Nanotech Part 2: The Perils

As stated last week, nanotech offers much in the way of new-fangled doodads and googaws galore. Nanotech will likely impact everything from the fibers in our clothes, solar cells on our roofs (hopefully soon), medicine in our tissues, sports equipment, you name it. Against our nature, perhaps, I think we need to be cautious moving forward.

In discussing a recent article in Environmental Science & Technology pertaining to nano silver in socks, which are currently commercially available, with colleagues in the Michigan Tech Chemistry Department, I posed the rather naive question, "Don't manufacturers have to demonstrate that their products are safe before marketing them? Doesn't the EPA regulate this kind of thing?" You see, silver nanoparticles are embedded in socks as odor-control agents, as silver nanoparticles have demonstrated antibacterial properties. However, as demonstrated by Benn and Westerhoff in the aforementioned article, some of these socks lose their nanoparticles in the wash, posing unknown environmental risks. Ionic silver (silver atoms minus one electron) is detrimental to aquatic life. Few environmental impact studies of nanosilver exist to date.

Back to my questions about product safety tests and regulation. According to MTU Chemistry chair Dr. Sarah Green, therein lies one of the differences between new product regulation in Europe and the U.S. In the interest of deregulated "free markets" here in the States organizations like the FDA and EPA are given the onus to demonstrate an existing technology or product is dangerous before it is regulated. In Europe, the tables are turned. Manufacturers, to a larger extent than in the U.S., must demonstrate first that their products are safe before mass production and marketing begin. Now, I recognize that this is a little simplistic. I've not delved into the depths of European regulation (as if all nations on the continent are equally regulated), but that's a tangent for another post, or another blog. I welcome your comments on the matter. Regardless, I posit that rational self-interest of Laissez-faire economics is not necessarily the be all and end all model when it comes to safeguarding human and environmental health. Let us consider Somalia.



But this blog isn't about capitalism, socialism, communism, name your ism. Let's take a look at some more risks and threats posed by nanotechnology, should the science be treated irresponsibly, or worse, maliciously.

Fictional peril
As promised, let's take some of our fears about nanotech to some absurd conclusions. With a little help from my friends, I've looked at nanotech through a pop culture, science fiction lens to bring some nanotech nightmare scenarios to light. Quoth the Wikipedia:

Grey goo is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all matter on Earth while building more of themselves—a scenario known as ecophagy ("eating the environment").

The concept was introduced by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation (click for a free HTML version), a hopeful, as well as cautionary tale of the burgeoning field of nanotech. Whether the nanobots responsible are released in an act of nanoterrorism, or simply an experiment gone haywire, perpetuators of the scenario envision these tiny machines/organisms devouring all manner of organic and inorganic matter and rearranging it in order to produce more of itself. In extreme scenarios, the wave of nanobots could spread beyond our planet and devour solar systems, galaxies, etc. As I've had my cable television service shut off for most of the past year, and have read little other than current research journal articles and textbooks in the last two years, I've become a bit out of touch with pop culture. I recently solicited references to nanotechnology in pop culture on Facebook and received quite a few responses, some of which I was familiar with but had forgotten.

One was a novel entitled Prey by Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and renowned technophobe. I'll add a caveat here that I've not read the book myself. Crichton spins a cautionary tale about the knitting together of three burgeoning technologies, namely nanotech, artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. In the course of the story, swarms of nanobots invade human hosts, alter their behavior, kill wild animals, learn, evolve, even coalesce into human doppelgangers. Apparently, this is not a story of a mindless herd, merely digesting and reproducing, but a purposeful, sentient organism bent on destruction. Chris Phoenix, co-founder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, wrote a particularly acidic critique of Prey in 2003, published online at Nanotechnology Now. The following quote summarizes his thoughts pretty well.

He might succeed in scaring people; a friend of mine who's a geneticist told me that Jurassic Park set back public perception of genetic engineering by a decade. This would be unfortunate, because the Prey scenario contains so many implausibilities--and impossibilities--that in the end, the reader will have learned nothing about the actual risks of nanotech.

Now, to be fair, Michael Crichton was writing a novel, not a review article on the state-of-the-art in nanotechnology. However, to be fair, Michael Crichton has an agenda. As a best-selling author, he makes use of his soap box, much as I am making use of my soap box now. I think he and I would agree that we should be cautious of the greedy and powerful running amok with emerging technologies. I think it is a mistake, however, to make a case through appeals to fear . . . scaring the public and policymakers into making decisions about a particular science by inventing or perpetuating nightmarish fantasies. It is interesting to note that while obfuscating the risks associated with nanotechnology, Crichton undermines climate science by associating belief in extraterrestrials with belief in global warming, de-emphasizing genuine risks to human and environmental health.

In the interest of brevity, I won't dedicate as much time to other cultural references. I'd really like to get around to talking about what I actually meant to talk about here in a few paragraphs. Briefly, in the newest incarnation of The Day the Earth Stood Still, an extraterrestrial intelligence releases a swarm of insatiably hungry, insect-like nanobots with the intent to consume humanity, as well as its ballparks. In the computer game Deus Ex, players enhance their characters with nanotech augmentations, granting them superhuman powers and skills. The game also has as part of its plotline a synthetic and lethal virus called "Gray Death," no doubt a nod to Drexler's grey goo. Start Trek: The Next Generation featured an episode titled "Evolution," in which the precocious Wesley Crusher accidentally releases cooperative, evolving nanites into the Enterprise where they wreak havoc, but eventually negotiate a peace with Captain Jean Luc Picard.

Factual Peril
As Chris Phoenix pointed out in the above review, fictional accounts and pseudoscience do the science a disservice by distracting, and in some cases misleading the public about real risk. As with fictional risk, factual risk is a broad field, which I will only touch upon here. However, resources below will provide days of digging for the diligent and curious mind.

Nanotechnology Citizen Engagement Organization (NanoCEO) maintains an extremely thorough and organized list of risk resources associated with nanotech. One can start with reviews, studies on environmental effects, then narrow down and search studies categorized by type of nanomaterial, type of health effect, occupational safety, bio-nanotech, nanotech products, and agriculture & food. Let's take a look at just a couple of studies.

In 2005, Günter, Eva and Jan Oberdörster published a review of work in the newly forming and rapidly expanding field of nanotoxicology in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. They conclude that far more work has yet to be done prior to forming a meaningful risk assessment of nanotech, along with meaningful regulation. While calling for a multidisciplinary approach to building a body of knowledge on nanoparticle toxicity, the Oberdörsters urge parallel development of new technologies and evaluation of their risks. Currently, regulators do not distinguish, for example, nanosilver from silver in a necklace or electronics, treating them equally. However, it is specifically because nanomaterial properties differ from their bulk material counterparts that make them novel and useful in new materials. Otherwise, we might keep our socks from stinking by depositing a few dimes before inserting our feet. As such, regulatory bodies must consider that a given nanomaterial's toxicity may well differ from that of the bulk material, and thus, may require specific regulation. The following figure (posted with the author's permission) represents Oberdörsters' risk assessment and management paradigm for nanoparticles.

The Oberdörsters point to existing biokinetic studies (reaction rates with living systems) as a foundation upon which to build the field of nanotoxicology. These studies show that nanoparticles avoid our body's defenses and are easily deposited and absorbed through our respiratory tract and skin, and are transported throughout the body by the network of lymph nodes. If nanoparticles make it to the blood, they are readily spread to the liver, spleen, bone marrow, heart and other organs. In the end, the authors urge further research into nanoparticle toxicity.

Beyond human health impacts, we ought to be concerned with the impact of nanotech on the larger biosphere. Matthew 25:40 states:

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

There may be Christians that would make the argument that it is a misinterpretation of scripture to consider fish, trees, lions, fungus, bacteria to be the brethren of the divine. That's okay. The character Morpheus summed up my feelings on the matter well in The Matrix Reloaded.

Commander Lock: Dammit, Morpheus. Not everyone believes what you believe.
Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

Regardless of your spiritual kinship with nature, there are pragmatic reasons to avoid destroying ecosystems. Ween put it succinctly in the title of their song "Don't Shit Where You Eat."

To that end, in January 2009, Farré et al. published a review in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry titled "Ecotoxicity and analysis of nanomaterials in the aquatic environment." The authors summarize findings from hundreds of studies, citing and quantifying effects of various nanomaterials on a viariety of species. Just a few examples are decreased hatch rates of zebrafish in the presence of silver nanoparticles, respiratory toxicity and neorotoxicity of rainbow trout in the presence of carbon nanotubes (see image at right), a number of toxic effects on Daphnias (preyed upon by a number of Great Lakes fish) by carbon Fullerenes (see below). Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles also demonstrated toxicity toward the Daphnias.

Aside from toxicological effects on humans and other species, there are economic, political and social implications for nanotechnology. The aforementioned Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has outlined Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing. CRN defines molecular manufacturing as:

Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place.

Their assessment of risks are focused the development of personal nanofactories, with which new products may dreamt, prototyped and mass produced where and when they are needed. Industrial age manufacturing, warehousing, shipping become obsolete in this model, as do a number of jobs. As manufacturing and distribution of goods become easier, the potential for markup and profitability of the masters of nanotech skyrockets. We just have to look at the recording industry to illustrate the point. A CD costs less than $1 to produce, but retails at $15-20.

As with weapons of mass destruction, there is concern over the technology falling into the hands of those that would do violence to civilization. Even conventional weapons might be produced cheaply and quickly and enter the black market. Chemical and biological agents could be manufactured from existing feedstocks on the site of an attack and released remotely.

As we saw after the attacks of September 11, 2001, there is the potential for extreme countermeasures to the risks described above. Further erosion of civil liberties and increased surveillance of citizenry is a conceivable response to an attack resulting from nanotech. Ironically, nanotech would certainly aid in construction of new devices to aid in surveillance efforts. Nanotech weapons employed by governments have the capacity to trigger an arms race among competing nations with unknowable consequences. The nuclear arms race is incomparable to a nanoarms race, as a variety of factors distinguish the two. 1) Nuclear arms are more destructive in the long-term from fallout and contamination, whereas these effects could be mitigated in a nanoweapon. 2) Nuclear weapons are not selective in their targets. 3) Nuclear weapons development is easily tracked and has a longer lead time between prototyping to deployment. 4) Nuclear weapons cannot be delivered in advance of deployment. It is likely a nanoarms race would destabilize international relations.

The authors at CRN state that these are complex problems with complex solutions, that will take time to develop, and should be undertaken now. To that end, they point to Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies. This is not a review of studies conducted, but a review of studies that must be conducted soon, within months, in parallel, and confirmed. Essentially, CRN sees a looming crisis that can be averted with adequate forethought and planning. In my humble opinion, adequate forethought and planning are not humanity's strongest suits (see asbestos).

Regardless, Chris Phoenix and Eric Drexler have provided us some pointers in the right direction in their opinion piece "Safe Exponential Manufacturing" published in the journal Nanotechnology in 2004. I present the link with no commentary. The PDF is a free download.

Nanotech and Culture War
Again, there is great need as scientists, corporations, governments, civilians move forward with nanotechnology to properly educate on the potential benefits and risks posed. Scientists can sometimes occupy a mental realm far removed from that of the artist, plumber, grocery clerk, athlete, attorney, salesman, etc. I can barely tolerate mathematicians. We have a tendency to bark at people when they don't understand the highly complicated world in which we live. We take the frontier for granted, as well as our privileged view of it. I assert that if we, as scientists, are discontent with the public's understanding of our respective fields, then we haven't done a very good job of explaining ourselves. The approach illustrated by the button above and to the right does not generate empathy or understanding.

In December 2008, Dan Kahan's research group published findings on the effects of cultural cognition on the perception of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Their work was published in Nature Nanotechnology and concluded that participants' perception of the relative safety of nanotechnology, after reviewing balanced information regarding risks and benefits, tended to follow patterns in terms of a participant's cultural identification as more individualistic or egalitarian. Participants identified as individualistic, or more pro-commerce, tended to view nanotech as relatively safe, dismissing risks, matching views on issues such as climate change and nuclear energy. Conversely, participants with egalitarian leanings, more concerned with economic inequality, tended to view nanotechnology as dangerous.

Furthermore, Dietram Scheufele at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that religiosity tended to correlate with a distrust of nanotechnology and a perception that nanotechnology is immoral. His findings were also published in Nature Nanotechnology here.

These findings point to the importance of sensitivity to cultural influences in presenting what scientists may view as culturally or morally neutral material. To me, nanotechnology is neither good nor evil, capitalistic nor socialistic. However, like it or not, nonscientific issues and ways of thinking will be attached to the science, impacting its reception, regulation, funding, and ultimately, nanotechnology's future.

Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins have something to say about the need for sensitivity.



Next week, I'll take a look at some projects aimed at communicating nanotech in an alluring and fascinating way. Their media are less cerebral, more visual and visceral. Their appeal is the beauty present at the nano scale.