Aug 21 2009
.jpg)
Image Credits: Yurchanka Siarhei/shutterstock.com
Nanotechnology is broadly seen as one of the most significant sources of new technology in the near future, and its advancement will influence a wide range of industries and end-users. However, there are also legal, ethical, policy, and social problems that have to be taken into account if the prospective advantages of nanotechnology are to be accomplished safely and effectively.
Acknowledging Risks Associated with Nanotechnology
Nanotechnology, similar to any new technology, poses new challenges and hazards for the community. On July 29th, 2004, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineers (UK) published a complete investigation into nanotechnology. “Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties” exemplified the current and future advantages of nanotechnologies, but debated that public discussion about their advancement is necessary.
It also emphasized the urgent need for research to look into reservations about the environmental and health effects of nanoparticles and offered suggestions about suitable regulations.
Other scientists and organizations across the world are probing the potential dangers, safety practices, and other related problems such as insurance that may be related to the advancement of nanotechnologies. A team of researchers and insurance experts from Rice University in Texas, USA, have used actuarial models to illustrate that the engineering of nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, and buckyballs present fewer hazards to the environment than other processes like oil refining.
Nanotechnology may pose new trials for insurance companies as mentioned in an article on ABC On-Line. Dr Peter Binks, CEO of Nanotechnology Victoria, a government-sponsored consortium of three universities, said he viewed nanotechnology as an extension of work in proven fields such as molecular biology and surface chemistry.
“I don’t think it’s outlandish for insurers to be raising these questions but I think it’s a long bow to suggest there’s something fundamentally different about nanotechnology that means it’s an entirely different insurance environment,” he told ABC Science Online.
Dr Binks’ comments were in response to the release of a report by insurer Swiss Re. Swiss Re presented a paper that examines nanotechnology risks from an insurer’s viewpoint. Their report states, “Nanotechnology, as an emerging risk, challenges the insurance industry because of the high level of uncertainty in terms of potential nanotoxicity or nanopollution, the ubiquitous presence of nano-products in the near future (across industry sectors, companies, and countries) and the possibility of long latent, unforeseen claims.”
This was followed by an examination by Munich Re who began to study the probable effects of nanotechnology on their business in 2002. They published their findings as “Nanotechnology—What’s in store for us?” In 2005, Allianz generated a report with the OECD titled “Small sizes that matter: Opportunities and risks of nanotechnologies.”
Ethical Issues Associated with Nanotechnology
Besides looking at the hazards and advantages of nanotechnology, an additional question of whether to develop these technologies has to be asked, and if so, what could be the ethical implications. Ethical considerations may include how nanotechnology is funded, access to the technology, and how nanotechnology products may influence the wider society and environment.
Dr Rob Sparrow, lecturer and bioethicist with the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University, has published a paper titled “Widespread hypocrisy about nanotechnology is a worrying sign.” Dr Sparrow has been an eloquent presenter and panelist on nanotechnology ethics for the past two years, and has contributed to several meetings and conferences.
The core debate of the paper is that, while nanotechnology poses few, if any, ethical matters distinct from those raised by the direction and pace of technological advancement, the real matter is the way public debate around nanotechnology is being outlined. Dr Sparrow highlights a series of unequivocal contradictions, propagated mainly by nanotechnology’s advocates.
The paper concludes with a clear proposal: “genuine, open and vigorous debate is precisely what is required if we want to continue to claim to be a democratic society while pursuing a technology with potentially widespread and profound social and environmental consequences.”
Dr Peter Binks feels the paper’s debates are relevant and valuable reading for those involved in the public discussion, as well as those aiming to market the advantages of nanotechnology. Dr Sparrow has highlighted clear imperfections in how nanotechnology is justified to the legislators, general public, and to investors.
His argument needs to be heeded, and the messages used need to be clarified, before the trust of the stakeholders is lost. Particularly, it is important to carefully depict nanotechnology as a revolution—although it is significant, it is not as dramatic or unexpected as it has been depicted at times.