Small talk

Nanotech could lead us...where, exactly?
Paul Miller picks up on possible scenarios.

The year is 2012. The scene: South Korea. Sirens blare, the streets swarm with police, fire engines rush around… But in vain… They’ve already escaped; untold millions of tiny nanoparticles in an invisible cloud, pumped into the atmosphere and the ocean by a massive explosion at a coastal nanotech production plant. Soon they’ll be everywhere. In a year’s time, some will even be found in polar ice.

It’s a familiar nanotech disaster scenario, which would leave the nascent industry languishing for years in recovery mode. Nano-scare stories such as these have been the feature of much of the media coverage around the industry. But it’s just one of many possible ways that future prospects could pan out.

“Nobody’s quite sure how the new spray-on nanosolar materials will last. Are the consumers of 2015 just storing up another waste problem?”


Nanotechnology itself is not science fiction; it’s here and it’s happening. It’s a growing business, with some nano-products already in the shops - across a range from sunscreen to self-cleaning glass. And while there’s still a great deal of uncertainty, it’s becoming clearer what might be possible in the next decade. Public opinion is starting to form, and much will depend on the policy decisions we take now.

Remember the headlines back in 2003, when Prince Charles warned of a technology that risked going out of control? The media immediately picked up on the idea of ‘grey goo’, a nightmare vision from the science fiction of Michael Crichton’s Prey, where invisible self-replicating nanobots escape from an experimental desert laboratory and consume everything in their path.

Others argue that nanotech could be a sustainable saviour. It has been “heralded as a panacea for any number of social and environmental challenges, promising everything from cheap solar power through to pollution-eating nanobots and new life-saving drugs”, points out Hugh Knowles at Forum for the Future. Which all sounds pretty sensational, he says. But much depends on the policy framework for developing the technology, and whether its real risks can be better understood. And, of course, carefully managed.

“We need to get people talking, and move away from the idea that only ‘experts’ know what’s best.”


Forum for the Future’s work on this issue isn’t about taking sides ‘for’ or ‘against’, but about helping get a dialogue going on the environmental and social aspects of nanotechnology. The Nanologue project, its EU-funded collaboration with the Wuppertal Institute, Swiss research institute, EMPA and triple innova (www.nanologue.net ), has drawn on discussion with a whole range of experts. These scientists, product developers, journalists, policymakers and NGOs have put their heads together and come up with a set of three scenarios about the future of nanotechnology up to 2015.

They’re not meant as predictions, but as tools for thinking. The idea is that they help decision makers ‘rehearse’ for the future. As legendary science fiction author Isaac Asimov put it, “no sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but also the world as it will be”. James Goodman, head of Futures at Forum, says: “Scenarios are great when you want to bring together opinions from a diverse selection of people. We’ve made our three as open and accessible as we can. They’re now meant to be used as a decision-making tool, and Forum will be part of that, using them with the European Commission to encourage long-term thinking in nanotech strategy.”

Disaster recovery

This is the bleak ‘Disaster recovery’ scenario, linked to that hypothetical Korea 2012 explosion.

The catastrophe - ‘nanotech’s Three Mile Island’ - has made it difficult for investment to continue. There’s still no proof that nanoparticles have any negative effect on human health - just a lot of uncertainty. Once in the environment they are persistent and they can travel a long way.

Even before the explosion there were signs that public trust in nanotechnology was fragile. Some nanocoatings had gone wrong in bad weather, leading to worry about nanoparticles being released into the atmosphere. And a group of workers in a nanofactory in France went on strike after complaining about health impacts.

The problems stemmed from the fact that so few people talked about nanotechnology regulation from the outset. Governments resisted putting any binding rules in place and, until the disaster, there was no urgency about finding out once and for all what was safe and what wasn’t.

Regulation was only put in place for Europe in 2014, well after the horse has bolted. The public have lost trust and it will be years before they’re willing to give scientists the benefit of the doubt again. Working in the nanotech industry in 2015 is a bit like saying you worked for a tobacco firm back in 2006.

Killer applications
Anti-wrinkle cream - no-one need know it’s nano.
Networked earrings - tiny computers disguised as jewellery connect the wearer to local area networks.
Nose filter - All-but invisible to the casual observer, this air filter protects the wearer from pollution and allergenic spores.
Now we’re talking

Governments have gone in heavy on regulation and consultation. What used to be called nanotechnology has become just part of mainstream science. But because there were lots of debates about nanotech back in 2006, science in general has changed.

Scientists are now encouraged to do research that is in the public interest and are heavily trained about safety when dealing with nanoparticles.

They have to fill in so many forms, and comply with so many regulations to do any research, that many complain it stops them from actually making any breakthroughs. At least there haven’t been any of the disasters that the doomsayers were predicting during the nano-hype at the turn of the century.

While people trust the scientists, the most controversial aspect of nano in the 2015 of ‘Now we’re talking’ is in the applications - particularly how nanosensors get used for surveillance. Citizens are beginning to organise protests against ubiquitous monitoring by these tiny nanochips, of what they buy, do or say.

Killer applications
Water purifiers with ultra-fine nano-membrane filters to remove pollutants and bacteria.
Food packaging which changes colour to alert you to the condition of the food.
Home wrap - insulating, water-repellent and self-cleaning cladding, all in one.
Powering ahead

Things are looking good for sustainability and nanotech. It’s boom time for nanosolar power. There have been great leaps forward in the efficiency of photovoltaics. New fuel cells allow people to store energy much more cheaply and easily, and financiers are keen to invest in the latest microgen developments. Policymakers are looking ahead to a dramatic fall in CO2 emissions in the years ahead. Although the concentration in the atmosphere is at a peak, it’s not expected to increase, and there’s a sense that maybe - just maybe - nanotechnology is bringing us to the beginning of the end of the climate crisis.

Europe has become a real hub for R&D for the next generation of spray-on solar cells. The 2012 Nobel Prize went to the team who made the main breakthrough. Most manufacturing is done elsewhere, but the regulation in Europe is seen as just right for cutting-edge science. The other advantage of Europe is that much of the funding for nanoscience came from governments, who stood up to the old giants of the energy world and kept on financing development. The subsidies and boosts they gave the industry definitely sped up the process.

There’s concern, however, that people in the developing world aren’t getting access to the new technologies; the energy gap between rich and poor is growing. And nobody’s quite sure how the new spray-on nanosolar materials will last. Are the consumers of 2015 storing up just another waste problem?

Killer applications
Sola-shelters - reusable, power-generating structures made of strong, lightweight nanomaterials, ideal for climate change refugees.
Spray-on photovoltaics - transform any surface into a power generator.

What’s next?

Will nanotechnology turn out to be sustainability’s saviour, or its nemesis? Or, more likely, somewhere in between? These Nanologue scenarios provide three stories about possible futures. They prompt hundreds of questions about the choices we should be making now.

In June this year, Californian company Nanosolar announced that it had attracted $100 million in new investment. It now plans to take on the conventional photovoltaic manufacturers with its nanotechnology-enabled flexible solar films at a fraction of the cost of today’s solar cells. That’s a good sign for the ‘Powering ahead’ scenario - but it’s no coincidence that it’s happening in the US rather than the EU.

On the other hand, just a few months before the Nanosolar announcement, a new product called Magic Nano was recalled in Germany after six people were hospitalised and 80 others reported breathing difficulties. Magic Nano was a bathroom sealant that came in aerosol-spray form. Although debates continue about whether the product really did contain any nanotechnology, it showed just how delicate the reputation of nano is - and how little we know about its effects. A warning sign that, if we don’t correct our course, we could be headed for a ‘Disaster recovery’ scenario.

Europe needs an ambitious and persistent drive towards sustainable nanotechnologies. Government should deliberately slant public funding towards technology with social and environmental benefits - and create incentives for the private sector to do the same. We also need to fund research into the risks of nano to work out once and for all what’s dangerous and what’s not. In the UK we’re way behind the US on this kind of toxicological research.

And, finally, we need to get people talking. We need more projects like Nanologue. We need to ramp up events like the Café Scientifique network of conversations, which have seen members of the public debating the pros and cons of cutting-edge science in 40-odd cafés and pubs across the UK (www.cafescientifique.org). It’s vital that there are many more dialogue opportunities between scientists, funders, policymakers and, most importantly, citizens. We must get away from the idea that ‘experts’ are the only people who know what’s best.

 Paul Miller is a freelance writer and researcher.He first wrote about nanotechnology for Green Futures in July 2002. The full Nanologue Scenarios are available to download at www.nanologue.net.

8 November 2006

Paul Miller

Sunny outlook for spray-on PV power Sunny outlook for spray-on PV power
  • The prefix nano comes from the Greek word meaning dwarf.
  • A nanometre (nm) is one billionth of a metre, or about ten atoms placed side-by-side.
  • Nanotechnology is often described as ‘the manipulation of matter at the molecular scale’.
  • Scientists are still arguing over whether there’s anything intrinsically different about doing science at that level.