Nanotechnology, the science of manipulating things smaller than 100 nanometers — more than 800 times smaller than the width of a human hair — promises to deliver everything from vastly more efficient computers and stronger building materials to microscopic cancer-fighting agents.

But could this tiny technology also bring hidden dangers?

In 1986, nanotech pioneer Eric Drexler floated the idea that an incautious approach to nanoscience could result in runaway self-replicating nanobots, whose reproductive frenzy would consume everything on the planet and leave only "grey goo." This apocalyptic scenario caught the public's imagination (Michael Crichton even wrote a book about it), although scientists, including Drexler, subsequently pointed out that the concept is far more the stuff of fiction than of science.

Even though we don't have to worry about being turned into "grey goo" anytime soon, there are a variety of less colourful — but more credible — risks associated with nanoscience.

A recent report in the science journal Nature was critical of government and industry for, among other things, not mandating appropriate testing on nanotechnologies before allowing them to reach the public. Andrew Maynard, lead author of the report, says we should be asking, "Is the ability to manipulate matter to an extent that we've never, ever been able to do before going to bring about new risks? And if so, how do we identify those risks and ultimately manage them?"

"There probably are risks, but we just don't know what they are, and that's the problem," Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an organization that studies the environmental and social impact of emerging technologies, said. "We're eating [nanotechnology], we're using it in all kinds of products that we wear on our skin and our clothing, and yet governments have no capacity to understand or regulate it."

Potential hazards

While many nanomaterials are simply tinier forms of existing chemical compounds, the results of nanotechnology-based manufacturing processes are anything but simple. They can exhibit entirely new and unpredictable characteristics.

"What we do know is that chemicals which are benign at the macro scale can become very toxic at the nano scale, or they may have the same toxicity, but be able to get into parts of the body that a larger-size particle wouldn't be able to," Carolyn Cairns, a researcher for Consumer Reports magazine who specializes in technology, said. "Some of these materials are being used in very exposure-intensive applications, like skin creams, sunscreens and food applications."

Kristen Kulinowski, director of the International Council on Nanotechnology at Rice University, added that, "The hazard studies that have been done show evidence that nanomaterials have the potential to cause oxidative damage, to punch holes in cell membranes, to kill cells in culture, and to have harmful impacts on populations in ecosystems."

Kulinowski noted, however, that it's unclear whether these laboratory results can be extrapolated to the outside world.

Little regulation

At present there is no requirement under the laws of any industrialized country that a chemical compound being used at a macro scale be re-evaluated for use at a nano scale, even if its characteristics are completely different.

Neil Gordon, president of the Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance, said that to some degree, the market will regulate potential hazards, noting that companies have a vested interest in ensuring the safety of their products. "Because there are new ways of doing things, a portion of the investment budget should go into safeguards. One of the great things about industry is that if things go out of whack, you have the ability to sue a manufacturer and put them out of business."

Many experts, however, take the approach that some form of regulation is necessary. And the question of potential hazards is made more urgent by the growing number of nanotech products already on the market. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' Consumer Products Inventory, for example, lists more than 350 consumer products already on sale to the public, none of them specifically regulated as nanomaterials.

Why has so little been done on nano regulation? For one thing, there's the question of figuring out exactly what to regulate.

Nanotechnologies cut across a broad variety of scientific disciplines, and a health researcher may label something a nanoparticle based on its size, while a physicist might define it only by its novel properties.

"There's this whole debate on definitional issues for regulatory purposes," Lori Sheremeta, a project leader at the National Institute of Nanotechnology at the University of Alberta, said. "If we can't define what we're talking about accurately, how are we going to regulate it? And that's the issue that the regulators are facing right now — they're being called upon to do something, and there's not enough data to determine what they should be asking for from parties who want to put products on the market."

Another reason for the widespread lack of regulation is the approach of some manufacturers towards their nano products.

"There's a sort of doublespeak with respect to the risks," Rice University's Kulinowski said. "This is an entirely new class of materials with new chemical and physical properties, but some companies are trying to have it both ways. They'll say 'My product is better because I'm using nanomaterials, these new sexy exotic materials that are doing all kinds of wonderful things,' and out of the other side of their mouth, they're saying to the regulators, 'It's just the same old stuff, only smaller,' so there's no need to treat it any differently, or even to look any more carefully at its potential impacts."

Action slow to happen

So far, there has been little public pressure to regulate nanotechnologies. Some say this is simply because most people aren't even aware that nanotechnology is now part of a number of consumer products they use regularly. A recent U.S. poll conducted for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies found that 68 per cent of Americans knew little or nothing about nanoscience.

But after a slow start, a few things are starting to happen, especially in the United States.

In November 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advised Samsung Electronics that a washing machine that produces "nanosilver" particles to kill bacteria in clothing would be regulated as a pesticide. The EPA is playing coy, stating publicly that the move "does not represent an action to regulate nanotechnology," although in fact it appears to be exactly that.

At a local level, in December 2006, the city of Berkeley, Calif., passed a law requiring researchers and manufacturers to report any nanotechnology materials they are working with, and to release details on how the tiny materials are handled.

Meeting the challenges

The recent Nature paper recommends addressing five "Grand Challenges," which involve creating tools and methods to measure toxicity and other environmental impacts of new, engineered nanomaterials. However, undertaking these challenges will require investment by government and industry, which to date has not been forthcoming.

In Canada, for example, a report on the state of nanotechnology was submitted to the Liberal government in late 2005. However, since the Conservative government came into power in January 2006, no action has been taken and no funding has been allocated to further initiatives in this area of science.

Anthony Seaton, another author of the Nature report, says: "There is international agreement among scientists that something needs to be done, but no government yet has really agreed put money into it. But in the meantime, many products are coming to market, and that's the slightly alarming thing."

[an error occurred while processing this directive]