Colvin Urges Congress to Study Public's Nano Concerns

In Prey, novelist Michael Crichton delivers a chilling scenario in which swarms of nanorobots equipped with memory, solar power generators, and powerful software begin preying on living creatures and reproducing.

"This may be gripping science fiction," Rice associate professor of chemistry Vicki Colvin told the U.S. House Science Committee. "It is not science fact. It does, however, highlight a reaction that could bring the growing nanotechnology industry to its knees: fear. The perception that nanotechnology will cause environmental devastation or human disease could itself turn the dream of a trillion-dollar industry into a nightmare of public backlash."

Colvin was leading a panel of expert witnesses testifying before the committee on April 9. The hearing was designed to shed light on concerns associated with nanotechnology before the committee members voted on H.R. 766: Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003, a bill that would, among other things, establish a national nanotechnology program to sustain investment in research and development, expand education and training of undergraduate and graduate students, and accelerate the commercial application of nanotechnology.

Discussing recent concerns about nanotechnology, Colvin, who also is director of Rice's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN), urged lawmakers to dedicate a portion of federal nanotechnology research dollars to societal and ethical studies that will ensure that nanotechnology "develops responsibly and with strong public support."

Funded by the NationalScience Foundation (NSF), CBEN is the only academic research center in the world that is dedicated to studying the interaction between nanomaterials and living organisms and ecosystems. CBEN's mandate from the NSF includes clearing potential roadblocks to the commercialization of nanotechnology. The center's efforts to precisely characterize the unintended consequences of nanotechnology are aimed at one potential roadblock—public acceptance of nanotechnology.

Colvin noted that a public backlash against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) crippled the biotechnology industry and ultimately cost billions in lost future revenues. She testified that the "lack of sufficient public scientific data on GMOs, whether positive or negative, was a controlling factor in the industry's fall from favor."

In contrast, Colvin said, the Human Genome Project provided a good model for how an emerging technology can defuse potential controversy by addressing it in the public sphere. Even though the mapping of the human genome carries with it many potential concerns about the possible loss of privacy, misuse by the police and insurance companies, and discrimination by employers, the Human Genome Project did not try to bury these concerns. Instead, they welcomed and actively encouraged debate from the outset by setting aside 5 percent of the annual budget for a program to define and address the ethical, legal, and societal implications of the project.

Colvin urged Congress to adopt a similar model for nanotechnology research. She said the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act includes a provision to establish a research program to identify societal and ethical concerns related to nanotechnology, requiring that such research be integrated into nanotechnology research and development programs insofar as possible. She noted that the National Academy of Sciences found that societal and ethical implications were underfunded and underemphasized by the granting agencies.

Other experts who testified before the committee noted that some environmental activists already have called for a moratorium on nanotechnology research and development. Christine Peterson, president of the Foresight Institute, warned Congress against curtailing research funding and falling behind foreign nations that already are outspending the United States in nanotechnology research funding. "The United States and other democracies have no natural monopoly in developing this technology, and failure to develop it would amount to unilateral disarmament," Peterson said. She echoed other witnesses' calls for a study of the ethical implications of nanotechnology.

In response to the testimony of Colvin and other experts, several members of the committee indicated strong support for increased funding for ethical, environmental, and social studies related to nanotechnology and said it was important for Congress to set aside adequate spending to ensure that the public benefits of nanotechnology would be realized.

A complete transcript of Colvin's testimony is available online at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~cben/ ColvinTestimony040903.shtml.