© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
Alireza Bagheri, Jonathan D. Moreno and Stefano Semplici (eds.)Global Bioethics: The Impact of the UNESCO International Bioethics CommitteeAdvancing Global Bioethics510.1007/978-3-319-22650-7_1010. Dust of Wonder, Dust of Doom: A Landscape of Nanotechnology, Nanoethics, and Sustainable Development
(1)
Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
(2)
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
Nanotechnology is a relatively recent and very promising area of inquiry devoted to the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular scales. Its wide reach ensures extensive influence over a vast range of human activities and has generated serious concerns over the ethical, economic, environmental, legal, and social issues (E3LSI) related to its development and applications, particularly in terms of the emergence of a “nano-divide” between high-income countries and the developing world. In this chapter, we review the advances in nanotechnology most likely to benefit low- and middle-income countries. Then, we examine the most relevant and realistic E3LS challenges related to nanotechnology (NE3LS). Next, we propose potential approaches to address these challenges, based upon foundations of equity, justice, non-discrimination, and non-stigmatization. Finally, we highlight the leading role of UNESCO in the global discussion of NE3LS issues and we suggest future pathways by means of which UNESCO’s involvement in nanotechnology can contribute to the well-being of human populations worldwide.
10.1 Introduction
“We owe it to the millions of poor people worldwide to ensure that every step we take gets us closer to a world without poverty and deprivation, and indeed, nanotechnology does have the potential to contribute towards our ability to achieve these goals in an unprecedented way. It is up to us to be bold and imaginative enough to seize this opportunity.”1
Derek Hanekom
Minister of Science and Technology of South Africa
Opening speech of the World Nano-Economic Congress, 2007
Nanotechnology is a broad umbrella term that encompasses a wide range of relatively recent, intensely multidisciplinary, innovative research efforts involving the manipulation of matter at the atomic and molecular scale. This discipline can be defined as the study, design, creation, synthesis, manipulation, and application of functional materials, devices, and systems through control of matter at the nanometre scale (1–100 nanometres, one nanometre being equal to 1 × 10−9 of a meter), and the exploitation of novel phenomena and properties of matter that usually appear at that scale (Salamanca-Buentello et al. 2005). The convergence of a vast array of sub-disciplines and the difficulty in predicting the new horizons of nanotechnology research and development greatly complicates demarcating the scope and reach of this emergent technology (Joachim 2005; Schummer 2007).
Nanotechnology will probably have a considerable impact on many areas of human endeavour, particularly on energy storage, production, and conversion, water treatment and remediation, food and agriculture enhancement, diagnosis and treatment of disease, manufacturing, international trade, labour markets, the workplace, systems of communication, defense, international relations, civil liberties, and perhaps even the definitions of “life” and “human” (Arnall 2003; The Royal Society 2004). Such wide influence leads to concerns over the ethical, economic, environmental, legal, and social issues (E3LSI) that could theoretically result from advances in nanotechnology (Schummer 2007). A new discipline, nanoethics, modelled after bioethics, is struggling to emerge and still needs solid theoretical and methodological frameworks (Allhoff et al. 2007; Mnyusiwalla et al. 2003; Susanne et al. 2005). No truly novel E3LS issues seem specific to nanotechnology (NE3LSI). Challenges resulting from developments in this field have already been examined extensively in relation to previous technological waves. Keiper (2007) claims that discussions related to NE3LSI have focused too much on the hyped promises and fears of exceedingly speculative scenarios, both utopic and apocalyptic, about the hypothetical ramifications of theoretical technologies that may prove to be impossible to develop. Unrealistic assumptions underlie promises that nanotechnology will lead to “molecular manufacturing” (Drexler 1986), or the manipulation of atoms one by one, and to a posthuman cyborg-like species possessing exceptional physical and mental capabilities; equally exaggerated worries augur a catastrophe precipitated by aggressive, out-of-control, locust-like nanomachines that would wipe out all life on earth, covering the planet in a suffocating layer of “grey goo”, as fancifully imagined in Michael Crichton’s novel Prey (Arnall 2003; Baber 2004; Kulinowski 2004). To avoid becoming marginalized, nanoethicists must critically evaluate nanotechnology, collaborating with serious nanoscientists and nanotechnologists to elude unsophisticated, shallow, and unrealistic scenarios (“Don’t believe the hype” 2003).
This chapter examines realistic and proximate areas of nanotechnology with the greatest risk of increasing inequality, vulnerability, discrimination, and stigmatization, with particular attention to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We first summarize advances in nanotechnology that could benefit the developing world and discuss the impact of nanotechnology activity in LMICs. The next section discusses the most relevant NE3LSI challenges. We then propose potential approaches to address these challenges, based upon foundations of equity, justice, non-discrimination, and non-stigmatization. Finally, we describe the contributions of UNESCO to the NE3LS discussion and we advance possible ways to enhance its essential role in the use of nanotechnology towards the solution of the most pressing global needs.
10.2 Nanotechnology for the Developing World
Science and technology are critical to achieve sustainable development. Nanotechnology offers considerable advantages over current technologies to respond to global challenges (Court et al. 2004, 2005, and 2007). Research, development, and innovation (RDI) in this area can address displacement of traditional markets, imposition of foreign values, fear that technological advances will be extraneous to development needs, and lack of resources to establish, monitor, and enforce safety regulations. We have identified the ten nanotechnology applications most relevant to the developing world and have correlated them with the Millennium Development Goal s (Salamanca-Buentello et al. 2005). Based upon this and other studies, we outline below nanotechnologies with potentially beneficial influence over sustainable development.
10.2.1 Energy Production, Storage, and Conversion
Manipulation of matter at the nanoscale can provide developing countries with clean, affordable, robust, reliable, and easily maintained and serviced applications to harness renewable resources, averting recurrent energy crises, dependence on non-renewable and contaminating energy sources, and environmental degradation brought about by the depletion of oil and coal. Relevant examples of the use of nanotechnology in this area include high-efficiency solar cells, some of which could be sprayed onto any surface; ultrathin films of semiconducting polymers and nanocomposites for solar cells; quantum dot based organic light-emitting devices; nanocatalysts; carbon nanotubes for batteries and supercapacitors and, together with other lightweight nanomaterials, for robust hydrogen storage systems; nanomaterials for strong, flexible, and efficient electricity distribution; and biological-based systems for energy transduction (Mao and Chen 2007; Serrano et al. 2009).
10.2.2 Water Treatment and Remediation
Inexpensive, easily transportable, and easily cleanable water filtration nanosystems could dramatically improve water treatment and remediation. Applications that can benefit LMICs include filters based on carbon nanotubes, advanced nanomembranes, and nanoclays for water purification, detoxification, and desalination; nanoelectrocatalytic systems for decomposition of organic pollutants and removal of salts and heavy metals; magnetic nanoparticles and nanoporous materials such as zeolites and attapulgite for absorption of toxic heavy metals, organic pollutants, and micro-organisms, enabling the retrieval and recycling of contaminating substances; and nanosensors for the detection of pathogens and of inorganic contaminants (Hillie and Hlophe 2007; Qu et al. 2013).
10.2.3 Environmental Pollution Remediation
Nanotechnology -based systems can help address problems related to environmental remediation and ecosystem management. Developing countrie s can take advantage of titanium oxide nanoparticles and other photonanocatalysts for paints and urban coatings to deactivate and destroy air pollutants; nanodevices for the detection, absorption, and separation of toxic gases; and nano-based systems for storage and analysis of exhaustive and up-to-date massive biodiversity databases (Karn et al. 2009).
10.2.4 Prevention, Diagnosis, Monitoring, and Treatment of Disease
Advances in nanotechnology are already being used for the diagnosis and treatment of several illnesses. Nanotechnology , in tandem with genomics, has brought the promise of personalized, individualized medical diagnosis and treatment (sometimes called “theranostics”) closer to reality. Quality of life in the developing world could improve through the use of microfluidic devices (labs-on-a-chip) and biosensor arrays based on carbon nanotubes, magnetic nanoparticles, quantum dots, dendrimers, nanowires, and nanobelts for inexpensive, easy to use, highly sensitive and specific, robust, portable, handheld point-of-care diagnostic kits in local clinics with the capacity to detect the presence of different pathogens (or different strains of the same pathogen) simultaneously using a minimal quantity of a single biological sample; nanoparticle systems for medical imaging; nanodevices based on nanotubes and other nanoparticles for in situ monitoring of monitor the concentrations of physiological variables such as glucose, carbon dioxide, and cholesterol; novel delivery systems for the slow and targeted release of drugs and for thermostable, single-dose, needle-free vaccines that increase shelf life and reduce required dosages and transportation costs (ideal for places with no adequate drug storage capabilities and distribution networks); antibody-bound nanocapsules, liposomes, dendrimers, buckyballs, nanobiomagnets, and attapulgite clays for therapeutic nanosystems that can target specific cells and tissues; and nano-based applications for regenerative medicine and medical prosthetics (Chakraborty et al. 2011; Hauck et al. 2010; Jiang et al. 2007; Martinez et al. 2010; Sosnik and Amiji 2010)
10.2.5 Agricultural Productivity Enhancement and Food Processing and Storage
Inexpensive agricultural applications of nanotechnology have the potential to decrease malnutrition, and thus childhood mortality, by increasing soil fertility and crop productivity, especially in rural regions of the developing world, while reducing the use of water, fertilizer, and pesticides, thereby also decreasing the price of agricultural products. LMICs could benefit from zeolites and other nanoporous materials that can form well-controlled stable suspensions with absorbed or adsorbed substances for the slow release and efficient dosage of fertilizers for plants and of nutrients and drugs for livestock; and from nanosensors for the detection of pathogens in livestock and plants and for crop and aquaculture monitoring. Nano-based method s of food packaging and storage may increase shelf life, enabling a wider and more efficient distribution of food products to remote areas in less industrialized countries. For example, nanobiosensors can help detect food contamination by different pathogens and antimicrobial nanoemulsions can prevent the contamination of food, equipment, and packaging, while preserving natural flavours (Chen and Yada 2011; Duncan 2011; Rai and Ingle 2012).
10.2.6 Nanotechnology Activity in LMICs
Governments worldwide have invested more than US$65 billion in nanotechnology since 2000 (http://www.cientifica.com/research/white-papers/global-nanotechnology-funding-2011/) and RDI in this field is expected to generate US$2.5 trillion a year globally by 2015 (http://www.luxresearchinc.com/blog/2010/02/the-recessions-impact-on-nanotechnology/). Financing for this field has increased exponentially in the past decade.
Several LMICs have started developing nanotechnology for their most pressing developmental challenges utilizing existing resources and capabilities, many with a view to reducing domestic inequalities and dependence on passive technology transfer from industrialized countries. Nations with a particularly active nanotechnology sector include China , India , Brazil , South Africa , Mexico , Thailand , Philippines , Sri Lanka , Vietnam, Egypt , Iran , Nigeria, Chile, Argentina , Cuba , Colombia, and Costa Rica. Developing nations have established international partnerships both with industrialized countries and among themselves. The former, while productive, tend to reproduce a pattern of technology transfer between unequal partners. Collaboration among LMICs, in contrast, can be more equitable, based on common strengths, challenges and ways to address them. For instance, Mexico and India have participated in joint projects on nanoherbicides, while Brazil, India, and South Africa have collaborated on nanomedicine, on nanoapplications for energy, water, and agriculture, and on common educational and research programs. (Court et al. 2004, 2007; MacLurcan 2012; Meridian Institute 2005; Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 2007).
Nanotechnology activity in the developing world is difficult to assess because of unsettled definitions, standards, performance indicators such as number and impact of publications, number and impact of patents, number of researchers actually involved in the field, and levels of government and private sector funding. Additional obstacles include issues of categorization, language barriers, political biases, and a tendency to report what is planned instead of what has been achieved. Nevertheless, several studies (Court et al. 2004, 2007; MacLurcan 2012; Meridian Institute 2005) have examined nanotechnology engagement in LMICs, finding that most nanotechnology developments take place in the industrialized world, and that most LMICs have little or no nanotechnology activity, with considerable variability in levels of RDI funding and support. Barriers to nanotechnology development in LMICs include defective infrastructure; lack of capacity for multidisciplinary cross-sectorial collaboration; need for stable and sustained long-term science and technology activity; lack of translational lab-to-village capacity; excessive centralization of RDI; widespread corruption; inadequate government policy, including environmental and worker safety regulations; poor law enforcement; disproportionate dependence on a small number of commodities for employment, government revenue, and export earnings; deficient scientific, technical, and professional training; difficulties to establish and retain a critical mass of nanotechnology researchers; and incipient collaboration among academia, government, and industry (Court et al. 2004, 2007; Hassan 2005; MacLurcan 2012; Barker et al. 2011). It is encouraging that LMICs that are active in this field have focused on practical issues and not on hypothetical and speculative applications.
10.3 Nanotechnology Risks and Challenges
Nanotechnology is a young and rapidly developing discipline. The most pressing and realistic NE3LS concerns related to this field are its potential to both increase and decrease inequities, and the possible hazardous effects of nanomaterials on human health the environment (Malsch 2005; Roco and Bainbridge 2001; Roco 2003; Sheremeta and Daar 2004; Schummer 2007). Permeating these concerns are issues of fear and trust that need to be addressed.
10.3.1 Equity and Justice
Poverty and other social problems cannot be solved by technology alone. Addressing sustainable development challenges cannot be simply a matter of identifying technical problems and developing technological solutions to overcome them (Kenny and Sandefeur 2013). Human societies cannot be understood exclusively in flawed reductionist and mechanical terms. There is no single universal developmental path for all societies. It has been argued that science and technology are not neutral and are deeply embedded and influenced by the social context from which they arise and whose systemic inequities they can perpetuate. According to this view, novel technologies are not necessarily desirable, needed, or even inevitable, and they are not always better than previous technologies (Hillie and Hlophe 2007; Invernizzi et al. 2008; MacLurcan 2012). Conceptions of nanotechnologies as solutions to developmental issues are numerous and varied, as are entry costs, approaches to the nature and magnitude of barriers to their use, the problems that can be addressed using nanotechnology, and the infrastructure needed. Hypothetically, the very features that make nanotechnology suitable for vulnerable populations worldwide might backfire and harm them. The unwise use of or limited access to nanotechnology could precipitate a “nano-divide” between countries and individuals, exacerbating the already marked resource and power disparities between the rich and the poor further increasing the vulnerability of much of the human population to poverty, disease, inequities, exploitation, discrimination and, to a lesser extent, stigmatization (Arnall 2003; Invernizzi and Foladori 2007; MacLurcan 2012; Meridian Institute 2005). The 2014 report published by the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee provides a closer look at the potential risks of discrimination and stigmatization as a result of recent advances in nanotechnology (UNESCO 2014).
Unreal and unfulfilled expectations, unanticipated consequences, and exclusion from access to nanotechnology and its benefits could lead to resentment and social disruption. Nanotechnology could dramatically increase unequal wealth distribution, consolidating economic and social power in the private sector, particularly in multinational corporations, to the detriment of the public sector. Powerful interests could monopolize and control all aspects of nanotechnology RDI, including the design, production, and commercialization of applications and products. Apparent nano-fuelled economic growth could conceal oppression of the poor and of developing countries by the industrialized world. Market forces may drive nanoapplications and nanoproducts at the expense of developmental needs, biasing nanotechnology RDI towards the wants of the wealthy and not towards the needs of the poor (Invernizzi and Foladori 2005, 2007).
Risks could be externalized onto vulnerable populations in the absence of adequate regulations, especially if markets and commercial prospects, instead of local needs, drive nanotechnology RDI (Invernizzi et al. 2008; MacLurcan 2012). Such circumstances may stifle nano-innovation and harm fragile economies. Replacement of natural products such as export crops, minerals, and textiles, by nanotechnology-based products and materials may damage the livelihoods of the poor, decreasing demand for agricultural, mineral, and other non-fuel goods (http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/ETC_DOTFarm2004.pdf). Ninety-five developing countries derive around half of their export earnings from such commodities, but nanotechnology could make these products redundant (Barker et al. 2011).
Nanotechnology applications for agriculture and food production could decrease costs and increase crop yields using less physical, human, and financial resources, but they could also result in widespread social instability as rural workers worldwide are deprived of their livelihood (http://www.etcgroup.org/content/potential-impacts-nano-scale-technologies-commodity-markets-implications-commodity-dependent). Productivity gains may only benefit economically powerful industrial agriculture. Industrial production of nanotechnologies and nanomaterials could exhaust critical material resources, weakening labour and generating waste (Schummer 2007; Scrinis and Lyons 2007). According to the United Nation s Conference on Trade and Development, two billion individuals are employed in commodity production. Advanced nanomaterials could substitute for rubber, carbon nanotubes could replace copper wires, and platinum could be substituted by nano-alloys, devastating the economies of countries such as Chile or Zambia that depend on their metal mining sectors. Nanoengineered polymers could replace cotton and other natural fibers, affecting LMICs that rely heavily on textile exports such as Mali (Barker et al. 2011). Novel developments in nanotechnology could lead to an increase in the exploitation of unskilled individuals for cheap labour, to pronounced job loss, and to increased migration from nano-poor to nano-rich regions.
The lack of advanced education and training in nanotechnology-related fields may lead to deepening of economic and social inequities due to the decreased capacity for competition and innovation. In particular, LMICs risk a “brain drain” of nanotechnology experts educated and trained at great expense in the developing world only to end living and working in the industrialized world. Furthermore, researchers in this field whose native language is not English typically face considerable challenges to contribute to scientific knowledge and to be taken into account in decision-making processes. Finally, nanotechnology could exacerbate the gender disparities already evident in the shortage of women in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences.
10.3.2 Environmental Nanotoxicity
Concern about the environmental toxicity of nanomaterials has grown in the last decade (Arnall 2003; Hett 2004). A new discipline, nanotoxicology, aims to determine whether and to what extent the novel properties of nanomaterials, especially those used industrially and commercially, affect both the environment and the human body (Oberdörster et al. 2005; Maynard et al. 2011). Terms such as “nanopollutants” and “nanowaste” are becoming increasingly used. Risks related to the environmental and health toxicity of nanomaterials are realistic and relatively straightforward to address.
Matter at the nanoscale tends to exhibit unique properties due to features such as quantum size effects, large surface area to volume ratio, shape, surface charge, and aggregation and solubility characteristics. These attributes may lead to unusual toxic effects that are considerably different from those seen at larger scales (Maynard et al. 2011). For example, it is well known that gold, inert at the macroscale, is highly reactive at the nanoscale. These characteristics of nanomaterials also complicate their removal from air, water, and soil.
Many nanomaterials, especially if non-degradable or slowly degradable, may pose a threat to the environment and to living organisms; however, the specific toxic effects and processes are poorly understood (Schummer 2007). Some nanomaterials can bioaccumulate in edible organisms and can thus become incorporated into food chains. Several studies have shown that nanomaterials such as fullerenes can cause cell and tissue damage in different species, including humans (Maynard et al. 2011; Hubbs et al. 2013). Experimental studies in animals have shown that inhaled nanoparticles can reach the brain through the olfactory nerves, that water-soluble fullerenes can generate oxidative damage in central nervous system lipids, and that nanotubes can induce inflammatory lesions in lungs.
There is a lack of proper evaluations of the complete life cycles of nanoengineered materials, including their fabrication, storage and distribution; their application and potential abuse; and their disposal, destruction and recycling. A particular concern for LMICs is the possibility that the developing world could be the dumping ground of unwanted, low-quality, or potentially toxic nanoproducts from industrialized nations.
10.3.3 Health Issues
Advances in nanotechnology may widen the gap between the cutting-edge diagnostic capabilities and the availability of therapeutic measures (Gordijn 2007). Nanodevices may replace health workers (Schummer 2007). Moreover, research on the behaviour of nanomaterials inside the human body is still in its infancy. The characteristics that make nanomaterials useful in health-related applications can potentially lead to dangerous and toxic physiological effects (Gordijn 2007; Maynard et al. 2011; Chou and Chan 2012). Most known nanomaterials are easily absorbed by inhalation, ingestion, and contact with skin and mucous membranes; they also distribute widely throughout the organism (Arnall 2003). Some nanomaterials cause inflammation, weaken the immune system, bioaccumulate in vital organs, interfere with homeostasis, and are toxic to human tissue and cell cultures. Fullerenes, metal oxide nanoparticles, and other nanomaterials with high chemical and biological reactivity can increase production of reactive oxygen species, in particular of free radicals, which generate oxidative stress, inflammation, considerable damage to cellular structures like mitochondria and cell nuclei, DNA mutation s, and cell death (Chou and Chan 2012; Hubbs et al. 2013). Few precise, standardized, and sensitive quantitative and qualitative risk assessment methods exist. Reliable information on the exposure hazard of populations at risk to potentially toxic nanomaterials is scant, particularly that related to the workplace (Kuempel et al. 2012; Schulte and Salamanca-Buentello 2006). Workers exposed to nanomaterials may lack specially designed engineering controls and personal protective equipment.
10.3.4 Policy, Legal, and Intellectual Property Issues
Existing legislation, particularly in the developing world, may prove inadequate and too restrictive to address the rapidly evolving nature of nanotechnology, but an overreaction to regulatory deficiencies may lead to a heavy-handed response that may inhibit potentially beneficial RDI in the field (Hodge et al. 2010). For example, while lax regulations related to the potential toxicity of nanomaterials could encourage dumping nanowaste in the developing world, inordinately restrictive laws spark international conflict over production and transportation of nanomaterials.
Intense investment worldwide in nanotechnology has generated a massive surge in related patents filed by academia and the private sector, but aggressive patenting of nano-derived products, particularly at such an incipient stage of development of the sector, may stifle innovation and drive up costs, reducing the potential for creating and commercializing applications that could benefit low income populations in both the industrialized and the developing worlds, thus increasing inequities. A cutthroat, fiercely competitive international intellectual property system could further concentrate the ownership of nanotechnology applications and products in high-income countries (http://www.etcgroup.org/content/special-report-nanotechs-second-nature-patents-implications-global-south). Most patents and patent applications related to nanotechnology originate in high-income countries and are concentrated in a few universities and multinational corporations. About 90 % of the total patent share in health-related nanoproducts and nanoapplications is held by less than 10 countries. The vast majority of these patents is held by the private sector and by companies, not individuals (MacLurcan 2012). Nano-innovation could be severely inhibited by broad patents that cover the fundamental concepts and building blocks of nanotechnology (fullerenes, nanotubes, nanoparticles, quantum dots), along with any related processes and applications, exclusive to a single person or entity (Pearce 2012; Schummer 2007). Overreaching patents controlled by a few entities could lead to “patent thickets”, dense morasses of overlapping sets of patents rights affecting wide areas of nanotechnology, thereby increasing costs, restricting technical development, and limiting access to fundamental knowledge (Sabety 2004).
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
