Nanotech Part 1: The Promise

Nanotechnology is a buzzword in the scientific community. Essentially, we're creating a host of new materials with a host of applications. We're talking about the science of the very small. The seeming consensus as to how small something must be to fall within the realm of nanotech is that one dimension of a given object is 100 nanometers (1 nm = 1 billionth of a meter), or roughly one thousandth the width of a human hair.

Nanotechnology is physics, it is chemistry, it is biology, it is medicine. Nanotech is frontier, it pushes on the edges of the possible, and the field is exploding with novel and exciting devices that will undoubtedly change the way we live in the next century. Of course, with any new technological advance, there is reason to take pause, and critically evaluate the broader impact to human health and environmental quality, as well as potential misuses for morally questionable applications.

Arthur C. Clarke, noted science fiction author, proposed three laws of prediction, the third of which states:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

In the near future, we're going to see legislation seeking to regulate nanotechnology, much as we've seen with embryonic stem cell research. As nanotechnology enters the public debate, it's important that non-experts be given a rational explanation of the potential advantages and disadvantages of pursuing the science without appeals to science fiction and fantasy scenarios as justification for obstructing the quest for new knowledge, the expansion of human potential.

So, first, let's look at some of the promising leads in nanotechnology. As stated, this is a wide field, and I can't cover the array of advances in a 100-page review article, let alone a blog. However, just a bit to whet the appetite should suffice for now.

A leading push for nanotechnology, particularly as it intersects with biomedical technology, is cancer research. Traditionally, the problem with chemotherapy and radiation therapy is that not only is it particularly effective at killing cancer cells, but is nearly as effective at killing normal, healthy cells. In 2003, Naomi Halas and Jennifer West, working out of Rice University, published findings in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in which gold nanoshells were used successfully to kill cancer cells in mice without damage to surrounding healthy cells. In essence, the group coated tiny glass beads with gold, attached molecules that would hold them to cancer cells, and irradiated tumors with low-power laser light, which passes through tissue. The gold nanoshells heat up when they absorb the near-infrared light of the laser, and kill the cancer cells selectively.

The Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISEnet), provides this educational video on YouTube on the topic:



Just this year, Craig Grimes at Penn. State published his work with titanium dioxide nanotubes in the journal Nano Letters. Grimes' research focuses on using titanium dioxide (commonly found in house paint) nanotubes with attached copper and/or platinum nanoparticles to convert carbon dioxide and water vapor (both greenhouse gases) into methane and other hydrocarbon fuels, killing two birds with one stone, as it were: reducing greenhouse gases and providing alternative energy sources. The kicker here is that the device is powered solely by sunlight.

My own work focuses on harnessing the optical properties of silver nanoparticles to produce a reusable sensor for food contaminants. Silver nanoparticles in solution appear yellow to the naked eye (see the sample I produced in my lab under the guidance of Dr. David J. Chesney, to the right) and potentially change color in the presence of target molecules. Optical nanoparticle sensors have been successfully employed in past studies to detect Staph toxins, Salmonella and E. coli in a variety of foods including chicken, dairy, hot dogs (if you can call them food) and potato salad. What has come out of some conversations with the good Dr. Chesney is that our food supply is particularly vulnerable to contamination, both accidental and intentional. I contend that developing technologies that aid our detection and neutralization of food-borne pathogens would serve the interests of homeland security more so than would technologies solely aimed at the destruction of humans overseas.

I think I've laid a foundation here, extolling the virtues of nanotechnology and barely scraping the surface of its beneficial applications. As I mentioned, however, there is another side to the story. To be fair, one should consider the risks of any new technology. Next week, I'll talk about potential negative impacts, including fantastical doomsday scenarios we love to imagine to keep our work interesting and to inflate our sense of importance.

To close, opponents of scientific inquiry into morally ambiguous territory enjoy citing atomic and nuclear technology as an example of evil science. It was Albert Einstein's letters to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that brought to the upper echelons of American political power the awareness of atomic energy as a potential weapon, along with a warning that Nazi Germany may have been exploiting it. His letters essentially ushered in the era of weapons of mass destruction. I leave you with his morbidly optimistic quote:

I do not believe that civilization will be wiped out in a war fought with the atomic bomb. Perhaps two-thirds of the people of the earth will be killed.