Huge Preparations for Nano-Sized Cures

Nanotechnology could change the way we tackle diseases of aging--but not before scientists, policymakers, and the public hash out how to use these new tools responsibly.

When people first learn about the goal of nanotechnology--to precisely manipulate matter at the level of atoms and molecules--most get excited about its potential to revolutionize medicine. We become beguiled by visions of cell-sized sensors monitoring plaques in arteries, tiny "smart" implants pumping insulin when needed, and minuscule machines repairing damaged brain cells. If doctors could intervene at the nanoscale, they might be able to fix the body's aging systems from the bottom up, without leaving a trace that a patient once suffered from Parkinson's disease, osteoporosis, or macular degeneration.

Such tantalizing ideas compelled the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to unveil in May a new Nanomedicine Roadmap Initiative. NIH will begin the 10-year journey by investing $6 million in both 2005 and 2006 to create a half-dozen Nanomedicine Development Centers, where interdisciplinary teams will aim to create new biomedical materials, devices, and treatments. The goal: "[To] apply the tools emerging from nanotechnology to understand biological systems in a fundamentally new way--from an engineering design point of view at the nanoscale," says Jeffery Schloss, program director for technology development at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

With nanoprobes for taking direct physical measurements inside cells, scientists will gain a better picture of how and why cells age. "Nanotechnology is generating bold goals for extending longevity," says Robert Best, a medical geneticist who works with the University of South Carolina's (USC's) NanoCenter. Best will join Mike Treder, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Responsible Nanotechnology in New York City, to discuss the possibilities--and the potential risks--in the next SAGE Crossroads webcast, "Nanotechnology: Promise of the Future or Pandora’s Box?" "Nanotechnology: Promise of the Future or Pandora’s Box?"

However, therapies that slow aging might be several decades away. As a first step, many research groups and companies are aiming to develop nanomaterials that work as drug-delivery devices that can target and penetrate dysfunctional cells. For instance, in an April issue of Nature, researchers reported creating a "nanocomputer" that can diagnose cancer-related abnormalities and then release a piece of DNA designed to interfere with a key cancer gene. Such devices might someday function as molecular doctors, healing tissues cell by cell.

Whether we reach a golden era of nanomedicine might depend on how nanotechnology pans out in other areas. Researchers anticipate using nanotechnology to change how we do just about everything--produce energy, manufacture chemicals, gather information, and use clothing and cosmetics. By 2015, more than half of all newly designed products will be made using nanoscience, predicts Mihail Roco, architect of the multiagency National Nanotechnology Initiative and senior adviser at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Companies are already exploiting nanoscience to make stain-resistant fabrics, translucent sunscreens, and more powerful computer chips.

Nanotechnology's benefits, however, will arrive hand-in-hand with risks--some unpredictable. Little is known about the toxicity of nanoparticles, such as buckyballs and carbon nanotubes, which are about 1000 times smaller in diameter than a red blood cell. For instance, scientists have found that unlike larger particles, inhaled nanoparticles can slip into the brains of rats through the olfactory nerve. More disturbingly, rogue nations or terrorist groups could use nanotechnology to produce new kinds of surveillance and weaponry.

Even if used for good ends, social chaos might erupt if workers' skills suddenly become obsolete or if nanotechnology’s benefits are not distributed fairly, says Treder. The federal government is not being frank with the public about these negative possibilities, says Treder, and if people are rudely awakened to the risks, "we could get bogged down in lawsuits and protests, and that could hinder the goal of antiaging therapies."

Michael Cobb, a political scientist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, agrees. "The battle is really about whether nanotechnology will be regulated properly and then whether that will be communicated to people so that they trust the process," he says.

The government is making preparations. According to Roco, the National Nanotechnology Initiative now devotes 11% of its nearly $1 billion annual budget to studies of how nanotech will affect our health, the environment, and society. The Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency are assessing how to evaluate the safety of products made with nanotechnology.

Similar efforts should soon spread globally. In June, NSF invited policymakers from 25 countries and the European Union to its first International Dialogue on Responsible Research and Development of Nanotechnology. The participants are now organizing an informal consultative board that will exchange information, develop codes of responsible conduct, and alert one another to new risks and regulatory issues. "This proposed board will give us the means to do what cannot be done by single countries and to do the right thing," says Roco.

Until more regulations are in place, one Canadian nonprofit called the ETC Group is lobbying for a ban on nanotechnology research and for a United Nations framework to guide the development of all new technologies. "Having been through the GM [genetically modified] foods battle, there's a weariness--we would rather not deal with nanotechnology in that way," says Pat Mooney, ETC's director. In the case of GM foods, concerns about the health and environmental risks were not addressed until after huge acreages of crops were planted, leaving the public angry and doubtful about biotechnology.

Bringing the public into the nanotech discussion will be challenging. Cobb and his colleague Jane Macoubrie conducted a random telephone survey of 1536 American adults and found that 80% knew little or nothing about nanotechnology. After a brief explanation, 70% of those polled were "somewhat" or "very" hopeful about nanotechnology and ranked medical advances as its most important benefit. However, 60% said they had "not much trust" that "business leaders within the nanotechnology industry" would minimize risks to humans. Cobb sees the potential for a spreading nanotech backlash similar to that against GM foods. "Trust needs to be communicated and restored," he says.

Toward that end, next year NSF will establish a Center for Nanotechnology in Society to continue surveying public attitudes, promote education and outreach, and respond to concerns. "I hope that this center will open up a broader discussion and empower the public to assert their views on how nanotech should be developed," says Davis Baird, a philosopher at USC, a candidate competing for the new center.

That would be a rare accomplishment in the history of technology development. But if citizens come to accept tiny tools in the hands of government and industry giants, we might soon be on the road to a nanomedicine revolution.

Karen F. Schmidt is a freelance writer in California who enjoys hanging out with her 6-year-old son playing NanoKids, a card game that teaches youngsters what used to be called chemistry.