of Progress?
Editor's Note: Our coverage of nanotechnology will be covered in two parts. Today's story, Part I will look at the potential applications for industries, including automotive, and what the research community is saying about its increasing use in the products we use everyday. Part II will appear next week.
CHICAGO (Jan. 17, 2005) - Will the introduction and ever-widening adoption of nanotechnology (NT) be the next industrial revolution that some tout and hope it will be?
Unlike the revolutions to industry and way of life that ensued from steam or electricity that took many years from invention to impact real life, NT has bridged that gap in a much shorter time, even faster than the onset of computers. Once just the stuff of science fiction, the field finds its origin just two generations ago.
In 1959, physicist Richard Feynman suggested we ought to be able to build machines small enough to make objects at the atomic scale. In the early 1970's, research in molecular engineering began by scientists such as Eric Drexler and Norio Taniguchi. Taniguchi coined the word "nanotechnology" in 1974. But one thing that separates NT from those other innovative driving technologies has been the pace from initial laboratory evolution to real-world introduction.
NT is the use of submolecular-sized organic or inorganic particles - some as small as 1/1000th of a human hair's diameter - to help make molecules, reactions, processes, microdevices, parts and materials that help other technologies work faster, stronger or more efficiently. It has the potential to improve our lives and the products we consume immensely, say proponents. Food, electronics, chemistry, medicine, manufacturing and yes, even automobiles - there isn't an industry that doesn't stand to reap benefits from employing NT. Every day that passes, new uses and applications for NT are being discovered and implemented.
(Graphic: National Science Foundation)
Yet, is there a paradox at play here? Are the developments and their benefits risk-free or are the euphoria and hype extolling and driving the virtues of NT too myopic, with little or no regard for the risks - both known and unknown? In the rush towards an NT world, could we be blind to the risks, or even more dangerous, oblivious to an earnest and open discussion about them?
Possibilities or paranoia? Within the automotive industry, NT is being used in evermore processes and products. Currently there are more than 80 consumer products and in excess of 600 raw material products employing NT technology. According to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Institute for Nanotechnology, many of them are in the automotive industry, in the form of controllers and sensing devices, circuitry, small and large components, additives to fuels and lubricants, finishes, coatings, aerosols, polymers, lithium-ion and other batteries, glass films, catalytic converters, rubber hoses and parts, aerosols and more.These organizations also say that nanotechnology will have widespread applications in automobiles of the future: hydrogen storage, cooling chips or wafers to replace compressors in cars, energy accumulators, noise and vibration dampening, infrared polymers in night vision systems. In addition, NT could even shorten the concept-to-market development time for new products, an important factor in supplier-to-automaker relationships today.
(Graphic: National Science Foundation/M. Denomme)
Consider the first nanomaterial discovered by Richard S. Smalley in 1985 - the "buckyball." It is the third elemental form of carbon, with diamond and graphite being the other two. Made of 60 carbon atoms, it is 100 times stronger than steel and just one-sixth the weight. Not only that, it has favorable conductivity- and heat-resistant properties. The possibilities for automobiles are clearly immense.
Structures called nanotubes, which are made from buckyballs, were discovered in 1991. Using nanotubes, the channeling of electricity has circuitry and semiconductor applications. Nanotubes demonstrate nearly frictionless properties, allowing fluids to pass through them much faster than normal - and more than 10,000 times what research modeling predicted.
The NSF and others project that the NT industry will employ more than 2 million workers and have a $1 trillion impact on the global economy by 2015. But for those who handle, inhale, consume or buy NT, one central question remains: "Is it safe?"
So, what's the fuss all about? From academics to social advocates, some suggest that with NT, products were not only developed, but were introduced into consumer markets without prior regard for the health, environmental, medicinal, economic and other societal risks associated with NT. Concern that there was insufficient screening to assess risks and prevent negative impacts on worker and the world began to emerge. Organizations - such as the Foresight Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center For Scholars (WWIC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and others - were formed to educate and investigate, despite the benefits of NT, whether enough has been done to ensure we are proceeding on solid ground.One WWIC initiative, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), has expressed concern in published articles about the rising and largely unchecked role of NT in many industries. While acknowledging the benefits, concern that the advent of NT has proceeded without adequate governance, oversight and enforcement is voiced. Not just in past and current use, but in future applications as well.
In an article titled "Comprehensive Overview of Nanotechnology's Potential Workplace Health Impacts," the need to ensure the health and well-being of workers and those in contact with nanoproducts is raised. In particular, two specific concerns by the authors stand out. Based on recent research studies, the deposition of nanoparticles in the lungs increases with decreasing particle size. In addition, the toxicity of inhaled insoluble nanomaterials rises with decreasing particle diameter (width) and increasing particle surface area.
WWIC Chief Scientist Dr. Maynard, commented on the benefits of NT, but added, " ... the unique properties - chemical, mechanical, electrical, optical, magnetic, biological - which make engineered nanomaterials desirable for commercial or medical applications, potentially pose new risks for workers." He further argues for the need for more research and information about the health risks in the 21st century workplace. His co-author Dr. Eileen Kuempel felt that an important concern was the need to understand how NT not only affected the lungs, but the human body downstream from there.
No news is good news Some argue that unlike other sciences and developing fields, nanotechnology hasn't received as much media exposure, let alone balance. Andrew Laing, president of Cormex Research, in a report titled "Nanotechnology Doesn't Make News," lamented the lack of available NT information to the public. "The most notable characteristic of media coverage of nanotechnology is the lack of it," he said, adding that less than one NT related article per month hit respected print media compared to an average of eight stem cell and two agricultural biotech items per month.ADDITIONAL READINGFor more information on NT, check out the story's sources or these additional links:Dec. 2005. Maynard & Kuempel, "Airborne Nanostructured Particles and Occupational Health," Journal of Nanoparticle Research (2005; 7: 587-614).Dec. 20, 2005. "Comprehensive Overview of Nanotechnology's Potential Workplace Health Impacts," WWIC. Dec. 14, 2005. "Nanotechnology Doesn't Make News," WWIC.
Jan. 9, 2006 - J. Clarence Davies, "Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology," Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.
Oct. 14-16, 2005. "Symposium on Occupational Health Implications of Nanomaterials," (PDF); Co-sponsored by NIOSH and the UK Health and Safety Executive.
Laing also expressed concern about the biased nature of the reports in American media. His analysis showed 52 percent of NT news coverage was in the business sections, while only 15 percent of the coverage was in health or science areas. "Almost 71 percent of the American news items surveyed highlighted at least one benefit associated with nanotechnology," added Laing. "Twenty-four percent of U.S. news items noted a risk - with investment risk cited most often (35 percent)." In other words, 15 percent of all NT-related news items surveyed mention a risk other than investment.
Julia A. Moore, deputy director of PEN, noted that the media analysis of Laing and others clearly demonstrates the gap between public education and information efforts on NT and its current usage. "The need to engage the public in a dialogue about NT's potential benefits and risks, and how government proposes to manage them, has never been greater or more propitious. Without such an effort, nanotechnology's benefits could be lost in a sea of scary headlines and confused publics." It has the potential to be like the introduction and subsequent widespread use of tobacco - innovation and wide adoption, years before the harsh healthcare realities were revealed.
Nearly everyone accepts that there is wonderful potential for NT to impact and improve products, processes and lives. Yet the concern from academics and others, including NT pioneers such as Drexler, warrant a step back. While many products have been allowed to enter the marketplace, advocates for caution and prudence suggest we need checks and balances before any further developments are released to the general public.
(Sources: NSF, WWIC, NNI, EPA, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, Foresight Institute, NIOSH)
