The scientists grew layers of human cells in the lab to mimic a protective barrier – like the bodies blood- brain barrier. They used this barrier to examine the indirect effects of cobalt-chromium nanoparticles – which are generated from wear and tear of bone implants – on the cells that were lying behind this barrier. The amount of DNA damage in the cells behind the protective barrier was similar to the DNA damage caused by direct exposure to the nanoparticles.

These findings suggest that direct and indirect effects of nanoparticles on cells are equally crucial when considering the potential risks of their use in nanomedicine.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 **Note new number** or by email.

Associate Professor Paul Wright is Coordinator of Nanosafe Australia at RMIT University.

“In essence this is a piece of basic research that shows that, in the test tube, high concentrations of toxic metals can damage cells without direct contact with those cells.

The study also showed that larger particles (micron size) and nanoparticles were equally toxic at the high doses used.

As one of the authors of the study has said, ‘[This study] isnot a model for what can happen in the body. It is important to note that the concentrations of nanoparticles studied in this research are far in excess of those that patients with medical implants may be exposed to.’

Having said that, the research is an important reminder that any medical application of new technologies, including nanotechnology, require careful scrutiny. The research will inform future testing of real applications of nanoparticles. “

FROM THE UK SCIENCE MEDIA CENTRE:

Prof Eileen Ingham, Professor of Medical Immunology and Deputy Director of the Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering, University of Leeds, said:

“In this research a very simple model system was used in the lab to investigate whether particular nanoparticles can cause DNA damage to cells across a cell barrier. This model indicates that interesting cell biological mechanisms might be involved. It isnot a model for what can happen in the body. It is important to note that the concentrations of nanoparticles studied in this research are far in excess of those that patients with medical implants may be exposed to.”

(Please note that Prof Ingham is a co-author on the paper but is unavailable for interview)

Prof Quentin Pankhurst, Director of the Davy-Faraday Research Laboratories, Royal Institution of Great Britain, said:

“The work here is of fundamental interest regarding signalling pathways and cellular responses, but it cannot be assumed that the conditions that were created in the laboratory in order to see these effects will ever be encountered in the human body. Toxicological studies are most reliably undertaken in vivo for the very good reason that it is virtually impossible to mimic, on a benchtop, the environment that drugs or any other injectable material will find when they enter a living body.”

Prof John Fisher, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Director of the Institute for Medical & Biological Engineering, University of Leeds, said:

“This is a high quality basic science research describing interactions of nanoparticles with cells, however, the design of laboratory experiments and concentrations used means it is not relevant to the situation in patients and cannot be used to predict clinical effects or risks to patients.”

DrAndrewD.Maynard, ChiefScienceAdvisor, ProjectonEmergingNanotechnologies,
WoodrowWilsonInternationalCenterforScholars, US, said:

“This is a study that raises an intriguing question – can foreign materials in the body cause harm across barriers like the placenta and the blood-brain barrier without actually crossing the barriers? Evidence is presented that suggests there is some possibility of this occurring. But the results should be treated with a high degree of caution until more is known.

“In particular:

• The effects seen do not seem to be confined to nanoparticles alone. There is some evidence that even large particles containing Cobalt and Chromium – the two specific materials studied here – can exert their influence across barriers in the body.
• No evidence is presented to suggest that this is a way in which all nanoparticles can cause harm, as opposed to the specific types of nanoparticles tested.
• From these results, it is not possible to say whether the observed effects could occur under real-life conditions, or whether harm could be caused at realistic exposure levels. The concentrations of material used were very high – the equivalent of the placenta in a 9 months pregnant woman being exposed to approximately 4 – 40 grams of material. Whether such high exposures to materials like the ones used will ever occur is questionable.

“While the study opens up new avenues of research, and should be of particular interest to scientists developing new nanoparticle-based drugs and medical devices, it is too early to say whether materials in the body – including nanomaterials – are likely to cause damage across normally tight barriers like the placenta.”

.

A fact sheet on carbon nanotubes is also available compliments of our colleagues at the UK Science Media Centre.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 8207 7415 or by email.

Associate Professor Thomas Faunce is Director of the Globalization and Health Project and Associate Professor in the College of Law and Medical School at The Australian National University

“This paper suggests that inhalation of carbon nanotubes, as well as potentially causing a persistent inflammatory reaction resembling mesothelioma, at sufficient concentration may also produce a unique suppression of the systemic immune system. One needs to be cautious about overreacting to what is in many ways a preliminary finding but if this research is supported by subsequent studies it supports the case for specific exposure regulation applied to these nanoparticles.”

Prof Martina Stenzel is from the Centre for Advanced Macromolecular Design at the University of New South Wales

“I think what this article mainly shows is that we don’t know enough about nanoparticles/nanotubes. With the introduction of nanoparticles in many areas of research including medical research it was thought to be the wholly grail to all our problems – nanoparticles for cancer treatment, for water treatment, for energy…..you name it. In the last few years, we have more and more voices emerging showing that there could be some toxic side effects. Fact is, we don’t know enough about the nanoworld and much more research needs to be done to understand the
good and the bad effects of these little particles that have the size of a viruses – and yes, maybe we should treat nanoparticles at the moment more like a virus until we really know what the effects are.

However, after years of euphoria, we should not turn around and condemn nanoparticles. Nanoparticles have led to many promising results in our research labs. I am not too aware of other areas, but I am familiar with cancer treatment. Here we can use nanoparticles to sneak some cancer drugs into tumors. The nanoparticles are loaded with little anti-cancer drugs and these nanoparticles are not immediately detected by the body. Therefore, the efficacy of the treatment can be much higher. Cancer cells are very happy to take up nanoparticles and once they are inside the cell, they release their toxic cargo killing the cancer cell.

While this is a great concept, we can assume that nanoparticles may go into healthy cells, and the other problem we haven’t answered yet is what will happen to the nanoparticles in the body once they have done their job. It seems that everything has two sides to it and we should alsways keep this in mind.

I think the paper is a nice addition to nanoresearch and shows that we should be careful with any new invention. It is not the first paper that looks into the toxicity of nanoparticles. However, we need to do more research in this area. From an application point of view, we also need to learn to balance between the great advantages nanoparticles can have with potential negative side effects.”

Professor Nicolas Voelcker is Professor of Chemistry at Flinders University in South Australia. His research focuses on the development of new nanostructured materials for applications such as biosensors, biochips, biomaterials and drug delivery.

“Whilst this is an interesting immunological paper elucidating the cause of immune suppression by inhalation of carbon nanotubes in mice, I don’t think that significant media attention is warranted. There are plenty of studies out there (some dating back more than 20 years) on the toxicology and immunology of inhaled dust particles produced (as a product or by-product) in plants to which workers might be exposed to. Examples range from wood-borne particles, metallic or polymeric dusts, many of those are on the nanoscale. I am not very familiar with the occupational health and safety regulations in these industries, but I am sure that there is personal protective equipment in place to effectively prevent inhalation of these particles by workers. The same is true for carbon nanotubes. I don’t see any reason to be alarmed by these findings.”

For an entire day once a year, Federal Parliament lives and breathes science. ‘Science meets Parliament’ brings up to 200 scientists from all over the country to meet with parliamentarians in Canberra and the AusSMC gave journalists the opportunity to be a “fly on the wall” at Parliament House and to access three of the presentations online during the day.

‘Science Meets Parliament’ was organised by the Federation of Australian Science and Technological Societies (FASTS).

Nanotechnology and Safety

7.30am – 8.30am AEDT
Nano-particles are already used in manufacturing and research sites. But are they safe? What is the current state of play with nano-particles. What do we know? What don’t we know? What do we need to know?

SPEAKERS:

Paul Wright, Nanosafe, RMIT University, Melbourne

Steve Mullins, OHS officer, ACTU

Brian Power, Chair, ANBF

Dr Howard Morris, Nanotechnology OHS Program Manager, Office of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (ASCC), Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR)

Dr Maxine McCall, theme leader, nanosafety, CSIRO

PRESENTATION:

Full Briefing:
View WebEx Presentation | View PowerPoint (pdf) | Listen (mp3)

Coasts and oceans into the future: Australia’s marine domain

10.45am – 11.45am AEDT
70% of Australia is underwater following recent UN recognition of Australia’s extended maritime borders. But what do we really know about this rich and complex marine resource?

SPEAKERS:

John Gunn, Chief Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division – Oceans matter

Ian Poiner, CEO Australian Institute of Marine Science – Australian marine science and technology matters

Anthony Bergin, Director of Research Programs, Australian Strategic Policy Institute – Sea change: towards Australia’s ocean destiny.

Neville Smith, Acting Director, Bureau of Meteorology – A Marine Nation: National Framework for Marine Research and Innovation

PRESENTATION:

Full Briefing:
View WebEx Presentation | Listen (mp3)

Indigenous Australia and science

4.00pm – 5.00pm AEDT
There are growing connections between indigenous Australia and science in Natural Resource Management, indigenous health and species identification. How to manage relations across the boundaries raises important challenges for intellectual property, setting science and research agendas and equitable access to science.

SPEAKERS:

Mick Gooda, Aboriginal Health, CRC

Kerry Arabena, AIATSIS

Dr Craig James, Desert Knowledge CRC

Dan Walker, CSIRO

PRESENTATION:

Full Briefing:
View WebEx Presentation | Listen (mp3)

Feel free to use this quote in your stories. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 8207 7415 or by email.

Dr Peter Binks is CEO of Nanotechnology Victoria Ltd

“This is a sound and thorough review of the current regulatory scene, and we are comfortable with its assessment. The Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies has strong expertise in this field, and is acknowledged internationally as leaders in nanotechnology regulatory considerations. However, we urge the Federal Government not to leave this analysis where it stands, without addressing the gaps and inconsistencies that the report identifies. We believe there is an opportunity for Australia to establish a nanotechnology regulatory regime in advance of other nations, which provides both better protection for the community and greater certainty and security for nanotechnology investors. This would build on Australia’s capabilities to help establish a leadership position for our industries”

A fact sheet is also available compliments of our colleagues at the London Science Media Centre.

Feel free to use the comments below in your stories. If you would like to speak to an expert, or need a copy of the paper and media release, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 8207 7415 or by email.

Dr Peter Binks is CEO of Nanotechnology Victoria Limited (NanoVic)

“This paper provides further information on the possible dangers of certain classes of nanoscale materials, but also highlights that the picture is incomplete. It confirms the need for a thorough evaluation of the transport and toxicology of these materials, via Australian research and cooperation with research in other locations. We believe there should be a national approach to the evaluation of both health and environmental implications of engineered nanomaterials.”

Professor Mark Welland is Professor of Nanotechnology at the University of Cambridge, UK.

“I welcome this valuable research that represents a part of the growing scientific literature into exploring the potential toxicology of nanoparticles of various shapes, sizes and compositions. As expected, this particular study shows that carbon nanotubes of particular length and size, similar to that of asbestos, may be harmful if inhaled. It therefore neither affects the majority of nano-products nor products after manufacture where nanotubes are embedded within the product.”

Professor Richard Jones FRS is an EPSRC Professorial Fellow and Senior Strategic Advisor for Nanotechnology, University of Sheffield, UK.

“Up to now, there’s been considerable uncertainty about the hazards that carbon nanotubes might pose. This research starts to clarify the issue; not all nanotubes are equal when it comes to potential toxicity, and now we know that it is the longest tubes that are most likely to cause problems. Nanotubes are generally used, not in their free form, but incorporated in other materials like plastics, and if workers, the public and the environment aren’t to be put at risk we need to make sure that dangerous numbers of free nanotubes can’t be released in manufacture, use or after disposal of products containing them.”

Professor Mike Horton is Director of Life Sciences, London Centre for Nanotechnology, University College London.

“The question as to whether ‘long’ carbon nanotubes behave in a similar manner to asbestos and other disease-producing fibres to produce tissue damage is important but complex. The work of Donaldson et al. suggests that there aresimilarities in the early inflammatory response to the two materials, but much more work will be required to provide definitive proof one way or another and to show if the same effects are seen if particles are inhaled and whether exposure levels reach the threshold for the development of cancer (mesothelioma). Their study indicates that there is a need to develop and apply methods to test nanomaterials for potential toxicity and to detect and measure environmental exposure.”