Ethics in Nanotechnology

Social Sciences and Philosophical Aspects

Marcel Van de Voorde, Gunjan Jeswani, Marcel Van de Voorde, Gunjan Jeswani

• Publisher: De Gruyter
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9783110719994
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Nanoscience

With nanotechnology being a relatively new field, the questions regarding safety and ethics are steadily increasing with the development of the research. This book aims to give an overview on the ethics associated with employing nanoscience for products with everyday applications. The risks as well as the regulations are discussed, and an outlook for the future of nanoscience on a manufacturer's scale and for the society is provided.

Ethics in nanotechnology is a valuable resource for, philosophers, academicians and scientist, as well as all other industry professionals and researchers who interact with emerging social and philosophical ethical issues on routine bases. It is especially for deep learners who are enthusiastic to apprehend the challenges related to nanotechnology and ethics in philosophical and social education.

This book presents an overview of new and emerging nanotechnologies and their societal and ethical implications. It is meant for students, academics, scientists, engineers, policy makers, ethicist, philosophers and all stakeholders involved in the development and use of nanotechnology.

Part I: International reflection

1 Toward a revitalized vision of ethics and safety for the revolutionary nanotechnologies

Bengt Fadeel

Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Phil Sayre

NanoRisk Analytics, LLC, Auburn, CA, USA

Acknowledgments: Bengt Fadeel (BF) wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research through the MISTRA Environmental Nanosafety program, and the European Commission through the Horizon2020 consortium, BIORIMA (biomaterial risk management) (grant agreement no. 760928). BF is chair of the expert panel of the national nanosafety platform, SweNanoSafe, commissioned by the Swedish Ministry of the Environment. Phil Sayre (PS) serves on the advisory board of the BIORIMA project and works for the Gov4Nano consortium. PS also works for Wiley Law, LLP (Washington, DC).

Abstract

The nanotechnologies offer the potential for breakthrough applications in numerous sectors of society. However, there is a potential for both good and bad, and there is a need to consider the cost–benefit of new and sophisticated materials and technologies. There is also the all-important question of safety. Indeed, if nanotechnology is an enabling technology in terms of boosting innovation and industrial competitiveness and growth, then safety assessment of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products with respect to human health and the environment is the path to successful and sustainable implementation of this technology. Here the authors take a pragmatic view of ethics and safety of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products and discuss the reliability of safety assessment methods and results, the importance of a risk governance framework for nanotechnology, and the key role of promoting a dialogue between all the relevant societal stakeholders. Nanosafety research has reached adolescence, and as we look back at the first 15 years, there are important lessons to be learned with respect to nanomaterials as well as other advanced materials.

Keywords: ethics, nanotechnology, risk governance, safety assessment, sustainability,

1.1 New wine into old wineskins: Nano and ethics

The biblical parable of new wine and old wine bottles (Luke 5:36–39) is well known. The question is: does nanotechnology pose a new problem, or would it be safe to assume that the existing risk management framework is sufficient? On the other hand, perhaps nanotechnology is an entirely new entity and the existing guidelines and regulations cannot contain it, leading the new wine to burst the old wineskins? It has been argued that science has entered a new era in which the quest for truth (“pure” science) has been gradually replaced by science as a source of economic power and, by extension, political power, leading some authors to the conclusion that contemporary science can be viewed as being “post academic” [1]. Furthermore, nanotechnology was suggested as a prime example of this transition from basic science to a more applied or “post academic” science. The question, then, is whether this requires a reframing of ethical or other societal concerns? Indeed, does nanotechnology pose new or unique ethical problems or are the concerns familiar and shared with other emerging technologies? [2]. This topic has been extensively covered in other chapters in the present volume. Here we discuss safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials along with the reliability of the methods used. We posit that a clear understanding of safety is a prerequisite not only for adequate risk assessment of nanomaterials – it is also required to realize the full potential of the revolutionary nanotechnologies.

It is worth noting that while we are still debating whether nanomaterials raise new safety (or ethical) concerns, several mRNA vaccine candidates delivered via lipid nanoparticles have recently been developed to manage the current pandemic [3]. More complex nanomaterial-enabled products will likely continue to be developed, as science races ahead of the development of methods to assess safety.

Safety to humans and to the environment is a tangible part of commercializing nanomaterials [4]; other tangible factors to consider are the potential benefits of a material in the sense of whether or not it cures or prevents a disease. However, beyond such tangible and easily measured aspects of judging the safety and ethics of the nanotechnologies, factors such as the ability of a material to provide high-quality jobs, the public’s acceptance of a new material (cf. genetically modified organisms), and the ability of the material to contribute to clean energy or environmental remediation should also be considered. Such factors, in total, contribute to the overall ability of society to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all, while also protecting our planet, in line with the United Nations (UN) sustainable development goals (SDGs), “a blueprint for a better future for all.” [5].

The intent of this chapter is thus to focus on how to address the environmental health and safety assessment of nanomaterials both from a fundamental science and a regulatory perspective: this is still a key priority that will ultimately contribute to the sustainable deployment of nanotechnologies. We discuss risk governance and elaborate a set of suggestions for the implementation of safety assessment in a harmonized manner in order to enable developed and less developed countries to assess nanomaterials and other new materials using common standards.

1.2 Advanced tools for nanosafety assessment

How safe are nanomaterials? The answer to this simple question is not simple [6]. Even the question of how one should define a “nanomaterial” is surprisingly difficult, not least from a regulatory perspective [7]. We know that both the chemical and physical properties of a material change as we approach the nanoscale. Indeed, it has been suggested that nanomaterials exist in a realm where the properties are governed by “a complex combination of classical physics and quantum mechanics” [8]. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the biological effects may also change [9].

Auffan et al. [10] argued in an essay published more than a decade ago that evidence for novel size-dependent properties rather than particle size per se should be the main criterion in any definition of nanoparticles (from a safety perspective). This makes a great deal of sense; after all, materials are produced at the nanoscale because we are interested in novel (size-dependent) properties. The question is whether we are in a position to draw conclusions regarding size-dependent toxicities? The answer is: yes and no. But the truth is that there is little evidence of any general structure–activity relationship (SAR) with respect to “nanotoxicity” even though progress is being made with the use of high-throughput screening approaches [11]. The problem may be due, in part, to the fact that nanomaterials are often bundled into one single material category when this is clearly not the case; for some materials, it is the tendency to undergo dissolution with the release of toxic metal ions that drives the toxicity, while for other materials it is the fiber-like dimensions and the high degree of biopersistence that drives the biological responses, and so on. The situation is compounded by the fact that nanomaterials (indeed, all biomaterials) rapidly adsorb proteins and other biomolecules in a living system, and this means that the biological responses are dependent both on the synthetic “identity” defined by the material intrinsic properties and by the context-dependent biological “identity” of the material [12]. This biological “identity” (also referred to as the bio-corona) may differ between in vitro and in vivo conditions, but it is not something that can be ignored.

Appropriate and scientifically rigorous risk assessments of nanomaterials are key to the sustainable use of nanotechnology products. However, nanomaterials are challenging due to the many different variations not only in terms of the core composition of the materials but also in terms of size, shape, surface properties, degree of dissolution, and so on. At the same time, reducing animal tests by introducing alternative and/or predictive in vitro and in silico methods has become a priority [13]. Considerable progress has been made in recent years with respect to mechanism-based hazard assessment, including the use of high-throughput screening platforms to speed up safety assessment, and the application of omics-based systems biology or systems toxicology approaches to probe the underlying mechanisms [14]. The question is not whether scientists are willing to embrace these new technologies, but if regulatory bodies consider these alternative methods (i.e., alternatives to animal testing) to be reliable and predictive of what happens in a living organism including in humans. As pointed out previously [15], even though great strides have been made, nanotoxicology still faces a number of challenges not associated with traditional toxicology (of chemicals). One of the more pressing needs has to do with improving in vitro to in vivo predictivity [15]. Ten years ago, it was argued that accurate evaluation of the pulmonary hazard of nanomaterials using in vitro or in silico (modeling) approaches is a “myth” [9]. However, provided that in vitro assays are validated (admittedly, a long and arduous process) they may serve as valuable predictive screening tools to assess hazard potency of nanomaterials, resulting in simpler, faster, and less expensive assessments than the corresponding animal tests [16]. It is instructive to note...