To "maximize the potential and minimize the risks" of nanotechnology, DuPont CEO Chad Holliday and Environmental Defense (ED) President Fred Krupp are calling for "increased risk research, improved regulatory oversight, proactive corporate management standards, and broad stakeholder engagement."
Given potential liability and market risks, industry, universities, government and public interest groups should collaborate to determine what testing is necessary for new nanoproducts. Businesses then should conduct the needed testing before new products enter commercial use. . . A collaborative effort could set interim standards for nanotechnology around the world while regulations are under development.
At the same time, our government also needs to invest more seriously in the research necessary to understand fully nanoparticle behavior. Funding to study health and environmental risk represents only 4% of the proposed federal investment in nanotechnology and becomes vanishingly small when you factor in private investment. Government spending on nanotechnology should be reprioritized so that approximately 10% goes to this purpose. Compared to the estimated $1 trillion market for nanotechnology, this would be a wise insurance policy on such a high-potential investment.
Also this week,
a study released
by investment advisory firm Lux Research concludes
that nanotechnology is "not being properly evaluated
for human and environmental risks."
[W]ithout a full and continuing assessment of
those risks, the nascent industry expected to
employ thousands of people and generate billions
of dollars in revenue may be hobbled by public
opposition or corporate mishaps.
Lux forecasts an even higher upside than DuPont
and Environmental Defense, saying that various
nanotechnologies could produce $8 trillion in
cumulative manufacturing output through 2014.
It's good to see that big business, big
investment advisors, and big environmental groups
are starting to pay attention to the need for study
of health and environmental risks. Of course, with
so much money at stake, it's no surprise.
So, if the U.S. and other governments were to
earmark 10% of their nanotech funding for
environmental, health and safety (EHS) risks, would
that be enough? Would it satisfy CRN's concerns?
Not even close.
Unfortunately, that will not take us even halfway
to where we need to go. At least two separate sets
of studies are needed.
What is being proposed would cover only half
of the important kinds of
nanotechnology.
Lux, DuPont, ED, and others are right in calling for
more research into the EHS risks of
nanoscale
technologies; nanoparticle toxicity,
etc., needs to be studied and understood. But far
more serious
dangers,
and far greater potential
benefits,
will arise from the other major branch of
nanotechnology:
molecular
manufacturing.
Because of the largely unexpected
transformational
power of molecular manufacturing, it is
urgent to understand the issues raised. To date,
there has not been anything approaching an adequate
study of these matters. The societal and
environmental implications of molecular
manufacturing (programmable,
integrated, exponential molecular machine systems)
are profound -- and they are also poorly understood.
CRN has outlined a series of
thirty essential
studies that, if conducted, will begin to
answer many crucial questions. This process
may take us halfway to where we need to go.
But even if we find good answers and workable
solutions for safe and responsible use of advanced
nanotechnology, they still would have to be
implemented, probably on a
global basis.
If molecular manufacturing takes the world
by surprise,
we will not have systems in place to deal with it
effectively.
No single
organization or mindset can create a full
and appropriate policy -- and
inappropriate
policy will only make things worse.
A combination
of separate policy efforts will get in each other's
way, and the risks will slip through the cracks.
By the time this
technological capability arrives, we must have
accomplished several things that each will take
significant time. First, we must understand the
risks. Second, make policy. Third, design
institutions. Fourth, create the institutions -- at
all levels including international levels, where
things move slowly. This could easily take twenty
years. If advanced nanotechnology could arrive in
ten or fifteen years, then we'd better get to work.
IEET Blog