Weighing nanotech’s risk and rewards
02/01/2007
Harnessing the exotic properties of materials at the nanoscale promises huge societal benefits, from the production of clean energy to the treatment of deadly diseases. However, as nanotech development progresses, concerns are growing about the societal risks that nanomaterials may pose. Unless the nanotech industry acts quickly to address these mounting fears, it is in serious jeopardy of squandering an enormous opportunity.
That was the conclusion of several recent studies that examined the public’s perception of nanotechnology products. The first report, by researchers at Rice University, found that most consumers now rate nanomaterials as less risky than “non-nano” compounds such as herbicides, disinfectants, and preservatives. But it concluded that as nanomaterials find their way into more products and as additional environmental, health, and safety research is completed, growing awareness of nanotechnology risks may seriously diminish the public’s appetite for products.
Analysts at Lux Research echo that concern. At the recent Lux Executive Summit on Commercializing Nanotechnology, the firm’s researchers explained that the public is still an open book on nanotoxicity, as hard opinions about nanotechnology have not yet been established. However, they noted that there’s a real possibility that consumers could come to characterize nanoparticles broadly as dangerous or harmful, regardless of what the actual risk profile is of any particular material.
To demonstrate how even perceptual risks can quickly derail new nanomaterial-enabled products, Lux analysts cited the impact of recent research suggesting that carbon-60 “fullerene” nanoparticles-used in anti-aging formulations because of their antioxidant properties-caused cellular damage in the brains of fish. (See “Managing the risks of nanotoxicity,” SST Online Web Exclusives, Jan. 2007, www.solid-state.com/webexclusives.) Although subsequent studies indicated that a solvent used in the experiment was responsible for the cell damage, consumer groups petitioned the FDA to ban the use of nanomaterials in cosmetics.
Of course, while fears over the possible dangers of nanoparticles may be exaggerated, they are not necessarily unfounded. Studies examining the toxicity of nanomaterials in animals and cell cultures have shown that size, surface area, chemistry, solubility, and shape all play a role in determining their potential for causing harm. On the basis of such findings, a newly released report on the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechologies concluded that authoritative information must be developed on what the toxicity risks are and how to avoid them.
To help ensure the public’s confidence in the commitment of governments, business, and the science community to conduct sound and systematic research into possible risks, the Woodrow Wilson scientists outline several grand challenges for research on nanotechnology risk that must be met if the technology is to reach its full potential. These include the development of instruments to assess environmental exposure to nanomaterials, methods to evaluate the toxicity of nanoparticles, ways to measure the impact of nanomaterials across their life cycle, and strategic programs to enable risk-focused research.
Meanwhile, the Rice researchers propose that academic bodies such as the US National Academies set up interagency clearinghouses to synthesize the scientific findings and coordinate public education. Transmitting the latest information about risks and benefits in a timely, thorough, and transparent way, they contend, will minimize the likelihood of a polarized public debate that turns on rumor and supposition.
However, time is running out. Last year, more than $32 billion worth of products containing nanomaterials were sold globally. By 2014, Lux Research projects that $2.6 trillion in manufactured goods could incorporate nanotechnology. If consumers reject these products, there will be no way for manufacturers to recoup their investments.
Nanotechnology presents enormous opportunities as well as huge potential risks. It’s time to match the efforts being devoted to developing nanomaterial-enabled products with research into understanding both the real and perceived risks of those materials. Taking a more proactive approach to identifying actual risks will help companies make informed decisions about which materials to use and avoid, while communicating that information to the public will help alleviate unfounded fears based on perceived risks, thereby minimizing the potential for consumer and regulatory backlash against nanotechnology-based products. Nanotech firms have not only an enormous opportunity, but also a huge responsibility, to ensure that nanotechnology lives up to its promise.
 |
Phil LoPiccolo
Editor-in-Chief