Nanotechnology: Is it safe or are we on a path to disaster?

In the last few decades, science has driven technology to new heights. The most prominent and significant change has been the reduction in size of these technologies. However, in the effort to simplify our lives by making things smaller and smaller, some of us fail to see the risk in such bold endeavors. This quest to manufacture objects at the microscopic scale has created the field of Nanotechnology which refers to the creation of devices and materials on extremely small scales. The products of Nanotechnology are composed of individual particles called Nanoparticles which have one dimension (width, height, or length) that is less than 100 nanometers. To put that in perspective, the width of a human hair is about 10 to 1000 times bigger than a nanometer. At such miniscule size, materials can be created with valuable chemical and physical properties, such as the ability to conduct electricity in the case of electronics, which enable for a wide range of technological applications, ranging from faster computer chips to new ways of treating cancer. The incorporation of Nano-technologies in commercial products has begun what some scientists and journalists are calling a “Nano revolution.” In other words, more and more technologies have at least some component that was engineered using Nanotechnology. With such wide range of applications, it is no wonder groups like the International Council of Nanotechnology (ICON) have been formed to investigate the possible harmful effects. In vitro cellular toxicology tests which are tests performed in an isolated environment, where the only contaminants are the nanoparticles, have shown that the particles can get inside the body but the specific health risks are yet to be determined (Colvin, 1167). Without further proof, nanomaterials will continue to be manufactured and incorporated into commercial products further increasing the chances for potential harm to the public. The common attitude in human nature is to look at the benefits when no tests are available to either confirm or deny any accusations. This lack in knowledge and public incentive has forced scientific advancement in Nanotechnology to go in a direction that may lead to unforeseen consequences that would be devastating to the environment and hence to the billions of lives occupying the planet.

Naturally, the human defense system is designed to filter out ultra-fine particles. However, the emergence of nanotechnologies has introduced particles so small that they easily penetrate the layers of defenses that evolution has built into the human body. Consumer products such as sunscreen and other cosmetics which contain a certain percentage of nanoparticles have increased the chances of exposure to all kinds of metallic nanoparticles (titanium dioxide, zinc oxide etc.) consequently increasing the potential for health effects. Granted, nanoparticles have proved to be very effective in reflecting harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun but recent discoveries have made it possible to use naturally occurring nanoparticles, such like those produced by ivy plants, for the production of these products. The process of extracting nanoparticles from plants is very promising but, unfortunately, is in its early stages and can be quite costly and time consuming. Manufactures of these product that contain nanoparticles claim that only trace amounts of the particles are present in their products but nonetheless, the public is being exposed to foreign material that does not follow the natural conventions of chemistry (Colvin, 1167). This unpredictable chemical behavior of these particles makes them all the more dangerous harmful if left unchecked.

By far the greatest risk of exposure is the inhalation of the microscopic, highly reactive particles into the lungs. Due to their small size, Nanoparticles can easily escape through the smallest opening and be suspended in the air that we breathe. When inhaled, these particles make their way into lungs and can disrupt the lungs’ functions. Scientists have done tests on animals in the hopes of understanding how nanoparticles affect the lungs and found that the inhalation of nanoparticles can cause the lungs to be scarred and begin to bled from the inside. These results have been linked to acute inflammation in the lungs and chronic responses such as Granuloma (Simeonova & Erdely). Furthermore, it’s been suggested that, “Nanoparticle exposure [through direct or indirect means] may lead to unexpected distant responses involving the immune system cardiovascular systems, liver, kidney and brain” (Simeonova & Erdely). Even though more research is required to prove that exposure to nanomaterials causes all or any of the suspected effects, further implementation of nanomaterials should be minimized in order to prevent a major catastrophe involving the release of nanoparticles into the air we all breathe.

These Nano-particles can be found on a wide range of consumer products from electronics to cosmetics. As more and more consumer products use materials engineered through Nanotechnology, exposure to these particles is almost guaranteed in the near future. Currently, the highest risk of exposure applies to those who are employed in the nanotechnology manufacturing industries. It is estimated that by the year 2025, the nanotechnology industry will require 2 million workers to support the developing industry which would potentially result in wide spread exposure and increase health risks (Johnson, 1). Today, factories that produce Nano-materials are relatively small. An example is the plant in Japan, opened in 2006, that specializes in the manufacturing of carbon nanotubes from fullerenes (carbon atoms organized into spherical structures) and with an estimated revenue of over $200 million worldwide from the sale of nanotubes, the industry is expanding (Simeonova & Erdely, 68). Most companies that produce Nano-materials understand the risks to human health but the profits from the manufacturing have prevented these companies from taking drastic actions to prevent the particles from causing harmful effects on people. It’s, unfortunately, not surprising that most workers and the public in general lack proper knowledge to make informed decisions when it comes to nanomaterial exposure. When dealing with nanomaterials, no special safety rules have been set. Instead, normal rules that deal with the large scale materials are the same ones being applied to nanomaterial manufacturing. As it stands, there is little public incentive to push towards the development of strict regulation and reduce the chances of potential risks from exposure to Nano-materials. Therefore, individual companies and the nanotechnology industry as a whole have no pressure to implement new policies or do further research into the possibility of negative health effects caused by the exposure.

Admittedly, the social media has done a poor job of informing the public about the risks of nanotechnology and the adverse effects nanomaterials can have on human health. The under-coverage of these effects is partially due to little information available and the nature of the media the information is presented. In the UK for example, a review done about media coverage from 2003 to 2006 found that the media “draws on science fiction imagery” (Wilkinson, 155) to present the nanotechnology debate. Scientist interviewed for the review all agreed that, “it is a difficult concept to convey within the constraints of typical approaches to science journalism” (Wilkinson 154). Understandably, there is a fine line between writing to a scientific community or to the average citizen. It was found that the journalists rarely include the possibility of health complications from exposure to nanoparticles while writing their articles due to the sensitive nature of the information. The journalists attempted to make the information more appealing by selectively picking certain information and applying that to the public’s interests. The journalists introduce concepts such as the “grey goo scenario” which is the typical science fiction image of nanoparticles coming together to create a grey monstrous blob that eats up everything on its path and as a result, the journalists inform the public of the dangers of nanotechnology but not to a realistic stand point. In using imagination to reach out to the world, the media defeats the purpose of expressing the ill effects that are bound to occur if the current state of knowledge about nanotechnologies remains unchanged.

Without fully understanding the risks of nanotechnology, the question lingering in the minds of many is whether the benefits outweigh the risks to human society. In a world technically run by technology, it’s easy to jump the gun for a new and exciting technological advancement without taking all the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the public. Better research is crucial as nanotechnology points the way of the future of the human civilization. What still remains persistent is that the lack of evidence about the effects creates a void that allows “both skeptics and nanotechnology proponents to make contradictory and sweeping conclusions about the safety of engineered nanoparticles” (Colvin, 1166). Dealing with unfamiliar and unnatural territory, public intervention may be required to offset the lack of data. The occupational safety and health administration states that, “Although the potential health effects of such exposure are not fully understood at this time, scientific studies indicate that at least some of these materials are biologically active, may readily penetrate intact human skin, and have produced toxic reactions in the lungs of exposed experimental animals”(Grabel & Stattler, 1). A greater ‘‘visibility’’ of medical/toxicological issues surrounding, nanoparticles, may prompt a greater degree of media outcry which could lead to increased regulation and more support towards research geared toward understanding the true nature of the consequences proposed.

References

Li, Zheng, Tracy Hulderman, Rebecca Salmen, Rebecca Chapman, Stephen Leonard, Shih-Houng Young, Anna Shvedova, Michael Luster, and Petia Simeonova."Cardiovascular effects of pulmonary exposure to single-wall carbon nanotubes." Environmental Health Perspectives 1 Mar. 2007: 377-382.

Simeonova, Petia, and Aaron Erdely. "Engineered Nanoparticle Respiratory Exposure and Potential Risks for Cardiovascular Toxicity: Predictive Tests and Biomarkers." Inhalation Toxicology, 21 (2009): 68-73.

Saez Gladys, Moreau Xavier, De Jong Laetitia, Thiéry Alain, Dolain Christel, Bestel Isabelle, Carole Di Giorgio, Méo Michel De, and Barthélémy Philippe. "Development of new nano-tools: Towards an integrative approach to address the societal question of nanotechnology? ." Nano Today 5.4 (2010): 251-253.

Colvin, Vicki. "The Potential Environmental Impact of Engineered Nanomaterials." Nature Biotechnology, 21.10 (2003): 1166-1170.

Wilkinson, Clare, Stuart Allan, Alison Anderson, and Alan Petersen. "From Uncertainty to Risk?: Scientific and News Media Portrayals of Nanoparticle Safety." Health, Risk & Society, 9.2 (2007): 145-157.

Jun, Li , and M Meyyappan. "Biomolecular Sensing for Cancer Diagnostics Using Carbon Nanotubes." BioMEMS and Biomedical Nanotechnology Volume I Biological and Biomedical Nanotechnology. Boston, MA: Springer Science + Business Media, LLC, 2006. 1-17. Print