In
the wake of a new study linking “nanotechnology” to two deaths and five
additional cases of lung disease, the emerging technology of the
ultra-small could be in for a rough ride. Yet the real risk is that in
the rush to use or even abuse the findings, the science and it’s true
relevance are overlooked.
It’s never good news when a new technology is associated with a death.
The
emerging area of nanotechnology has had a fairly smooth ride so far.
Sure, there have been questions over possible new health risks
associated with some of its more esoteric offerings. But no one has
actually got sick from the technology.
Until now it seems.
A new
study published in the European Respiratory Journal describes seven
cases of unusual and progressive lung disease and two deaths amongst
workers at a Chinese factory, and pins the likely cause on
nanoparticles—which the authors link inextricably with nanotechnology.
The
study presses a number of emotional and political buttons that are
likely to elevate its significance—workers died; a new class of
material, already under suspicion, is implicated; and in the journal’s
press release, parallels are drawn with asbestos—a material that
continues to be associated with tens of thousands of deaths around the
world each year.
As
news coverage surrounding the study gathers momentum, there will be the
temptation for opponents and proponents of nanotechnology to either
parade it as proof of nanotech’s dangers, or to dismiss it as
ill-conceived, flawed and irrelevant. But either approach would be a
serious mistake, and in the long term could jeopardize the safe,
successful and beneficial development of nanotechnology.
For
years it’s been speculated that nanotechnology-derived
materials—including nanoparticles—could present new health risks. Some
materials begin to exhibit novel physical and chemical properties at
the nanoscale. Nanometer-sized particles can get to places
inaccessible to larger particles. And particle size, shape and surface
area have been linked to unusual biological behavior for some
materials. Backed by an increasing number of lab studies, it’s
becoming increasingly clear that the potential health impact of some
nanomaterials depends on more than just chemistry.
But
hard data on any actual risks associated with nanomaterials remain
tantalizingly elusive. More to the point, no one has knowingly got
sick after being exposed to an engineered nanomaterial yet. And while
proactively avoiding potential nanomaterial-related risks sounds
awfully laudable, industry and governments are notoriously loath to
take serious action on avoiding possible dangers in the absence of
actual bodies.
This
presents groups advocating proactive risk management or a precautionary
approach to emerging technologies with a dilemma—how do you convince
decision-makers to take action before people fall ill, rather than in
response to a tragedy? To some of these groups, this new study could
well be seen as just the leverage they need to press for more risk
research, stronger regulation, and less rapid nanotechnology
commercialization.
On the
other hand, industries and governments have a vested interest in
ensuring the tens of billions of dollars they have invested in
nanotechnology turns a profit—financially, politically and socially. I
may be being over-cynical here, but I can’t see them passively sitting
by while a study associating nanotechnology with lung disease threatens
to undermine this investment. At the very least, the scientific
integrity of the new study will be examined minutely. And if it is
found wanting, the temptation will be to dismiss it as flawed and
irrelevant.
Unfortunately,
neither of these approaches will help avoid similar incidents occurring
in the future, or support the development of safe nanotechnologies in
the long run.
This
new study adds to a growing body of research into the potential health
impacts of nanoparticles. Eventually, it will no doubt play a role in
helping to understand and avoid the potential dangers associated with some nanomaterials under some
conditions. But on its own, it is limited and incomplete. At the end
of the day, the study says little about the potential hazards of
nanoparticles in general, and next to nothing about the possible
dangers of nanotechnology. If the sad deaths of the two workers and
the lung disease of their five colleagues were used to press home a
preordained nanotechnology agenda, it would amount to little more than
a cynical misuse of the data—not a move that is likely to encourage
evidence-based decisions on either workplace safety or safe
nanotechnology.
Yet to
dismiss the study as flawed and irrelevant would be equally foolish.
The reality is that two workers died and nanoparticles were implicated,
at a time when increasing numbers of nanoparticle-containing products
are entering the market. As the details of the study become known,
people are going to want to know what the findings mean for
them—whether there are risks associated with emerging nanotechnologies,
and what government and industry are doing about it. If
nanotech-promoters downplay or even discredit the work, the move is
more likely to engender suspicion than allay fears in many quarters.
And once again, evidence-based decision-making will be in danger of
being sacrificed in favor of maintaining a set agenda.
Fortunately,
there is a middle way; one that hopefully the proponents and opponents
of nanotechnology—and all those in between—will take. And this is to
be science-grounded yet socially responsive in how the study is
assessed and acted upon.
This
is not a perfect study. There are key pieces of information missing
that prevent its application to nanoparticles more generally. Yet I
believe the questions it raises on the safe development of
nanotechnology transcend its limitations. The study places emerging
nanotechnologies in the spotlight, and forces consumers, developers and
decision-makers to think afresh about how they might be used safely.
Irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the tragic illnesses and
deaths reported, the study will prompt people to ask how safe they are
while working with and using products based on nanotechnology.
And where there are no satisfactory answers, these same people are going to want to know why.
Posturing
in response to the study will only alienate people and hamper progress
towards the science-informed development of safe and beneficial
nanotechnology. Rather, this is a chance for everyone with an interest
in safe and beneficial nanotechnologies start working together towards
science-grounded progress that ultimately serves everyone’s needs.
Talking
together about the way forward is a good start, but to be effective it
must lead to informed actions. Given the current lack of knowledge on
the potential risks of some nanomaterials, these will depend on
well-funded, strategic research that addresses the many existing
information gaps. While this new knowledge is being generated—a
process that could take decades—innovative new approaches will be
needed for working with and using the products of nanotechnology as
safely as possible. And to cap it all, decision-makers—from
manufacturers to workers to policy-makers to consumers—will need access
to clear, relevant and understandable information on nanotechnologies,
and what they mean to them.
Working
together along these lines, the groundwork will be laid for making
progress that is based on the best possible science, yet doesn’t ignore
the concerns and aspirations of the people it touches.
Tragically,
the lung damage experienced by the seven Chinese workers in the
European Respiratory Journal study could most likely have been
prevented if accepted occupational hygiene practices had been followed.
Ultimately, this is a story of a human failing, not an emerging
technology. Yet it does stimulate important questions that will need
addressing if the long-term benefits of nanotechnology are to be
realized. The question is, are we prepared to put aside preconceived
notions and work together to find effective answers? I hope we are.
This post also appears on the 2020 Science blog