Contents

List of Figures, Tables and Boxes viiiList of Contributors ixPreface and Acknowledgements xviList of Acronyms and Abbreviations xx

1 Introduction: The Challenge of Nanotechnologies 1Georey Hunt and Michael D. Mehta

Part One Introducing Nanotechnology

2 Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck? 13Kristen Kulinowski

3 Nanotechnology: From Feynman to Funding 25K. Eric Drexler

4 Microsystems and Nanoscience for BiomedicalApplications: A View to the Future 35

Linda M. Pilarski, Michael D. Mehta, Timothy Cauleld,Karan V. I. S. Kaler and Christopher J. Backhouse

5 Nanotechnoscience and Complex Systems: The Case forNanology 43

Georey Hunt

Part Two Regional Developments

6 Nanotechnologies and Society in Japan 59Matsuda Masami, Georey Hunt and Obayashi Masayuki

7 Nanotechnologies and Society in the USA 74Kirsty Mills

8 Nanotechnologies and Society in Europe 92Georey Hunt

9 Nanotechnologies and Society in Canada 105Linda Goldenberg

Part Three Benets and Risks

10 From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can WeLearn from Earlier Technologies? 121

Michael D. Mehta

11 Getting Nanotechnology Right the First Time 130John Balbus, Richard Denison, Karen Florini and Scott Walsh

12 Risk Management and Regulation in an EmergingTechnology 140

Roland Clift

13 Nanotechnology and Nanoparticle Toxicity: A Casefor Precaution 154

C. Vyvyan Howard and December S. K. Ikah

14 The Future of Nanotechnology in Food Science andNutrition: Can Science Predict its Safety? 167

Arpad Pusztai and Susan Bardocz

Part Four Ethics and Public Understanding

15 The Global Ethics of Nanotechnology 183Georey Hunt

16 Going Public: Risk, Trust and Public Understandingof Nanotechnologies 196

Julie Barnett, Anna Carr and Roland Clift

17 Dwarng the Social? Nanotechnology Lessons fromthe Biotechnology Front 213

Edna F. Einsiedel and Linda Goldenberg

Part Five Law and Regulation

18 Nanotechnologies and the Law of Patents: A CollisionCourse 225

Siva Vaidhyanathan

19 Nanotechnologies and Civil Liability 237Alan Hannah and Georey Hunt

vi Nanotechnology

20 Nanotechnologies and the Ethical Conduct of ResearchInvolving Human Subjects 247

Lorraine Sheremeta

21 Nanotechnologies and Corporate Criminal Liability 259Celia Wells and Juanita Elias

Part Six Conclusion

22 What Makes Nanotechnologies Special? 273Michael D. Mehta and Georey Hunt

Appendix: Measurement Scales and Glossary 282

Index 289

Contents vii

List of Figures, Tables and Boxes

Figures

2.1 Objects of approximate size from 103m to 109m 1413.1 PM10 and daily mortality from cities around the world.

Expressed as a percentage change in daily mortality associatedwith a 10mgm3 increase in PM10 161

13.2 Eects of ultrane particles (UP) and ne particles (PM2:5) onmortality for prevalent diseases (total, cardiovascular,respiratory, others) 162

Tables

7.1 NNI budget breakdowns by agency (dollars in millions) 788.1 2004 EU Consultation outcomes in health, environment etc 999.1 Government of Canada recommended domains for

nanotechnology R&D 1069.2 Government of Canada conceptualization of nanotechnology

R&D stages 1089.3 Enabling technologies funded by Technology Partnerships

Canada 11312.1 Some possible applications of nanotechnology 14212.2 The elements of current risk assessment 14413.1 Classication of respirable particles 155

Boxes

6.1 Japanese attitude survey 69

List of Contributors

Christopher J. Backhouse is professor at the University of Alberta in theDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Before joining the Univer-sity of Alberta in 1999, he gained extensive industrial experience. His researchinvolves microfabrication, miniaturized instrumentation and the application ofmicro/nanobiotechnologies. His research group spans engineering, nanoscienceand medicine, and has developed a range of instruments, techniques andmicrofabricated devices implementing nanobiotechnology applications onmicrofabricated devices.

John Balbus MD MPH directs the Health programme at the non-protEnvironmental Defense in Washington DC. Prior to joining EnvironmentalDefense in 2002, he spent seven years at George Washington University,where he was founding director of the Center for Risk Science and PublicHealth and served as acting chairman of the Department of Environmentaland Occupational Health. Dr Balbus background combines training andexperience in clinical medicine with expertise in epidemiology, toxicologyand risk sciences; he is Board-certied in both internal medicine and in occu-pational and environmental medicine. He currently serves as a member ofthe US National Academy of Sciences Board on Environmental Studies andToxicology; the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ChildrensHealth Protection Advisory Committee; and the US National Academy ofSciences panel on Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to PredictiveToxicology.

Susan Bardocz is an internationally respected scientist who was a part of theresearch team on genetically modied (GM)-potato work and is now also acollaborator in the Tromso research project on the safety of GM foods.

Julie Barnett obtained her PhD in 1998, and is now senior research fellow inthe Psychology Department of the University of Surrey, UK. Julies mainresearch interests lie in the elds of risk perception and risk communication,and in the contribution that social psychology can make to greater under-standing and improved practice in these areas. Current research projectsare exploring public understandings of precaution in relation to mobile

telecommunications, the use of lay knowledge in industry and public attitudesto genomics.

Anna Carr is an inter-disciplinary scholar whose research interests lie in therelationship between local places, knowledge practices and scientic truthclaims. Her intellectual agenda is to increase community engagement with(professional) environmental science. She is currently based in Sydney,Australia working for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and NaturalResources and holds a visiting fellowship at the University of Surrey, UK.

Timothy Cauleld is a professor in the Faculty of Law and the Faculty ofMedicine and Dentistry, and is the research director of the Health Law Insti-tute at the University of Alberta. In 2002, he received a Canada research chairin Health Law and Policy. His research has focused on two general areas: (1)genetics, ethics and the law and (2) the legal implications of health carereform in Canada.

Roland CliftCBE FREng FIChemEHonFCIWEM is distinguished professorof Environmental Technology and founding director of the Centre for Environ-mental Strategy, University of Surrey, UK. He is a member of the RoyalCommission on Environmental Pollution, of the International Expert Groupon application of Life Cycle Assessment to waste management, and has beenawarded the Sir Frank Whittle medal by the Royal Academy of Engineeringfor his leading role in developing the holistic life cycle assessment of products.He was a member of the 2004 Working Group on Nanotechnology of theRoyal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering.

Richard Denison PhD is a senior scientist at Environmental Defense inWashington DC. Prior to joining Environmental Defense in 1987, he servedas analyst and assistant project director for the US Oce of TechnologyAssessment. He specializes in nanotechnology and chemical hazard assessment,and serves on the National Pollution Prevention and Toxics AdvisoryCommittee to the US EPA and is on the Steering Group for Nanotechnologyof the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

K. Eric Drexler presented the basic concepts of molecular manufacturing ina scientic article (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1981),and wrote Engines of Creation (1986) to introduce a broad audience to theprospect of advanced nanotechnologies, and Nanosystems (AAP, 1992, MostOutstanding Computer Science Book) to provide a graduate-level introductionto the eld. His research in nanotechnology ranges from computational model-ling of molecular machines to engineering analysis of molecular manufacturingsystems and their potential products. In support of US federal policy develop-ment, he has provided presentations and briengs to (among others) the SenateSubcommittee on Science, Technology and Space; the White House Oce ofScience and Technology Policy; and the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

x Nanotechnology

Sta. He is a founder and current chairman of the Foresight Institute, a non-prot educational organization established to help prepare for advancedtechnologies.

Edna F. Einsiedel is a professor of communication studies at the University ofCalgary. She is a principal investigator on a genomics, economic, ethical,environmental, legal and social studies project funded by Genome Canada.

Juanita Elias is a lecturer in international politics at the University ofAdelaide, Australia. She is the author of Fashioning Inequality: The Multi-national Corporation and Gendered Employment in a Globalising World,(Ashgate, 2004) and has also published articles in New Political Economy andInternational Feminist Journal of Politics. Her research interests includeemployment practices in multinational corporations, the regulation ofcorporations and corporate codes of conduct, International Political Economy(IPE) and gender perspectives in political economy. She has worked previouslyas a lecturer at the University of Manchester and as a researcher at theEconomic and Social Research Council Centre for Business Relationships,Accountability, Sustainability and Society (BRASS), at Cardi University.

Karen Florini JD is a senior attorney at Environmental Defense inWashington DC. She focuses on nanotechnology, toxic chemicals, antibioticresistance and other environmental health issues, and has participated innumerous federal advisory committees on topics such as lead poisoning, hazar-dous waste management and childrens environmental health.

Linda Goldenberg is completing her PhD at the University of Calgary,Faculty of Communication and Culture, where she is applying her expertisein science, nanotechnology and ethics to the area of national security, criticalinfrastructure protection and emergency management. Her current researchfocus is intelligent technologies, such as public warning systems, in the nationalsecurity context. Lindas expertise includes research in broadband technology,scientic imaging and complex systems analysis. She is a contributor to therecent US National Science Foundation report Nanotechnology: SocietalImplications Maximizing Benets for Humanity.

Alan Hannah is a solicitor advocate and is an employment law partner inBrachers solicitors, Maidstone and London. Additionally he used to practisein the eld of medical negligence and was a member of the Maidstone HealthAuthority Ethics Committee for many years. He is currently a member of theEthics Committee of the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons. He is aformer part-time Employment Tribunal chairman. His work now includescorporate advice and general strategy in employment related business matters.He advises and acts for a number of NHS Trusts and commercial concerns.Alan retains an interest in the law relating to liability for tortious acts andomissions.

List of Contributors xi

C. Vyvyan HowardMB ChB PhD FRCPath is a medically qualied toxico-pathologist who has specialized in low dose developmental toxicology. He iscurrently professor of bioimaging at the Universty of Ulster, Northern Irelandand editor in chief ofNanotoxicology, a new peer reviewed journal in the eld ofnanotechnology. He is a past president of the Royal Microscopical Society andhas served on two European Union (EU) expert groups addressing the toxicityof nanoparticles. He co-edited the book Particulate Matter: Properties andEects Upon Health, Springer-Verlag Telos, 1999.

Georey Hunt BSc(Hons) MLitt PhD is full professor of ethics and globalpolicies at the University of Surrey (European Institute of Health and MedicalSciences), and a member of the universitys Nanotechnology Forum. As anethics specialist he has published books and papers on public accountability,professional and healthcare ethics, and public interest disclosure. He hasbeen a consultant to various professional bodies. As a philosopher he haspublished in philosophy of medicine and healthcare, and political philosophy.He lectured in Africa for 12 years, and in 2001 he was British Visiting Professorin healthcare ethics at the Medical School of Kagawa University, Japan. He haslectured on nanotechnology and society in several universities and researchinstitutes in Japan and the UK. He is the founder of the public accountabilitynon-governmental organization (NGO) Freedom to Care.

December S. K. Ikah MB BS is in the Developmental Toxico-PathologyGroup, Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, University ofLiverpool, UK. Dr Ikah trained in medicine in Nigeria. Currently he isresearching the toxicology of nano-particles at the University of Liverpool.He is specializing, in particular, in the eects of particle size and surfacechemistry on the developing nervous system.

Karan V. I. S. Kaler, professor of electrical and computer engineering atthe University of Calgary, has more than 70 refereed publications and 3patents. He is the director of the BioMEMS and the Bioelectrics Laboratoriesat the University of Calgary. He developed the rst automated instrumentcapable of non-invasive interrogation and quantication of the electricalproperties of individual cells and the rst micromachined dielectrophoresislter for the separation of viable from non-viable mammalian cells in commer-cial scale bioreactors.

Kristen Kulinowski is a faculty fellow in the Department of Chemistry andexecutive director for education and public policy of the Center for Biologicaland Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University in Houston, Texas.Her research interests include policy of emerging technologies and scienceeducation.

Matsuda Masami is a professor in the Graduate division of the Faculty ofNursing, University of Shizuoka, Japan. His interests are in health care

xii Nanotechnology

systems, primary health care, public health and global health. He is an adviserin health and welfare for the Shizuoka City Mayor, and has advised authoritiesof other cities, prefectures, national government and patient groups in Japan.He has been an expert in Thailand, Yemen and Honduras. He is a boardmember of the Japanese Society of Health and Welfare Policy, and of theJapanese Society of International Health Cooperation. He is also on theeditorial board of the international academic journal Nursing Ethics (Arnold).

Michael Mehta is professor of sociology and chair, Sociology of Biotech-nology Program, University of Saskatchewan, Canada. He specializes inscience, technology and society. Interests include risk perception and commu-nication on biotechnology, nuclear safety, blood safety, endocrine modulatorsand nanotechnology. His academic background includes a BA in psychology,a Masters in environmental studies, a PhD in sociology and post-doctoraltraining in policy studies. He has held academic appointments at York Univer-sity (Faculty of Environmental Studies) and Queens University (School ofPolicy Studies and School of Environmental Studies), and has taught graduateand undergraduate students for more than 15 years. He is a co-founder of theEnvironmental Studies Association of Canada (ESAC).

Kirsty Mills received her BSc in electrical engineering in 1974, and her PhDin 1979, both from the University of Nottingham in the UK. She developedIIIV devices and integrated circuits at Plessey Research (UK) from 1979 to1980, Thomson CSF (France) from 1980 to 1986 and General Electric(Syracuse) from 1986 to 1991. A professor in the Electrical and ComputerEngineering Department at the University of New Mexico, she is professorand the associate director of the Center for High Technology Materials. Inresponse to the increasing need for interdisciplinary function, she initiatedand leads the University of New Mexicos Science and Society Dialogueproject, embraced by a wide range of university departments, schools andinstitutes. As well as teaching engineering ethics, Dr Mills oers seminarsand workshops to a range of stakeholder groups.

Obayashi Masayuki is professor of bioethics, Kyoto Institute of Technology,Japan. His specialty is history and philosophy of science, especially historyand methodology of molecular biology. He has taught bioethics and Science,Technology and Society (STS) at some universities and medical schools Heis now interested in ethical problems of genetics and the professional ethicsof physicians, scientists and engineers.

Linda M. Pilarski, professor of oncology at the University of Albertaand senior scientist of the Alberta Cancer Board, has more than 150 articlesand 3 patents. Her research focuses on blood cancers, molecular biologyand cancer proling on microuidics platforms. She is on the board of theMicrosystems Technology Research Institute and on the scientic advisoryboards for theMultipleMyeloma Research Foundation (US), the International

List of Contributors xiii

Myeloma Foundation (US) and the Research Fund for macroglobulinaemiaWaldenstroms (US).

Arpad PusztaiMSc PhD FRSE is a consultant to the Norwegian Institute ofGene Ecology (GenOk), Tromso, Norway; formerly Rowett Research Insti-tute, Aberdeen, UK. He was born in Budapest (Hungary) in 1930 and qualiedin Chemistry. He received his PhD in biochemistry and physiology from theUniversity of London; did postdoctoral studies at the Lister Institute ofPreventive Medicine in London, and then joined the protein chemistrydepartment at the Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen, Scotland in 1963.He worked at the Rowett until his ocial retirement as a senior scientist in1990. From 1990 to end of 1998 he was engaged in research as a senior researchfellow of the Rowett at the request of the Institutes director and coordinatedsix major research programmes, and several national and European researchprogrammes until, as a result of his disclosures on our GM-potato work,his contract was prematurely terminated and not renewed for 1999. From2001 he has been collaborating in a Norwegian Research Council-fundedGM food research programme at the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology,University of Tromso.

Lori Sheremeta is a lawyer and research associate at the Health Law Instituteat the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta, and is cross-appointed tothe National Institute for Nanotechnology. Loris academic interests focuson the legal, ethical and social issues implicated in new technologies includinggenetics, genomics, regenerative medicine and nanotechnology. She is particu-larly interested in the commercialization of research, the translation of researchndings to society and the role of intellectual property in this process. Lori is amember of the Genome Prairie GE3LS research team, the Stem Cell Network,the Advanced Food and Materials Network and the Canadian BiotechnologySecretariat International Public Opinion Research Team. She has writtennumerous scoping papers for various federal government departments andagencies, including Health Canada (intellectual property, nanotechnology),the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee (biobanking), the Inter-agency Panel on Research Ethics (nanotechnology and human subject research)and Genome Canada (Canadas GE3LS research capacity). Through the Oceof the National Science Advisor, Lori was recently appointed to a CanadianExpert Panel on nanotechnology.

Siva Vaidhyanathan is a cultural historian and media scholar, is the authorof Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How itThreatens Creativity (New York University Press, 2001) and The Anarchistin the Library (Basic Books, 2004). Vaidhyanathan has written for manyperiodicals, including The Chronicle of Higher Education, The New YorkTimes Magazine, MSNBC.COM, Salon.com, openDemocracy.net, and TheNation. After ve years as a professional journalist, Siva earned a PhD inAmerican Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. He has taught at

xiv Nanotechnology

Wesleyan University and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He iscurrently professor and director of the undergraduate programme in Com-munication Studies in Culture and Communication at New York University.He lives in Greenwich Village, US. He writes a regular column, RemoteControl: Life in America, at www.opendemocracy.net.

Scott Walsh MBA is a project manager at Environmental Defense inWashington, DC. He manages partnerships with leading companies to createenvironmental improvements that make business sense, and is currentlyleading corporate partnership eorts to ensure the safe development ofnanotechnology. He is also participating in projects addressing sustainableseafood, antibiotic resistance and vehicle-eet management. Prior to joiningEnvironmental Defense, he served as a business strategy consultant withBoston Consulting Group and as an environmental policy consultant withJellinek, Schwartz and Connolly.

Celia Wells is professor and deputy head of the Law School, Cardi Univer-sity. She is involved in the universitys Economic and Social Research CouncilCentre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society.Her research is mainly in criminal law and corporate criminal liability. She isauthor of Corporations and Criminal Responsibility (2nd edition OUP, 2001)and Reconstructing Criminal Law (with Nicola Lacey and Oliver Quick, 3rdedition, Cambridge University Press, 2003). Recent work includes TheImpact of Feminist Thinking on Criminal Law (2004 Criminal Law Review)and an essay on corporate complicity in human rights violations in Alston(ed) Non State Actors in International Law (OUP, 2005).

List of Contributors xv

Preface and Acknowledgements

Until very recently most people associated nanotechnology with science ction-based accounts that tended to focus on fantastical devices and applications.With recent developments in nanoscience (for example greater control overatomic structure due in part to the atomic force microscope), nanotechnologyhas entered the commercial realm, and has simultaneously begun the journeyof nding its space within the social imaginary. This book represents a leg ofthis journey. By exploring the risks and benets of nano-derived processesand products, Nanotechnology: Risk, Ethics and Law considers the shiftingsocial space that this technology currently occupies. By examining how nano-technology has been introduced to a range of actors, this book explores howdierent governments in Europe, Japan, the US and Canada have respondedto the nanotechnology revolution. Additionally, this book considers howexperience with other technologies (for example biotechnology) may inuencehow the general public, non-governmental organizations, scientists, regulatorsand legal communities around the world are likely to frame nanotechnology.Lastly, this book provides readers with a unique opportunity to think aboutthe ethical and conceptual issues raised by the introduction and disseminationof this nanotechnology. In short, it provides a platform for readers to concep-tualize the multifaceted impacts of nanotechnology by pointing out several ofthe gaps in our collective understanding of how this transformative technologyis shaping the topography of the 21st century.

Georey Hunt rst developed an interest in nanotechnology in late 2002when planning a visit to Japan to discuss the ethical implications of techno-logical futures, and he put forward a tentative overview of nanotechnologicalpossibilities in a presentation at the Seizon Institute, Tokyo in 2003. Huntreciprocated with an invitation to Japanese colleagues and others the followingyear to a small international workshop that he organized on the subject atSt Marys College (a college of the University of Surrey), in Twickenham,UK. It was on that occasion in April 2004 that Hunt and Mehta rst met,and they formed the idea of this collection while taking a break along theriver Thames at Teddington Lock. Dr Arthur Naylor, Principal of St Maryswas most generous in his support for this workshop. Rev. Michael Hayes andDr David Jones of the college are to be warmly thanked for possessing theboldness and curiosity to support what at the time might have seemed to

many others a rather peculiar and unlikely interest. The Wellcome Trust madethe meeting nancially possible, and we are deeply thankful for that. Takingwhat we thought might be the risk of a multidisciplinary Tower of Babel wewere not only relieved but heartened by the eorts that contributors made tounderstand each others disciplinary perspectives on and questions about anew eld.

At the Twickenham meeting we were fortunate to have contributions fromProfessor Johnjoe McFadden (cell biology), Professor John Hay (chemistry),Dr Michael Hughes (biomechanics), and Dr Anna Carr (psychology), allfrom the University of Surrey. Professor Matsuda Masami (public health),Professor Morishita Naoki (philosophy) and Professor Obayashi Masayuki(history of science) provided insights from Japanese technological, publichealth and cultural perspectives. Other contributors were Professor RichardStrohman (molecular biology), Dr Arpad Pusztai (gut biology), Mr AlanHannah (legal practice), Dr Harold Hillman (cell biology), Dr Susan Bardocz(biology), Mr Roger Higman (environmental protection), Hunt (philosophy)and Mehta (sociology), and there were theological and ethical perspectivesfrom Rev. Hayes and Dr Jones. Although only some of the original workshopparticipants appear in this volume all of them provided novel ideas and insights.

Thanks to a travel grant from the Daiwa Anglo-Japanese Foundation, Hunthad visited Japan in October 2004 and spoke on the subject at the Kyoto Insti-tute of Technology, at Tokyo University and at the National Institute ofAdvanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), in the Ministry ofEconomy, Trade and Industry, Tokyo at the invitation of Dr Ata Masafumi,senior researcher in nanotechnology strategy. This meeting, one in an ongoingseries, attracted over 50 representatives from government, industry and busi-ness, and was reported in Nikkei Nanotechnology. Such was the interest inthe social and ethical dimension of nanotechnology that Hunt returned toJapan in March 2005, with a travel grant from the University of Surrey, andspoke on the subject at two more universities and at the Tsukuba branch ofAIST at the invitation of Dr Abe Shuji, deputy director of the NanotechnologyResearch Institute. The unswerving support and kindness of ProfessorMatsuda Masami has made these busy itineraries in Japan run smoothly,with a little help from the speed and precision of the shinkansen (bullet train).Subsequent brief joint articles byMatsuda and Hunt in three Japanese journalsintroduced some specic questions regarding the social implications and risksof nanotechnology to the scientic and professional community in Japan.(Note that in this book, for Japanese names we have followed the Japaneseconvention of placing the family name rst.)

Hunt also wishes to record the support of his colleagues in the Nanotech-nology Forum at the University of Surrey, especially Professor Gary Stevens(polymer science), Professor Ugur Tuzun (process engineering), and ProfessorRoland Clift CBE, pioneer of the life cycle approach to environmental manage-ment. Professor Robin Atteld (environmental philosophy) and ProfessorSteven Norris (cultural studies) provided opportunities for challengingquestions at a Cardi University seminar led by Hunt in November 2003.

Preface and Acknowledgements xvii

Michael Mehtas interest in nanotechnology began in 2001 upon beingapproached by an undergraduate student at the University of Saskatchewannamed Crystal Wallin. Wallin encouraged Mehta to consider the links betweennanotechnology and biotechnology and to eventually put together a grantapplication to fund research on how developments in nanotechnology wereunfolding within Canada. This grant application was rejected by social sciencepeer reviewers from one of Canadas major federal granting agencies with theobservation that one cannot study nanotechnology since it is nothing morethan science ction. This spurred Mehta to develop an active programme ofresearch on the social impacts of nanotechnology.

Mehta is one of the few academics in Canada to explore the social and ethicaldimensions of nanotechnology. He has presented his work in this area in manyparts of the world: Canada, the US, the UK, Germany, Spain, Iceland andSingapore. His presentations have been on a wide array of topics includingexpanding the research base on risk perception and risk communication toincorporate nanotechnology, the impact of nanotechnology on the enterpriseof science, the role of technological convergence as a driver of regulatoryreform, nanoethics, nanomedicine and its ethical and social challenges, nano-technology and surveillance, nanotechnology and its anticipated economicimpacts, and the lessons that can be learned from biotechnology and nucleartechnology to assist in predicting the challenges posed by nanotechnology.

With Dr Linda Pilarski from the University of Alberta and others, Mehtashares a CAD$1.5 million grant (20032008) from the Canadian Institutes ofHealth Research (CIHR) to explore the social, ethical and legal issues relatedto the development and use of microuidic devices for genetic analysis. Theobjective of this project is to develop microuidics-based platforms havingphotolithographically dened networks of microchannels whose versatilityhas led to terms such as lab on a chip. These platforms are able to sort cellsand analyse their genomic proles, individual genes, chromosomes and mito-chondrial DNA, thereby bringing the benets of the genomics and proteomicsrevolutions to the clinic. These novel, integrated microuidic platforms willimplement microsystems and nanoscience to develop automated, real timemultiplex cell manipulation and genetic analysis. Mehtas role in this projectis to: (1) assess how Canadians understand issues related to health information,genetic testing and privacy; (2) assess howmedical practitioners (oncologists) inCanada perceive the use of microuidic platform technologies for clinicalapplications; and (3) to hold consensus conferences on the risks and benetsassociated with the use of microuidic platform technologies for non-clinicalpurposes. In all likelihood this innovation will be the rst available consumerapplication of a medical device that incorporates nanotechnology.

Mehta wishes to thank Zaheer Baber, Timothy Cauleld, Abdallah Daar,Edna Einsiedel, Linda Goldenberg, Jose Lopez, Chris MacDonald, LoriSheremeta, Peter Singer, Crystal Wallin and Gregor Wolbring for the intellec-tual stimulation and debate over the years. Together we are the nanotechnologyand society cohort that has helped make Canada a signicant player in thiseld of inquiry. Mehta also wishes to thank his spouse Kathy Edwards for

xviii Nanotechnology

her assistance with this book. Kathy did much of the original formatting to getthe manuscript ready for peer review.

Chapters 2, 3, 4, 10 and 17 come from a special issue on nanotechnology ofthe Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society (February 2004). That issue ofthe journal, co-edited by Michael Mehta and Zaheer Baber, included severalother contributions that add to a slowly accumulating literature in nano-technology within the Science, Technology and Society eld. Chapter 20 byLori Sheremeta is drawn from a special issue on nanotechnology of theHealth Law Review (autumn 2004). Chapter 11, John Balbus et al, GettingNanotechnology Right the First Time, is reprinted with permission fromIssues in Science and Technology, summer 2005, pp6571, copyright 2005 bythe University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, US. All remaining contributionsin this volume have been originally commissioned for this book.

Responsibility for the views expressed in this volume lies only with the co-editors and the individual contributors.

Georey Hunt, Guildford, UKMichael Mehta, Saskatoon, Canada28th November 2005

Preface and Acknowledgements xix

1Introduction:The Challenge of Nanotechnologies

Georey Hunt and Michael D. Mehta

Nanotechnologies are making the leap from science ction to science reality.The overwhelming majority of people have not yet noticed this transition,but the technology of the vanishingly small will be expansively inuential inthe next couple of decades. For it is not just a new range of technologies buta new social force: a driver of techno-socio-cultural change. Like any otherfamily of radical technologies nanotechnology is not just a set of techniquesthat have appeared independently of society and about which we can nowmake application-based decisions. It is emerging within an existing nexus ofdecisions, relationships and values. It is not as though it is now a new subjectof completely free choice for the human race: it is emerging within a networkof relationships and processes that manifest the choices we have alreadymade over history and are currently living with, for better or worse. Thefamily of nanoscale technologies we call nanotechnology, like several othercritical issues of our time, stands at a juncture between choices for humansurvival and betterment, and clinging to our global inheritance not justmaterial inheritance but a largely outdated intellectual and attitudinal inheri-tance. Which way, nanotechnology?

History

The concept of a nanoscale technology begins with the boldly speculative 1959article Theres Plenty of Room at the Bottom by Nobel Prize winning theore-tical physicist Richard Feynman (Feynman, 1959). In it he said he was notafraid to consider the question whether ultimately in the great future wecan arrange the atoms the way we want; the very atoms, all the way down!.The word nanotechnology was actually rst coined by Japanese scientistTaniguchi Nori in 1974, but in the much narrower context of ultrane

machining (see Chapter 6). A futuristic envisioning of the Feynman hypothesisas a socially transforming technology had to await Eric Drexlers 1986 bookEngines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (Drexler, 1986). In a1990 Afterword he re-states his vision: we are moving towards assemblers,toward an era of molecular manufacturing giving thorough and inexpensivecontrol of the structure of matter (Drexler, 1990, p240). His central idea, ofusing nanoscale mechanisms of assembling molecules to manufacture anysubstances useful to humans, was technically elaborated in his 1995 workentitled Nanosystems (Drexler, 1992). Meanwhile the instruments and tech-niques of nanotechnology have brought the vision closer. The atomic forcemicroscope, the scanning tunnelling microscope, magnetic force microscopy,advanced spectroscopy and electrochemistry, nanoscale lithography, molecularself-assembly techniques and others are being perfected and new ones areproliferating.1

In Chapter 3 of this book, Drexler complains that whereas nanotech-nology, from his starting point, had meant nanomachines of some sort thatwould be able to build desired entities atom-by-atom (molecular manufacture),it has now shifted to mean any technology involving nanoscale processes andproducts, and this has obscured the Feynman vision. He emphasizes thatthe criticism that nanoreplicators are impossible misses the mark, for molecularmanufacture requires no such thing. He explains that it is chemical self-assembly that is the fundamental manufacturing process. It is time for thenanotechnology community to reclaim the Feynman vision in its grand andunsettling entirety, he declares. Even on, or especially on, the basis of thiscore concept many social and ethical issues arise. Some of the most importantare examined by the Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN).2

Nanotechnology, then, can be more broadly viewed as the contemporaryresult of a natural downsizing progression in nearly all the sciences andtheir techniques, whether chemistry, materials science, physics, biology, indus-trial processes, pharmacology, genetic engineering, electronic engineering,neuropsychology and so on. Nanotechnologies, in the plural, is a more helpfullabel. There is an inclination, in universities for example, to re-brand almosteverything as nanotechnology to attract funding and prestige. Of course, ifthis thing called nanotechnology takes on a negative image in the mind ofthe public, we may see a rapid re-re-branding, with the nano being droppedagain. This will not alter the fact that a radical change is in fact running throughadvanced technologies, even if mere size (the nanoscale) is not always sucientto capture what this change really amounts to. In Chapter 5, Hunt urges that acomplex systems approach is necessary for a better understanding of develop-ments in nanotechnoscience.

In this book we do not focus on molecular manufacture, but take a broadview of technologies working at the nanoscale. In fact, quite a lot of emphasishere is on nanoparticles in materials, and in the short term this seems anappropriate focus, partly because of issues of safety. We think that ourgeneral approach reects the current state of thinking around nanotechno-logical developments.

2 Nanotechnology

The nanoscale

Taking a lead from the United States Patent and Trademark Oce (USPTO),the dening features of nanotechnological scale relate to structures, devices andsystems that have novel properties and functions because of their size, with alength of scale of approximately 1100 nanometre (nm) range, in at least onedimension. Among other things, the USPTO, states: Nanotechnologyresearch and development includes manipulation, processing, and fabricationunder control of the nanoscale structures and their integration into largermaterial components, systems and architectures. Within these larger-scaleassemblies, the control and construction of their structures and componentsremains at the nanometre scale.3

One nanometre is one billionth of a metre, and to give this some reality it mayhelp to think, roughly, of the scale of viruses (see the Appendix for examples).One billionth of a metre is approximately ten hydrogen atoms side by side, orabout one thousandth of the length of a typical bacterium. Since a singlehuman hair is around 80,000nm in width, objects measured in a few hundrednanometres are invisible to the human eye.4 At this scale nanotechnology isoperating at the border between classical and quantum physics. As explainedin this book, nanoscale particles and other entities often have quite novel, andeven unexpected, properties compared with properties of the correspondingbulk substances. It is this novelty and the uncertainties that go with it thatis both the source of excitement and benets and of concern and risks. Nanotech-nology is such that we cannot even be sure, taken a longer view, that the benetsand risks are like anything we have previously known. New concepts (see theGlossary in the Appendix) and revised standards of hazard and risk assessmentseem to be inevitable. General areas of application are as follows:

. manufacturing and industrial processes (catalysts, lters, and so on);

. transport, aeronautical and space engineering;

. biomedicine, pharmaceuticals, targeted drug delivery;

. imaging, sensors, monitoring;

. environmental management;

. food technology, additives, packaging;

. materials, surfaces, textiles, fabrics;

. sports and entertainment technology;

. cosmetics, fragrances, toiletries;

. Information and Communications Technology (ICT);

. intelligence, surveillance and defence.

Examples of specic products containing engineered nanoparticles (such ascarbon nanotubes) that are already on the consumer market are: textiles,sportswear, golf balls, tennis rackets, plastic mouldings in vehicles and scratchresistant paint, car tyres, sunscreen and certain electronic consumer goods.Many other products, including nano-catalysts and nano-lters, are availableto manufacturers.

Introduction: The Challenge of Nanotechnologies 3

Nanotechnology in society

Anyone coming to nanotechnology for the rst time may experience mixed feel-ings: perhaps excitement tinged with anxiety. Kulinowski warns in Chapter 2that Wow! (wonderful) could easily turn to Yuck! (horrible) in the publicmind, depending on several factors not necessarily under the control ofscientists, technologists, researchers, corporations and government depart-ments and agencies. Nanotechnology as a conception will be nurturedwithin pre-existing popular mindsets; and the media and popular art forms(lms, novels and so on) will have an impact on those mindsets and shouldnot be underestimated. Nanotechnology is as much a public issue as it is anexpert issue, and as much a social science subject as a natural science subject.Kulinowski points out that, despite this latent instability in perception,there remains a signicant disparity between the research eort that is goinginto applications and the scant attention given to the whole range of socialimplications of nanotechnology. Here we could include public understanding,media reception, cultural and religious issues, ethical and legal dimensions, theglobalizing context, governance and accountability, disruptive impact on othertechnologies and on economies, and political and military implications.

Of course, it is not just a case of either a Wow! or a Yuck! response, butone of choices and tensions between human welfare benets and hazards andrisks to human health and the environment. The most important questionsabout nanotechnologies may not be posed, or not posed suciently quickly,systematically and deeply, if it is left to the powerful forces of commerce andcompetition. In the context of the latter the benets may be stressed and thequestions skewed towards issues of suciency of investment, protability,receptivity of markets, intellectual property, speed of innovation andapplication (Mehta, 2002), the necessary economic infrastructures, fundingof research and development, commercial condentiality and the like. Theseare all important questions, but they belong to a discourse that may overlapwith, but is not the same as, the human welfare discourse. This book makesforays into both discourses, paying more attention to the latter to help achievean overall balance, and emerges with concerns as well as hopes.

Regional economic forces

In Part Two it is shown that almost every region of the world that has sucientmaterial and nancial resources is investing in nanotechnology: in research anddevelopment, in applications, in conferencing, advertising and public relations,in new infrastructure, institutions and networks, in commercialization, and ineducational initiatives. For the time being, the poorer regions, such as Africaand parts of Asia and Latin America, can only stand on the sidelines.

Japan was, and still is, a principal conceptual originator of nanotechnology,especially in materials and electronics, and investments are signicant. AsMatsuda, Hunt and Obayashi point out in Chapter 6, innovations are moving

4 Nanotechnology

ahead quickly both in the laboratories of corporations and in those of well-resourced government bodies such as the National Institute of AdvancedIndustrial Science and Technology (AIST). The historically strategic positionof nanotechnology in Japan is still not clear. The country is only nowrecognizing the importance of sustainability and corporate responsibility and,albeit rather more slowly than Europe, implementing the necessary changes.The precautionary principle (a better safe than sorry approach; see Chapter10) is still regarded with suspicion for the most part, but signicant actorsand agencies are waking up to the potential of nanotechnology in new marketdemands for the innovative tools and processes needed for sustainable produc-tion. Tense regional geopolitics (especially its future relations with China), theslow pace of internal economic reforms, and a political divide between nation-alists and pacists, will also shape the role of nanotechnology in Japan.

There is no doubt that the US is leading nanotechnology as a commercialenterprise, in terms of investments, patents, research and military applications.Like Japan, and unlike Europe, the American research and business establish-ment can count, for themost part, on popular support for science and technology.In Chapter 7 Mills explains the enthusiastic coordinated eort being madethrough directed investments and new institutional means. Research into thesocial implications is not being neglected, but as Mills asks, since such researchis mainly federally funded and carried out by the nanotechnology communityitself, who will guard the guardians? Non-governmental organization(NGO) awareness of nanotechnology in Japan may still be at a low level, butthis is not so in the US. In the latter, NGOs were invited, but refused to joina centre funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to examine theimpacts of nanotechnology on society. In Chapter 11 four experts with theAmerican NGO Environmental Defense examine nanotechnology and arguethat on this occasion we have an opportunity to get it right the rst time, butnew approaches and cooperation are urgently required.

In the current climate, the precautionary principle which admittedly hassome conceptual and implementation diculties is viewed with even moresuspicion in the US than it is in Japan. A nodal point of controversy fornanotechnology is already growing around a precautionary-based reform of thechemicals regulatory regime, with the European Union (EU) taking a leadwhich is not very welcome elsewhere (Chapter 8). Mills suggests that Europeand the US are at very dierent stages in the process of moving from the era ofrisk-taking . . . to an era of risk-prevention. It seems that the tensions over nano-technology between business and someNGOs, and between dierent approachesto regulation, can only become deeper in the near future. Certainly in the 25countries of the EU there appears to be what Hunt calls a dual tension (Chapter8). These are the opposing pressures often created (but not necessarily) by a drivefor increased global competitiveness at the same time as moves for sustainableproduction and consumption, and between the diversity and participatorydemocracy cherished by many Europeans and the drive towards integrationon all levels. In some ways the place of nanotechnologies in these Europeandilemmas is amicrocosm of its place in the political economy of the world at large.

Introduction: The Challenge of Nanotechnologies 5

Other parts of the world have a stake in nanotechnological development,including China, Korea, some non-EU European nations, Taiwan, Australia,India and, importantly, Canada. In Chapter 9 Goldenberg points out some-thing that may be distinctive about the Canadian approach which the rest ofthe world should heed. It is inextricably linked to social policy and goalsrather than being driven by a commercial or economic agenda. Canada,unlike Japan, the US and the EU, currently has no national nanotechnologystrategy, so nanotechnology is positioned within wider goals including healthcare and security. While this may have its strengths in terms of social welfare,Goldenberg suggests it may engender an insular kind of complacency.

Ethical? Yes, no and perhaps

Complacency cannot be aorded from an ethical point of view. Parts Three andFour of this book delineate some general ethical concerns, and investigatespotential hazards, risks and benets expected to ow from advances innanotechnology. Looking at the ethical question globally in Chapter 15,Hunt claims that in order to bring our collective power into harmony with anunderstanding of the unintended global threats that arise from the applicationof that power, we need a new sense of human responsibility. Economic injustice,war, environmental degradation and over-consumption (consumerism) are fourglobal human facts that provided the actual context for nanotechnologicaldevelopments. He attempts to outline the stresses between our inheritanceand the prospects of survival and enhanced human welfare. Who will benet?Will a continuing unequal distribution of benets, deepened by nano-technology, destabilize the world. Global attitudes, outlooks and ways ofthinking are desperately needed.

Contributors question in Chapters 4 and 10 how much we have reallylearned from the adverse consequences of the hasty introduction of previoustechnologies such as nuclear technology, ICT and biotechnology. The nuclearpower and genetically modied (GM) food industries have already experiencedserious setbacks, whether justiably or not. Nanotechnology (and stem celltechnology) stands on the threshold of similar diculties unless, as Mehtaemphasizes in Chapter 10, the public is consulted and involved earlyenough and often enough. For Mehta, new ways of thinking would includechallenges to the notion of substantial equivalence (that underpinned GMFdevelopment), empowering product labelling policies and thinking throughprecautionary approaches for addressing uncertainty and heightened under-standing of how risks and benets should be balanced. New approaches willalso eventually be needed to issues of condentiality and privacy when oneconfronts the convergence and medicalizing consequences of biomedicalapplications of nanotechnology, as described by Pilarski et al in Chapter 4.

What the hazards and risks of nanotechnologies might be are outlined byClift a well-known proponent of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in environ-mental management (Chapter 12) and these are concretely illustrated in the

6 Nanotechnology

contributions by Howard and Pusztai (Chapters 13 and 14). Clift takes his cuefrom the inuential 2004 report on nanotechnologies from the UKs RoyalSociety and Royal Academy of Engineering, which proposes treating engi-neered nanoparticles as new chemicals. (Clift was a member of the workinggroup that produced the report.) This is a sound example of the kind of newthinking that all stakeholders, including the public, needs to discuss. Cliftspeaks of a possible paradigm shift, but also notes that at this time Nosystematic Life Cycle Assessment of representative nanotechnology productsor applications appears to have been reported.

A close reading of the chapters byHoward and Pusztai would leadmany to theconclusion that such a LCA is of increasing urgency. Recognizing the paucity ofresearch studies into the possible toxic and other harmful eects of certain nano-particles, they both show some courage in delineating what the hazards and risks,on a precautionarybasis,mightbe.Howard drawsmainly on the existing literatureon the known harmful eects of ultra-ne particles of waste and combustionprocesses (non-engineered nanoparticles) and asks us creatively and cautiouslyto draw parallels with the possible passage of nanoparticles through the respira-tory route. Pusztai speculates within the bounds of his scientic specialityabout possible ingestion routes for nanoparticles and the attendant risks on thebasis of previous and related ndings in his eld.

If Howard and Pusztai show us one thing it is that a precautionary approachrequires thinking laterally, analogically, holistically and making the connectionswhich the narrow view may miss. If it is not only acceptable, but welcome forFeynman, Drexler and others to speculate about what science can do, shoulddo and what benets it may bring, then it is surely also acceptable and welcomefor others to speculate about what science cannot do, should not do and whatrisks it may bring. Pusztai is no stranger to controversy since his 1999 publicationinTheLancet on the relationship betweenGMpotatoes and certain changes in thegut wall of laboratory rats (Stanley and Pusztai, 1999; Horton, 1999). Let us seewhether a greater degree of maturity will be reected by all stakeholders in thecase of forthcoming nanotechnology disagreements, with a willingness to respondto new ideas and tentative ndings with open-mindedness, subduing of sectarianinterests, and constructive suggestions and inquisitiveness. Situations of exag-geration, demeaning misrepresentation, whistleblowing and secrecy (Hunt,1998) do not serve the ethical ends of nanotechnologys potential service tohuman welfare. The contributions of Howard and Pusztai at the very least raiseresearch questions of great relevance, and even suggest specic and independentresearch programmes and testing protocols.

Public involvement and legal constraints

Open-mindedness and public involvement are in many ways the ethical keys tothe future of nanotechnology (Mehta, 2005). In Chapter 16 Barnett, Carr andClift observe that trust or more precisely, a lack of trust is a core issuearound risk governance. In the UK, for example, the fudged handling of the

Introduction: The Challenge of Nanotechnologies 7

crisis over bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and its relation to a newvariant of Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (vCJD) in humans revealed a lack ofpublic accountability and undermined trust in food science and technology(Hunt, 1996). Carr and colleagues consider how openness about uncertaintyand dialogue with the public over nanotechnology may rebuild public trust.

The early development of social tools for the sustainable development ofnanotechnologies could play a vital part in recuperating and re-generatingtrust, as pointed out by Einsiedel and Goldenberg in Chapter 17. In a goodexample of lateral thinking these contributors suggest that lessons can belearned from the case of recombinant bovine somatotropine (rBST) to boostmilk production. The risk to human health was considered insignicant butnegative impacts on animal health were deemed important enough to rejectuse of this hormone in Canada. One cannot generally predict what the publicwill think about an emerging technology one has to inform them, to asktheir views, listen to their questions and involve them, and as early as possible.As Einsiedel and Goldenberg write, Increasing public awareness and engagingin public education initiatives are important tools but are self-defeating whendone with the sole intent of getting the public on board and on side.

The law too, in relation to nanotechnology, will not be a detached area ofhuman endeavour, but will reect the struggle between our inheritance andour future. We may be witnessing in the legal arena in general a movementof the boundary that exists between narrower interests (corporate, national)and the general protection of human welfare towards the latter. At the heartof the commercial and industrial pursuit of nanotechnologies is the patent, alegal instrument now under considerable stress and strain, as Vaidhyanathanshows us in Chapter 18. This contributor suggests that nanotechnology mayat last explode the inadequacies of the current system. The patenting of whatused to be regarded as basic research and the overstretching of patentinginto such a fundamental level of knowledge and know-how may endangerboth socially benecial nanotechnology and patenting as we know it. Vaidhya-nathan suggests that Perhaps there should be a global nanotechnology patentdatabase run through the United Nations.

One example of the nanotechnological impacts, which will create new legaland ethical concerns, is biomedical research. In Chapter 20 Sheremeta takes thecase of a Canadian quasi-legal instrument, concerning the ethical treatment ofresearch on human subjects, to illustrate these concerns. At the same time,Sheremeta is among the rst to address ethical concerns in relation to specicnanomedical innovations.

In the gradual long-term shift towards law as a function of global welfareprotection, we may nd that corporations, entrepreneurs, suppliers, govern-ment agencies, and research bodies will have to expand their conception ofnanotechnology as a commercial entity to one that promotes sustainabledevelopment and enhances human life on a global scale. In Chapter 19,practising UK lawyer Hannah foreshadows the expanding margin of civilliability, with reference to asbestosis, and in Chapter 21 Wells and Elias dothe same for corporate criminal liability. One area of interest is liability for

8 Nanotechnology

harms to future generations. And as Wells and Elias point out, events such aspharmaceutical harms, environmental damage, transport disasters, and chemicalplant explosions have led to calls for those enterprises to be prosecuted formanslaughter. On the legal horizon, certainly no further away than the promisesof a nanotechnological revolution, are the prospects of holding businessesaccountable for human rights violations. We are not just moving into a newtechnological world, but a new legal, ethical, economic, social, cultural andpolitical one too. Those who promote only the benets of nanotechnologymight do well to remember this point.

In closing, nanotechnologies are already embedded in existing socio-economic relations and are formed by them, and in a multiplicity of feedbackloops will also have their impact in changing those relations for or against asustainable future. Transdisciplinary thinking is vital, discomting as it willbe for those embedded in their separate expert discourses. We hope thisbook makes a small start by pointing out some important directions for freshthinking and truly global ethical concern.

Notes

1 For popular introductions to the basics of nanotechnology, and its promises,see Ratner, M. and Ratner, D. (2003) Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduc-tion to the Next Big Idea, New Jersey, Pearson Education (Prentice Hall);The Editors of Scientic American (2002) Understanding Nanotechnology,New York, Warner Books; Mulhall, D. (2002) Our Molecular Future,New York, Prometheus Books.

2 Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology (www.crnano.org/studies.htm),led by Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder, proposes 30 essential nanotech-nology studies, besides providing an overview of benets and dangers ofmolecular manufacturing.

3 For the precisely worded and detailed denition go to the classication on theUSPTO website at: www.uspto.gov/go/classication/uspc977/defs977.htm.

4 In terms of standard measurement the nanoscale is anything at or above 1nmbut less than 1mm (micron or micrometre or one millionth of a metre). Onenanometre (1nm) 1 billionth 0.000000001 metre (m) 109m. See theAppendix: Measurement scales and Glossary.

References

Drexler, K. E. (1986) Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology, New

York, Random House

Drexler, K. E. (1990) Engines of Creation, 2nd edition, New York, Random House

(Anchor), Afterword, pp240242

Drexler, K. E. (1992) Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Compu-

tation, Chichester, Wiley

Introduction: The Challenge of Nanotechnologies 9

Feynman, R. P. (1959) Plenty of room at the bottom, www.its.caltech.edu/~feynman

Horton, R. (1999) Genetically modied foods: absurd concern or welcome dialogue,

The Lancet, vol 354 (9187), p1312

Hunt, G. (1998) Whistleblowing, in Chadwick, R. (ed) Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics,

California, Academic Press

Hunt, G. (1996) Some ethical ground rules for BSE and other public health threats,

Nursing Ethics, vol 3, no 3, pp263265

Mehta, M. D. (2005) Regulating biotechnology and nanotechnology in Canada: A post-

normal science approach for inclusion of the fourth helix, International Journal of

Contemporary Sociology, vol 42, no 1, pp107120

Mehta, M. D. (2002) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Assessing the nature of

innovation in these elds, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, vol 22, no 4,

pp269273

Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (2004) Nanoscience and Nano-

technologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties. London, The Royal Society and

The Royal Academy of Engineering

Stanley, W. B. and Pusztai, A. (1999) Eects of diets containing genetically modied

potatoes expressing Galanthis rivalis lectin on rat small intestine, The Lancet,

vol 354, no 9187, p1353

10 Nanotechnology

Part One

Introducing Nanotechnology

2Nanotechnology:From Wow to Yuck?

Kristen Kulinowski

Nanotechnology is science and engineering resulting from the manipulation ofmatters most basic building blocks: atoms and molecules. As such, nano-technology promises unprecedented control over both the materials we useand the means of their production. Such control could revolutionize nearlyevery sector of our economy, including medicine, defence and energy. Despitethe relatively recent emergence of this eld, it already enjoys generousfederal funding and enthusiastic media coverage. The tenor of discourse onnanotechnology is changing, however, as the voices of critics begin to soundabout a host of concerns ranging from the societal impacts of improvinghuman performance to the spectre of environmental devastation and humandisease.

Introduction

If one were to ask people at random to identify the most pressing present andfuture global challenges with potential technological xes, the list mightinclude cheap and clean energy, increased demand for potable water, reducedenvironmental pollution, near-term expiration of Moores Law of computingpower (an impending crisis for Silicon Valley, anyway), world hunger, nationalsecurity and cures for diseases such as cancer.

Ask those same people what nanotechnology is and you are likely to getone of two responses: Huh? (by far the most common) or I think it hassomething to do with tiny little machines that . . . uh . . . swim through yourbody and x things? (Foresight and Governance Project, 2003). This islikely to change in the next few years, because only one eld of technicalresearch promises to develop solutions for all the aforementioned challenges.That eld is nanotechnology.

This might sound like the kind of breathless pronouncement that seemsto trumpet the arrival of every new technology. Surely, the news cant bethat good. And how often has yesterdays best thing since sliced breadturned into todays Superfund site (Environmental Protection Agency,2003)? Emergent technologies often attract the attention of both hypestersand fear-mongers. For example, genetically modied (GM) foods are bothhailed as the solution to world hunger and assailed as destroyers of the naturalorder. Depending on your perspective, gene therapies will either cure intract-able hereditary diseases such as haemophilia and Huntingtons disease or willallow modern Dr Frankensteins to create a new race of superhumans. Nano-technology is no dierent in this regard to its predecessors; it will either endmaterial need or end the reign of humanity on Earth. Given this potentialimpact on society, and the growing public debate over nanotechnologys bene-ts and risks, both scientists and the public alike should have at least a passingunderstanding of what nanotechnology is. This young eld can also serve as anillustrative example of how society grapples with any emergent technology,including those yet to come.

The nano in nanotechnology comes from the Greek word nanos, whichmeans dwarf. Scientists use this prex to indicate 109 or one billionth.Thus a nanosecond is one billionth of one second; a nanometre (nm) is onebillionth of one metre, and so on. Objects that can be classied as having some-thing to do with nanotechnology are larger than atoms but much smaller thanwe can perceive directly with our senses. One way to look at this size scale is thatone nanometre is about 100,000 times smaller than the diameter of a singlehuman hair. The following gure may also help to put this size scale in context.Why a particular size scale should be the basis for so much federal funding,research activity and media attention will become apparent soon.

The concept of controlling matter at the atomic level which is at the heartof nanotechnologys promise was rst publicly articulated in 1959 by physi-cist Richard Feynman in a speech given at Caltech entitled, Theres Plenty ofRoom at the Bottom (Feynman, 1959). Despite this history, it isnt toosurprising that nanotechnology is not yet a household word given that it hasonly been around in the research lab for the past 15 years or so. While theterm nanotechnology was coined in 1974 by Japanese researcher NorioTaniguchi to refer to engineering at length scales less than a micrometre,futurist K. Eric Drexler is widely credited with popularizing the term in themainstream. In his 1986 book, Engines of Creation, Drexler envisioned aworld in which tiny machines or assemblers are able to build other structures

ChildMountain Ant Bacterium Sugar molecule(45 atoms)

1 metre(1m)

1 kilometre(1000m)

1 millimetre(0.001m)

1 micrometre(0.000001m)

1 nanometre(0.000000001m)

Figure 2.1 Objects of approximate size from 103m to 109m

14 Nanotechnology

with exquisite precision by physically manipulating individual atoms (Drexler,1986). If such control were technically achievable, then atom by atom construc-tion of larger objects would be a whole new way of making materials and couldusher in a second Industrial Revolution with even more profound societalimpacts than the rst one.

Until recently, nanotechnology remained the province of futurists andvisionaries because researchers lacked even rudimentary tools to observeand manipulate individual atoms. This changed in the early 1980s with theinvention by International Business Machines (IBM) researchers of a newtool called scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM) that allowed one not onlyto see individual atoms but to push them around, albeit painstakingly.1 Thepotential value and importance of this new tool were immediately recognizedand earned its inventors the 1986 Nobel Prize for Physics (Nobel Foundation).This technique and others that followed shortly thereafter allowed nanotech-nology to move forward at a greatly accelerated pace. Within a few years, theeld had built up enough momentum to attract the Federal Governmentsattention.

On 21 January 2000, President Clinton chose Caltech the site of thehistoric Feynman speech as the venue to announce the creation of theNational Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a coordinated Federal programmeto fund nanotechnology research and development:

My budget supports a major new National Nanotechnology Initiative, worth

US$500 million. . . Imagine the possibilities: materials with ten times the

strength of steel and only a small fraction of the weight shrinking all the

information housed at the Library of Congress into a device the size of a

sugar cube detecting cancerous tumors when they are only a few cells in size.

Some of our research goals may take 20 or more years to achieve, but that is

precisely why there is an important role for the federal government. (Clinton,

2000)

The creation and generous funding of the NNI signalled a serious and longterm commitment by the Federal Government to this new area of discovery.This commitment continues in the current administration: President BushsFiscal Year (FY) 2004 budget request funds the NNI at a whopping US$847million (FY 2004 Budget Request). This massive investment is justied bypointing towards the positive benets society will reap through nanotech-nology. These are posited as a set of Grand Challenges that, if realized,could provide major broad based economic benets to the United States aswell as improve the quality of life for its citizens dramatically. These potentialbenets include (National Science and Technology Council, 2000):

. containing the entire contents of the Library of Congress in a device the sizeof a sugar cube;

. makingmaterials and products from the bottom up, that is, by building themup from atoms and molecules. Bottom upmanufacturing should require lessmaterial and create less pollution;

Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck? 15

. developing materials that are ten times stronger than steel, but a fraction ofthe weight for making all kinds of land, sea, air and space vehicles lighter andmore fuel ecient;

. improving the computer speed and eciency of minuscule transistors andmemory chips by factors ofmillionsmaking todays Pentium IIIs seem slow;

. detecting cancerous tumours that are only a few cells in size using nano-engineered contrast agents;

. removing the nest contaminants from water and air, promoting a cleanerenvironment and potable water at an aordable cost;

. Doubling the energy eciency of solar cells.

A little bit of science

To better understand how nanotechnology could revolutionize such diverseareas as, say, medicine and computing, we need to review a bit of fundamentalphysics. Two sets of theories relate to this discussion: classical mechanics,which governs the world of our direct perception (apple falling from tree tohit Newton on the head) and quantum mechanics, which governs the worldof atoms and molecules (electrons tunnelling through seemingly impenetrablebarriers). Given enough information about the initial position of an object andthe forces acting upon it, classical mechanics allows one to determine withcertainty where that object was at some time in the past and where it will beat some time in the future. This is useful because it allows one to, for example,track a baseball from the crack of the bat to where it will drop in centre eld orto successfully sink the eight ball with a bank shot o the side wall of a pooltable (at least in theory). Quantummechanics does not provide such comfortingpredictability but does a far better job explaining the strange behaviour ofatoms and molecules and allows us to make (at best) probabilistic assessmentsof where an electron is and what it might do if we poke it with a light probe. Theclassical world and the quantum world seem miles apart. However, as we movealong the scale in Figure 2.1 from the large to the small, the classical rules even-tually give way to the quantum rules. The murky, middle ground in betweenthe two domains is the province of nanotechnology.

In this transitional regime, a material often exhibits dierent behaviourthan it does either in the bulk, where it is governed by classical mechanics, oras a single atom, where quantum mechanics dominates. To demonstrate thechanges that occur to a material when it is nano-ized lets consider the elementgold (Ratner and Ratner, 2003). We are familiar with gold as a shiny yellowmetal that can be worked into a variety of shapes for our adornment. If youcut a piece of gold in half, each of the halves retains the properties of thewhole, except that each piece has half the mass and half the volume of theoriginal. (And even these sum to the mass and volume of the original uncutpiece.) Cut each half in half again and anyone would still recognize the piecesas gold. And so on. You can keep doing this down to a certain size and thenthe properties of the pieces begin to change. One of these may be the apparent

16 Nanotechnology

colour of the material. When gold is nanoscopic, that is, clusters of gold atomsmeasuring 1nm across, the particles appear red.2 And if we change the size ofthe clusters just a little bit, their colour changes yet again. That is only oneexample of a material behaving according to scaling laws, that is, a smooth vari-ation in a property that scales with the size of the object. Most of this variabilitydoesnt begin to manifest until you get to the nanoscopic level. Therefore, if wecan control the processes that make a nanoscopic material, then we can controlthe materials properties. Chemists have long been able to design materials withuseful properties (for example polymers); whats new is the unprecedenteddegree of control over materials at the molecular level. This may not capturethe imagination as much as a tiny machine that precisely assembles materialsatom by atom, but it is an extraordinarily interesting and useful phenomenonand is, ultimately, why nanotechnology is causing such a fuss.

Present and future applications of nanotechnology

Nanotechnology is expected to have a signicant impact on just about everysector of the economy through the use of nanostructured materials in medicine,the production of clean energy and reduction in energy consumption, the crea-tion of nanoscopic sensors, new materials for optics and photonics, and ultrasmall magnets, the development of new techniques for the fabrication oflarge-scale structures, the replacement of silicon based technology for electro-nics and computing, and the enhancement of consumer products. A few of themany applications will be highlighted within; for a more thorough review thereader is directed to two published surveys of nanotechnology (Wilson et al,2002; Ratner and Ratner, 2003).

Consumer products

While much of nanotechnologys potential has yet to be realized, products thatincorporate nanomaterials are already in the marketplace. The Wilson DoubleCoreTM tennis ball, the ocial ball of the Davis Cup tournament, has claynanoparticles embedded in the polymer lining of its inner wall, which slowsthe escape of air from the ball making it last twice as long. Nano-CareTM

fabrics, sold in Eddie Bauer chinos and other clothing since November 2001,incorporate nano-whiskers into the fabric to make it stain resistant to water-based liquids such as coee and wine. PPG Industries produces SunCleanTM

self cleaning glass, which harnesses the suns energy to break down dirt andspreads water smoothly over the surface to rinse the dirt away without beadingor streaking. Various sunscreens (Wild Child, Wet Dreams and Bare Zone)incorporate ZinClearTM, a transparent suspension of nanoscopic zinc oxideparticles that are too small to scatter visible light as do products containingmicroscopic particles. Nanotechnology has added value to these productsthrough a variety of properties impermeability to gas, water repellency andtransparency that manifest only or optimally at the nanoscale.

Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck? 17

Military applications

Nanotechnology would probably not be worth US$847 million of federalfunding if it only made incremental improvements in consumer products.Many of the high impact applications are in the areas of defence/nationalsecurity, medicine and energy. In FY 2003, the Department of Defense(DOD) surpassed all other Federal agencies with a US$243 million investmentin nanotechnology research and development (FY 2003 Budget Request).3

DOD is interested in using nanotechnology to advance both oensive anddefensive military objectives. DODs primary areas of interest are informationacquisition, processing, storage and display (nanoelectronics); materialsperformance and aordability (nanomaterials); and chemical and biologicalwarfare defence (nanosensors). The integration of several of these functional-ities into a single technology is the ultimate goal of the Institute for SoldierNanotechnologies, an interdepartmental research centre established in 2002by the US Army at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Its websitesays:

Imagine a bullet proof jumpsuit, no thicker than spandex that monitors health,

eases injuries, communicates automatically, and maybe even lends superhuman

abilities. Its a long range vision for how technology can make soldiers less

vulnerable to enemy and environmental threats.

The ultimate objective of this ve-year, US$50 million eort is to create abattle-suit that better protects the soldier in the battleeld.

Medical applications

No one has yet invented a little machine that will swim through your body andmechanically strip away plaque from your inner arterial walls; nonetheless,nanotechnology is poised to have an enormous impact on the diagnosis andtreatment of disease. Recall that one of the Grand Challenges of the NNI isthe ability to detect cancerous tumours that are only a few cells in size. Medicalimaging could be vastly improved by using nanoparticle-based materials toenhance the optical contrast between healthy tissue and diseased tissue.Diabetes treatment could be improved by injecting a nanoparticle into theblood that automatically delivered a dose of insulin upon sensing an imbalancein blood glucose level. Cancer may be treated someday soon with an injection ofnanoparticles that latch onto cancerous tissue and cook it to death upon externalapplication of a light source that poses no threat to healthy tissue.

Controversies: the wow to yuck trajectory

Thats the good news. New developments in technology usually start outwith strong public support, as the potential benets to the economy, humanhealth or quality of life are touted.4 Let us call this the wow index. Genetic

18 Nanotechnology

engineering promised a revolution in medical care, including the ability to cureor prevent diseases with a genetic basis such as Huntingtons disease, haemo-philia, cystic brosis and some breast cancers. Manipulation of plant genomespromised a revolution in how food is produced, by engineering crops withincreased yield, nutritional content and shelf life. At present, nanotechnologyhas a very high wow index. For the past decade, nanotechnologists havewowed the public with our ability to manipulate matter at the atomic leveland with grand visions of how we might use this ability. The good news hasgiven nanotechnology a strong start with extraordinary levels of focusedgovernment funding, which is starting to reap tangible benets to society.

Any technology that promises so much change is bound to generate contro-versy, because with such awesome power comes the capacity to push beyondboundaries that society has deemed acceptable. Put another way, societal andethical concerns can rapidly turn wow! into yuck. These concerns areoften centered on fundamental moral and social perceptions of the nature ofthe human as well as humanitys relationship with the natural world. Theproponents of the NNI were not insensitive to the possibility that nanotech-nology could push some of these buttons. In September 2000, the NationalScience Foundation organized a workshop on societal implications of nano-technology. The report from this workshop incorporates the viewpoints of adiverse group of people from government, academia and industry on subjectsranging from public involvement in decision making, education of future nano-technologists, economics, politics, medicine and national security (Roco andBainbridge, 2001).

The debates surrounding many of the emergent technologies that precedednanotechnology can help us predict a likely trajectory for the controversysurrounding this new eld. One such example is provided by the debate overGM foods. The genetic manipulation of crops grown for human consumptionspawned a host of ethical concerns about the advisability of tinkering with thenatural order. A perusal of anti-GM literature reveals a profound discomfortwith human attempts to outsmart Mother Nature by incorporating geneticmaterial from one species into another. The greater the dierence of thesespecies in the natural world, the more profound seems to be the anxiety overtheir mixing. Thus, incorporation of a cold-water sh gene into a tomato toincrease the fruits resistance to frost damage is higher on the yuck indexthan incorporation of genetic material from one species of plant into another.The public backlash against GM foods, which detractors labelled Franken-foods, crippled the industry, especially in Europe, and ultimately cost billionsin lost global revenues. In a sense, this industry went from wow to yuck tonearly bankrupt.

Nanotechnologys yuck index is rising in part because of the recentpublication of Michael Crichtons novel Prey (Crichton, 2002). The authorof Jurassic Park (Crichton, 1990) and other techno-horror stories describes achilling scenario in which swarms of nano-robots equipped with memory,solar power generators, and powerful software begin preying on livingcreatures and reproducing. Like the ctive dinosaurs of Crichtons earlier

Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck? 19

work, the nanobots surprise and overwhelm their creators when they rapidlyevolve beyond the scientists capacity to predict or control them. Or, in thewords of Preys protagonist, Things never turn out the way you think theywill. In the introduction to the book Crichton credits Eric Drexlers greygoo scenario with inspiring the premise of his story. In brief, the grey gooscenario is the destruction of humankind by omnivorous nanomachines thatspread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere todust in a matter of days (Drexler, 1986). This fear was echoed in an inuentialessay entitled, Why the future doesnt need us, in which Sun Microsystemschief executive ocer (CEO) Bill Joy warns that the convergence of nanotech-nology, articial intelligence, and biotechnology could pose a mortal threat tohumanity (Joy, 2000).

The concept of convergence, or the synergistic combination of multiple tech-nologies, is of growing interest to government funding agencies and researcherswho seek to leverage the capabilities of each eld to achieve something greaterthan what each could do on its own. Within the science and technology commu-nity, convergence is generally understood these days to involve some combinationof nanoscience, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science(NBIC). Convergence is relevant to this discussion not because nanoscience isone of the elds in the acronym but because the nanoscale is the regime withinwhich convergent technologies will operate. A joint National Science Founda-tion/Department of Energy report explains the fundamental concept:

Convergence of diverse technologies is based on material unity at the nanoscale

and on technology integration from that scale. . . Revolutionary advances at the

interfaces between previously separate elds of science and technology are ready

to create key transforming tools for NBIC technologies. Developments in

systems approaches, mathematics and computation in conjunction with NBIC

allow us for the rst time to understand the natural world, human society,

and scientic research as closely coupled complex, hierarchical systems.

(NSF/DOE, 2002)

This particular report explores the potential impact of convergent technologieson human performance enhancement, including highly eective communica-tion techniques including brain to brain interaction, perfecting human machineinterfaces including neuromorphic engineering, . . . [and] enhancing humancapabilities for defence purposes. Wow. Or, yuck. It is hard to remain neutralabout such claims. Whether these outcomes are perceived to be benecial ordetrimental is very much dependent on ones perspective. In seeking to blurthe boundaries between human and machine, it was perhaps inevitable thatNBIC convergence would push the buttons of some of the same people whoare uncomfortable with the blurring of humananimal (pig liver transplantsinto humans) and animalplant (sh gene in tomato) boundaries.

One such group is a small but vocal organization known as the ETCGroup:the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration. Formerlyknown as the Rural Advancement Foundation International, the ETC Groupsays on its website that it is,

20 Nanotechnology

. . . dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural

and ecological diversity and human rights. To this end, ETC group supports

socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and

marginalized and it addresses international governance issues and corporate

power.

Its technology interests include biotechnology, biological warfare and humangenomics with a special emphasis on genetically modied organisms such asthe so-called Terminator seed. This Monsanto product is engineered toproduce sterile plants, thus ensuring yearly repeat sales to farmers whowould otherwise harvest the fertile seeds for subsequent plantings. ETCGroups interest in nanotechnology dates back to early 2001 with the publica-tion of a report that lays out the perils of advancing technologies such asbiotechnology and nanotechnology. The objections of this group to emergingtechnologies seem to be based less in concerns about technology gone awry,for example the grey goo scenario, than in the technologies capacity to increasethe gap between rich and poor, and developed and developing nations, throughcontrol over the means of production and distribution of the technologies(Mooney, 2001). This type of criticism is not levelled exclusively at nanotech-nology but seems broadly applicable to any new technology.

Members of the ETC Group are not the only ones whose criticism of nano-technology is more social than technical. Gregor Wolbring, a research scientistat the University of Calgary, founder of the International Network on Bioethicsand Disability and self-proclaimed thalidomider, critiques technologies thataim to enhance human performance or remediate or prevent disabilities. Heenvisions a scenario in which nanotechnology could be used not only to furthermarginalize the disabled but to coerce the healthy into improving themselvesand their ospring (Wolbring, 2002). This outcome could be dubbed thenano-GATTACA scenario, after the 1997 lm,5 which is set in a futurewhere genetic engineering allows all children to be born with physical andmental enhancements. In the lm, a two-tier society results in which the geneti-cally enhanced oppress those non-elite people whose rebellious parents havechosen to produce them the natural way (Niccol, 1997). Wolbring warnsthat nanotechnology has the same capacity as genetic engineering to be misusedas a potential instrument of coercion. Michael Mehta, a sociology professor atthe University of Saskatchewan, is concerned about the failure of the triplehelix of State, university and industry to include the fourth helix, thepublic, when making decisions about the regulation of emergent technologiessuch as nanotechnology and biotechnology (Mehta, 2005). Mehta is alsoconcerned about the prospect of nano-panopticism, or a world in which allcitizens are subject to gross invasions of privacy through the misuse of nano-scopic surveillance technology, increased computing power and storage, andlab-on-a-nanochip technology for acquiring genetic information withoutknowledge or consent (Mehta, 2002).6

Not all potential impacts of nanotechnology will be social in nature. Thetechnology is, after all, based on the production and use of materials. Assuch, issues of environmental and toxicological eects must also be addressed.

Nanotechnology: From Wow to Yuck? 21

History is replete with examples of technologies or materials that wereenthusiastically embraced by society, and then found years later to causeenvironmental contamination or disease. The chemical dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) killed disease bearing mosquitoes, thus allowing areaswith tropical and sub tropical climates to be more safely populated anddeveloped, yet was ultimately banned in the US after it was linked to destruc-tion of animal life. Chlorouorocarbon (CFC)-based refrigerants allowed foraordable air conditioning, yet were ultimately banned after they were linkedto destruction of the ozone hole. Asbestos was used as a re retardant andinsulator in many buildings until it was found to cause a deadly lung disease.Some materials, such as semiconductors, are not in themselves known to beharmful but are produced though environmentally burdensome processes.

Nanotechnology has tremendous potential to improve human health andthe environment; however, it could also have unintended impacts. The abilityof nanoparticles ability to penetrate into living cells could be exploited toproduce a new drug, or it could result in toxicity. Nanomaterials could beused to produce cheap, energy ecient lters that improve drinking waterquality, or they could become environmental contaminants. Given the breadthof materials and devices that fall under the broad umbrella of nanotechnology,all of these outcomes may result to one extent or another. Despite the massiveamount of money that supports nanotechnology research and development,