Carpe Diem: Now is the Time to Consider Nanotechnology's Impact on the Human Condition

  Jaydee Hanson, Director
  Human Genetics Policy for the International Center for Technology
  Assessment

Four years ago, my son was working at the Naval Research Lab. When he would not tell me what he was working on (he did not have a secret clearance), I began to push. Finally, he said, "Well, I am making very small fiber optic cables to connect artificial retinas to the optic nerve in the eye. But there are no plans to help the people who receive these artificial retinas deal with the psychological problems that might come from suddenly being able to see. That is what is bothering me."

Artificial retinas are not necessarily a nanotechnology, though as they develop, they will likely employ smaller and smaller parts, including nano-sized components. Still, they are a good metaphor for nanotechnology. As with the artificial retina experiments, nanotechnologies promise to solve many age old problems, but little attention is being given to the social and ethical implications of these new technologies. And like the artificial retinas, much of the work is being done in military labs. (I was not sure I wanted to know why the military had such an interest in artificial retinas. Will soldiers of the future use artificial retina implants to see in the dark instead of using special goggles that can be lost in combat?)

Some in Washington, D.C., believe that nanotechnology will do what no other technology has been able to do: create true miracles. Philip J. Bond, then Undersecretary for Technology in the Department of Commerce, told the World Nanotechnology Congress in 2003 that:

On a human level, nano's potential rises to near Biblical proportions. It is not inconceivable that these technologies could eventually achieve the truly miraculous: enabling the blind to see, the lame to walk, and the deaf to hear; curing AIDS, cancer, diabetes and other afflictions; ending hunger; and even supplementing the power of our minds, enabling us to think great thoughts, create new knowledge, and gain new insights.¹

Nanotechnology thus becomes the latest miracle technology. Almost all technologies are over-sold by their proponents. The post-World War II chemical revolution can be characterized by the DuPont slogan, 'Better Living Through Chemistry.' But no one really counted on the problems of disposing of so much new chemical waste. Then we were promised nuclear power that would be 'too cheap to meter.' More recently, proponents of gene therapy promised to cure awful diseases, but instead we have revelations of hidden deaths from the experiments and, despite many trials, no real cures.

The debate about embryonic stem cells brings forth promises from many of the same players. Now comes nanotechnology whose proponents promise not to just solve our chemical, or environmental, or medical problems, but all of our problems.

Government agencies have been slow to publicly identify environmental, health and safety risks of nanotechnology and mandate accountability. To its credit, the part of the EPA that regulates toxic chemicals is asking companies to voluntarily report about nano-chemicals, but it is not moving to use its authority to require reporting. And it is actually being pushed by a chemical company - DuPont - to do voluntary reporting. Indeed, the CEO of DuPont and the CEO of Environmental Defense co-wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal asking for more funding for studies of the ethical and social impacts of nanotechnologies. They recommend that 10 percent of government funding go toward examining the health and environmental risks of nanotechnology. ²

The fields of nanotechnology are moving amazingly fast, so the new federal funding is needed now. Scientists at the University of Buffalo recently reported to the National Academy of Sciences that they had succeeded in using nanoparticles to transfer and track gene transmission from one organism into a different organism.³ Previously gene "therapies" were conducted using viruses that could revert to "wild type" and in one trial in humans caused genetically engineered cancers. Given the difficulties of using viruses in gene therapy, nano-vectors may be the next way of doing gene therapy. Nano particles easily cross cell walls, and indeed some seem particularly attracted to cell nuclei where, in this experiment, they intentionally changed the cellís genome. But what happens when nano particles lodge in nuclei accidentally? Will new mutations occur faster with nano-sized chemicals because they can so easily enter cells?

One of my environmental friends recently chided me for suggesting that we will quickly be using nano-machines in our brains. My friend suggested that this was still the stuff of science fiction, but was surprised to learn that already there are Parkinson and ALS patients with computer chips implanted in their brain to enable them to control their computers.⁴ Although these four-millimeter computer chips are not technically "nano" sized, newer technology will use nano-sized particles and components. Already the advantages of nanotubes to reconnect nerves and muscles are being explored in laboratories.⁵

The rapid progress in these fields related to nanotechnology has a wide group of progressives concerned with the social implications of these new technologies. Recently, a group of us met to consider what these technologies might mean for our various fields. Included in the group were civil rights activists, disability rights activists, environmentalists, health policy analysts, animal rights activists, and religious leaders. All of these groups see real potential in some of these new technologies, but none of them sees the kind of "New Jerusalem" envisioned by Philip Bond. Rather these groups are concerned that the same old kinds of social inequalities could be promoted by these new technologies.

When I first worked in Washington, my office, a few doors from the Capitol Building, attracted some interesting people. One woman came by regularly asking if I could help her find someone that could remove the mind control devices that the CIA had implanted in her brain. I always referred her to a pastoral counselor who listened to her story patiently, but never arranged for the surgery to remove her "implants," much to her consternation. Today, if she came to my office, the new techniques for nerve and muscle control being made possible by nanotechnologies would force me to listen to her story more carefully. The time for a thorough review of all of the implications of these technologies is already here.

Jaydee Hanson is Director of Human Genetics Policy for the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, D.C., and a Fellow of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future.

¹ Philip J. Bond, Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Technology Administration Remarks as Prepared for Delivery (World Nano-Economic Congress, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2003), available at: http://www.technology.gov/Speeches/p_PJB_030909.htm.

² Fred Krupp and Chad Holliday, "Let's Get Nanotech Right," Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2005.

³ State University of New York at Buffalo, "Using Nanoparticles, In Vivo Gene Therapy Activates Brain Stem Cells Technique May Allow Scientists to Repair Brain Cells Damaged by Disease, Trauma or Stroke," available at: http://www.buffalo.edu/news/fast-execute.cgi/article-page.html?article=74040009&hilite=nanoparticle.

⁴ Justin Pope, "FDA Approves Human Brain Implant Devices," Associated Press, April 14, 2004.

⁵ See Thomas J. Webster, et al, "Nano-biotechnology: Carbon Nanofibres as Improved Neural and Orthopaedic Implants," 15 Nanotechnology 48-54 (2004), available at:http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/15/1/009.