Students and community members voiced cautious approval of the surge in nanotechnology research in an informal vote during a public forum at the University on Monday evening.
In the first half of the event, three chemistry professors gave brief lectures on nanotechnology and the issues it brings forward. Afterwards the forum shifted toward audience input, offering the scientists a chance to hear concerns about this lucrative, yet potentially dangerous, branch of science.
“In the coming years, nanotechnology will likely impact every aspect of our lives,” said University chemistry professor Jim Hutchison. Nanotechnology, the study of super-small particles ranging from one to 100 nanometers, has become one of today’s most heavily invested scientific frontiers. More than $1 billion has already been invested in its research, said Hutchison, adding that some estimates indicate that the market for nanotechnology products will be more than $1 trillion by 2015.
The Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institutes co-hosted the forum, and the group’s funding from the U.S. Department of Defense has been the subject of past public protests on campus. The University is currently engaged in establishing itself as a premier center for nanoscience and is constructing a $16 million underground ONAMI laboratory, which ONAMI has said will house $100 million worth of research equipment. But Hutchison said that tampering with nano-molecules does invite some possible dangers. In the human body, some nano-materials can potentially induce tissue inflammation or damage cells and their DNA. Perhaps more troubling, Hutchison said, is that nano-materials are very environmentally mobile and are very difficult to track if exposed to soil or groundwater.
Rice University chemistry and chemical engineering professor Vicki Colvin said that many common products on the market already incorporate nano-materials. Sunscreen uses them to be transparent, she said, and tennis balls use them to be retain their bounciness. While Colvin is currently engaged in an effort to force industries to label products that incorporate nanotechnology, Hutchison said that the idea faces a lot of resistance.
Several audience members voiced concern over the unknown effects of nanotechnology on the environment and human health.
“I think we need more assurances that we won’t have unintended consequences,” said Reed Behrens, who works as an environmental consultant in Corvallis. “I don’t want to see a creature coming out of the black lagoon.”
Hutchison and Paul Anastas, a professor of green chemistry at Yale University, recommended an efficient and environmentally friendly code of conduct for nanotechnology research and production. Ideally, every raw material that was used in production would go entirely into the final product, Anastas said.
Yet Anastas warned that there was no way to predetermine every risk that nanotechnology posed at its outset.
“One of my favorite quotes from Einstein is ‘problems can’t be solved at the same level of awareness that created them,’” said Anastas. “Once you start understanding why something is toxic, then it gives you this new level of awareness you need to design it so that it’s not toxic.”
After a series of small-group discussions, the audience voted whether they endorsed or opposed further nanotechnology research. A significant majority voted in approval of the research.
“I don’t think there’s any way to put the brakes on the train now,” said John Ame of Corvallis, who opposed furthering nanotechnology without stronger environmental safeguards. “But if people want to be happy, they may have to look elsewhere than technology.”