Little Worries

When you consider mankind’s ever-lengthening roster of public menaces — terrorism, SARS, North Korean nukes — the perils posed by a voracious race of self-replicating robotic organisms might seem pretty low on the list. But the Prince of Wales has let it be known that he is so perturbed by the potential dangers of nanotechnology — the young science that could one day make such creatures possible — and worries that it could reduce the planet to a lifeless “gray goo,” that in the next couple of months he will convene a nanotech summit at his country residence, Highgrove House in Gloucestershire. But while Prince Charles ponders doomsday scenarios, millions of people already use the products of nanotech research every day without even knowing it.

Consumers of Sunsorb brand sunscreen have nanotech to thank for that product’s invisible protection against ultraviolet rays. And it’s nanotech that makes Pilkington’s Activ windows shed dirt in the rain. If these mundane marvels are not impressive enough, researchers will soon bring us toothpaste that coats, protects and repairs damaged enamel, as well as self-cleaning shoes that never need polishing. Nanotech may also lead to dramatic advances in energy production, defense technology and health care. No one is suggesting that currently available products are dangerous, but Prince Charles and other critics of the research fear that further down the line nanotechnology could have unexpected — and potentially disastrous — consequences.

The “gray goo” scenario was first suggested by nanotech researchers some 20 years ago, back when nanoscience was mostly theory. It refers to the possibility of building microscopic machines that could, for example, roam the planet devouring toxic waste, or surf our bloodstreams targeting diseases. The easiest way to manufacture such machines in the enormous quantities required would be to enable them to reproduce themselves, just like viruses and other microscopic organisms do. It’s these “self-replicating nanobots” that have stirred Prince Charles’ concern.

But most nanoscientists believe that such devices, if they’re viable at all, are decades away. “The idea that they are going to take over biological systems is absolutely silly,” says Jim A. Thomas, a Royal Society University fellow who is researching molecular self-assembly, suggesting that even if self-replication were possible it’s likely to be on a scale that’s pretty harmless. A more realistic fear, at least for many who actually work in the field, is that unfounded panic could hold back important research.

That’s not good enough for Hope Shand, research director of ETC Group, a Canada-based social-advocacy organization that wants a global moratorium on nanotech research until health, safety and environmental tests are carried out. It was ETC Group’s research into the dangers of nanotech that stirred Prince Charles to intervene. “If there have been industry studies indicating that these materials are safe, then we’d like to see them,” she says.

Zac Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist magazine, says that the nanoscience community doesn’t want to talk about potential risks. “No one in the industry doubts that nanotech is the most powerful tool we’ve ever had,” he says. “But it’s mad that we’re charging ahead without any debate. People are nervous because scientists have made a lot of mistakes — DDT, CFCS, thalidomide. A mistake with nanotechnology could be very much more serious than anything we’ve seen before.”

Shand and Goldsmith have a point. As Time reported two weeks ago, ETC Group’s paper included a review of available health research on nanoparticles. After studying the findings, Vyvyan Howard, pathology professor at Liverpool University, England, concluded that ultrafine particles — which can readily pass through skin and other tissues — could prove toxic should they reach vulnerable parts of the body.

In part, fears of nanotech are fueled by the realization that the science is reaching a tipping point — from theoretical possibility to economic reality. Thirty countries now have state-sponsored nanotech programs, all tilting for a slice of a market estimated to be worth $1 trillion by 2015. The governments of both the U.S. and Japan are each investing more than $700 million in the field this year; the E.U. is playing catch-up with a four-year, €1 billion pitch — hampered, says Ottilia Saxl of Britain’s Institute of Nanotechnology, by the fact that European research relies predominantly on vulnerable small businesses.

“Nano” is fast becoming a must-have prefix in advertisements for everything from cosmetics to trousers to tennis racquets. But as the technology enters the mass market, fear and suspicion of the science could grow — unless scientists and politicians debate the present implications of the technology rather than its far distant future. Without such honest, open discussion, public understanding of the issue will never get beyond the gray goo.