In October 2015, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety issued a Preliminary Opinion on Hydroxyapatite (nano). Past industrial experience with this material and participation in ISO/TC-229, Nanotechnologies, led me to submit comments on the Committee’s interpretations of physico-chemical properties, especially solubility, that in retrospect were also probing of the Committee’s collective understanding of nanomaterials. The Committee’s responses are examined against a background of other Opinions issued in the same time period. The expert’s role and responsibility, whether as an individual or a group member or in representing a scientific discipline, are examined through the concept of epistemic community taken from the public policy literature. A central theme is the Committee’s framing of chemical narratives such that its administrative procedures are projected onto the nanomaterial safety literature that is itself undergoing considerable investigation and revision. Inherent to this analysis is the singular role of toxicologists in the regulatory process. A related exchange by Australian and New Zealand colleagues is examined for its parallels to the SCCS actions, and there is a cursory discussion of later SCCS Opinions regarding Hydroxyapatite (nano).

2015年10月，欧盟消费者安全科学委员会发布了关于羟基磷灰石（纳米）的初步意见。过去使用这种材料的工业经验和参与 ISO/TC-229，纳米技术，促使我对委员会对物理化学性质，尤其是溶解度的解释提出评论，回想起来，这也是在探索委员会对纳米材料的集体理解。委员会的回应是在同一时期发表的其他意见的背景下进行审查的。专家的角色和责任，无论是作为个人或团体成员，还是作为科学学科的代表，都通过公共政策文献中的认知共同体概念进行检验。一个中心主题是委员会对化学叙述的框架，以便将其行政程序投射到纳米材料安全文献中，而纳米材料安全文献本身正在接受大量调查和修订。这种分析固有的是毒理学家在监管过程中的独特作用。审查了澳大利亚和新西兰同事的相关交流，以了解其与 SCCS 行动的相似之处，并对后来关于羟基磷灰石（纳米）的 SCCS 意见进行了粗略讨论。