Cambridge, Massachusetts, Local Regulatory Efforts

The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has a celebrated history of engaging in local governance of new and emerging technologies. One of the city's most notable technology policies is its recombinant DNA ordinance. The city has an industrial history that is based in fabricating items such as automobiles and textiles; however, current industries are generally engaged in the hightech sector, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technologies.

The approximately 105,000 people that call Cambridge home take pride in their city's dedication to academic and scientific innovation, as well as in its commitment to good public policy. When Cambridge Public Health Department (CPHD) officials in the city's Environmental Health Unit were presented with the challenge and opportunity of considering a possible nanotechnology regulation, they made efforts to assess possible policy approaches from a number of different angles. In summer 2008, the Cambridge nanotechnology policy was approved by the city council.

The CPHD, in collaboration with the Cambridge Nanomaterials Advisory Committee, decided not to pursue a nanotechnology regulation at the current time, due to the lack of assessment mechanisms and criteria for determining and evaluating risks associated with nanotechnology. The CPHD and the Nanomaterials Advisory Committee decided that it would be appropriate to recommend six steps that would enable the city to take a proactive, anticipatory approach in governing nanotechnology. The CPHD notes that the Nanomaterials Advisory Committee meetings and discussions dealt specifically with health and safety issues related to nanomaterial handling, exposure, and storage, as opposed to larger regulatory questions related to consumer products and environmental issues, which are traditionally addressed by state and national agencies.

Cambridge officially considered regulating nanotechnology in a city council meeting on January 8, 2007, encouraged to explore the issue after Berkeley, California, approved a measure in December 2006 to amend its hazardous materials ordinance to include a health and safety disclosure for nanoparticles. Sam Lipson, the director of the Environmental Health Unit (EHU), undertook the task of examining the Berkeley regulation and [Page 66]determining appropriate measures for Cambridge. In order to bring multiple perspectives, transparency, and “experts in the field” into the EHU's examination of the issue, Lipson assembled the Cambridge Nanomaterials Advisory Committee (CNAC) in summer 2007. Eighteen individuals selected for their professional expertise in various fields comprised the committee. Members included university researchers, industry scientists, lawyers, policy scholars, and local government officials. Four committee members were also Cambridge residents. The Cambridge Nanomaterials Advisory Committee met for the first time in the summer of 2007 and met on a monthly basis through January 2008. Meetings were facilitated by Lipson and the CPHD. The committee was given the task of developing a series of policy recommendations for the city to pursue. In committee meetings, members engaged in dialogue regarding issues related to existing oversight mechanisms for nanotechnology, possible risk frameworks applicable to nanotechnology, and the state of nanotechnology regulation and oversight on the federal, state, and local levels.

The Cambridge Nanomaterials Advisory Committee, in collaboration with the Cambridge Public Health Department, determined six policy recommendations for the city to pursue for the following two years. The recommendations were compiled into a report, “Recommendations for a Municipal Health & Safety Policy for Nanomaterials,” authored by Lipson and edited by Susan Feinberg. The report engages in an overview of nanotoxicology, a field that has focused primarily on naturally occurring nanoparticles, such as those found in diesel exhaust, and then identifies gaps in the current nanoparticle health and safety literature. The report raises questions that have not yet been answered regarding risks related to engineered nanomaterial uptake into the body, safe nanomaterial exposure thresholds, and whether there exist “meaningful differences” between human exposure to naturally occurring nanomaterials and engineered nanomaterials. The report's recommendations were approved as official policy mandate by the Cambridge city council at its July 28, 2008 meeting.

...