Recently, an article in the European Respiratory Journal linked seven cases of lung damage and two deaths among workers at a Chinese manufacturing plant with exposure to nanoparticles. While a number of previous studies have pointed to possible lung damage from nanoparticle exposure based on animal research findings, the ERJ’s article was the first clinical study to cite nanotoxicity as a proximal cause of death in humans.
Early responses from nanotech proponents have for the most part downplayed both the incident and the report. Some have even made light of the incident as just another example of the laxness of Chinese workplace hygiene.
But given this attitude, and with other recent studies raising additional questions about the risks of nanoparticle exposure, one has to ask: how many deaths will be required before the wider population begins to rouse itself and enter the debate about nanotech safety?
The Incident
Seven young women working in a Chinese manufacturing plant were exposed to ~30nm polyacrylate particles as part of a process of spray coating polystyrene boards. The spray coating occurred in improperly ventilated conditions, and the women reportedly did not always wear masks while working in the environment.
After several months of exposure to this environment, the women were admitted to the hospital with difficulty in breathing and other debilitating lung-related health symptoms. Eventually, two died.
The women’s lung tissue samples were found to be inflamed, fibrotic and full of foreign body granuloma, ball-like collections of immune cells in the lungs’ lining that form when the immune system is unable to remove foreign bodies. Subsequent examinations by transmission electron microscopy found nanoparticles lodged in the victims’ pulmonary epithelial and mesothelial cells, as well as in specimens of the victim’s chest fluid. Surveys of the victims’ workplace confirmed the presence of polyacrylate in nanoparticle form. (Reuters story here; Nature Times story here.)
The Nanotech Industry Response
Many scientists within the nanotech industry have attempted to downplay the incident, suggesting that, even if these deaths were caused by nanoparticles, better hygiene protocols, like those promulgated by NIOSH in the US, might have helped protect the victims. Some have also tried to deflect attention away from the 30nm particles found in the victims’ lungs by suggesting that the lung damage suffered by the victims might have been impacted by other toxic materials in the victims’ workplace. A few have taken aim at the ERJ article, itself, complaining that it is not detailed enough to be authoritative or helpful.
The defensiveness displayed in these responses is not surprising. Scientists at the forefront of the nanotech industry are clearly aligned with the funding sources of nanotechnology research, and with maintaining the general perception of nanotech as a positive and fertile new area of applied science.
Still, it is disappointing that more nanoscientists have not immediately called for further investigation of the health impacts of nanoparticle exposure in the wake of the incident at the Chinese manufacturing facility. Instead, it has been easier simply for many to talk down the event and hope that it doesn’t inspire a popular backlash at a time when government, corporate and VC financing of nanotech projects is already under pressure.
Perhaps even less surprising – but far more disappointing – has been the response from commercial and policy representatives for the nanotech industry. Pete Singer, managing editor of Small Times, probably the industry’s most read trade magazine, sent out an email a week ago to the publication’s subscribers (of which I am one), in which he shared his views on the incident:
At the risk of sounding heartless, I don’t see this as a “nano” issue — it’s a matter of workers breathing in dust that just happens to be at the nano level. Similar dangers exist in any kind of manufacturing environment. It seems particularly ironic for this news to be coming out of China, which is known for smog-filled, unbreathable air . . . It’s easy to get worked up over the potential dangers of “grey goo”. . . and there could well be some hidden dangers lurking — but for now I believe that common sense safety procedures . . . are all that’s needed to avoid any major problems.
Easy for someone to say who works for an industry trade rag, and who doesn’t have to work in a plant in Beijing, or Brataslava, or Bridgeport. Or live down the street from one. Can the public really allow industry representatives to continue to govern the policy discussions around safe nano, when some of the most prominent of them display callous attitudes like that of Mr. Singer?
Slinging the “Grey Goo”
Singer’s invocation of “grey goo” is particularly instructive. For those not used to decoding nano-speak, it’s a common way that nanopartisans like Singer put down just about any safety concerns about nanotech as being unsophisticated, hysterical and far-fetched. The term, grey goo, comes from Eric Drexler’s book, Engines of Creation, and refers to a hypothetical but highly improbable world ending scenario in which nanoscale self-replicating robots run amok consuming all the matter on earth, ultimately converting it into a vast grey goo made up mostly of their own self-replicating masses.
The term became more widely known after Bill Joy referenced it in his influential essay, “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” Joy’s essay, published in Wired Magazine at the height of its popularity, is an impassioned, heartfelt and at times breathtakingly poigniant plea for greater restraint in pursuing “the most powerful 21st-century technologies – robotics, genetic engineering and nanotech.” In the essay, Joy forcefully argues that unfettered research in these areas is making the human race “an endangered species.”
Personally, I rank Joy’s essay up there in spirit and impact with Verner Vinge’s “The Coming Technological Singularity;” both are powerful, Swiftian works that have inspired thoughtful technologists to greater introspection. However, I also have to admit that Joy’s specific enumeration of threats does come off as a bit naïve, technically vague and occasionally shrill. Because of this, the essay has had a less than positive reception among many scientists, especially those in nanotech, who (no doubt rolling their eyes at Joy’s references to grey goo) look at the essay as an exercise in scaremongering and Neo-Luddite close-mindedness.
More Troubling News on Nanoparticle Exposure
But even leaving aside the tragic incident in China, one need not be a Neo-Luddite to be troubled by other recent stories related to nanotoxicity. In one study published earlier this month, researchers at Brown University found evidence that two different types of commonly produced carbon nanotube (CNT) structures, when exposed in dry form to fruit flies, “adhered extensively to fly surfaces, overwhelmed natural grooming mechanisms, and led to impaired locomotive function and mortality.”
Basically, flies placed into test tubes containing the two types of CNT structures in question were unable to climb out and died “within 6 to 10 hours.” Thomas Rand, one of the authors of the study commented, “They just can’t move. It’s like a dinosaur falling into a tar pit.” Other CNT structures did not appear to have the same dramatic impact on the flies’ well-being.
To my knowledge, prior to this study, there were no scientists opining that CNT structure, per se, would have an impact on how animals might react to dry nanoparticle exposure. Moreover, the results suggest to me that the potential pathological impact of CNT nanoparticle exposure on animals is still anyone’s guess.
With respect to research related more directly to the impact of nanoparticles on human beings, there was also news. Last week, the European Union awarded a large grant – GBP £350,000 – to researchers at the University of Ulster to investigate the potential link between human-engineered nanoparticles like those currently being introduced into sunscreens and diesel fuels with neurogenerative diseases such as Alzheimers. While the award is meant to support future research, it is based on previous studies that have suggested this link exists. In receiving the award, Vyvyan Howard, lead researcher on the project, stated his view that
There is now firm evidence that some engineered nanoparticles entering intravenously or via lungs can reach the brains of small animals. Indeed they lodge in almost all parts of the brain and there are no efficient clearance mechanisms to remove them once there . . . The risk that engineered nanoparticles could introduce unforeseen hazards to human health is now also a matter of growing concern . . .
Nanotech industry representatives in the US have long been dismissive of similar misgivings raised by lay persons and safety experts. For the sake of their industry’s long term viability – and their own personal credibility – can they continue to ignoring the potential risks of engineered nanoparticles as they are introduced in ever greater amounts into industrial coatings, cosmetics, foodstuffs and fuels?
Scaremongering or Reasonable Concerns?
Ultimately, I agree with Andrew Maynard’s comments that the tragic workplace incident involving the seven Chinese workers must raise “the bar for doing appropriate research as fast as possible to find out where the dangers might lie when working with nanomaterials.” The incident should also serve more generally as a wake up call for technically literate people to become more fully engaged in the policy debate involving appropriate nanotech safety standards.
As a long-time advocate for responsible nanotech research, I can only hope that industry proponents abandon the inclination to immediately dismiss reasonable expressions of concern about safety as “scaremongering” or “grey goo.” Prematurely rushing nano-engineered industrial and consumer applications to market without adequate research regarding the potential effects of nanoparticle exposure on living organisms is ethically unacceptable.
The industry would be well served – as would the greater populace – if, instead of downplaying and denying, nanotech proponents seized the high moral ground and became supportive of research initiatives into nano-safety like those underway at Brown University and the University of Ulster. Indeed, nightmare visions of techno-pessimists like Bill Joy will only prove prescient if we avoid confronting difficult questions today and thereby shirk our responsibilities to the future.
