The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Council on Environmental Quality have issued a memo to federal agencies titled, "Principles for Nanotechnology Environmental, Health, and Safety Oversight." Nanotechnology involves manipulating matter the size of one-billionth of a meter or 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Nanotechnology has the potential to impact countless aspects of our lives, and many consider it the next great boon to society. However, early studies indicate it may also pose health, safety and environmental risks. Governments around the world have been grappling with how they should respond. In a statement of the purpose of the memo, the White House lays out why government needs to be involved in the emerging field of nanotechnology: Federal oversight approaches should be cognizant of the potential benefits of nanotechnology, including health, economic and environmental benefits, while recognizing uncertainties surrounding the evolving science and technology. The purpose of considering environmental, health and safety oversight approaches in the context of nanotechnology is to protect human health and the environment. That sounds great, proving the White House can talk the talk. But when it comes time to walk the walk, the White House stumbles. In a section called "regulatory path forward," the memo outlines how federal agencies should go about addressing nanotechnology policy. Among other things, the memo states:

• Decisions should be based on the best reasonably obtainable scientific, technical, economic, and other information;
• Where possible, regulatory approaches should enable rather than hinder innovation;
• Regulatory approaches should be performance based to the extent feasible and provide predictability and flexibility in the face of evolving science and technology;
• Benefits of regulation should justify their costs;

The memo sends the wrong message. "Aggressive efforts to close information gaps and increased research funding" should replace "reasonably obtainable" science, and "ensuring public health" should supplant mentions of cost-benefit analysis. Government should play a proactive role in a field with such significant uncertainty and potential impact. A recent statement of principles — signed by more than 40 labor, environmental and public interest groups from around the world — called for a more sensible approach to nanotechnology regulation. In the statement, those groups urge a precautionary approach and "a committed focus on critical risk research and immediate action to mitigate potential exposures until safety is demonstrated."