[Mb-civic] The downside of nanotechnology - Gwen Ruta - Boston
Globe Op-Ed
William Swiggard
swiggard at comcast.net
Mon Nov 28 04:28:20 PST 2005
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
More information about the Mb-civic
mailing list