LamprouMemo29

Memo 29 Describe a Practice. The first meeting of ANSI-NSP was held in Washington DC, on September 29-30-2004. Nearly one hundred stakeholders from academia, government, and industry participated in the two-day meeting. The discussion on nanotechnology standards between different stakeholders was centered on issues of terminology and nomenclature that are considered to be of great priority, as well as on the naming of nanotechnology materials. During the procedure the different stakeholders present their position and argue in order to support it. The purpose of the panel is to reach an agreement, concerning nanotechnology standards, which will serve every stakeholder. The results of the panel discussions are going to be reported to the Technical Advisory Group ISO/TC 229 for nanotechnologies. During the discussion there was a general consensus on the issues of terminology and nomenclature. Although, substantial debates appeared on the “more general use of the terms “nanotechnology,” “nanomaterial,” and “nano” generally.” The debate started when a group of industry representatives argued for a broad definition of the term “nano.” They argued that keeping the definitions broad allowed the most relevant topics within this area and resonated with the spirit of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) definition. The market will benefit more by a broader definition and patents could be issued more easily. On the other side a group of scientists was really becoming frustrated. Their view was totally different. They preferred a more narrow definition and even one that will draw distinctions in the names between artificial and naturally occurring nanomaterials. They supported that a narrower definition will preserve the exclusiveness of the various scientific research groups working on naotechnology. It will maintain the competitiveness and imagination of scientific research and development. By accepting a broader definition of the term “nano,” nanotechnology will lose its novel character.