Most nanotechnology poses no new risk to human health or the environment, concludes a study commissioned by the UK government.
But the independent report, issued by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering on Thursday, recommends that 鈥渇ree鈥� nanoparticles, or those that could come into direct contact with humans through the air or the skin, be subject to fresh regulatory controls.
鈥淎lmost all nanotechnology poses no risk,鈥� says Ann Dowling, chair of the working group behind the study. 鈥淏ut we are concerned with this one area.鈥�
Advertisement
The report was commissioned by the UK government in 2003. The issue has gained particular prominence as a result of concerns raised by Prince Charles. Most recently, he said it might lead to similar health problems as the drug thalidomide. He and others have raised the prospect of uncontrollable self replicating nanomachines running amok.
The authors of the new document criticised such alarmist warnings at the report鈥檚 launch. 鈥淧eople have over-hyped both the benefits and the risks,鈥� says John Ryan of Oxford University, another member of working group.
Science fiction
He adds that complicated self-replicating machines remain a distant prospect. 鈥淚t sounds like science fiction and I鈥檓 pleased to say it is science fiction,鈥� Ryan adds.
Many scientists welcomed the report鈥檚 findings. 鈥淟et鈥檚 not forget that much of nanometre scale science is simply advanced chemistry,鈥� says Philip Moriarty, at the School of Physics and Astronomy, Nottingham University. 鈥淭he field represents a natural evolution and merging of the traditional physics, chemistry, and biology disciplines.鈥�
鈥淲e must take potential health issues seriously,鈥� adds Julia King, chief executive of the UK鈥檚 Institute of Physics. 鈥淏ut at the same time be careful not to invent crazy scenarios or dangers where none exist.鈥�
The report points out that nanotechnology can already be found many products today. Some sun screens, for example, use nanoparticles to block harmful ultraviolet rays. Nanotechnology is also crucial to the manufacture of computer products, such as microprocessors, CDs and DVDs. It says there is no evidence that these existing technologies pose a risk to health or the environment.
Negative effects
But the authors say further attention should be given to nanoparticles to which humans are directly exposed, through the air or the skin. 鈥淪ize really does matter,鈥� Dowling adds. 鈥淣anoparticles can behave quite differently from larger particles of the same material and this can be exploited in a number of exciting ways. But it is vital that we determine both the positive and negative effects they might have.鈥�
The authors give the example of titanium dioxide, a chemical found in many pigments and paints. The chemical is non-toxic in larger form, but has been found to have a more harmful effect on cells on the nanoscale. 鈥淲e just can鈥檛 infer toxicity from the same chemical in larger form,鈥� Dowling says.
So, the report recommends that nanoparticles be treated as new chemical substances under UK and European legislation. This would require them to undergo separate safety testing from the chemicals in larger form and to be labelled clearly on products.
It adds that 拢6 million (14m Euros) per year should be dedicated in the UK to researching the potential health risks. This money ought to come from the UK government, European bodies and industry, the study says.
A new website www.nanotec.org.uk was also set up to provide public information on the report and nanotechnology and nanoscience in general.