Nanotechnology has become a highly popular buzzword. Unfortunately, the term is not well-defined, and to make matters worse, there is a low level of recognition about the various perceptions of what nanotechnology is supposed to mean. This raises a number of problems, especially when the subject is risk.
We often talk about the different gradations in nanotechnology risk assessment. It's good to find others contributing sensible views that illuminate the troubling confusion.
Michael Berger, our colleague at Nanowerk, writes about this problem in an article on Nanotechnology Risks - the Real Issues:
Nano-this and nano-that. These days it seems you need the prefix “nano” for products or applications if you want to be either very trendy or incredibly scary. This “nanotrend” has assumed “mega” proportions: Patent offices around the world are swamped with nanotechnology-related applications; investment advisors compile nanotechnology stock indices and predict a coming boom in nanotechnology stocks with misleading estimates floating around of a trillion-dollar industry within 10 years; pundits promise a new world with radically different medical procedures, manufacturing technologies and solutions to environmental problems; nano conferences and trade shows are thriving all over the world; scientific journals are awash in articles dealing with nanoscience discoveries and nano technologies breakthroughs.Nanotechnology has been plagued by a lot of hype, but cynicism and criticism have not been far behind...
A particular problem with nanotechnology lies in the huge gap between the public perception of what the hype promises and the scientific and commercial reality of what the technology actually delivers today and in the near future.
Who is to blame for this "huge gap" between public expectations and scientific and commercial reality? We think it's mainly the fault of groups like the US National Nanotechnology Initiative who persist in hyping the near-miraculous benefits of the technology while at the same time downplaying any significant risks. They play on public misunderstanding by exploiting dreams of curing disease and wiping out poverty, but then turn around and pretend that such a powerful technology could not also be used for destructive purposes. Meanwhile, they cajole the US Congress into funding more than a billion dollars a year in research by implying that the money will be spent on achieving grand visions -- but in reality almost all of those dollars are used to support traditional research in chemistry and materials science.
We hasten to point out that there is nothing at all wrong in government-sponsored research of chemistry and materials science. But the problem comes when the taxpayers -- who after all are footing the bill -- believe that they are paying for one thing when in fact they are getting another. What the public thinks of as nanotechnology is, in fact, still years away, and not yet even being specifically funded by the NNI!
Perhaps that glaring omission will be corrected in response to the recent call from the National Materials Advisory Board for funding of studies aimed at producing "more complex materials, devices, and, perhaps even entire complex systems from molecular components in a bottom-up fashion." That would be a step in the right direction; it would help to align actual government-supported research more closely with public expectations. But it's unlikely to happen without increased media and public understanding of the "huge gap" that Michael Berger describes, and without significant public pressure for the NNI to change course.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
You seem to assume that the public at large believes that nanotechnology is equivalent to molecular manufacturing. I really don't think that's the case. I doubt the public has particularly well-formed ideas about what is going on. I don't think the NNI is being dishonest in what it proposes is going to be accomplished by nanotechnology. It is distributing funds for cancer research, where as one example, nanoscale optical properties can be combined with biofunctionalization which is also on the nanoscale in order to create novel potential treatments.
As for whether they are glossing over potential problems, I am certain that is true to some extent. I know there is a large amount of interest into funding the environmental impact of current-day nanomaterials - but not very many well conceived studies to do so.
As for the rest - we should be conducting more dual-use studies and asking questions such as does the biological weapons convention need to be modified. But otherwise? I'm just not clear on what you think needs to be done that isn't being done. Another global ecophagy paper? A study on whether theoretical MM technology can be used for rapid militarization? It just doesn't get much traction when there is absolutely no basis for evaluating such future technology and I think most of the scientific community would place the onset of what could be described as a nanofactory far past your 2010 estimate.
Obviously, breakthroughs can happen - and when one happens there will be a serious discussion as to regulation. I don't know that there is much that can be done until there's at least some small bit of empyrical evidence to support all the concern.
Posted by: elypse | April 26, 2007 at 11:43 AM
The public's poorly-formed ideas were derived in part from Star Trek. "Tea, Earl Grey, hot." So I agree that the public probably couldn't distinguish between nanoscale and MM. But some of them are expecting to see things that can only happen with exponential molecular manufacturing.
And nanoscale has been sold, by government and industry, based on the selling points analyzed by the Foresight Institute years ago - which specifically related to MM. Those descriptions were used to justify near-term nanoscale tech funding, even though it could not achieve what was being claimed.
Most recently, we've seen the use (by high-level government people) of the term "molecular nanotechnology" to describe near-term nanotech. This looks like another attempt to climb on the benefits bandwagon while glossing over the gap between nanoscale and MM. In other words, to tell the public that they're getting more than they're actually getting for their research $.
Chris
Posted by: Chris Phoenix, CRN | April 27, 2007 at 07:33 AM