The 29th July marks the 5th anniversary of publication of the seminal Royal Academy of Engineering / Royal Society report 'Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties'.
To mark the occasion, Professor Anthony Seaton CBE, who was involved in advising the RS/RAEng on compilation of the original report, has shared his thoughts on what progress has been made since the original publication, and what remains to be done:
I think it is helpful to imagine what might have happened had such a report not been published. At the time, Prince Charles had put the royal seal of approval on fears of the planet turning to grey goo and some environmental pressure groups were raising fears across a range of possible hazards to humans and the environment. There were signs that battle lines were being drawn up for a fight that could seriously hinder the development of these nanotechnologies similar to that waged over genetic modification; calls were made for a moratorium on their further development. But the report was published, “welcomed” by Government and generally accepted by society, and committees were set up to consider the many recommendations made. The main anxieties of both public and researchers/technologists were reduced and the technological and commercial development proceeded apace. Interestingly, although almost no new money was set aside by the UK Government for research into health, environmental and societal hazards, as recommended by the report, a substantial research effort has in fact started. And, so far at least, nobody appears to have been harmed by nanotechnologies.
Those of us on the working group had to rack our brains as to possible hazards. The physicists were able to deal with the grey goo story from first principles, but the possible medical and environmental hazards were not amenable to such an approach, since there was limited understanding of the mechanisms of interaction of small particles with human or other cells and tissues. We proceeded by analogy with known risks from other small scale materials to which populations have been exposed, and came up with two important and well-researched ones: asbestos as an analogy for carbon nanotubes and air pollution particles for roughly spherical nanoparticles.
Being a group largely composed of scientists, we naturally called for more research and appropriate funding.
I have to say that I was somewhat less enthusiastic, as a medical scientist, than was the majority of the working group about the amount of money and the research structures called for. A body convened to examine a specific issue will always call for more research and money specifically for that issue, taking account of the scientific uncertainties and the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to investigate them. However, what it does not take into account is the degree of priority that the issues raise with the funders. In this case, it was only necessary to consider where a medical research funder would rank theoretical risk from nanoparticles (for it was in manufacture and use of nanoparticles that we foresaw hazard) against other current priorities such as those associated with pandemic infectious diseases, climate change, the ageing population and brain diseases, the development of vaccines, tackling alcohol and air pollution and so on, to realise that in terms of public health the issue was small. In my view, this remains the case, but this is not to say that it will remain so nor that it is unworthy of scientific investigation. So what was to be done while the committees set up by Government were deliberating?
I think the most important immediate effect of the report arose from our recognition that hazards were possible and identifying areas requiring investigation. There is a natural suspicion that working groups such as this one, though independent and representing august bodies such as the two Academies, tend to take a conservative and establishment view, no matter how resolutely they make their independence clear. In this case, the very mention of asbestos was sufficient to allay such doubts. It also had the very useful effect of making scientists and technologists producing and using nanotubes aware of possible risk and has allowed regulators to produce advice intended to reduce this risk. The report also helped stimulate the European Union to fund several programmes of research into nano hazards. And from a personal point of view, a number of those of us who already had a background of research in the areas of air pollution and asbestos and held current grants in the field got together without any specific funding as a multi-disciplinary consortium to try to answer some of the questions raised by the report. This is the loose association called SnIRC, the Safety of Nanoparticles Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration, based on the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh, an independent self-funding research charity. Within these five years, SnIRC has proved able to develop a wide-ranging programme of research across the fields of occupational hygiene and human and eco toxicology and through its partner in the University of Edinburgh has answered one of the most pressing questions, with respect to asbestos-like properties of some carbon nanotubes. There is now sufficient understanding on which to base sensible, pragmatic measures to protect researchers and workers against most foreseeable hazards, even though there is insufficient yet known to enable us to predict which nanoparticles might entail real rather than theoretical risk. But it is not necessary to know for sure that something is dangerous before taking action to reduce risk.
Complex problems are not solved overnight. Nanotechnology raises many complex issues relating to possible adverse consequences and at first sight these appeared overwhelming. The report narrowed them down to toxicological, regulatory and societal/ethical. Never before has the introduction of a new technology been attended by an effort to understand and forestall hazard before any adverse consequences have been demonstrated, so to that extent any such effort would have been ground-breaking. On the toxicological side, the necessary research has already made important advances in understanding and a body of work aiming at finding generic properties of nanoparticles and their surfaces is underway. Methods of protection of workers and consumers from airborne nanoparticles are understood, allowing regulators information on which to base guidance, though appropriate methods of measurement of particles in this size range and of measuring the relevant toxic component or physical characteristic are still awaited. There is very much interesting research to be done at the interfaces of toxicology, measurement, occupational hygiene and surface chemistry. I am not clear as to whether the report’s recommendations to Research Councils and others on societal and ethical issues surrounding the introduction of new technologies have been taken up generally. They are worth re-reading and universities need to take account of the desirability of ensuring that scientists take account of possible societal impacts of their endeavours.
Although I am generally positive about the introduction of nanotechnologies, I am not complacent and should end with a few concerns. There has undoubtedly been a huge unregulated introduction of nanoparticles into consumer products, including those for human consumption in food and on-line “medicines”. Although the human gut is pretty resistant to what it takes in, the bacteria within it are not and may have a much greater influence on our health than we think – indeed are essential to life! Dosing oneself with anti-bacterial nanoparticles is not something I would do, but many people are. Neither would I use any aerosol household spray containing nanoparticles, as we know something of the toxicity to the lungs and heart of inhaling large numbers of such particles in air pollution. Until there is convincing published research to the contrary, I would remain wary of putting nanoparticles (as opposed to larger particles of the same chemical) on skin in cosmetics or sun screens with respect to possible allergies and photosensitization. And finally, I would urge the Health and Safety Executive to carry out an audit and life cycle analysis in all facilities making and using nanotubes in order to ensure appropriate protection of manufacturers, users and those who ultimately dispose of them. If necessary, I would post a notice at such facilities stating “Caution – asbestos-like materials in use.”
Prof Anthony Seaton CBE, MD, DSc, FMedSci