In the June 14, 2005 edition of the Wall Street Journal on page B2, there was a well written opinion from Fed Krupp, president Environmental Defense, and Chad Holliday, president of DuPont.

In part they said, " The science of the small is raising big expectations. New materials a tenth the size of a human cell, engineered atom by atom, promise to revolutionize everything from energy production to medicine. We've seen many extravagant predictions surrounding this new world called nanotechnology: A single slender cable built from nanoparticles might carry the world's total electrical supply. Environmental burdens might be lifted by nano-pores that desalinate water or nano-cages that trap bacteria. As with new 'miracle' technologies in the past, there is much speculation regarding how 'nanotech' can transform the world and national economies. Governments and private investors are rushing to make major investments in projects bearing the 'nano' prefix.

" We've been here before. A new technology is heralded as the 'next big thing.' Companies are created. R&D budgets expand, and investors' eyes gleam at the prospect of new markets. Then two or 10 or 20 years later, when the technology is in widespread use, other effects become evident.

"For example, before 1929, the toxic gases ammonia, methyl chloride, and sulfur dioxide were used as refrigerants, but fatal accidents occurred because of leakage. In 1928, a new family of non-toxic chemicals, chlorofluorocarbons, was invented and became the standard for refrigerants. Only decades later did we recognize that the release of CFCs was dissolving the earth's ozone layer."

They urge, "An early and open examination of the potential risks of a new product or technology is not just good common sense -- it's good business strategy.   . . .  With the right mix of voluntary corporate leadership, coordinated research, and informed regulation, we can reap the benefits of this promising technology while reducing the likelihood of unintended consequences."

They further suggest that industry, universities, government and public interest groups should collaborate to determine what testing is necessary for new nanoproducts. This is something Rice University is doing today with their industry outreach program. 

Finally, they suggest that the federal government needs to invest more in nanoparticle behavior, a role the Rice's CBEN plays.

The entire commentary is worth reading.


Extracts from "Testimony of Dr. Vicki L. Colvin, Director, Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN), to Congress on April 9, 2003."


Michael Crichton's novel Prey describes a chilling scenario in which swarms of nano-robots—equipped with memory, solar power generators, and powerful software—begin preying on living creatures and reproducing. This may be gripping science fiction; it is not science fact. It does, however, highlight a reaction that could bring the growing nanotechnology industry to its knees: fear. The perception that nanotechnology will cause environmental devastation or human disease could itself turn the dream of a trillion-dollar industry into a nightmare of public backlash. This negative response is possible even if the environmental and health threats never materialize. To nanotechnology researchers like myself, that prospect is all too real, and just as frightening as anything a sci-fi writer can imagine.

 

The good news is that its not too late to ensure that nanotechnology develops responsibly and with strong public support. The Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University is working toward that goal, and we believe that legislation such as the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 is central in avoiding this nightmare scenario.

No one has a crystal ball to predict exactly how nanotechnology will change our lives. Unfortunately, due to in part to unrealistic scenarios like the one in Prey, nanotechnology's yuck index is rising as people take as fact the fiction of ‘invisible nanorobots'; this issue is a distraction from the real and perhaps more mundane issues that this new technology area is facing, particularly in the area of environmental impact.

Nanotechnologies in their diverse forms all share one feature: their reliance on nanoscale materials. In short, nanotechnologies require ‘stuff'. This stuff may be a familiar material such as silicon or gold that exhibits unique and very valuable properties when it is “nanosized”. Like any material, whether polymers or silicon chips, nanomaterials require energy to manufacture and generate waste to dispose of. It will prove to be expensive to ignore these issues until a mature industry is developed; for example, a growing fraction of the cost of a Pentium chip is not in the raw materials but in the energy and waste disposal costs. Ultimately the industry and society will benefit if we plan now to create a nanomanufacturing industry that minimizes waste production and energy use.

Nanomaterials themselves may also have unintended environmental consequences. From asbestos to DDT we have, as a society, paid an enormous price for not evaluating toxicological and ecosystem impacts before industries develop. The real losers here are not environmentalists; instead they are the businesses who enthusiastically embrace new materials, only to face a decade later debilitating liability claims from employees, consumers and governments. And in the case of nanotechnology, the ultimate losers may be the American taxpayers who invested over one billion dollars in nanomaterials research without any hard data on their toxicological and environmental effects.

This might seem like a distant issue with no effects on you or your constituents. However, if you have used a sunscreen in the last year it is possible that your skin came in contact with nanoscale ceramics. Is this a cause for concern? No one knows. Still, there are some general principles which help us think through the issue. Nanomaterials are valuable in many technologies because they interact quite differently with the body than larger materials. For example, you can wear a silver bracelet with no ill effects but if you eat too much nanoscale silver, as some people have in the belief it has various health benefits, you will turn yourself blue. Finely divided solids have access to areas of the body and interact with biological systems in completely unexpected ways, which is exactly why they are so powerful in medical applications. The converse of this is that unintended exposures—of research workers, factory workers, and the general public—to nanoscale solids could have more dire consequences than turning skin blue. Or they could turn out to be benign. We just don't know. If we fail to answer these questions early, public acceptance of nanotechnologies could be in jeopardy, and the entire industry derailed.

As one of six Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers funded by the National Science Foundation, CBEN has a mandate to clear major roadblocks to nanotechnology commercialization. We have identified public acceptance as one of these possible roadblocks, and believe that they must look beyond the good news about nanotechnology and precisely characterize the unintended consequences of nanotechnology. They seek to avoid the path traveled by the GMO industry by encouraging the industry to answer the tough questions about societal and environmental impacts while it is still developing.

They need partners in this endeavor. Based on the recent National Research Council report and our own experience, there is little money and interest in the societal, ethical and environmental impact of nanotechnology, despite the rhetoric. Your help here is essential.