Different Degrees of Risk

When it comes to nanotechnology, there are risks, and then there are risks.

According to one report:

Nanotechnologies pose real threats to health and the environment and need prompt testing and oversight, but government and industry are moving slowly on the issue, scientists and environmentalists have said.

"There are some very serious concerns about potential health consequences," said Patrice Simms of the US Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC). "We know next to nothing about their potential health effects," said Simms.

But others have a different view:

Fears about nanotechnology may be overblown, says an expert in toxicology and environmental health. Professor Brian Priestly, director of the Australian Centre for Human Health Risk Assessment, says we need to put fears about the potential health risks of nanoparticles into perspective.

"I'm not saying that we don't have knowledge gaps that we have to fill," Priestly says. "But some of the statements that are being made I think are extreme."

Part of the problem is that 'nanotechnology' is not well defined. As used today, the term refers to a broad collection of mostly disconnected fields. Essentially, anything sufficiently small and interesting can be called nanotechnology. Much of it is harmless. For the rest, much of the harm is of familiar and limited quality.

Understanding the different degrees of risk can be helped by viewing nanotechnology development as a series of generations, where each succeeding level increases the complexity, capability -- and the potential risks of the technology.

The US National Science Foundation categorizes it this way:

1st Generation: Passive nanostructures
2nd Generation: Active nanostructures
3rd Generation: Systems of nanosystems
4th Generation: Molecular nanosystems

An important point is that there could be an asymmetry between the level of technical development as we ascend through the generations, and the impact that the resulting products will have on human society and the environment.

Simply put, when one product of advanced nanotechnology is a whole new means of production -- nanofactories that can make duplicate nanofactories -- then implications will expand exponentially. This can be expected to occur during the fourth generation of nanotechnology development (although it conceivably could come before then).

Discussions of nanotech risk will be improved through clarity and specificity. Today's early generation nanotechnologies do present risks, some of them serious, but all of them essentially familiar. Tomorrow's molecular manufacturing will bring new and unfamiliar risks, some of them catastrophic, and we should begin now to understand and prepare for this existential challenge.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Brian Wang]

Risks need to have the context of the risks and dangers of existing alternatives. The risks of existing technology is not zero. Coal and oil have big risks and actual deaths and environmental damage caused.

[John Acrinoe]

Is it just me or is the first area of concern (1st generation passive nanostructures) a little daft? If nano sized particle can exist, then the air should already be filled with massive amounts of nano sized debris.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

John, you're half right. Nanoparticles do exist in nature. Dirt contains silica nanoparticles. Existing technologies also release nanoparticles--diesel exhaust, etc.

But just like other chemicals, not all nanoparticles are created equal. Many nanoparticles don't exist in nature--at least not in nearly such high concentrations. Any new substance may create new problems. So it is not daft to worry about the effects of newly invented nanoparticles.

Nanoparticles, depending on the type, may be different from most chemicals. They may migrate through the body differently, they may be more stable (thus their effects would last longer), they may be more chemically active...

Of course, focusing exclusively on nanoparticle risks would be a big mistake. Other kinds of nanotechnology will create other risks--some of them much worse. But nanoparticles are not risk-free.

Chris

[Pam]

Interesting...a problem we're having is that alot of the nanoparticles that are available are proprietary (like all of them?) and they don't give alot of structural information - so we don't have a clue about how most nanoparticles exist in nature. For example, the ones we work with are stabilized by acetate - and microbes utilize the acetate pretty quickly (our observations) - so what do you then have? One day I think the risks are overstated for funding purposes, and the next day I think (depending on the NP) that they aren't very different from the parent metal. Time will tell I guess (and I agree with the commenters comment about oil/coal, etc - risk is inherent).