Category: Biosphere

David Berube at U. South Carolina, in an ongoing campaign against nanohype, has been looking into complaints by the ETC Group that a nanoparticle product was approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for use to prevent erosion on Taos Pueblo land in New Mexico. His conclusion: “a review of the actual event discredits their… Continue reading Nanoparticle-release complaint cast in doubt

from the unintended-consequences dept.
In his regular column on technology and public policy for Tech Central Station ("Green or Gray?", 3 April 2002), University of Tennessee law professor and Foresight Director Glenn Reynolds asks whether we face a choice between a "biofuture" and a "machine future?" In other words, will things take a green path or a gray? He notes:

In truth, of course, there's a lot of overlap. You can, in principle, do most of the things that you could do with nanotechnology using advanced biotechnology, since biological processes are really just naturally evolved nanotechnology. And in the process of using and studying biological systems, you're sure to learn things that will have important applications for nanotechnology. (The reverse is probably also true — in engineering nanodevices, you're almost certain to learn things that will have biological applications).

Reynolds concludes by observing that:

"[I]t's the Greens who may provide much of the impetus for going gray. Over the past couple of decades, environmentalists who are opposed to genetic engineering have spent a lot of time demonizing biotechnology as 'tinkering with life.' . . . The problem is, having chosen to take that approach, they've committed intellectual disarmament where nanotechnology and other gray technologies are concerned. When you're building robots, you're not tinkering with life. . . . So although there may be little reason, on the merits, to choose between going green and going gray, the actions of environmentalists and anti-biotech activists may load the dice in favor of more mechanical approaches."

An extensive article in Science News Magazine ("Taming High-Tech Particles: Cautious steps into the nanotech future", by Jessica Gorman, 30 March 2002) says that nanotechnology "appears to be a new industry in the making. However, as nanomaterials approach commercial development, some researchers are beginning to look at the potential consequences of putting the new materials into the environment or the body. These scientists' goal is to launch preemptive strikes against any problems that might arise down the line."

The article focuses on research at the new Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University in Houston, one of six new national Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs) established by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) in September 2001 (see Nanodot post from 27 September 2001). The Rice CBEN was also host to a workshop on the possible environmental impacts of nanotechnology in December 2001 (see Nanodot post from 17 December 2001).

The potential environmental impacts of nanotech materials and devices will also be the focus of new research programs recently announced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For more information, see the Nanodot post from 15 March 2002.

Thanks to Mr_Farlops for bringing the Science News item to our attention. He also comments: "Poorly designed nanotechnology could lead to pollution. For example, anti-cancer smart bullets like Sloan-Kettering's nanogenerator and the "Gottingen grenade" could lead to problems if these molecular parts, intentionally designed to infiltrate cells, began to accumulate in the tissues of wild animals and plants. Some nanomachine parts, designed to be as inert as possible like chlorofluorocarbons, may also build up unless some measures are taken to break them down."

from the another-green-world dept.
According to a report on the Small Times website ("U.S. Regulators want to know whether nanotech can pollute", by Doug Brown, 8 March 2002), "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is gathering information on the potential perils of nanotechnology even while it's enlisting the science in its fight against pollution."

While the EPS will continue to fund research into way to use nanotechnology to clean up the environment and to prevent future environmental damage (see Foresight Update #44), the EPA will also pay for research projects that examine possible negative environmental impacts of nanotechnology, said Barbara Karn, the EPA official in charge of the agency's nanotechnology research.

A second article ("Nano litterbugs? Expers see potential pollution problems", by Doug Brown, 15 March 2002), covers a recent meeting on "Nanotechnology: Environmental Friend or Foe", held on 15 March at the EPA offices in Washington, D.C. The article includes the views of Vicki Colvin, a professor and co-director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (http://cnst.rice.edu/cben/) at Rice University in Texas, and Mark Wiesner, also a Rice University professor and the centerís other co-director.

(The CBEN was also the host of a workshop on the possible environmental impacts of nanotechnology in December 2001. See Nanodot post from 17 December 2001.)

The article also describes an EPA request for proposals (RFP) on "Environmental Futures Research in Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology" from the EPA National Center for Environmental Research for research related to the possible environmental impacts of nanotechnology.