Implications of nanotechnology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.(March 2007) Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.

Part of a series of articles on Nanotechnology
History Implications Applications Organizations In fiction and popular culture List of topics
Subfields and related fields
Nanomaterials Fullerenes Carbon nanotubes Nanoparticles
Nanomedicine Nanotoxicology Nanosensor
Molecular self-assembly Self-assembled monolayer Supramolecular assembly DNA nanotechnology
Nanoelectronics Molecular electronics Nanocircuitry Nanolithography
Scanning probe microscopy Atomic force microscope Scanning tunneling microscope
Molecular nanotechnology Molecular assembler Nanorobotics Mechanosynthesis
This box: view • talk • edit

Nanoethics concerns the ethical and social issues associated with developments in nanotechnology, a science which encompass several fields of science and engineering, including biology, chemistry, computing, and materials science. Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of very small-scale matter – a nanometer is one billionth of a meter, and nanotechnology is generally used to mean work on matter at 100 nanometers and smaller.

Significant environmental, health, and safety issues might arise with development in nanotechnology since some negative effects of nanoparticles in our environment might be overlooked. Since nature itself creates all kinds of nano objects, however, the potential dangers are not due to the nanoscale alone but rather to the fact that previously non-toxic materials can become harmful when ingested or inhaled as nanoparticles. Social risks related to nanotechnology development include the possibility of military applications of nanotechnology in biological warfare, chemical warfare, ammunitions and armaments and even as implants for soldier "enhancement." Enhanced surveillance capabilities through nano-sensors are also of concern to privacy rights advocates. However, as of 2007, these applications still belong to science-fiction.

In discussing issues related to nanotechnology, the acronym NELSI is used to signify nanotechnology's ethical, legal, and social implications.^{[citation needed]}

Contents 1 Overview 1.1 Projected benefits 1.2 Potential risks 2 Health and safety implications from nanoparticles 2.1 Health issues 2.2 Environmental issues 2.3 A need for regulation? 3 Societal implications 3.1 Possible military applications 3.2 Intellectual property issues 3.3 Potential benefits and risks for developing countries 4 Implications of molecular nanotechnology 5 Studies on the implications of nanotechnology 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

[edit] Overview

[edit] Projected benefits

Main article: List of nanotechnology applications

Nano optimists, including many governments, see nanotechnology delivering benefits such as:

• environmentally benign material abundance for all by providing universal clean water supplies
• atomically engineered food and crops resulting in greater agricultural productivity with less labour requirements
• nutritionally enhanced interactive ‘smart’ foods.^[1]
• cheap and powerful energy generation
• clean and highly efficient manufacturing
• radically improved formulation of drugs, diagnostics and organ replacement
• much greater information storage and communication capacities
• interactive ‘smart’ appliances; and increased human performance through convergent technologies^[2][3]

[edit] Potential risks

Potential risks of nanotechnology can broadly be grouped into four areas:

• Health issues - the effects of nanomaterials on human biology
• Environmental issues - the effects of nanomaterials on the environment
• Societal issues - the effects that the availability of nanotechnological devices will have on politics and human interaction
• "Grey goo" - the specific risks associated with the speculative vision of molecular nanotechnology

[edit] Health and safety implications from nanoparticles

The mere presence of nanomaterials (materials that contain nanoparticles) is not in itself a threat. It is only certain aspects that can make them risky, in particular their mobility and their increased reactivity. Only if certain properties of certain nanoparticles were harmful to living beings or the environment would we be faced with a genuine hazard. In this case it can be called nanopollution.

In addressing the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials we need to differentiate between two types of nanostructures: (1) Nanocomposites, nanostructured surfaces and nanocomponents (electronic, optical, sensors etc.), where nanoscale particles are incorporated into a substance, material or device (“fixed” nano-particles); and (2) “free” nanoparticles, where at some stage in production or use individual nanoparticles of a substance are present. These free nanoparticles could be nanoscale species of elements, or simple compounds, but also complex compounds where for instance a nanoparticle of a particular element is coated with another substance (“coated” nanoparticle or “core-shell” nanoparticle).

There seems to be consensus that, although one should be aware of materials containing fixed nanoparticles, the immediate concern is with free nanoparticles.

Because nanoparticles are very different from their everyday counterparts, their adverse effects cannot be derived from the known toxicity of the macro-sized material. This poses significant issues for addressing the health and environmental impact of free nanoparticles.

To complicate things further, in talking about nanoparticles it is important that a powder or liquid containing nanoparticles almost never be monodisperse [4], but contain instead a range of particle sizes. This complicates the experimental analysis as larger nanoparticles might have different properties from smaller ones. Also, nanoparticles show a tendency to aggregate, and such aggregates often behave differently from individual nanoparticles.

The lethal dose over six months for lab rats, of different kinds of nanoparticles are often characterized by a Skov Kjaer index, named after the scientist Kasper Skov Kjaer.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is conducting research on how nanoparticles interact with the body’s systems and how workers might be exposed to nano-sized particles in the manufacturing or industrial use of nanomaterials. NIOSH currently offers interim guidelines for working with nanomaterials consistent with the best scientific knowledge. ^[4]

[edit] Health issues

Main article: Nanotoxicology

Since there is no authority to govern nanotech-based products, there are many products that could possibly be dangerous to humans. Scientific research has indicated the potential for some nanomaterials to be toxic to humans or the environment.^[5][6] In March 2004 tests conducted by environmental toxicologist Eva Oberdörster, Ph.D. working with Southern Methodist University in Texas, found extensive brain damage to fish exposed to fullerenes for a period of just 48 hours at a relatively moderate dose of 0.5 parts per million (commiserate with levels of other kinds of pollution found in bays). The fish also exhibited changed gene markers in their livers, indicating their entire physiology was affected. In a concurrent test, the fullerenes killed water fleas, an important link in the marine food chain.^[7] The extremely small size of fabricated nanomaterials also means that they are much more readily taken up by living tissue than presently known toxins. Nanoparticles can be inhaled, swallowed, absorbed through skin and deliberately or accidentally injected during medical procedures. They might be accidentally or inadvertently released from materials implanted into living tissue.

Researcher Shosaku Kashiwada of the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Tsukuba, Japan, in a more recent study, intended to further investigate the effects of nanoparticles on soft-bodied organisms. His study allowed him to explore the distribution of water-suspended fluorescent nanoparticles throughout the eggs and adult bodies of a species of fish, known as the see-through medaka (Oryzias latipes). The see-through medaka were used for its small size, wide temperature and salinity tolerances, and short generation time. Small fish, like the see-through medaka, have been popular test subjects for human diseases and organogenesis due to their transparent embryos, rapid embryo development, and their organs and tissue material is functionally equivalent to that of mammals. As the see-through medaka have a transparent body, analyzing the deposition of fluorescent nanoparticles throughout the body would remain quite simple. For his study Shosaku Kashiwada evaluated four types of nano-sized distribution. These included the accumulation of nanoparticles by medaka eggs, the particle size-dependent accumulation by medaka eggs, the effects of salinity on accumulation of nanoparticles by medaka eggs and aggregation of nano-sized particles in solution, and the distribution of nanoparticles in the blood and organs of adult medaka. It was also noted that nanoparticles were in fact taken up into the bloodstream and deposited throughout the body. In the medaka eggs, there was a high accumulation of nanoparticles in the yolk; most often bioavailibility was dependent on specific sizes of the particles. Adult samples of medaka had accumulated nanoparticles in the gills, intestine, brain, testis, liver, and bloodstream. One major result from this study was the fact that salinity may have a large influence on the bioavailibility and toxicity of nanoparticles to penetrate membranes and eventually kill the specimen.^[8]

The smaller a particle, the greater its surface area to volume ratio and the higher its chemical reactivity and biological activity. The greater chemical reactivity of nanomaterials results in increased production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), including free radicals.^[9] ROS production has been found in a diverse range of nanomaterials including carbon fullerenes, carbon nanotubes and nanoparticle metal oxides. ROS and free radical production is one of the primary mechanisms of nanoparticle toxicity; it may result in oxidative stress, inflammation, and consequent damage to proteins, membranes and DNA.^[9]

The extremely small size of nanomaterials also means that they are much more readily taken up by the human body than larger sized particles. How these nanoparticles behave inside the organism is one of the big issues that needs to be resolved. The behavior of nanoparticles is a function of their size, shape and surface reactivity with the surrounding tissue. They could cause overload on phagocytes, cells that ingest and destroy foreign matter, thereby triggering stress reactions that lead to inflammation and weaken the body’s defense against other pathogens. Apart from what happens if non-degradable or slowly degradable nanoparticles accumulate in organs, another concern is their potential interaction with biological processes inside the body: because of their large surface, nanoparticles on exposure to tissue and fluids will immediately adsorb onto their surface some of the macromolecules they encounter. This may, for instance, effect the regulatory mechanisms of enzymes and other proteins.

Nanomaterials are able to cross biological membranes and access cells, tissues and organs that larger-sized particles normally cannot.^[10] Nanomaterials can gain access to the blood stream following inhalation^[6] or ingestion.^[5] At least some nanomaterials can penetrate the skin;^[11] even larger microparticles may penetrate skin when it is flexed.^[12] Broken skin is an ineffective particle barrier,^[7] suggesting that acne, eczema, shaving wounds or severe sunburn may enable skin uptake of nanomaterials more readily. Once in the blood stream, nanomaterials can be transported around the body and are taken up by organs and tissues including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system.^[7] Nanomaterials have proved toxic to human tissue and cell cultures, resulting in increased oxidative stress, inflammatory cytokine production and cell death.^[6] Unlike larger particles, nanomaterials may be taken up by cell mitochondria^[13] and the cell nucleus.^[14][15] Studies demonstrate the potential for nanomaterials to cause DNA mutation^[15] and induce major structural damage to mitochondria, even resulting in cell death.^[13][16] Size is therefore a key factor in determining the potential toxicity of a particle. However it is not the only important factor.

Other properties of nanomaterials that influence toxicity include: chemical composition, shape, surface structure, surface charge, aggregation and solubility,^[9] and the presence or absence of functional groups of other chemicals.^[17] The large number of variables influencing toxicity means that it is difficult to generalise about health risks associated with exposure to nanomaterials – each new nanomaterial must be assessed individually and all material properties must be taken into account.

[edit] Environmental issues

Nanopollution is a generic name for all waste generated by nanodevices or during the nanomaterials manufacturing process. This kind of waste may be very dangerous because of its size. It can float in the air and might easily penetrate animal and plant cells causing unknown effects. Most human-made nanoparticles do not appear in nature, so living organisms may not have appropriate means to deal with nanowaste. It is probably^[who?] one great challenge to nanotechnology: how to deal with its nanopollutants and nanowaste.

Not enough data exists to know for sure if nanoparticles could have undesirable effects on the environment. Two areas are relevant here: (1) In free form nanoparticles can be released in the air or water during production (or production accidents) or as waste by-product of production, and ultimately accumulate in the soil, water or plant life. (2) In fixed form, where they are part of a manufactured substance or product, they will ultimately have to be recycled or disposed of as waste. It is not known yet whether certain nanoparticles will constitute a completely new class of non-biodegradable pollutant. In case they do, it is not known how such pollutants could be removed from air or water because most traditional filters are not suitable for such tasks (their pores are too big to catch nanoparticles).

Health and environmental issues combine in the workplace of companies engaged in producing or using nanomaterials and in the laboratories engaged in nanoscience and nanotechnology research. It is safe to say that current workplace exposure standards for dusts cannot be applied directly to nanoparticle dusts.

To properly assess the health hazards of engineered nanoparticles the whole life cycle of these particles needs to be evaluated, including their fabrication, storage and distribution, application and potential abuse, and disposal. The impact on humans or the environment may vary at different stages of the life cycle.

[edit] A need for regulation?

Regulatory bodies such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S. or the Health & Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission have started dealing with the potential risks posed by nanoparticles. So far, neither engineered nanoparticles nor the products and materials that contain them are subject to any special regulation regarding production, handling or labelling. The Material Safety Data Sheet that must be issued for certain materials often does not differentiate between bulk and nanoscale size of the material in question and even when it does these MSDS are advisory only.

Despite the health risks of nanoparticles in the body, the Bush administration has recently decided that no special regulations or labeling of nanoparticles are required [5]. This decision strikes many familiar with the issue as inexplicable and a sign of the influence of corporations over individuals, "The consumer is being made the guinea pig" says George Kimbrell of The International Center for Technology Assessment [6] see also [7]. "'Consumers are not aware of what's on the market. They are not aware that a substantial amount of consumer products are being sold to them, there's no labelling, there's no information getting to them,' says Elizabeth Nielsen, a consultant for the Consumers Council of Canada (CCC) and author of a report released April 1, Nanotechnology and Its Impact on Consumers ... the biggest concern is that consumers are unaware they are buying products that contain nanoparticles. 'Consumers should be informed to make their own judgments of the risks of using these products'" says Troy Benn of Arizona State University who along with Paul Westerhoff studied the stability of silver nanoparticles in socks with widely varing results [8].

Studies of the health impact of airborne particles are the closest thing we have to a tool for assessing potential health risks from free nanoparticles. These studies have generally shown that the smaller the particles get, the more toxic they become. This is due in part to the fact that, given the same mass per volume, the dose in terms of particle numbers increases as particle size decreases.

Looking at all available data, it must be concluded that current risk assessment methodologies are not suited to the hazards associated with nanoparticles; in particular, existing toxicological and eco-toxicological methods are not up to the task; exposure evaluation (dose) needs to be expressed as quantity of nanoparticles and/or surface area rather than simply mass; equipment for routine detecting and measuring nanoparticles in air, water, or soil is inadequate; and very little is known about the physiological responses to nanoparticles.

Regulatory bodies in the U.S. as well as in the EU have concluded that nanoparticles form the potential for an entirely new risk and that it is necessary to carry out an extensive analysis of the risk. The challenge for regulators is whether a matrix can be developed which would identify nanoparticles and more complex nanoformulations which are likely to have special toxicological properties or whether it is more reasonable for each particle or formulation to be tested separately.

A truly precautionary approach to regulation, some claim, would severely impede development in the field of nanotechnology if we require safety studies for each and every nanoscience application. While the outcome of these studies can form the basis for government and international regulations, a more reasonable approach might be development of a risk matrix that indentifes likely culprits.

In its seminal 2004 report Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, the United Kingdom's Royal Society concluded that:

Many nanotechnologies pose no new risks to health and almost all the concerns relate to the potential impacts of deliberately manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes that are free rather than fixed to or within a material.... We expect the likelihood of nanoparticles or nanotubes being released from products in which they have been fixed or embedded (such as composites) to be low but have recommended that manufacturers assess this potential exposure risk for the lifecycle of the product and make their findings available to the relevant regulatory bodies.... It is very unlikely that new manufactured nanoparticles could be introduced into humans in doses sufficient to cause the health effects that have been associated with [normal air pollution].

but have recommended that nanomaterials be regulated as new chemicals, that research laboratories and factories treat nanomaterials "as if they were hazardous", that release of nanomaterials into the environment be avoided as far as possible, and that products containing nanomaterials be subject to new safety testing requirements prior to their commercial release.^[18]

Yet regulations world-wide still fail to distinguish between materials in their nanoscale and bulk form. This means that nanomaterials remain effectively unregulated; there is no regulatory requirement for nanomaterials to face new health and safety testing or environmental impact assessment prior to their use in commercial products, if these materials have already been approved in bulk form. The health risks of nanomaterials are of particular concern for workers who may face occupational exposure to nanomaterials at higher levels, and on a more routine basis, than the general public.

The International Council on Nanotechnology maintains a database and Virtual Journal of scientific papers on environmental, health and safety research on nanoparticles.^[19] The database currently has over 2000 entries indexed by particle type, exposure pathway and other criteria. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies currently lists 609 products that manufacturers have voluntarily identified that use nanotechnology.^[20] No labeling is required by the FDA^[21] so that number could be significantly higher. "The use of nanotechnology in consumer products and industrial applications is growing rapidly, with the products listed in the PEN inventory showing just the tip of the iceberg" according to Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) Project Director David Rejeski [9]. A list of those products that have been voluntarily disclosed by their manufacturers is located here [10].

Recently an international coalition of advocacy organizations called for strong, comprehensive oversight of the new technology and its products in the International Center for Technology Assessment's report Principles for the Oversight of Nanotechnologies and Nanomaterials,^[22] which states:

Hundreds of consumer products incorporating nanomaterials are now on the market, including cosmetics, sunscreens, sporting goods, clothing, electronics, baby and infant products, and food and food packaging. But evidence indicates that current nanomaterials may pose significant health, safety, and environmental hazards. In addition, the profound social, economic, and ethical challenges posed by nano-scale technologies have yet to be addressed ... 'Since there is currently no government oversight and no labeling requirements for nano-products anywhere in the world, no one knows when they are exposed to potential nanotech risks and no one is monitoring for potential health or environmental harm. That's why we believe oversight action based on our principles is urgent' ... This industrial boom is creating a growing nano-workforce which is predicted to reach two million globally by 2015. 'Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained, or control measures to be implemented,' explained Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO. 'This technology should not be rushed to market until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety'"^[22] also [11].

The group has urged action based on eight principles. They are 1) A Precautionary Foundation 2) Mandatory Nano-specific Regulations 3) Health and Safety of the Public and Workers 4) Environmental Protection 5) Transparency 6) Public Participation 7) Inclusion of Broader Impacts and 8) Manufacturer Liability.

The European Union has formed a group to study the implications of nanotechnology called The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR)[12]. One can find their list of risks Here.

[edit] Societal implications

Beyond the toxicity risks to human health and the environment which are associated with first-generation nanomaterials, nanotechnology has broader societal implications and poses broader social challenges. Social scientists have suggested that nanotechnology's social issues should be understood and assessed not simply as "downstream" risks or impacts. Rather, the challenges should be factored into "upstream" research and decision making in order to ensure technology development that meets social objectives^[23]

Many social scientists and organizations in civil society suggest that technology assessment and governance should also involve public participation^{[24][25][26][27]}

Some observers suggest that nanotechnology will build incrementally, as did the 18-19th century industrial revolution, until it gathers pace to drive a nanotechnological revolution that will radically reshape our economies, our labor markets, international trade, international relations, social structures, civil liberties, our relationship with the natural world and even what we understand to be human. Others suggest that it may be more accurate to describe change driven by nanotechnology as a “technological tsunami”. Just like a tsunami, analysts warn that rapid nanotechnology-driven change will necessarily have profound disruptive impacts. As the APEC Center for Technology Foresight observes:

If nanotechnology is going to revolutionize manufacturing, health care, energy supply, communications and probably defense, then it will transform labour and the workplace, the medical system, the transportation and power infrastructures and the military. None of these latter will be changed without significant social disruption.^[28]

Those concerned with the negative implications of nanotechnology suggest that it will simply exacerbate problems stemming from existing socio-economic inequity and unequal distributions of power, creating greater inequities between rich and poor through an inevitable nano-divide (the gap between those who control the new nanotechnologies and those whose products, services or labour are displaced by them). Analysts suggest the possibility that nanotechnology has the potential to destabilize international relations through a nano arms race and the increased potential for bioweaponry; thus, providing the tools for ubiquitous surveillance with significant implications for civil liberties. Also, many critics believe it might break down the barriers between life and non-life through nanobiotechnology, redefining even what it means to be human.^[29][30]

Nanoethicists posit that such a transformative technology could exacerbate the divisions of rich and poor – the so-called “nano divide.” However nanotechnology makes the production of technology, e.g. computers, celular phones, health technology etcetera, cheaper and therefore accessible to the poor.

In fact, many of the most enthusiastic proponents of nanotechnology, such as transhumanists, see the nascent science as a mechanism to changing human nature itself – going beyond curing disease and enhancing human characteristics. Discussions on nanoethics have been hosted by the federal government, especially in the context of “converging technologies” – a catch-phrase used to refer to nano, biotech, information technology, and cognitive science.

[edit] Possible military applications

Societal risks from the use of nanotechnology have also been raised. On the instrumental level, these include the possibility of military applications of nanotechnology (for instance, as in implants and other means for soldier enhancement like those being developed at the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT [13]) as well as enhanced surveillance capabilities through nano-sensors.^[31] There is also the possibility of nanotechnology being used to develop chemical weapons and because they will be able to develop the chemicals from the atom scale up, critics fear that chemical weapons developed from nano particles will be more dangerous than present chemical weapons.

[edit] Intellectual property issues

On the structural level, critics of nanotechnology point to a new world of ownership and corporate control opened up by nanotechnology. The claim is that, just as biotechnology's ability to manipulate genes went hand in hand with the patenting of life, so too nanotechnology's ability to manipulate molecules has led to the patenting of matter. The last few years has seen a gold rush to claim patents at the nanoscale. Over 800 nano-related patents were granted in 2003, and the numbers are increasing year to year. Corporations are already taking out broad-ranging patents on nanoscale discoveries and inventions. For example, two corporations, NEC and IBM, hold the basic patents on carbon nanotubes, one of the current cornerstones of nanotechnology. Carbon nanotubes have a wide range of uses, and look set to become crucial to several industries from electronics and computers, to strengthened materials to drug delivery and diagnostics. Carbon nanotubes are poised to become a major traded commodity with the potential to replace major conventional raw materials. However, as their use expands, anyone seeking to (legally) manufacture or sell carbon nanotubes, no matter what the application, must first buy a license from NEC or IBM. [14] [15]

The United State's essential facilities doctrine may be of importance as well as other anti-trust laws.

[edit] Potential benefits and risks for developing countries

Nanotechnologies may provide new solutions for the millions of people in developing countries who lack access to basic services, such as safe water, reliable energy, health care, and education. The United Nations has set Millennium Development Goals for meeting these needs. The 2004 UN Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation noted that some of the advantages of nanotechnology include production using little labor, land, or maintenance, high productivity, low cost, and modest requirements for materials and energy.

Many developing countries, for example Costa Rica, Chile, Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia, are investing considerable resources in research and development of nanotechnologies. Emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India and South Africa are spending millions of US dollars annually on R&D, and are rapidly increasing their scientific output as demonstrated by their increasing numbers of publications in peer-reviewed scientific publications.

Potential opportunities of nanotechnologies to help address critical international development priorities include improved water purification systems, energy systems, medicine and pharmaceuticals, food production and nutrition, and information and communications technologies. Nanotechnologies are already incorporated in products that are on the market. Other nanotechnologies are still in the research phase, while others are concepts that are years or decades away from development.

Applying nanotechnologies in developing countries raises similar questions about the environmental, health, and societal risks described in the previous section. Additional challenges have been raised regarding the linkages between nanotechnology and development.

Protection of the environment, human health and worker safety in developing countries often suffers from a combination of factors that can include but are not limited to lack of robust environmental, human health, and worker safety regulations; poorly or unenforced regulation which is linked to a lack of physical (e.g., equipment) and human capacity (i.e., properly trained regulatory staff). Often, these nations require assistance, particularly financial assistance, to develop the scientific and institutional capacity to adequately assess and manage risks, including the necessary infrastructure such as laboratories and technology for detection.

Very little is known about the risks and broader impacts of nanotechnology. At a time of great uncertainty over the impacts of nanotechnology it will be challenging for governments, companies, civil society organizations, and the general public in developing countries, as in developed countries, to make decisions about the governance of nanotechnology.

Companies, and to a lesser extent governments and universities, are receiving patents on nanotechnology. The rapid increase in patenting of nanotechnology is illustrated by the fact that in the US, there were 500 nanotechnology patent applications in 1998 and 1,300 in 2000. Some patents are very broadly defined, which has raised concern among some groups that the rush to patent could slow innovation and drive up costs of products, thus reducing the potential for innovations that could benefit low income populations in developing countries.

There is a clear link between commodities and poverty. Many least developed countries are dependent on a few commodities for employment, government revenue, and export earnings. Many applications of nanotechnology are being developed that could impact global demand for specific commodities. For instance, certain nanoscale materials could enhance the strength and durability of rubber, which might eventually lead to a decrease in demand for natural rubber. Other nanotechnology applications may result in increases in demand for certain commodities. For example, demand for titanium may increase as a result of new uses for nanoscale titanium oxides, such as titanium dioxide nanotubes that can be used to produce and store hydrogen for use as fuel. Various organizations have called for international dialogue on mechanisms that will allow developing countries to anticipate and proactively adjust to these changes.

In 2003, Meridian Institute began the Global Dialogue on Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks (GDNP) to raise awareness of the opportunities and risks of nanotechnology for developing countries, close the gaps within and between sectors of society to catalyze actions that address specific opportunities and risks of nanotechnology for developing countries, and identify ways that science and technology can play an appropriate role in the development process. The GDNP has released several publicly accessible papers on nanotechnology and development, including "Nanotechnology and the Poor: Opportunities and Risks - Closing the Gaps Within and Between Sectors of Society"; "Nanotechnology, Water, and Development"; and "Overview and Comparison of Conventional and Nano-Based Water Treatment Technologies".

[edit] Implications of molecular nanotechnology

Molecular nanotechnology is a speculative subfield of nanotechnology regarding the possibility of engineering molecular assemblers, machines which could re-order matter at a molecular or atomic scale. Regarding the risks from molecular manufacturing, an often cited worst-case scenario is "grey goo", a hypothetical substance into which the surface of the earth might be transformed by self-replicating nanobots running amok. This concept has been analyzed by Freitas in "Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with Public Policy Recommendations" [16] With the advent of nan-biotech, a different scenario called green goo has been forwarded. Here, the malignant substance is not nanobots but rather self-replicating organisms engineered through nanotechnology.

According to the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology:

Molecular manufacturing allows the cheap creation of incredibly powerful devices and products. How many of these products will we want? What environmental damage will they do? The range of possible damage is vast, from personal low-flying supersonic aircraft injuring large numbers of animals to collection of solar energy on a sufficiently large scale to modify the planet's albedo and directly affect the environment. Stronger materials will allow the creation of much larger machines, capable of excavating or otherwise destroying large areas of the planet at a greatly accelerated pace.

It is too early to tell whether there will be economic incentive to do this. However, given the large number of activities and purposes that would damage the environment if taken to extremes, and the ease of taking them to extremes with molecular manufacturing, it seems likely that this problem is worth worrying about. Some forms of damage can result from an aggregate of individual actions, each almost harmless by itself. Such damage is quite hard to prevent by persuasion, and laws frequently don't work either; centralized restriction on the technology itself may be a necessary part of the solution.

Finally, the extreme compactness of nanomanufactured machinery will tempt the use of very small products, which can easily turn into nano-litter that will be hard to clean up and may cause health problems.^[32] The site list numerous other risks and benefits.

[edit] Studies on the implications of nanotechnology

• The Royal Society's nanotech report [17] was inspired by Prince Charles' concerns about nanotechnology, including molecular manufacturing. However, the report spent almost no time on molecular manufacturing. (See Center for Responsible Nanotechnology criticism of omission of molecular manufacturing.) In fact, the word "Drexler" appears only once in the body of the report (in passing), and "molecular manufacturing" or "molecular nanotechnology" not at all. The report covers various risks of nanoscale technologies, such as nanoparticle toxicology. It also provides a useful overview of several nanoscale fields. (Someone more interested in nanoscale technologies should expand this description.) The report contains an annex (appendix) on grey goo, which cites a weaker variation of Richard Smalley's contested argument against molecular manufacturing. It concludes that there is no evidence that autonomous, self replicating nanomachines will be developed in the foreseeable future, and suggests that regulators should be more concerned with issues of nanoparticle toxicology.

• In July 2003 the United States Environmental Protection Agency [18] issued the first research solicitation in the area of nanotechnology implications, "Exploratory Research to Anticipate Future Environmental Issues - Part 2: Impacts of Manufactured Nanomaterials on Human Health and the Environment."[19] In September 2004 US EPA partnered with the National Science Foundation and the Centers for Disease Control to issue a second research solicitation, "Nanotechnology Research Grants Investigating Environmental and Human Health Effects of Manufactured Nanomaterials: A Joint Research Solicitation - EPA, NSF, NIOSH."

• In August 2005, a task force consisting of 50+ international experts from various fields was organized by the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology to study the societal implications of molecular nanotechnology [20].

• In October 2005, the National Science Foundation announced that it would fund two national centers to research the potential societal implications of nanotechnology. Located at the University of California, Santa Barbara [21]and Arizona State University [22], researchers at these two centers are exploring a wide range of issues including nanotechnology's historical context, technology assessment, innovation and globalization issues, and societal perceptions of risk.

• Determining a set of pathways for the development of molecular nanotechnology is now an objective of a broadly based technology roadmap project [23] led by Battelle (the manager of several U.S. National Laboratories) and the Foresight Institute. That roadmap should be completed by early 2007.

• In October 2006, the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON) based at Rice University published a survey of nanomaterial handling practices being used by industrial and academic workplaces on four continents. The survey revealed that more information is needed to protect against the potential occupational risks associated with handling free nanoparticles. ICON also maintains the Virtual Journal of Nanotechnology Environment, Health & Safety (VJ-NanoEHS) which is a compilation of citations to peer-reviewed studies on risk issues.

• As of 2007 Springer SBM has started the journal NanoEthicsEthics for Technologies that converge at the nanoscale. This journal is a multidisciplinary forum for exploration of issues presented by converging technology applications. While the central focus of the journal is on the philosophically and scientifically rigorous examination of the ethical and societal considerations and the public and policy concerns inherent in nanotechnology research and development.
• Nanotechnologies Summary of the assessment on the safetey of nanotechnologies by DG-SANCO's Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks
• Center for Nanotechnology in Society @ Arizona State University is a major NSF-funded research center focused on analyses of the societal implications of nanotechnology.

[edit] References

[edit] Further reading

• Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin (eds.), Nanotechnology & Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008).[24]
• Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert (eds.), Nanoethics: The Ethical and Societal Implications of Nanotechnology (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2007).[25] [26]
• Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology: An Information Exchange with NIOSH, United States National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, June 2007, DHHS (NIOSH) publication no. 2007-123
• Mehta, Michael; Geoffrey Hunt (2006). Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law. London: Earthscan.  - provides a global overview of the state of nanotechology and society in Europe, the USA, Japan and Canada, and examines the ethics, the environmental and public health risks, and the governance and regulation of this technology.

[edit] External links

• U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative, Societal Dimensions
• Center on Nanotechnology and Society
• Military Nanotechnology Applications
• USC's Nanoscience & Technology Studies
• NELSI Global
• ASU's Center on Nanotechnology and Society
• UCSB's Center on Nanotechnology and Society
• The Nanoethics Group
• Nanotechnology
• Foresight Nanotech Institute
• Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
• The Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology
• The International Council on Nanotechnology
• The NanoEthicsBank
• NanoEthics: Ethics for technologies that converge at the nanoscale
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Nanotechnology topic page