Spending on Nanotech Risk is Too Low

The scoop: Recent news stories indicate that nanotechnology may have a dark side. The United States spends money to assess those risks. However, a recent report by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies found that the United States may be over-inflating funding estimates. Andrew Maynard, chief science advisor for PEN, gives us his take on why.

Nanotechnology is big business. Worldwide, firms are plowing more than $10 billion per year into nanotech research and development, with the resulting market is estimated to grow to over $2.5 trillion by 2014. The reason? The ability to precisely engineer materials at the nanoscale opens up a new toolbox for making never-before-seen products as well as solving some of world's biggest challenges, including climate change, poverty, and disease.

But research published over the past few years suggests that some nanotechnologies could cause harm. Many materials undergo a personality change at this scale, often behaving in very unexpected ways. Gold for instance, one of the most inert metals known, suddenly changes color and becomes highly reactive. Silver has been shown to destroy benign bacteria. Aluminum, the same stuff used in coke cans and cooking foil, turns into a high explosive. And carbon nanotubes behave similarly to asbestos, a carcinogen.

There is often more science speculation than science fact when it comes to evaluating the dangers of nanomaterials. The trouble is, we just don't know enough yet to work out what makes a given nanotechnology dangerous, or how to use it safely. Common sense suggests that a plan of action would be a good idea here; let's work out what we need to know to make nanotech safe, and support the research that will deliver the answers. If only it was that simple.

Both the United States and Europe are keen to demonstrate they are doing what is necessary to support safe nanotechnologies. America is proud of its global leadership in nanotechnology risk research funding  -- a claimed $37.7 million in 2006, compared to a mere $24 across Europe. But closer examination of the figures tells a different story. Only $13 million of that $37.7 million is tied up in research projects that are primarily aimed at understanding and addressing possible harm from nanotechnology. Is the United States guilty of inflating the figures just to look good?

I believe this sharp contrast in funding levels reflects very different underlying philosophies. The U.S. Administration wants to be seen as addressing risks, but fundamentally believes that protecting innovation and business interests is the key to running the country successfully. And in the black-and-white world of some decision makers, encouraging innovation and managing health and environmental risks are diametrically opposed. The result is reported spending on risk research that looks great on paper because it may, might, or could have relevance, but upon closer scrutiny is not backed up by hard data. Nor is it linked to a plan of action that will deliver results.

On the other hand, Europe has decidedly more precautionary tendencies, and member states are more likely to focus on what is needed to protect and enhance quality of life directly. As a result, reported nano-risk-research funding is not inflated by studies that might, could, or may have some relevance. In short, funded research is directed toward solving real social and industrial issues.

At the end of the day, safe nanotechnology is not about public relations spin but about doing the right science, and neither the United States nor Europe should be complacent in their risk-research programs. It's going to take at least $100 million per year and a much improved action plan if we are understand how to develop safe nanotechnologies and avoid a legacy of harm for future generations. Given the potential of these new technologies to change our lives for the better, surely it's worth it.