NSF centers to study societal impact of nanotechnology

To better understand and anticipate what one researcher calls the “risk, hope, hype, and fear” of nanotechnology, NSF is funding two new centers and two related projects to create a four-university network that will study the “societal implications” of the rapidly expanding field of science. The five-year grants, which total $14.3 million, will fund the sixth major NSF nanotechnology research network and add yet another piece to the $1 billion-per-year US National Nanotechnology Initiative.

The University of California, Santa Barbara, will receive $5 million, and Arizona State University in Tempe will get $6.2 million to establish the centers, which will research the implications of nanotechnology on everything from the equitable distribution of benefits to the convergence of biology and nanomachines. “Nanotechnology promises insights and innovations that could revolutionize whole sectors like manufacturing, energy, and health care,” said David Guston, a political scientist and the principal investigator at the ASU center. But nanotechnology also raises profound questions about “identity, security, economic equity, bioconvergence of human and nanomaterials, and environmental and health risks,” he said.

In addition to funding the centers, NSF is allocating $1.4 million to a research group at the University of South Carolina to study the role of images in communicating about nanotechnology. The group will also look at how evolving nanotechnology research is changing the scientific and engineering practices of the researchers themselves. Harvard University will receive $1.7 million for expansion of an earlier project to create a database about nanoscience researchers, their research and patents, and organizations.

Connecting fragments

Mihail Roco, NSF’s senior adviser for nanotechnology, said NSF has created 24 large centers and research networks in the field since 2000, and the foundation was looking for a way to “connect the fragments and address [societal concerns] in a systematic way.” About three years ago, he said, “we realized we had the critical mass to create a new national network to look at the societal implications.” Other NSF-sponsored nanotech networks are focused on research infrastructure, computer simulation, manufacturing, informal education through museums, and formal K–16 education and teaching.

In broad terms, he said, the UCSB and ASU centers will be looking at “short-term societal drivers in nanotechnology”—for example, the safety and toxicity issues involved in the creation of new materials. A near-term ethical issue is the equitable distribution of benefits from the products of nanotechnology, particularly the biomedical advances envisioned by many in the field.

“The longer-term implications are changes in the economy, and human development,” Roco said. “We have to address all of these issues in a systematic way.”

Guston said the large goal for the ASU center is to create a “governance frame” for the vast field of nanotechnology. A new model is needed for understanding the interactions of technology and society to improve policy choices, he said.

The complex nature of the ethical questions involved in nanotechnology is apparent in several examples Guston cited. “It is a plausible technological scenario where you will be able to walk into a room with spray paint and have, in the paint, nanosensors that can observe and transmit everything that occurs in the room,” he said. “The idea that nanosensors can be imbedded in any substrate is both good and ill.”

The bioconvergence issue raises questions about an individual’s identity as a human, he said. Neural researchers at ASU are talking about implantable interfaces that will allow communication directly to the brain, he said. “They will also allow observation of what the brain is doing.”

And soon, Guston continued, “we’ll be able to have the entire contents of the Library of Congress in a nanodevice the size of a sugar cube that can be implanted in the brain. Whether that is good or bad gets to the issue of what is involved in this next generation of biological convergence of the human and non-human. It raises issues of great historical and philosophical importance.”

At UCSB, W. Patrick McCray, a historian and codirector at the new center, said three working groups will look at nanotechnology in terms of its historical context, the public’s perception of risk, and ongoing technological development. McCray said his interest in contemporary history will focus on the “risk, hope, hype, and fear” that is influencing society’s view of the new technology.

“What is the policy that is developing for nanotechnology and how does that compare to the policy that brought about the space program?” he asked. “There is more money being spent thus far on nanotechnology than with the human genome at a comparable stage,” he added. “When you’re spending a billion dollars a year on it, maybe you ought to look at it.”