Should we be worried about nanotechnology?

by Joshua Cockfield
Cosmos Online

Molecular construction: An illustration from a Nanotechnology Victoria poster of a 'fourth generation dendrimer'. Dendrimers are a type of complex polymer that include multiple braches and can be built using nanotechnology.
Image: Nanotechnology Victoria

Advertisement

Related articles
Nanotech dangers demand attention
Nano cancer detection
Nanotechnology offers chemotherapy relief
Molecular torch sheds light on cells
Australia's Eureka science prizes awarded
SYDNEY: Nanotech experts are more concerned than the public about the potential health and environmental risks of the technology, says a new survey. So should we be worried?

Detailed in the journal Nature Nanotechnology the study suggests the public are still largely in the dark over the potentially huge benefits and risks of the diminutive new science.

"Nanotechnology is starting to emerge on the policy agenda, but with the public, it's not on their radar," said study co-author Dietram Scheufele, a professor of life sciences communication and journalism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

Despite acknowledging the risks, scientists surveyed believe their work will lead to major breakthroughs in medicine, environmental cleanup and military technology. By addressing any risks before the technology widely enters the public domain, the experts hope to avoid a backlash in public opinion that has been seen in other emerging technologies such as genetically modified food.

Micro machines

Nanotechnology is a promising area of applied science that draws from diverse fields including physics, chemistry and biology. The common theme that connects these threads is the manipulation of matter on a molecular scale. The fruits of nanotechnology don't exceed 100 nanometres in size, which is only one thousandth the breadth of a human hair. DNA, for example, is two nanometres wide and carbon nanotubes can be half that size in diameter.

Hundreds of consumer products already contain nanomaterials, most of which are cosmetics, sunscreens and cleaning products with microscopic particles. But this is the only first step in what promoters of nanotech say will be a technological revolution.

Nanomaterials lighter and stronger than those used today could revolutionise the car and aeroplane industries, and similar technologies are being developed in the fields of robotics, computers, clothing, energy storage and air purification. Medical scientists are investigating the possible uses of nanotechnology in treating cancer and other diseases. It is hoped that nanoparticles could specifically target and deliver drugs to cancerous cells.

Futurists imagine a world where sub-microscopic 'nanobots' repair damaged tissue or eliminate harmful pollutants from the environment. The idea of building molecular machines was first raised in the 1950's by U.S. physicist Richard Feynman who coined the term 'nanotechnology' – but if such advanced engineering is possible, it remains a long way off.

Risky business

To learn more about the perception of risks and benefits associated with the technology Scheufele and Elizabeth Corley of Arizona State University in Phoenix surveyed around 1,000 members of the public and 363 nanotech scientists. Their findings reveal a disparity between the perceptions of scientists and the general public on the potential risks and benefits of nanotechnology.

The potential of nanoparticles to harm human health was found to be more of a worry to scientists than the general public.

The report draws attention to the existing debate within the scientific community about a lack of systematic research into the risks of nanotechnology. According to researchers, our current knowledge of the toxicology of nanoparticles is limited. There is a fear that the particles may have detrimental effects on the lungs, for example, if they are inhaled.

"We are realising that the standard regulations aren't necessarily appropriate for nanotechnology," said Peter Binks, the chief executive officer of Nanotechnology Victoria, a promotion and commercialisation body at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. He highlighted the fact that current toxicology regulations relate to the mass of a dose – but in the case of nanoparticles, the surface area may be more important.

The report concluded that the public believe scientists to be a more trustworthy source of nanotechnology information than regulatory agencies and governmental bodies. "We found communication gaps, but also tremendous opportunities for scientists to close them" said Scheufele. "There is definitely a huge opportunity for scientists to communicate with a public who trusts them."

"This is a terrific report and really highlights that the debate is becoming more sophisticated," commented Binks. "In Australia, we are well positioned to participate in that debate."