March 25, 2004 — On a cold, wet January day, 50 miles outside Liverpool, England, a group of scientists gathered to discuss one of the biggest public fears surrounding nanotechnology: How could it harm human health? The meeting drew on some of Europe’s leading toxicologists, including Ken Donaldson and Vyvyan Howard.

null

But it wasn’t just the scientific community that was interested. Several representatives from the business world had made the trip up to the north of England. Delegates from financial groups, manufacturers and investment houses were in attendance.

Indeed, over the next 20 years, nanotoxicity could be an issue that defines the growth of the nanotech business. Just as the development of genetically modified crops — in Europe at least — was defined by the opposition of environmental groups, nanobusiness development could face a similar brake on its ambitions.

Yet the business community is only slowly waking up to the potential threat the safety issue could pose to their own business environment.

The U.S. venture capital firm Draper Fisher Jurvetson has said it would not invest in a nanotech business unless the products had already been proven safe. Some European investment groups, while concerned with any potential problems, see few particular dangers arising from the nanotech sector. “The issue has not arisen in the companies in which we have invested,” said Hitesh Mehta of Amadeus Capital Partners Ltd.

However, some financial groups are slowly appreciating that perception of risk could also create opportunities. A representative of Swiss Re said the company is interested in the broad range of risk. Swiss Re is one of the world’s largest reinsurance groups, which is bringing out a report into the potential liabilities (and business opportunities) that nanotechnology can offer.

The Germany-based Munich Re Group commissioned a report in 2002 listing numerous potential liabilities from nanoparticles. Among the scenarios it outlined: “Active nanotechnology products might be … released during manufacture, endangering the lives of workers and the environment.”

Perhaps more importantly, the report also observed that nanotechnology could bring about a shift in the scale of the problems faced by potentially polluting industries: “Up to now, losses involving dangerous products were on a relatively manageable scale, whereas, taken to extremes, nanotechnology products can even cause ecological damage which is difficult to contain,” said the report.

The cosmetics industry was also represented at Nanotox 2004, with French group L’Oreal sending a representative. The group has patented numerous applications that use nanoparticles and says it upholds the highest standards in safety testing.

“At each step of the product development — from the raw materials to the final formula — we evaluate the safety in vitro and then, only if the previous test is negative, in vivo on human volunteers,” said Patricia Pineau, a L’Oreal research adviser.

“Thanks to our expertise in reconstructed human skin, we are able to investigate many biological mechanisms linked to safety issues and we also have collaborations with external independent institutions,” she added.

The aspects of nanoparticles that make them so appealing to scientists — their ability to be absorbed in the human body — is also what makes them potentially so toxic. Scientists are establishing not just how toxic the particles might be, but also to what extent they can be absorbed by the lungs, organs cell nuclei and even potentially the fetus.

Still, the nanotech industry is not relying purely on university-based research to look for the health risks from nanoparticles. DuPont has led much of the research into the toxicity of nano-particles, notably David Warheit’s research on the effect of nanoparticles injected into rats’ lungs.

But there remains considerable amount of research — and explanation — before the nanotech industry is out of the waters of controversy.