Issue #22: Fall 2008

Is Nanotechnology the Next Big Thing or the Next Big Nightmare?

by Hilary Thomson

Imagine molecule-sized surveillance robots secretly scanning the activities of every citizen. Imagine computers no bigger than bacteria and so cheap that even the most marginalized could own one. Imagine TV screens on milk cartons, supercomputers we can roll up and stuff into our pockets, atom-sized explosives and clothing that makes us invisible.

Such miniature machines and innovative materials may sound more like science-fiction than science, but according to some futurists the ideas are not just small talk. Nanotechnology can make them happen.

Nanotechnology involves manipulating matter measured in nanometres – one billionth of a metre, or about one hundred times smaller than a virus – to create materials with specific characteristics, or functioning miniature machinery. In theory, a multitude of such machines can do our bidding in applications that include medical, environmental, industrial, electronic and consumer products. More than 500 nanoproducts, ranging from odourless socks to surgical tools, are currently available worldwide, and the estimated market for nanotechnology over the next ten years is measured in trillions of dollars, according to the US National Science Foundation.

Hailed by some as the science that could save the planet, others demand a moratorium on development until all potential hazards are known. Every advance seems paired to a corresponding risk or negative application, leaving many to wonder if nanotechnology should be greeted with celebration or censure.

Consider some of the changes our molecular future might include: ultra-fine, affordable filters could be used to purify tainted or salt water, creating huge sources of clean water for the world. Impoverished areas could start molecular manufacturing centres using equipment so small a factory fits in a suitcase. Tiny implantable sensors could allow for continuous and detailed health monitoring, so illness might be detected and treated sooner. Surgical robots introduced into living tissue could excise harmful cells and repair damaged ones. Dependence on fossil fuels could be alleviated by alternatives such as solar energy, made feasible through low-cost manufacturing and small, effective energy storage systems.

The constructive applications of nanotechnology sound like the answer to Earth’s every problem. However, the power of this tool could also lead to irresponsible or unethical use, unplanned negative outcomes or abuse. An abundance of cheap products and the redistribution of industrial power might empty once-busy manufacturing centres, creating massive job displacement and the destabilization of world economies. The detailed health data used by physicians could also lead to medical or genetic discrimination by employers or insurers, and provide a blueprint for targeted biological and chemical weapons. Advanced data collection coupled with microscopic surveillance equipment could create a Big Brother scenario of global proportions. And might the nanoparticles used in nanoproducts poison us, our homes, workplaces and environment?

From the outset, scientists realized that nanotech’s potential for great benefit also carried potential for great harm. Some guidelines for responsible nanotech development do exist, but the science may be moving faster than our ability to consider its ethical, environmental and social implications. Are we prepared for a molecular revolution?

UBC assistant professor Milind Kandlikar doesn’t think so. He has a joint appointment to the Liu Institute for Global Issues and the Institute of Asian Research. “Nanotech workers could be the canaries in the coalmine,” he says. “There is no set of recommended exposure levels for nanoparticles anywhere in the world. Precautions are being taken, though the application of procedures is uneven.”

An engineer who has published extensively on the science and policy of global climate change, Kandlikar describes himself as a hybrid whose interest is the connection between technological innovation, global environments and human development. As well as examining the risks scientifically, he is examining how people might respond to nanotechnology and their perceptions of the risks and resulting implications for public policy. He is working on this with Terre Satterfield of UBC’s Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability. The duo is collaborating with researchers at the University of California and hope to conduct similar research in Canada.

Kandlikar says research is moving toward a better understanding of how nanoparticles can affect human health and the environment, but scientists just don’t know what properties – shape, size, chemical composition or coatings – might make nanoparticles and nanowaste hazardous.

So how do we know what’s safe? The good news is that unlike technologies such as nuclear power and genetically modified organisms where risk assessment trailed behind the science, nanotechnology risks and benefits are being examined before the technology is fully developed and commercialized. Kandlikar also points out that environmentalists and their concerns are more accepted than they were when earlier technologies were being developed. Now, when they blow the whistle, the public is likely to pay attention.

However, nanotechnology is currently guided by environmental and occupational safety regulations that were written before the emergence of nanotechnology. According to Kandlikar, these regulations aren’t sufficient. He sees a need for special rules that reflect the complex characteristics of nanoparticles. The current voluntary self-regulation by nanotech developers is not enough to protect workers or the environment, he says.

The US has a systematic approach to addressing nanotechnology’s ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues. In 2003, the US Congress passed an Act that applies to every nanotech centre in the country. It provides for public input in nanotechnology development and requires nanoscale research centres to address social implications during their research.

“We have no similar system in Canada. The federal funding agencies aren’t set up to allow for co-ordination across multidisciplinary projects, nor are they mandated to include research into nanotech’s larger social and ethical issues,” says Kandlikar.

It’s difficult to engage researchers in social impact issues because such discussions can be seen as interfering with research focus, he says. Also, tensions can emerge between social scientists and nanoscientists. Graffiti observed by Harvard law professor Doug Kysar, who is associated with the US National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network, helps to illustrate the divide. One message read, “Nanotech scares me: Earth.” Underneath, someone had scrawled, “I hate hippies: Nanotech.” Kysar says it’s critical to find middle ground between the extremes of alarmist fear-mongering and elitist dismissal of public concerns.

Kandlikar agrees that public engagement is important. People are more risk tolerant if the technology is beneficial to human health but even so, public enthusiasm can turn into public fear with disastrous results for funding and commercialization. Witness the widespread and intense public controversy over stem cell research or genetically modified organisms. He fears a single negative event could “stigmatize the technology and blacken the entire science.” He hopes the public won’t rush to judgment on either the benefits or the risks of nanotechnology. “This is a technology with huge potential. In addition to dramatic changes in the industrialized world, it could help the developing world by making critically needed products cheap and abundant. Co-ordination and collaboration can make it happen.”

Making it happen is a global enterprise. Industrial countries, seeing the enormous market potential for nanotech products, are making significant investments in research and development. The US invested US$400 million in 2000 and by 2006 this figure had almost doubled. In the same year, Japan spent US$750 million, Europe an estimated US$335 million and together China, South Korea and Taiwan US$551 million.

Canada invested about $200 million, according to the National Institute for Nanotechnology, which involves nanotech researchers in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, informatics, pharmacy and medicine. It is specifically mandated to research the ethical and social ramifications of nanothechnology. These can include abuses of the technology such as invisible weaponry or nanosurveillance that violates privacy; environmental disasters such as unchecked self-replicating material; a nanodivide that sees only developed countries reaping nanotech benefits; and our ability to directly manipulate human molecules or introduce nanomachines into the body. Of the many issues, those concerning human and environmental safety rate top priority, says Lori Sheremeta, a lawyer and research officer at the institute.

Extending laws and regulations to ensure safety when new materials and products enter the marketplace is critical. But who leads the way in responsible nanotech development? Should it be government, academia or industry? And if there are ethical disagreements, who decides what is right? “What is ultimately right is decided by society and reflected in collective values. No one group should ever hold a monopoly position with regard to ethical thought,” Sheremeta says. She calls for social scientists who really get nanotechnology and for scientists to focus on its attendant social issues.

And, although nanotechnology may seem to hold the answer to urgent global needs such as clean drinking water or inexpensive energy, Sheremeta points out that nanotechnology will more likely be used in conjunction with other technologies. “Thinking that nanotechnology can save the world is naïve and reveals a lack of understanding about what nanotechnology is. I don’t think there will ever be an organization like Nanoscientists Without Borders.” She concludes there is not enough work being done in Canada on ethical issues surrounding nanotechnology. “We have a combination of challenges in Canada: too little research funding and underdeveloped capacity to do the research.”

Medical applications of nanotechnology fire the imagination. Researchers are exploring advances such as self-replicating molecules that can regenerate or repair tissue, providing replacement parts that might include entire organs; nanoparticles to dispense drugs to individual diseased cells; and nanobots, tiny sensors that can quickly and accurately detect the smallest signs of disease.

A Canadian Institute of Health Research program, the Regenerative Medicine and Nanomedicine Initiative – established to coordinate nanotech research – states on its website that “consideration of the social, cultural and ethical perspectives of human health is equally critical, to ensure that, as new developments emerge, we fully understand their implications for society.” And yet, in Canada there is no legislative requirement for research into ethical and social issues to parallel nanotech investigations.

In 2008, of the $1.5 billion the US is spending on the National Nanotechnology Initiative, five per cent has been earmarked for direct research into social and ethical issues. Moreover, it is intended that this research be conducted not only by historians, philosophers and ethicists, but also by nanoscale engineers themselves.

Scientists need a clear understanding of issues before undertaking such research. To help prepare its investigators to comply with the US Act, researchers at the Center for Nanoscale Systems at Harvard University
are now required as part of the enrolment process to view an online presentation on social, environmental and human safety nanotech issues.

No such requirement exists at UBC but nanotech researcher and UBC alumnus John Madden, BSc(Hon)’91, says environmental risk is not an issue in a small scale laboratory because of the low quantities of nanomaterials used. He says worker safety is protected through standard lab procedures developed to deal with toxic chemicals and small fibres such as asbestos. He agrees that new research is needed to discover effects of new materials, but says if work was delayed pending toxicity testing, investigators would have to wait around for ten years to make anything.

But Madden and his Microsystems and Nanotechnology group at UBC are not waiting around. Research areas include biomedical nanodevices; nanoelectronics and computing; energy systems; nanosensors and nanofabrication techniques. The team is involved in creating artificial muscle made from carbon nanotubes spun into yarn. Voltage is applied to the ultra-fine yarn, enabling it to contract and expand with 300 times more force than human muscle. The size and strength offers huge potential for robotic prostheses, which are currently limited by the weight of the motors that power them. To help build UBC’s capacity in nanotech research, Madden coordinated a nanotechnology and microsystems option within the electrical engineering degree with the first students graduating in May 2009.

Konrad Walus, chair at the UBC group, is exploring sensing technologies and materials using nanostructures. Changes in the electrical properties of carbon nanotubes upon adhesion of single biomolecules can create extremely sensitive sensors with potential for biomedical or industrial applications. He acknowledges that the effect of nanoparticles is not fully understood, especially with high concentrations of particles, but points out that unregulated nanoparticles, such as those found in car exhaust, are everywhere. Scientists haven’t just invented them. “The public should push for more research into safety and health effects,” he says. “But keep the risks in perspective. There’s no need to panic.”

So are we heading for techno-utopia, a frightening sci-fi future or fear-based public rejection of nanotechnology? All are possible, but if we have learned anything from experiences with genomics and biotechnology, we know that risks need to be considered proactively. Next year’s Cascadia Nanotech Symposium, to take place in Vancouver, will provide an excellent forum.

Nanotechnology could be the first technology developed with sensitivity to ethical, environmental and social issues. If we fearlessly and responsibly examine all aspects of the technology today, we can anticipate our tomorrow will be enriched with its benefits.

Hilary Thomson is a freelance writer living in Vancouver.