- First it was "gray goo," the threat of self-replicating
machines populating the planet. Now an environmental think tank is raising
the specter of "green goo," where biology is used to create new
materials and new artificial life forms.
-
- In its report, published on July 8, the Action Group
on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, or ETC, said that the risks from
green goo demand the most urgent foresight and caution. "With nanobiotech,
researchers have the power to create completely new organisms that have
never existed on Earth," said the ETC release accompanying its report.
-
- It's a new one for some players. "I haven't heard
of this concern anywhere else, I mean anywhere else," said Christine
Peterson, president of the Foresight Institute, a nonprofit dedicated to
accelerating the potential benefits and anticipating potential risks of
nanotechnology. "I think it's because people are already aware of
the issues of biotech. I'm not sure there's an additional issue here."
-
- But even without an apocalyptic vision, many are wary
of the threats posed by nanotechnology -- the commercial side to the science
of the small. Swiss Re, the world's second largest re-insurance firm --
an insurance company for insurance companies -- warned in a May report
that the unknown risks of toxicity or pollution associated with nanoparticles
are unacceptable.
-
- The author was not available, but in a press release
Annabelle Hett, a Swiss Re risk expert said, "Insufficient research
has been done to say with any certainty whether, and if so to what extent,
nanoparticles or products containing nanoparticles actually pose a threat."
-
- That's not good enough. Swiss Re's Hett recommended that
nanotech adopt the precautionary approach -- better safe than sorry. "No
reasonable expense should be spared in clarifying the current uncertainties
associated with nanotechnological risks," she wrote. Swiss Re fears
a situation akin to the impact of asbestos, where human health, big business
-- and insurance companies -- took a big hit from a hazard that took years
to manifest itself.
-
- "Any report coming out of Swiss Re needs to be respected,"
said Foresight's Peterson. "But you must remember there are two types
of precautionary principle. In the strong version you don't go forward
until all risks are known. That's really very strong and would make innovation
almost impossible. The weak form takes every possible precaution, and weighs
every risk, as development progresses. That's what Foresight exists for.
Remember, this refers to nanoparticles specifically, and that's only one
part of the nanotech industry."
-
- Jim Thomas, program manager at ETC agrees. "But
currently the vast majority of the nano industry is nanoparticles, and
these products are already in circulation even though we don't know what
risk they represent."
-
- ETC is calling for a strict regulatory framework to govern
the production and commercialization of nanomaterials. They also want an
international body set up in the United Nations to oversee scientific innovation.
In the past they've called for a complete moratorium on nanotechnology
until governments establish best practice.
-
- The issue is contentious not least because it's complex.
Nanoparticles in the air have existed since man discovered fire, and probably
before. But new, engineered, nanoparticles have unique properties, which
is why venture capitalists are willing to spend a fortune developing them.
-
- The phenomenon is demonstrated in sun-blocking products.
Metal oxides are opaque, and are used in white sun-block creams. Nanoparticles
of metal oxides, however, are transparent, but can still block out ultraviolet
light.
-
- Nanotech promises many benefits -- from better products
to, potentially, new ways to cure disease. But along with those benefits
come risks, largely unknown ones.
-
- "The indications are that as particles get small,
they become much more chemically reactive and, therefore, possibly much
more toxic," Dr. C. V. Howard, a toxicopathologist at the University
of Liverpool, told Wired News in January.
-
- "Only a handful of toxicological studies exist on
engineered nanoparticles, but not-so-tiny red flags are popping up everywhere,"
said ETC's Thomas, alluding to recent reports that nanoparticles caused
brain damage in fish in just 48 hours. Peterson said there are serious
questions over how applicable that study really is.
-
- As for regulation, it already exists, said Kevin Ausman
of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology. "There
are already regulations covering hazardous materials, the question is when
you start categorizing a new material as hazardous, and that's not really
a regulation issue. Yes, some regulations may need to be reinterpreted,
but the current regulatory framework is sufficient to cover these materials
once that reinterpretation occurs."
-
- Ausman adds that, in any case, action is underway to
assess the potential impact of engineered nanoparticles. "I know directly
of at least 20 groups working on this and there are probably five times
that. Besides, the business community is extremely gun-shy right now. They've
seen what happened to GMOs, or genetically modified organisms -- nicknamed
"frankenfood" by opponents. They don't want to see a repeat of
that."
-
- In the meantime, naysayers may predict potential disasters
and promoters may minimize the risks, but it will probably be capital,
wielded by people like gun-shy business men and risk-wary insurers, that
will finally decide the issue.
-
-
- © Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
-
- http://wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64235,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_5
|
