|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
EMBO reports 4, 11, 1007 (2003)
doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400014
Nano-nonsense
Frank Gannon
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a strange familiarity about this scenario: scientists find a
new avenue of research to explore and governments start to believe that this
area of work will be economically beneficial. New funding schemes are created
and directors rename their research institutes to match these opportunities.
But then, critics raise concerns about the potential consequences of this new
research, newly anointed experts add to the chorus, and politicians feel that
the winds have changed and begin expressing a need for caution. Consequently,
meetings are convened to tease out the perceived dangers, resulting in many
carefully worded reports that all delay the use of this new technology.
Scientists are put on the defensive and their projects are delayed. We
experienced such a scenario in the 1970s when recombinant DNA technology became
available. We have seen it again recently with the debate about genetically
modified (GM) organisms, which brought continents to the brink of economic
warfare. Now it seems that we are about to witness a rerun of such events, with
nanotechnology at the centre of the stage.
Recombinant DNA technology has become so widely used that it seems
incredible today that it once aroused such passion when it first made the
headlines. We were warned that moving DNA across species barriers was a major
risk and were presented with scary scenarios of what might happen if GM
bacteria escaped from the laboratory. Scientists were accused of playing God by
choosing the genes to shuffle among organisms, and were scolded for
exaggerating the scientific and medical benefits that would come from their
research. Today, millions of patients and employees who benefit from
biotechnology would say that a lot of good has resulted from recombinant DNA
technology.
Equally, GM plants have been presented as such a potential threat that
for some people, their banning, burning and blocking is apparently beyond the
need for any rational justification. But the available data point to GM crops
being innocuous—economics excluded. Nonetheless, the general public and,
by extension, the politicians have been scared into believing that the word
'Frankenfood' means something, that all butterflies in the vicinity of a field
of GM plants are doomed and that the weeds of the world will acquire
uncontrollable powers to resist the best efforts of the agro-chemical industry.
So far, there are no signs of these disasters happening and useful plant
derivatives may hopefully become an essential component of the diets of
millions worldwide.
Nanotechnology is a surprising target for a new campaign—but then
I do not read science fiction and have therefore failed to see its potential to
raise the ire of those who criticize any new technologies. The scary scenario
presented in this fictional world is that anything on the nanometre-scale is so
small that it could easily pass through the skin into the body and eventually
reach the brain. And if that isn't bad enough, the scientists might go even
further and empower nanodevices to replicate, or programme them to target
different organs. And who knows what other evil things they might do with this
power. The fact that potentially mutagenic compounds in cosmetics are able to
pass through the skin is cited as a justification for a moratorium on the
application of nanoproducts to skin. But then a logical extension of this is to
worry about the food that we ingest because it infiltrates our bodies at will
and carries with it some nasty elements and additives. Similarly, particles
from clothes—not to mention washing powder residues—are in
dangerously intimate contact with us. And then there are all those air
contaminants, which you can see on a sunny day if the angle of the sun is
right, that are also sneaking into our system. Yes, there is a lot to worry
about, a lot that needs much more study and many types of products and
developments that would qualify for a moratorium. But this does not happen
because there is sufficient common sense in the populace to ensure that we are
not all driven crazy by potential risks.
So what will happen? I am sure that the call to impede the advances of
research in nanotechnology will provoke a response. The 'old combatants' of
past anti-scientific wars will be there and will express the same concerns for
all of humanity. The scientists and the nano-engineers will declare that there
is no conceivable problem, but will nevertheless be forced to behave as if
there is one. There will be a need for more studies on this topic, and the
precautionary principle will be revisited to dominate all other available data
about risks and benefits. Nanotechnology will be viewed as a major risk in some
parts of the world and this will lead to another delay in the introduction of a
new and promising technology. Other countries will take a more positive stance
and rate the benefits of nanotechnology higher than the risks, and they will
see the delays elsewhere as an opportunity for their own economies.
The core problem, of course, has little to do with nanotechnology. It is
the ongoing conflict between those who embrace the changes that come with new
vistas of research and those who loathe and dread them. This is happening at a
time when all economic indicators show that knowledge-based economies will be
the next step in the development of advanced societies and that agrarian-based
societies are a thing of the past. 'Economy' juxtaposed with 'society' is also
at the heart of many tensions. And these will not go away unless everybody
admits and considers the real benefits of progress, and until those who lead
the charge to improve the world by means of science and technology listen to
and talk to those who express concerns. It is only through such debates that
risks and benefits are weighed up, so that a new technology may find the
necessary support in society to be allowed to proceed. In the meantime, let's
not allow science fiction to take over our brains.
|
|
top  |
|
|
|
|
|
