a range of commercial uses and holds the  promise for innovations in virtually every industry from aerospace and  energy to health care and agriculture. In 2006, an estimated $50 billion in  products worldwide incorporated nanotechnology and this figure has been  projected to grow to $2.6 trillion by 2014. One research institute estimates  that over 500 consumer products already available to consumers may  contain nanoscale materials.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was established in 2001 as a  federal, multiagency effort intended to accelerate the discovery,  development, and deployment of nanoscale science, engineering, and  technology to achieve economic benefits, enhance the quality of life, and  promote national security. Management of the NNI falls under the purview  of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) that coordinates  science and technology policy across the federal government. The NSTC is  managed by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy  (OSTP), who also serves as the Science Advisor to the President. The  NSTC’s Committee on Technology established the Nanoscale Science,  Engineering, and Technology (NSET) subcommittee to help coordinate,  plan, and implement the NNI’s activities across participating agencies. In  2003, the NSET subcommittee further established a Nanotechnology  Environmental and Health Implications (NEHI) working group. The  purpose of the NEHI working group, composed of representatives from 16  research and regulatory agencies, is to, among other things, coordinate  agency efforts related to EHS risks of nanotechnology. Similar to the NNI,  the NEHI working group has no authority to mandate research priorities  or to ensure that agencies adequately fund particular research.
In December 2003, Congress enacted legislation to establish a National  Nanotechnology Program to coordinate federal nanotechnology research  and development. Among other things, the act directs the NSTC to  establish goals and priorities for the program and to set up program  component areas that reflect those goals and priorities. To implement  these requirements, the NSTC has established a process to categorize  research projects and activities undertaken by the various federal agencies  into seven areas. Six of the seven focus on the discovery, development,  and deployment of nanotechnology, while the seventh relates to the  societal dimensions of nanotechnology that include issues such as the  EHS risks of nanotechnology.
As part of the annual federal budget process, agencies also report their  research funding for each area to OMB. The NNI’s annual Supplement to  the President’s Budget, prepared by the NSTC, includes EHS research  figures from the agencies and a general description of the research  conducted by the agencies in each of the areas. For reporting purposes,  the NSET subcommittee has defined EHS research as efforts whose  primary purpose is to understand and address potential risks to health and  to the environment posed by nanotechnology. Eight of the 13 agencies that  funded nanotechnology research in fiscal year 2006 reported having  devoted some of those resources to research that had a primary focus on  potential EHS risks.
Under the NNI, each agency funds research and development projects that  support its own mission as well as the NNI’s goals. While agencies share  information on their nanotechnology-related research goals with the NSET  subcommittee and NEHI working group, each agency retains control over  its decisions on the specific projects to fund. While the NNI was designed  to facilitate intergovernmental cooperation and identify goals and  priorities for nanotechnology research, it is not a research program. It has  no funding or authority to dictate the nanotechnology research agenda for  participating agencies.
The NNI used its fiscal year 2000 strategic plan and its subsequent updates  to delineate a strategy to support long-term nanoscale research and  development, among other things. A key component of the 2000 plan was  the identification of nine specific research and development areas— known as “grand challenges”—that highlighted federal research on  applications of nanotechnology with the potential to realize significant  economic, governmental, and societal benefits.
In 2004, the NNI updated its strategic plan and described its goals as well  as the investment strategy by which those goals were to be achieved.  Consistent with the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and  Development Act, the NNI reorganized its major subject categories of  research and development investment into program component areas  (PCA) that cut across the interests and needs of the participating agencies.  These seven areas replaced the nine grand challenges that the agencies  had used to categorize their nanotechnology research. Six of the areas  focus on the discovery, development, and deployment of nanotechnology.  The seventh, societal dimensions, consists of two topics—research on  environmental, health, and safety; and education and research on ethical,  legal, and other societal aspects of nanotechnology.
PCAs are intended to provide a means by which the NSET subcommittee,  OSTP, OMB, Congress, and others may be informed of the relative federal  investment in these key areas. PCAs also provide a structure by which the  agencies that fund research can better direct and coordinate their  activities. In response to increased concerns about the potential EHS risks  of nanotechnology, the NSET subcommittee and the agencies agreed in  fiscal year 2005 to separately report their research funding for each of the  two components of the societal dimensions PCA. The December 2007  update of the NNI’s strategic plan reaffirmed the program’s goals,  identified steps to accomplish those goals, and formally divided the  societal dimensions PCA into two PCAs—”environment, health, and  safety” and “education and societal dimensions.”
Beginning with the development of the fiscal year 2005 federal budget,  agencies have worked with OMB to identify funding for nanoscale  research that would be reflected in the NNI’s annual Supplement to the  President’s Budget. OMB analysts reviewed aggregated, rather than  project-level, data on research funding for each PCA to help ensure  consistent reporting across the agencies. Agencies also relied on  definitions of the PCAs developed by the NSET subcommittee to  determine the appropriate area in which to report research funding.  Neither NSET nor OMB provided guidance on whether or how to  apportion funding for a single research project to more than one PCA, if  appropriate. However, representatives from both NSET and OMB stressed  that the agencies were not to report each research dollar more than once.
section_title: Almost One-Fifth of Reported EHS Research Projects Were Not Primarily Focused on Studying the EHS Risks of Nanotechnology
paragraphs: About 18 percent of the total research dollars reported by the agencies as  being primarily focused on the study of nanotechnology-related EHS risks  in fiscal year 2006 cannot actually be attributed to this purpose.  Specifically, we found that 22 of the 119 projects funded by five federal  agencies were not primarily related to studying EHS risks. These 22  projects accounted for about $7 million of the total that the NNI reported  as supporting research primarily focused on EHS risks. Almost all of these  projects—20 out of 22—were funded by NSF, with the two additional  projects funded by NIOSH. We found that the primary purpose of many of  these 22 projects was to explore ways to use nanotechnology to remediate  environmental damage or to identify environmental, chemical, or  biological hazards not related to nanotechnology. For example, some NSF- funded research explored the use of nanotechnology to improve water or  gaseous filtration systems. Table 1 shows our analysis of the  nanotechnology research projects reported as being primarily focused on  EHS risks.
We found that the miscategorization of these 22 projects resulted largely  from a reporting structure for nanotechnology research that does not  easily allow agencies to recognize projects that use nanotechnology to  improve the environment or enhance the detection of environmental  contaminants, and from the limited guidance available to the agencies on  how to consistently report EHS research. From fiscal years 2001 to 2004,  the NSET subcommittee categorized federal research and development  activities into nine categories, known as “grand challenges,” that included  one focused on “nanoscale processes for environmental improvement.”  Agencies initiated work on many of these 22 projects under the grand  challenges categorization scheme. Starting in fiscal year 2005, NSET  adopted a new categorization scheme, based on PCAs, for agencies to  report their nanotechnology research. The new scheme eliminated the  research category of environmental improvement applications and asked  agencies to report research designed to address or understand the risks  associated with nanotechnology as part of the societal dimensions PCA.
The new scheme shifted the focus from applications-oriented research to  research focused on the EHS implications of nanotechnology. However,  the new scheme had no way for agencies to categorize environmentally  focused research that was underway. As a result, NSF and NIOSH  characterized these projects as EHS focused for lack of a more closely  related category to place them in, according to program managers.  Furthermore, neither NSET nor OMB provided agencies guidance on how  to apportion the dollars for a single project to more than one program  component area, when appropriate. This is especially significant for broad,  multiphase research projects, such as NSF’s support to develop networks  of research facilities. Of the five agencies we reviewed, only NSF  apportioned funds for a single project to more than one PCA.
In addition to research reported to the NNI as being primarily focused on  the EHS risks of nanotechnology, some agencies conduct research that is  not reflected in the EHS totals provided by the NNI either because they are  not considered federal research agencies or because the primary purpose  of the research was not to study EHS risks. For example, some agencies  conduct research that results in information highly relevant to EHS risks  but that was not primarily directed at understanding or addressing those  risks and therefore is not captured in the EHS total. This type of research  provides information that is needed to understand and measure  nanomaterials to ensure safe handling and protection against potential  health or environmental hazards; however, such research is captured  under other PCAs, such as instrumentation, metrology, and standards.  Because the agencies that conduct this research do not systematically  track it as EHS-related, we could not establish the exact amount of federal  funding that is being devoted to this additional EHS research.
section_title: Processes to Identify and Prioritize Needed EHS Research Appear Reasonable and Are Ongoing but a Comprehensive Research Strategy Has Not Yet Been Developed
paragraphs: All eight agencies in our review have processes in place to identify and  prioritize the research they need related to the potential EHS risks of  nanotechnology. Most agencies have developed task forces or designated  individuals to specifically consider nanotechnology issues and identify  priorities, although the scope and exact purpose of these activities differ  by agency. Once identified, agencies communicate their EHS research  priorities to the public and to the research community in a variety of ways,  including publication in agency documents that specifically address  nanotechnology issues, agency strategic plans or budget documents,  agency Web sites, and presentations at public conferences or workshops.  We determined that each agency’s nanotechnology research priorities  generally reflected its mission. For example, the priorities identified by  FDA and CPSC are largely focused on the detection and safety of  nanoparticles in the commercial products they regulate. On the other  hand, EHS research priorities identified by NSF reflect its broader mission  to advance science in general, and include a more diverse range of  priorities, such as the safety and transport of nanomaterials in the  environment, and the safety of nanomaterials in the workplace.
In addition to the efforts of individual agencies, the NSET subcommittee  has engaged in an iterative prioritization process through its NEHI  working group. Beginning in 2006, NEHI identified but did not prioritize  five broad research categories and 75 more specific subcategories of needs  where additional information was considered necessary to further  evaluate the potential EHS risks of nanotechnology. NEHI obtained public  input on its 2006 report and released another report in August 2007, in  which it distilled the previous list of 75 unprioritized specific research  needs into a set of five prioritized needs for each of the five general  research categories. The NEHI working group has used these initial steps  to identify the gaps between the needs and priorities it has identified and  the research that agencies have underway. NEHI issued a report  summarizing the results of this analysis in February 2008.
Although a comprehensive research strategy for EHS research had not  been finalized at the time of our review, the prioritization processes taking  place within individual agencies and the NNI appeared to be reasonable.  Numerous agency officials said their agency’s EHS research priorities  were generally reflected both in the NEHI working group’s 2006 research  needs and 2007 research prioritization reports. Our comparison of agency  nanotechnology priorities to the NNI’s priorities corroborated these  statements. Specifically, we found that all but one of the research  priorities identified by individual agencies could be linked to one or more  of the five general research categories. According to agency officials, the  alignment of agency priorities with the general research categories is  particularly beneficial to the regulatory agencies, such as CPSC and OSHA,  which do not conduct their own research, but rely instead on research  agencies for data to inform their regulatory decisions.
In addition, we found that the primary purposes of agency projects  underway in fiscal year 2006 were generally consistent with both agency  priorities and the NEHI working group’s research categories. Of these 97  projects, 43 were focused on Nanomaterials and Human Health, including  all 18 of the projects funded by NIH. EPA and NSF funded all 25 projects  related to Nanomaterials and the Environment. These two general  research categories accounted for 70 percent of all projects focused on  EHS risks.
Furthermore, we determined that, while agency-funded research  addressed each of the five general research categories, it focused on the  priority needs within each category to varying degrees. Specifically, we  found that the two highest-priority needs in each category were addressed  only slightly more frequently than the two lowest-priority needs.
Moreover, although the NEHI working group considered the five specific  research priorities related to human health equally important, 19 of the 43  projects focused on a single priority—”research to determine the  mechanisms of interaction between nanomaterials and the body at the  molecular, cellular, and tissular levels.” Table 2 shows a summary of  projects by agency and specific NEHI research priority.
section_title: Coordination Processes Have Fostered Interagency Collaboration and Information-Sharing
paragraphs: Agency and NNI processes to coordinate research and other activities  related to the potential EHS risks of nanotechnology have been generally  effective, and have resulted in numerous interagency collaborations. All  eight agencies in our review have collaborated on multiple occasions with  other NEHI-member agencies on activities related to the EHS risks of  nanotechnology. These EHS-related activities are consistent with the  expressed goals of the larger NNI—to promote the integration of federal  efforts through communication, coordination, and collaboration. The  NEHI working group is at the center of this effort.
We found that regular NEHI working group meetings, augmented by  informal discussions, have provided a venue for agencies to exchange  information on a variety of topics associated with EHS risks, including  their respective research needs and opportunities for collaborations.  Interagency collaboration has taken many forms, including joint  sponsorship of EHS-related research and workshops, the detailing of staff  to other NEHI working group agencies, and various other general  collaborations or memoranda of understanding.
Furthermore, the NEHI working group has adopted a number of practices  GAO has previously identified as essential to helping enhance and sustain  collaboration among federal agencies. For example, in 2005 NEHI clearly  defined its purpose and objectives and delineated roles and  responsibilities for group members. Furthermore, collaboration through  multiagency grant announcements and jointly sponsored workshops has  served as a mechanism to leverage limited resources to achieve increased  knowledge about potential EHS risks.
Finally, all agency officials we spoke with expressed satisfaction with their  agency’s participation in the NEHI working group, specifically, the  coordination and collaboration on EHS risk research and other activities  that have occurred as a result of their participation. Many officials  described NEHI as unique among interagency efforts in terms of its  effectiveness. Given limited resources, the development of ongoing  relationships between agencies with different missions, but compatible  nanotechnology research goals, is particularly important. NIH officials  commented that their agency’s collaboration with NIST to develop  standard reference materials for nanoparticles may not have occurred as  readily had it not been for regular NEHI meetings and workshops. In  addition, NEHI has effectively brought together research and regulatory  agencies, which has enhanced planning and coordination. Many officials  noted that participation in NEHI has frequently given regulators the  opportunity to become aware of and involved with research projects at a  very early point in their development, which has resulted in research that  better suits the needs of regulatory agencies.
Many officials also cited the dedication of individual NEHI working group  representatives, who participate in the working group in addition to their  regular agency duties, as critical to the group’s overall effectiveness. A  number of the members have served on the body for several years,  providing stability and continuity that contributes to a collegial and  productive working atmosphere. In addition, because nanotechnology is  relatively new with many unknowns, these officials said the agencies are  excited about advancing knowledge about nanomaterials and contributing  to the informational needs of both regulatory and research agencies.  Furthermore, according to some officials, there is a shared sense among  NEHI representatives of the need to apply lessons learned from the  development of past technologies, such as genetically modified organisms,  to help ensure the safe development and application of nanotechnology.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, while nanotechnology is likely to affect many  aspects of our daily lives in the future as novel drug delivery systems,  improved energy storage capability, and stronger, lightweight materials are  developed and made available, it is essential to consider the potential risks  of this technology in concert with its potential benefits. Federal funding  for studying the potential EHS risks of nanotechnology is critical to  enhancing our understanding of these new materials, and we must have  consistent, accurate, and complete information on the amount of agency  funding that is being dedicated to this effort. However, this information is  not currently available because the totals reported by the NNI include  research that is more focused on uses for nanotechnology, rather than the  risks it may pose. Furthermore, agencies currently have limited guidance  on how to report projects with more than one research focus across  program component areas, when appropriate. As a result, the inventory of  projects designed to address these risks is inaccurate and cannot ensure  that the highest-priority research needs are met.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to  respond to any questions that you and other Members may have.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgment
paragraphs: Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further  information about this testimony, please contact Ms. Anu Mittal, at (202)  512-3841 or at mittala@gao.gov. Individuals who contributed to this  statement include Nancy Crothers, Elizabeth Erdmann, David Lutter,  Rebecca Shea, and Cheryl Williams.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.