University of Michigan Photos
Philbert.
(NHI Nanoblog) What makes Martin Philbert worry about nanotechnology? In some ways, it’s the term itself.
“My biggest fear and cause for optimism is that there’s no such thing as ‘nanotechnology,’‘’ he said during a freewheeling discussion Tuesday hosted by the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center.
A better word, Philbert said, is “nanotechnologies.” That takes into account the huge spectrum of materials that are defined by their size as much as their substance.
“My fear is that by lumping all of these technologies together and considering them as an entity, when something bad happens … all of these nanotechnologies will be smeared with the same brush,” said Philbert, the dean of Michigan’s School of Public Health.
That smearing could cost society a long list of benefits, he said.
Philbert was one of three Michigan experts talking about nanomaterials Tuesday, opining about the risks and benefits of these new substances. (You can watch the full webcast here).
Nanomaterials are super-small particles (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter) used to create super-products. These materials can make bike frames lighter and stronger, or sunscreen more transparent on the skin. Shrinking these substances changes their properties; scientists and regulators are struggling to figure out whether that shift makes them dangerous in the process.
Banaszak-Holl.
Another panelist, Mark Banaszak-Holl, a chemistry professor at Michigan, pointed out that nano-sized stuff has been around for centuries, from soap to the famous rose windows at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Like Philbert, he thinks the challenges facing researchers, regulators and consumers in terms of sorting out the risks and benefits of new materials extend far beyond nanoparticles.
“Our instincts fail us here,” he said, because the nanoscale completely skews our perspective.
Banaszak-Holl compared nano-sized materials with suddenly being able to take strides that are miles long instead of a couple of feet. That would make the trip between Ann Arbor, Mich., and Detroit much faster, he said, but it would also fundamentally alter how we think about walking.
As with other emerging technologies, such as bioengineered food and plants, the old paradigms don’t work, added Shobita Parthasarathy, the third panelist and a professor at Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. She’s been studying how science and policy interact, and thinks decisions about how to reconcile risk and benefit are ultimately the public’s job.
Parthasarasy.
“Invariably when it comes to public policy, we’re actually dealing with value based problems,” she said. “Then, the question of who is an expert in terms of value-based issues is quite different.”
That gets complicated, all three speakers said, because it makes public education and engagement necessary. Regulators aren’t prepared for dealing with these issues, they said, but in many ways, neither is the public.
Philbert talked about his niece, a prolific text-messager, as an example.
“I’m certain that she’s not thinking, ‘there’s nanotechnology in my cellphone,’ but she chooses very carefully the shampoos that she uses because that has been elevated” as a concern by media coverage, he said. “We are doing things that are far more destructive to our health and to the planet because nobody’s ever mentioned it.”