IF ENVIRONMENTAL activists and pressure groups have their way, nanotechnology will become as much of a social pariah as genetically modified foods. The campaigners came to Brussels from all over the world last week to discuss a moratorium on all nanotech, including lab research.
Tony Juniper, executive director of Friends of the Earth, says the scale of the campaign could be huge. 鈥淎 lot of activists are beginning to register this,鈥� he says. 鈥淭his is very comparable to the situation in GM foods eight or nine years ago. We have public awareness combined with activists, and bang, here we go.鈥�
The Canadian environmental organisation ETC, which masterminded the meeting, couched its call for a ban in language blatantly designed to woo an anti-GM audience. 鈥淲e can鈥檛 control genetically modified organisms, so what makes us think we can control atomically modified organisms?鈥� said ETC鈥檚 Hope Shand.
Advertisement
The group points to the lack of regulation and toxicological information on nanoparticles that are already in products the public can buy. Some sun creams, for example, contain nanoparticles of titanium dioxide. Can these work their way deeper into the body? Vyvyan Howard, a toxicologist from the University of Liverpool who undertook a literature review of the topic for ETC, said 鈥渨e seem to have ample evidence that small means toxic and that needs attention.鈥�
Nanoscientists, who were not invited to speak at the meeting, agree that regulation is vital, but argue that the issue is already being taken seriously. Last year, for example, researchers at the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University in Houston, Texas, presented concerns to the US Environmental Protection Agency, which responded by earmarking $5 million for follow-up research.
The health and environmental aspects of nanotech were also major themes at the American Chemical Society鈥檚 annual meeting, where researchers unveiled the first health studies of carbon nanotubes (快猫短视频, 29 March, p 19). 鈥淣o scientist is brushing anything under the carpet,鈥� says Ottilia Saxl, executive director of the Institute of Nanotechnology in Stirling, UK.
Mark Welland, a researcher at the University of Cambridge, is frustrated by the lack of science in the nanotech debate. He points to Green MEP Caroline Lucas鈥檚 assertion in British newspaper The Guardian last week that 鈥渢he laws of physics do not apply at the molecular scale鈥�. He is keen to enter into responsible debate, but wants the activists to be responsible too.
For many of the assembled groups, the debate is more about business than science. ETC鈥檚 biggest concern is the social implications of a new technology controlled by big business. The US National Science Foundation estimates that by 2015 the nanotech market will be worth $1 trillion. 鈥淲e鈥檝e heard of the digital divide, now we鈥檙e seeing the molecular divide,鈥� Shand said.
An activist who attended the two-day conference under the banner of EarthFirst! told 快猫短视频 that his group鈥檚 objections to nanotech were 鈥渁bout democracy, about control鈥�. EarthFirst! has been responsible for much of the anti-GM campaigning seen in Europe in recent years 鈥� including the stickering of supermarkets, occupation of Monsanto鈥檚 European headquarters and uprooting of GM crops.
Mark Modzelewski, executive director of the NanoBusiness Alliance in the US hopes the campaign will stimulate discussion about regulating nanotech. 鈥淚t presents a good jumping-off point to address real issues with nanotech and its effects on health and the environment,鈥� he says. There has been less debate about nanotech in the US that in Europe, but he reckons the way to offset a backlash is simple: 鈥渘ot hiding anything from the public and making sure they have all the facts鈥�.
But Welland is less confident. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very easy to frighten the public about these things, and it鈥檚 very difficult to reverse.鈥�