Nano-Specific Issues

Nanotechnology is primarily a multiplier for other technologies, providing enhanced performance, reliability, or economy. However, with respect to health and environmental issues, nanotechnology may pose some unique hazards (Royal Academy of Engineering 2003; Meridian Institute 2004). In many cases, the chemical, electrical, and mechanical properties of nanoscale particles are measurably different from those of bulk samples of the same substances.

Thus, it is essential to develop good methods for characterizing nanomaterials (for example, to determine the size distribution of particles) and good theories that would allow one to estimate the probable risk, if any, of a particular nanomaterial on the basis of a growing body of knowledge about the category to which it belongs.

It will be impossible to subject all distinguishable kinds of nanomaterials to extensive testing. Thus, direct empirical research is required on the impacts of a range of representative nanomaterials, research that then can be the basis for comparison of similar materials that are not tested so intensively. Risk assessment for nanomaterials covers four related stepshazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure assessment, and risk calculationwhich then prepare the way for risk management (Luther 2004: 43).

Hazards must be assessed realistically in terms of the life cycle of the technology: Research and development hazards may differ from those in manufacturing, in the use of the product, and in disposal when the product is no longer serviceable. Suppose research does find that carbon nanotubes cause health problems when injected into animals in substantial doses. Suppose also that carbon nanotubes become the key component in future manufacture of nanoelectronics, comparable to computer chips. During the period of their actual use, and presumably after disposal as well, a very small physical mass of nanotubes would be sealed safely inside the electronic components of a device, posing no realistic threat to anyone. But there might possibly be a period of measurable hazard at the point of manufacture, when the nanotubes were being generated and assembled into components. This, then, would be an issue for workplace ethicsto be negotiated by management and labor in the context of government regulationsbut would not raise ethical questions concerning the general public.

Hazards may be higher in cases of accidents or misuse. For example, nanoscale-engineered substances designed to hold hydrogen in the fuel tanks of future hydrogen-powered automobiles might be entirely contained and therefore safe in normal use, but they might pose a risk in severe accidents when the fuel tank ruptures. On the other hand, severe accidents and misuse will typically entail unusual risks even without nanotechnology, and it would be unreasonable to demand that every technology be entirely safe even when used unsafely.

Quite apart from possible risks, some critics argue that the benefits of nanotechnology themselves raise ethical issues, because they may not be available to everyone. Clearly, there are substantial political disagreements in society about whether socioeconomic inequality is unethical and, if so, under what circumstances and for what reasons. We can hope, as did the economists who participated in the societal implications conference mentioned earlier, that the free market will rapidly distribute the benefits more widely. However, this cannot be taken for granted, and in areas of public interest such as health care, governments may need to consider special efforts to maximize the distribution of benefits.