[Mb-civic] The downside of nanotechnology - Gwen Ruta - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

  The downside of nanotechnology

By Gwen Ruta  |  November 28, 2005  |  The Boston Globe

NANOTECHNOLOGY -- the design and manipulation of materials at the atomic 
and molecular scale -- has great potential to deliver environmental and 
other benefits. Novel properties emerge as materials reach the 
nano-scale, opening the door to innovations in cleaner energy 
production, energy efficiency, water treatment, and environmental 
remediation.

Few regions are better suited for responsibly developing nanotechnology 
than New England. The preeminence of Boston's medical and public health 
research community is well recognized, and Boston's vibrant science and 
technology culture has already put the area in an emerging leadership 
role in nanotechnology. When Small Times Magazine released its annual 
list of Top 10 States for Nanotechnology last March, Massachusetts 
ranked second only to California.

The $13 billion in nanoproducts already on the market represent just the 
beginning of a worldwide boom -- sales of nanotech products are 
predicted to reach $2.6 trillion by 2014. The United States is already 
taking a leadership role in developing this market. Half of the $4 
billion spent to date by corporations and investors globally on nanotech 
R&D came from the United States, and the United States is by far the 
world leader in nanotech patent applications and nanotechnology companies.

Yet the very characteristics that make nanomaterials so promising are 
also sources of concern about their environmental and health risks. 
History is littered with technologies that once seemed benign but were 
discovered years later to have devastating effects on the environment. 
Examples include the pesticide DDT, marvelously effective at killing 
insects, but also, it turned out, lethal to birds of prey like eagles, 
falcons, and osprey. Another example is the chemical family 
chlorofluorocarbons, which practically codified the law of unintended 
consequences. CFCs were great coolants for air conditioners and 
refrigerators, but decades after their introduction in the 1920s they 
were shown to destroy the Earth's ozone layer, which protects us from 
the sun's harsh ultraviolet radiation.

Nanomaterials are valuable precisely because they behave in radically 
new ways. But while the ability of some nano particles to pass through a 
cell could lead to breakthroughs in cancer or Alzheimer's treatment, 
these same features can pose environmental and health risks. Preliminary 
studies have shown that some nanomaterials are able to damage skin, 
brain, and lung tissue. Discovered in 1985, a microscopic form of carbon 
called buckyballs (named after Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the 
geodesic dome), has the potential to take electrical and optical 
applications to the next level.

Buckyballs could enable faster Internet speeds or more rapid delivery of 
communications down phone lines, cable lines, and through cellular 
networks, making today's split-second delivery seem sluggish. But 
preliminary studies suggest that these same materials can kill 
waterborne bacteria and break down brain cells in fish. So what happens 
when buckyballs wash out of consumer products and into sewage plants 
that discharge into lakes, rivers, or coastal waters? Or when factories 
that produce or use buckyballs discharge wastes directly into waterways? 
Right now, we simply don't know.

Reaping the benefits of nanotechnology without unintended harm will 
require a mix of corporate leadership, coordinated research, and 
informed regulation. Given nanotechnology's potential for profit, it is 
in companies' own interest to protect their investment with careful risk 
analysis and comprehensive risk management before launching nanoproducts 
into the marketplace.

Federal and state governments are pouring more than $1 billion per year 
into developing nanotech applications, while grossly underinvesting 
(less than 5 percent) in research to understand the potential risks of 
nanomaterials. Earlier this month, the Museum of Science in Boston 
received a $20 million grant to create nanotechnology exhibits and 
programs at science museums around the country. Incredibly, this figure 
is more than half the total amount the government is now spending on 
nanotech risk research, and roughly twice what it spent in 2004. 
Government should dramatically increase funding to develop the basics of 
nanotechnology risk research, which companies can build upon for 
product-specific risk evaluations. Regulators need to review and update 
safety and health regulations designed for a world before 
nanotechnology, considering the full lifecycle of nanomaterials through 
production, use, and disposal.

Boston has brought the country dazzling innovations in medicine, 
science, and technology and should take the lead to responsibly manage 
the potential risks of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology may be the study 
of small things, but the roles we need Boston to play are large indeed.

Gwen Ruta is regional director of the Boston office of Environmental 
Defense.  


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/28/the_downside_of_nanotechnology/
-------------- next part --------------
Skipped content of type multipart/related