Technology Review: Blogs: TR Editors' blog: Averting a Nano Tragedy

About Us

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Add RSS Feed

Averting a Nano Tragedy

A report released today calls for a systematic approach to risk research in nanotechnologies.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

By Kevin Bullis

Although there is no proof of health risks to humans from nanoparticles, studies do show that materials at this scale behave in some worrying ways, for example, by slipping from the lungs into the bloodstream, and infiltrating other organs, possibly even the brain.

But current efforts at assessing the risk of nanoparticles, including ones already used in sunscreens, face creams, and food supplements, are unfocused and leave gaps in our understanding that "at best...create uncertainties -- and at worst, dangers -- for workers, companies, consumers, investors, and insurers," according to Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC.

Today, the center released a new report calling for a systematic approach to risk research into nanotechnologies that would include research in a number of areas: the toxicity of substances, how to handle them in the workplace, possible links to specific diseases, and the long-term ways to predict what nanomaterials are likely to be dangerous -- and how to design them to improve their safety.

The report also calls for more funding: a total of $50 million per year for two years, with more to follow.

This could be a hard sell at a time when attention is focused on high fuel prices and the steep bills from the conflict in Iraq.

Might it take a serious problem, then, with people getting hurt, before nanotoxicity research gets the attention it needs?

"I sincerely hope not," Maynard told me over the phone. "My hope is that people see the need and the urgency to invest in this. If it does take an incident to galvanize people, that will be very sad, indeed, because it means we will have lost the opportunity to do something preemptively." -- By Kevin Bullis

Comments

	http://www.shandao-cn.net Guest on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	http://blog.china.alibaba.com/blog/bog002/article/b0-i753404.html http://wzjly.supersized.org http://www.0510sina.com Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Nanotechnology and China? Guest (Michael Minor) on 07/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	I can't read simplified Chinese. Can you tell us what these sites refer to? Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Re: http://www.shandao-cn.net Ramachandran on 12/18/2007 at 4:15 AM
Posts: 2	"Although there is no proof of health risks to humans from nanoparticles, studies do show that materials at this scale behave in some worrying ways, for example, by slipping from the lungs into the bloodstream, and infiltrating other organs, possibly even the brain. I agree with this But When we are inventing something new we need to test them. Getting 100% cure is not posible at this beginning stage. We can Extend the days by a month or two. But first we must arrest the spreading and growth of cancer cells then apply the destroying technic. First you must arrest them Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Could you please attempt to stick to the science? cyphen on 02/05/2008 at 1:53 PM
Posts: 1 Avg Rating:	I don't want to be abrasive, but i would appreciate it if you could stick to the science and keep anything political out of articles at TR. Seeing an article on "fact checking" bush's spending on research is itself political. But to mention the war in iraq being a reason why funding may not go to researching nanotech safety issues - even if you're opposed to the idea behind the research - is patently political. Why single out Iraq? Why not say the amount of spending on election campaigns, or lobbyists, or on free services for illegal immigrants? How about money wasted on witch hunt investigations? The purpose of government is not handouts... communism doesn't work. Well, at least it doesn't work for the oppressed and impoverished populace. It is not the dominion of government to fund anything other than their mandate - which is first and foremost the protection of the people it represents. This includes fighting our enemies abroad. Science has a mandate that doesn't involve political discussion. I have no interest in your personal opinion on Iraq - you're entitled to it whatever it is. But it has its place, and it shouldn't keep finding its way into science articles. Rate this comment: (Reply)