Should Nanotech Be Regulated?

Memorize writes "Josh Wolfe writes an article in Forbes arguing that it is too early to regulate nanotech. Wolfe is worried that the 'green gang' (his term for environmentalists) are going to regulate nanotech out of existence before the technology even works in the lab. It seems like much of the discussion of nanotech is hype, including the potential benefits, such as immortality and the potential dangers such as grey goo. However, nanotech does hold some promise of environmental benefits such as cheap solar power. Are the risks real, and if so, is it worth the risk?" From the article: "There are rumblings that regulations are needed. They say they want to guarantee the safety of the technology and instill confidence in the general public."

Comments

Too late.

[abb3w]

I recall seeing a citation that many firms (especially outside the US) were using the health and materials safety data for graphite for CNTs, since nothing specific for carbon nanotubes existed. I've found at least one CNT data sheet online, but therein the phrase "TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED" raises alarm bells for me at least.

Nanomaterials are weird. Gold metal and even sub-hair thin wires are fairly inert; but nanodivide it, and it becomes highly reactive and much more toxic than lead. And we're putting nanocrystal zinc oxide into sunscreens these days. I'll use it anyway-- with my skin and family history, melanoma is the bigger risk. But nanomaterials exposure is already happening.

Nanotechnology is nanomaterials

[obiquity]

There is a common misconception about nanotechnology that even /. editors are not immune to. I suppose this has to do with the fact that nanotechnology has morphed over the years into a discpline that has very little to do with "nanofabrication" and nanomachines, areas in which research has slowed substantially since the early 90s.

Rather, most academic research is now geared towards the production of highly controlled materials at the nano-scale. Nanoparticulate metals and oxides have tons of applications but almost none of them are nano machines. Rather, this work has become advanced form of materials chemistry and physics, designing regular surface features or particles. For this reason, nano-materials are not going to be much more dangerous than normal materials in the big picture. Nano-disperse carbon, which is sometimes called *smoke* or soot, is probably just as toxic as bucky-balls.

An interesting issue is: why have researches have abandoned nano-machines? I think it has to do with the fact that we already know how to build them. There's technology that has a great track record and can do almost anything you'd like at the nano and sub nano scale. They're called *enzymes* and recent enzyme engineering advances have made many nano-related tasks kind of superfluous. Also there are viruses and bacteria(maybe) that range into the nano-scale as well. So I think it boils down to a "why bother" issue with nano machines.

Of course I *might* be biased given my chosen area of research. I'm a chem. Prof investigating enzyme and bacteria engineering. Nah, I'm not biased.....

From one of environmental researchers...

[deuist]

I don't know how many people will read this comment (my karma is pretty low), but I work on a toxicology project where we're examining the effects of nanoparticles on cell cultures and, in some case, we also perform animal studies. Let me the first to say that no nanotox studies have ever been performed on large mammals or humans. The best data we have so far comes from in vitro cell cultures, fish, or rats. Therefore, we don't know the true impact that these materials will have on humans. Further, much of the research is inconsistent and all over the place. In our lab we show that nano aluminum (a common ingredient in making military weapons) will kill lung cells in a Petri dish. However, when we force rats to inhale these same particles, we cannot measure an inflammatory response, much less a toxic effect. Unfortunately, extremists from the environmentalist camp (i.e., the ETC Group) want to see nanotech banned before its even has a chance to be studied in a lab. I think --- and this is my professional opinion --- that we need to continue doing tox studies while allowing industries to put their products on the market.

As a bonus, here are some of the results from some others' research on nanotech:
* When rats inhale carbon nanotubes, the tubes bypass the blood-brain barrier and cover the brain. The resultant rats had black brains!
* Titania dioxide, a common ingredient in paint, sun screen and tooth paste, is very toxic to cells and rats.
* Silica dioxide, also a common ingredient in paint and food, is not toxic.
* Fullerenes (aka, bucky balls) are deadly to fish (verified by Richard Smalley from Rice University --- he created bucky balls)

Note that all of these materials exhibit very different properties from the bulk. You won't get sick from most of these products if you use the same concentrations of material, but simply change the size of the particles.

Our work will be published early next week on http://www.nanotoxicology.ufl.edu/.