|
According to The National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences, very little attention is devoted to assessment
of health risks to humans or to the ecosystem due to nanotechnology
development and application, and their potential toxicity
is poorly understood. For example, it is unlikely that all
the materials used in construction of nanoparticles will
be biologically inert. Futhermore, studies have shown that
ultrafine particles, irrespective of their chemical composition,
are potent inducers of inflammatory lung injury and the diversity
of materials in constructing nanoparticles suggests that
the universal safety of such systems cannot be taken for
granted, and there will not be a single answer to cover all
the potential risks.
Generally, the smaller the particles, the more reactive
and toxic are their effects, and there is enough cause for
concern that some groups are calling for a moratorium on
the production and commercial application of all synthetic
nanoparticles until "best practices" are adopted
and safety assessments are complete.
Others in the debate warn, however that an outright moratorium
will do nothing but restrict research and is the result of
hyped reports by some scientists and the media. In a recent
interview for The New Scientist, Dr. Eric Drexler confronts
these fears head on.
²
It doesn't make sense to call for a ban on nano-particle
research, because nano-particles are ancient and ubiquitous… On
the other hand, they're pointing out this: if you say your
nano-particles have new properties compared to other particles,
then you can't simultaneously tout them as wonderful and
new and claim that they are just as safe as something that
is made of larger particles.²
Commenting on these same concerns, Professor Ann Dowling,
Chair of the working group on nanotechnology for The Royal
Academy of Engineering, stated, “…nanotechnology
is being used to develop applications that may benefit the
environment… It has also been pointed out to us that
we still have a lot to learn about how nanoparticles behave
when they are released into the environment.” Adding, “The
evidence that we have received so far has suggested that
relatively little is known about the likely overall positive
and negative environmental impacts of nanotechnology.”
The public view, however, is concerned more with privacy
issues rather than potential health hazards.
Since 1986, the Foresight Institute - a nanotechnology education
and public policy think tank - has worked to educate the
public about molecular nanotechnology. Founded by Dr. Eric
Drexler and Christine Peterson, president, Foresight Institute's
mission has been to prepare society for nanotechnology with
a focus on balanced discussion and broad understanding of
its potential by the general public.
Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), Foresight’s
recent study found a majority (57 percent) of respondents
who knew about nanotechnology identified medical advances
as the most important benefit, followed by environmental
cleanup (16 percent), security and defense (12 percent),
and improved human physical and mental abilities (11 percent).
Only 4 percent saw "cheaper, longer-lasting consumer
products" as the most important benefit.
In choosing which of five risks it was most important to
avoid, respondents' top choice was loss of privacy due to
surveillance (32 percent), followed by a nanotechnology arms
race (24 percent), nanoparticles accumulating inside humans
(19 percent), and economic disruption with job loss (14 percent).
Only 12 percent were most concerned about the uncontrollable
spread of self-replicating nanobots.
"It's extremely gratifying to see that the message
of nanotech's benefits and potential downsides has been heard
so clearly by the public," said Peterson. "Foresight
has worked hard to present a balanced view of the future
we can expect from nanotech: huge medical and environmental
advances, but with some key concerns about potential misuse.
One of our central points has been that deliberate abuse
is a far bigger issue than scary accident scenarios of nanobots
run amok. These messages have come through loud and clear."
Do you have a comment or feedback on
this article? Email
us and let us know what you think.
|
