Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology

Department of Biotechnology

Course File

Course: B.Tech
Branch: Biotechnology
Semester: VI
Subject: Nanobiotechnology
Paper Code: NBT-011
Session: 2017-2018
 Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology
Department of Biotechnology

Course File: Nanobiotechnology (NBT-011)

Contents
 Syllabus

 Outcome of the course

 Lesson Plan

 List of recommended books, references (as per lesson plan)

 List of text book, (given in lesson plan)

 List of Reference book, (given in lesson plan)

 List of Lecture Notes by DPT, (given in lesson plan)

 Lecture notes

 Assignments with solutions

 Question papers

 GATE questions
Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology
Department of Biotechnology

Course Name: Nanobiotechnology

Course Code: NBT-011

Designation: Departmental Elective

Prerequisites: Nanoscience and Polymer Science

Contact Hours: L T P

3 1 0

Course Assessment Method: Sessional Examination and Assignments

COURSE OUTCOME

Understand the essential concepts used in nanotechnology

Microfabrication Techniques

Synthesis, characterization, purification and fabrication of

nonmaterial’s

Nanotechnological applications in biology and life science

Synthesis and characterization of Biomaterials

Appreciate that there are the relationships and connections across the
sciences and non-sciences disciplines are core to nanotechnology and
understand such relationships and connections
 Meerut Institute of Engineering and Technology
Department of Biotechnology
Course File: Nanobiotechnology (NBT-011)

Recommended Books
1. Nanobiotechnology- concepts, applications and perspectives,
niemeyer, christofm. Mirkin, chad a., Wiley publishers.

2. Nanobiotechnology of biomimetic membranes, martin, donald (edt),

springer verlag publishers.

Text Book
T-1, Bionanotechnology by David S. Goodsell, 2004, Wiley Liss.

T-2, Biomedical Nanotechnology by Neelina H. Malsch, 2005, CRC

BH, Bhushan Bharat, Springer handbook of Nanotechnology

Reference Book
R-1, Micromachines as tools for nanotechnology by H. Fujita, Springer

R-2, Nanoelectronics and Nanosystem by Karl Goser, 2005 Springer

Lecture Notes
DPT, Nanobiotechnology Fundamental and applications by Dr. Pankaj K.
Tyagi
Q.1 What is nanotechnology considered to be?
Ans. 1 Nanotechnology is a generic term for the development of innovative materials and
applications in various natural science and technical disciplines such as physics, chemistry,
biology and medicine, as well as engineering and material sciences. It deals with materials with
at least one dimension smaller than 100 nanometres (nm), so called nanomaterials (see above).

With the help of nanotechnology, it is possible to develop structures, techniques and systems in
which materials show completely new properties and functions. Industry, medicine, science and
consumers hope that this potential will lead to beneficial applications in such areas as robotics,
sensory technology, process engineering, biotechnology and medicine as well as for the further
development of foods, consumer products and cosmetics.

Q.2 What are nanomaterials?

Ans. 2 According to the definition of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
manufactured nanomaterials of organic or inorganic origin are differentiated on the one hand
into three types of nano-objects which are smaller than 100 nanometres (nm) in at least one
dimension:

 Spherical structures (e.g. nanoparticles and fullerenes),

 Fibrous structures (e.g. nanotubes)
 Extremely thin layers (e.g. nanoplatelets)
and into so-called nanostructured materials on the other (e.g. aggregates or compound
materials containing or consisting of nano-objects of this kind).

The European Commission published a recommendation in October 2011 according to which a

“nanomaterial” should be understood to be a natural material occurring or produced during
processes containing particles in an unbound condition, as an aggregate or as an agglomerate,
with which at least 50 % of the particles in the number size distribution have one or more outer
dimensions in the range from 1 nm to 100 nm. In special cases, the threshold value of 50 % for
the number size distribution can be replaced by a threshold value of between 1 % and 50 % if
this is justified by environmental, health, safety or competition considerations. This definition is
to be used in future as a basic principle in all European substance directives and regulations
governing the use of nanomaterials (chemicals, cosmetics, foods and feeds, pesticides and
biocides). The recommendation of the Commission also provides for the possibility of
establishing amendments or deviations in certain legal areas, however. A specific definition for
technically manufactured nanomaterials was determined in Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 on
the provision of food information to consumers.
On the one hand, nanoparticles can be carried into the ambient air as ultrafine dusts from
natural or artificial combustion sources (e.g. volcanic ash, cigarette smoke, exhaust gases from
heating systems or thermodynamic machines such as internal combustion engines) and can also
be produced unintentionally in work and production processes (e.g. welding smoke).

On the other hand, nanomaterials are manufactured specifically for use in many technical areas
as well as in consumer products, such as paints, cosmetics, textiles and packaging materials, as
so-called engineered nanomaterials (ENM). Examples of specifically manufactured
nanomaterials are nanosilver, carbon nanotubes, titanium dioxide nanoparticles or what is
known as nanoclay, an aluminium silicate in nano form.

Q.3 What are nanocapsules?

Ans. 3 Organic compounds such as liposomes, micelles and vesicles, are added to foods to
encapsulate other substances such as vitamins or flavourings, transport them through the body
and release them at exactly the right spot. As the size of these “transport containers” is often in
the nanometre range, they are also referred to as nanocapsules.

Q. 4 In which products are nanomaterials already being used?

Ans. 4 It has to be assumed today that consumers come into contact with a variety of products
in which nanomaterials have been processed. They are used in various ways in consumer
products. For instance nanomaterials are used in food packaging, textiles, kitchen devices,
varnishes and paints. They are also used in products for surface sealing and cleaning as well as
in polishing agents. Nanomaterials are also used in cosmetics. Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide
are used as UV filters in sun creams, for example; nanosilver is used as an antimicrobial agent in
textiles and nanoclay has various applications in the food packaging sector.

According to information provided by the food industry, no inorganic materials in the nano
range are currently being used deliberately in the food sector in Germany. Although silicon
dioxide (SiO2, silicic acid) with a particle size of 50 to 200 nm has already been detected in
foods, it is not clear whether this was due to impurities that occur during the manufacture of
nanostructured, larger-sized aggregates made of silicon dioxide, which is used as a flow aid and
anticaking agent. Silicon dioxide is an authorised food additive (E 551) which, just like all other
inorganic, insoluble additives, was not specially evaluated and authorised as a nanoparticle.
That apart, nanomaterials can also occur naturally in foods.
The packaging industry is interested in the application of nanoparticles which are bound as
fillers in plastics and varnish layers or applied as coatings to polymer surfaces (films and
containers). In food packagings, nanoparticles prevent gas from penetrating the packaging or
moisture from escaping. The use of nanoparticles could improve the mechanical and thermal
properties of food packaging and protect food against UV light. In future, nanotechnology is to
be used to develop packaging materials for foods which indicate whether the cooling chain has
been interrupted or the sell-by date exceeded.

In the clothing sector, special functional textiles are being developed which make it possible to
produce insulating thermal protection clothing, facilitate wet cleaning and realise sensory
functions. By producing nanostructured surfaces, the water-repellent properties of textiles are
to be improved with simultaneous retention of breathability. Titanium dioxide nanoparticles
already provide effective protection against UV rays in textiles. Antimicrobial silver
nanoparticles are already used in shoe insoles and several functional clothing textiles (e.g.
sports apparel).

Q. 5 Why are nanomaterials used in cosmetics?

Ans. 5 Nanomaterials were taken into account for the first time in the new cosmetics regulation
(EC) No. 1223/2009 which comes into effect in the EU on 11 July 2013. What has been the case
up to now for UV filters and will continue to be so in future is that the decision on their
inclusion in the positive list of the UV filters authorised in cosmetics will be made by the EU
Commission after a risk assessment. It will be made on European level by the Scientific
Committee of Consumer Safety (SCCS, formerly SCC, SCCNFP, SCCP) which advises the EU
Commission. The basis for the risk assessment is formed by the Notes of Guidance.

Nanoparticles made from titanium dioxide and/or zinc oxide are to be used as UV filters in sun
creams to protect the skin from UV radiation, for example. Nanotechnologically manufactured
materials (so-called biocomposites) in toothpaste are intended to promote the natural tooth
repair mechanism of saliva. Nanocapsules in skincare products are intended to ensure
protection and the transport of active ingredients and improve the care effect. Research is
being conducted into the improvement of the physical properties (e.g. transparency) of finished
cosmetic products by means of nanomaterials.

Q.6 Are nanomaterials used in foods?

Ans. 6 It is being reported that nanomaterials are used as auxiliaries and additives in foods. For
instance, silicic acid and other silicon-containing compounds are said to be used as anticaking
agents or thickeners to prevent table salt crystals and powder-form foods from sticking
together and to make ketchup pour more easily. Silicic acid is also used as a flocculant in wine
and fruit juice production. It is not yet clear whether silicic acid is actually used as a
nanomaterial.
Nanomaterials are also allegedly used specifically as food supplements. There are reports of the
use of inorganic materials such as silicon dioxide, colloidal silver, calcium and magnesium in
nanoparticle form. It is not clear whether these materials are present in foods as nanoparticles
or in aggregate form. The food industry is currently developing functional foods in which
vitamins, omega 3 fatty acids, phytosterols and aromas are enclosed in nanocapsules made of
organic materials such as liposomes and then released at a specific spot in the body.

Q.7. What sort of nano budget does FDA have?

Ans. 7 If you look at the National Nanotechnology Initiative budget – a compilation of US federal agency
investment in nanotechnology – FDA does not have a specific nano budget. That said, the agency does
have a number of people working on regulatory issues associated with nanotechnology in general, and
engineered nanomaterials specifically. FDA also supports the National Toxicology Program in the US,
which is investigating the toxicity of a number of engineered nanomaterials, and has its own labs at
the National Center for Toxicology Research, which are involved in nanomaterial toxicity studies. So
while it is tough to get a handle on the agency’s nano budget, this doesn’t mean they are not working in
the area.

Q.8. With something like nanosilver, is it possible to design out the hazard while keeping the
“benefits”?

Ans. 8 This is a tough one. It would be nice to be able to do this, and there may be some possibilities
here. The main way silver kills microbes is to release silver ions, which are toxic to many microbes.
Silver nanoparticles are useful in that they release ions (effectively they dissolve) faster than the same
quantity of larger particles, and they can be added to a wide range of products. There is also some
evidence that the nanoparticles themselves might be harmful to microbes. The big problem here is that
you have to have the ions to be effective – and if you are releasing the silver ions into the environment,
they could do more than just kill the microbes you want them to. But if there was a way to limit the rate
of release and ensure only the microbes you want to get rid of come into contact with the silver ions, it
might be possible to reduce possible risks while increasing benefits. Some of the smarter uses of silver as
an antimicrobial seem to be taking this approach. The thing we really don’t want to do here is release
silver nanoparticles into the environment without much thought, where they will continue to release ions
and potentially cause damage.

Q. 9. What are some of the most interesting nanoparticles found in nature (not manufactured in the
lab)?

Ans. 9 I guess it depends what is meant by “interesting.” Certainly, nanoparticles are a fact of life, and
were long before humans were around. Anything that burns and many things that get very hot release
nanoparticles – think fires and volcanoes. Liquid sprays that contain small amounts of dissolved
substances can also produce nanoparticles as they evaporate – sea spray for instance is a great source of
nanoparticles. And then you have reactions between different chemicals in the atmosphere that produce
nanoparticles. Photochemical smog is a great example of man-made atmospheric “nanoparticle
factories.” But nature was there before us – terpenes released by trees can form nanoparticles in the
atmosphere (the blue haze associated with the Blue Ridge Mountains is a result of naturally occurring
nanoparticles). These are all certainly interesting nanoparticles. But they usually differ from engineered
nanoparticles in that they are usually complex mixtures of nanoparticles and other stuff.
Q10. When will we know if it’s safe enough? I understand toxicity eg nanotubes. Do we think we
can mitigate? What is safe enough?

Ans. 10 I’m afraid that “safe enough” is a question that only policy makers, citizens and others can
answer. Science can provide information on how safe – or how risky – something is. But then it’s up to
others to work out when this is okay, and when it is not. When it comes to nanotechnology, the first step
is dividing nanotech into specific materials and products, as each will present different safety questions –
including how safe is safe enough. For example, safe enough for a cancer treatment will be very different
from safe enough for a baseball bat. We then need to work on where the plausible risks are – the
materials and products that are more likely to present safety issues that we are not set up to handle well.
Then, we can start to work out where the knowledge gaps are, and how to fill them. Governments and
industry around the world are a good way along this path, although there is a long way to go still before
some products of nanotechnology can be deemed “safe enough.” For instance, we still don’t have a good
handle on how to use carbon nanotubes safely, or what the safety issues around developing nanoscale
food ingredients are. On the other hand, there are nanotech-related products that, on the current balance
of evidence, appear to be reasonably safe – I would consider sunscreens using well-engineered
nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in this category. The bottom line though is that we still
need to work on defining what is safe enough, and identifying new safety issues that emerge as
nanotechnology progresses.

Q.11. Given the nano-size of the particles, are there any effective respirator filters to guard against
inhalation?

Ans. 11 Yes. There are some unanswered questions here, but in general, respirator filters are better at
capturing nanometer-sized particles from the air than larger particles. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the
secret lies in Brownian motion. Smaller particles are batted around more than larger particles by air
molecules, and as a result are more likely to collide with and stick to the filter fibers or membrane.

Q.12. What do you feel the repercussions are for extended life through utilization of
nanotechnology?

Ans. 12 Interesting question. I think there are profound implications associated with the possibility of
extending life – especially extending the span of productive/high quality life. And nanotechnology is one
of a suite of technologies that could lead to significant extensions to lifespan. Yet I’m not sure that
nanotechnology per se raises questions as much as the implications of extending life – no matter what the
technology used. In thinking about the “repercussions” (I prefer “implications”) of extending life more
generally, a lot has been written on this. The possible implications are both fascinating and challenging –
ranging from the possibility of severe planetary over-population, to extreme (and divisive) divides
between those with and without access to life-extension technologies, to the possibility of greater
environmental and social awareness as people become more aware that they have to live with the
consequences of their actions.

Q.13 . How are safety tests carried out in nano tech?

Ans. 13 There are suites of toxicity tests that are used to determine the hazard associated with chemicals.
Which ones are used depend on the regulations governing the material and how it will be used. For
instance, the toxicology tests on a new drug are substantially more comprehensive than those that would
be used on a new cosmetic. Some of these use cell cultures – in vitro tests. Some of them are able to
provide an indication of hazard without cells, by probing the chemical nature of a substance. In other
cases, computer models are used to get a handle on how toxic a new substance might be. Most
toxicologists agree though that most of these tests only go so far in predicting how a new substance might
harm humans, and at some point tests with animals are needed – in vivo tests. There are moves around
the world – and rightly so – to minimize animal testing, and to find alternatives where possible.
Unfortunately, when it comes to brand new materials such as some engineered nanomaterials, it is
extremely hard to predict how these materials might behave in a living organism from modeling and cell
cultures. This problem is compounded by some established toxicity tests that have been devised for
chemicals not working well for some nanomaterials. So the toxicologists face a quandary – do they rely
on non-animal tests that may not be adequate, and risk allow products on the market that could cause
serious harm, or do they test these materials on animals, to minimize the chances of something bad
happening? It’s a tough question. But the bottom line is that most people involved in ensuring people are
not harmed by new products will use the best possible suite of tests to provide them with the best possible
information on product safety.

Q. 14 . Seems that (nano)tech is moving v.fast. Is there a risk that results of safety testing will be
out-of-date as soon as printed? How to keep up pace?

Ans. 14 This is a challenge for sure. I don’t think that sound toxicity tests will be quickly out-dated. But
I do think that there is a danger of increasingly sophisticated engineered nanomaterials being produced
and used before we have a good handle on how to evaluate their risks, and develop protocols for safe use.
I would argue that in order to keep pace with the technology we need to rethink how we approach safety:
We need to work out how to reduce possible risks before we have all the safety data (by reducing
exposures for instance); we need to learn how to predict possible hazards, and work out how to engineer
them out of products during development; and we need better ways of tracking new developments so that
we can respond quickly to safety issues. We’re making some progress here. But we have a heck of a
long way to go still.

Q. 15 . Is it possible/ necessary to regulate the use of materials which don’t yet exist?

Ans. 15 It’s tough to regulate something that doesn’t exist! What we can and probably should do is to use
regulation, and other forms of oversight, to create frameworks within which emergent risks will naturally
be identified and addressed – more a set of principles than hard command and control regulation. The
trick here is not to think of regulations as a list of “do not’s”, but as sophisticated tools for reducing
uncertainty and increasing safety as businesses develop new materials and products.

Q. 16. We all want safety decisions to be informed by sound science, yet decisions must be made
(indeed are being made) now, in most cases with relatively little useful data. What’s the soundest
way to approach such decision making?

The million dollar question, as new materials and products come along faster than the safety science can
keep up! I would argue that we always have to come back to evidence-based decision-making as the
foundation of what we do here, but that we desperately need new tools for making decisions in the
absence of hard data. There are a number of approaches to this that are emerging. Control banding for
instance is an approach to reducing risks in the workplace in the absence of good exposure data, and may
be extend-able to working with new nanomaterials. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making is another approach
that is being developed to make decisions where data are lacking, or where the data are complex. Then
there are a number of approaches to filling gaps in toxicity and exposure data when trying to develop
safety guidelines for new materials. So we have some tools in the toolbox here for making decisions in
the absence of data. But the reality is that, looking to the future, we are going to be increasingly faced
with situations where the data are incomplete, or the evidence is complex, and we are going to have to get
increasingly sophisticated with how we make decisions in these cases.
Q. 17. Are their any lessons learned (societal/ethical issues) from GM foods that could be applied to
the engineering or mechanical manipulation of foods through nanotechnology?

Enough to fill a book is the answer I think. I’ll just touch on a couple here though. First, issues
associated with nanotechnology is very different from the issues surrounding genetically modified foods,
and it is dangerous to compare them too closely. For one thing, while GM foods are reasonably well-
defined, nanotechnology is an umbrella term encompassing a huge diversity of technologies. But looking
to the GM food debate (some would say debacle), two critical issues were perceived heavy-handed tactics
from big industry, and a lack of transparency – it seemed that what people really didn’t like was
companies making decisions on their behalf, then not telling them about it! Looking to nanotechnology,
there are a number of important lessons to be learned here about how to engage with people when
developing and introducing a new technology, to ensure that it is what people want, that they understand
the pros and cons, and that they have

Q. 18 . What should consumers know about nano-foods that labels won’t tell them?

“Should” is a strong word. But I do think that many people would like to know that they could find out
more about how nanotechnology was being used in the foods they were eating – and I’m sure regulators
would like a better handle on this as well. In terms of information that would be useful, I think you have
to look at the ingredients list – a simple “nano-inside” sticker is a non-starter as it contains no useful
information, while possibly raising speculative and in many cases unsubstantiated concerns. On that
ingredients list, I think it would be useful to identify where something has been specifically engineered at
the nanometer scale and added to the food to add value to the product. This could simply be a case of
adding a “n” before the ingredient – nSiO2 for instance. But this in itself isn’t of much use to the user –
without more information, they won’t be able to tell whether that “n” is a good thing, a worrisome thing,
or nothing worth fretting about at all. What I think would be far more helpful is finding a way to link
from product labels to more detailed information on the web. Imagine for instance that you could take a
snapshot of the bar code on a product using your smart phone, and be taken to a database that let you
know what was in the product and why. This would be a farm more effective way of providing people
who were interested with useful information on the nano in their food – if and when it gets there (and
there are remarkably few food products on the streets that clearly and unambiguously contain engineered
nanomaterials). The good news is that this is a technology which is already gaining ground.

Q. 19. Nanotech pervades all sectors and there is a huge range in riskiness between the applications.
How can we develop a meaningful triage system to prioritize sectors, product classes, products and
materials with respect to safety?

Short answer – stop talking about nanotechnology, start talking about specific technologies and the
products that use them, and make sure we ask scientifically plausible questions about potential risks,
rather than being driven by speculation. This is a huge issue – not just for nanotechnology – and more
thinking is needed on how we begin to identify and address plausible safety issues, without being side
tracked by questions that, while interesting, are more speculative than scientifically sound, and run the
risk of distracting attention from more important issues.

Q. 20. How will we deal with imported nano products and how will we know they are nano?

With great difficulty I think. Oversight of imported products – whether nano or not – is a major issue in
today’s globalized market. It’s a problem that has got regulators the world over worried. Add nanotech
in, and the problem becomes even greater – because now you have products with components that may
lead to new safety issues, that do not have to be identified, and are not easy to detect! I suspect though
that part of the solution is to avoid getting too hung up on nanotechnology, and to start focusing on
specific materials that raise new safety issues, and develop ways of detecting and overseeing the use of
these materials.

Q 21. What is the risk of NOT developing nanotech (in health care, environmental protection,
economic development)?

I suspect that the answer to this question will differ wildly according to who answers it, but my opinion is
that we cannot afford not to develop new technologies such as nanotech. I would argue (and have done so
on this blog) that the challenges facing humankind over the next 50 plus years cannot be solved using
conventional technologies alone. Access to nutritious food and clean water; disease treatment and
prevention; clean, renewable energy – these are all challenges that we currently do not have the tools to
address effectively. Of course, nanotechnology is one of a number of emerging technologies that can
help. And any emerging technology-based solutions must be integrated with social, economic and
conventional technology innovations if we are to ensure the focus remains on solving the problem rather
than simply playing with the next new “technology toy.” That said, I suspect that a failure to develop
responsible and sustainable nanotechnologies will have a severe impact on people’s lives and the
environment in the future.

Q. 22. What is the risk overall? Technology has not made us necessarily healthier and happier –
although life expectancy has undeniable risen. Will the advances in 100 sectors be nullified by one
“bad sector” (say nano use in weapons)?

I’m not sure you can talk about the overall risk of something as broad as nanotechnology. Thinking as
broadly as possible, there are risks associated with developing nanotechnology without appropriate
checks and balances, just as there are risks associated with impeding its development at the expense of
people who need food, water, medical treatment, energy… But it’s far more useful to think about the
pros and cons of specific applications of nanotechnology. Of course, there is always that chance that,
because we are working under this “brand” of “nanotechnology” if something bad happens in one sector
– say a new nano drug goes badly wrong – it will have a knock-on effect on other areas where
nanotechnology is being used. This is a possibility as so much has been lumped together under the
banner of nanotech. But I suspect that people are sophisticated enough not to stop using their nanotech
baseball bat because the latest nano drug has problems. Of course, this won’t stop equally sophisticated
people from using nano-problems to push other agendas, if they see the opportunity.

Q 23. We may need new bioassays. Can they be designed to simultaneously address animal welfare
issues? Can they become models for use in non-nano contexts? Can there development be justified,
financed and sped up on that argument?

As new toxicity testing challenges arise with some engineered nanomaterials, I see no reason why this
cannot be used to stimulate further research towards minimizing the use of animals in tox testing. In fact,
I would argue that it is important that every opportunity is grasped to find more humane ways to evaluate
material and product safety (this was something I highlighted as being important with my colleagues back
in 2006 in a commentary in the journal Nature). Nevertheless, I do feel it is important to ensure whatever
assays are used, they lead to the use of products that will not end up inadvertently harming the user.

Q 24. What is the difference between nanotech, biotech and synthetic biology?

Get ten experts in the same room, and they’ll give you at least twenty different answers to this one. But
here’s my take: Biotechnology is a very broad technology that covers the use of biology in agriculture,
food and medicine. The term often refers to intentionally manipulating the genetic code of organisms –
usually at a fairly crude level – to change them in ways that are perceived as being beneficial.
Nanotechnology is about engineering matter at a scale just a little larger than atoms and molecules, and
taking advantage of the new and unusual properties that can result from such fine-level engineering.
Nanotechnology is often (but not exclusively) thought of as involving non-living materials. Synthetic
biology on the other hand is all about manipulating the genetic code of organisms at the nanometer scale,
to either alter them in useful ways, or to create new organisms. The truth of the matter is though that each
of these terms is a clumsy shorthand for a continuum of science and technology innovation that is
providing us with an increasingly sophisticated level of control over matter at the finest level – whether
that be in living systems, dead systems, or combinations of the two.

Q 25. Is there sufficient attention to the “soft science” of safety research? Governance, ethics,
public relations, process research, organizational research, etc?

I would certainly argue that more need to be done here – much more. Think about it – we live in a world
where not only do we need to make decisions in the absence of information, but the very dynamics of
decision-making the world-over are changing. “Hard” science is not enough on its own to cope in this
new world. We also need to know how it fits in to a complex and shifting social, political and economic
environment. And for this, we need expertise in areas like engagement, governance, social decision-
making, and a whole host of other “soft” areas.

Q 26. The problem I have with the whole issue is that nanotech is not a “single” field, like polymers
or vaccines, drugs or pesticides, say. Instead it’s a vast area of sci-tech defined rather arbitrarily by
the size of the entities/particles involved. We need some way to ensure policy makers are not forced
into a corner where they throw a blanket over all nanotech. How can that be achieved?

So true. I think I touch on this a couple of times above, but somehow we need to decouple the products
of nanotechnology from the brand of nanotechnology – so we can have science-informed dialogues on
issues that are well-defined. But how to do this? We could start making sure that people have access to
good information, and that they are fully engaged on the issue for a start.

Q 27. How do we assess long term impacts in short term safety tests & decide it is safe enough?

The unfortunate truth here is that we still struggle to do this with non-nano substances, never mind the
products of nanotechnology. There are ways in which we can get a handle on what some long term
impacts might be – the various assays for potential genotoxins, carcinogens etc. are helpful here for
instance. But we still have a long way to go. Maybe we should see this as an opportunity for engineered
nanomaterials to stimulate some new ideas and approaches here.

Q 28. Who is accountable if we do miss long term impacts?

Huge question. I guess, depending on which country you are in, the lawyers would say whoever you can
sue is accountable! But beyond the possibilities of litigation, who is accountable for the impacts of
decisions made – or not made – now? Businesses developing new products are accountable to their
shareholders and, perhaps surprisingly to some, their stakeholders in many cases – including customers (a
number of businesses have strong value systems and codes of conduct that place stakeholders above
shareholders). This naturally leads to some degree of short to medium term accountability. On the other
hand, looking at government, it is hard to find any true accountability for the medium to long term
consequences of actions – especially in an area like nanotechnology which cuts across so many
departments and agencies. Clearly, this is something that needs to be addressed.
Q 29. What % of gov and business budget should be spent on safety?

A few years ago, a number of groups were arguing that 10% of the US nanotechnology research and
development strategy should be devoted to health, safety and environmental impact-related research.
These days, I would argue that how the money is spent is at least as important as how much money is
spent. If you don’t start out with the right questions and a reasonable idea of how to get the answers, no
amount of funding is going to get you to where you need to be. That said, once you have a sound
strategy, 10% of nanotech R&D is not a bad starting place. A couple of years ago I was on a
congressional testimony panel when a colleague from BASF was asked how much industry invest in
ensuring the safety of a new product. From what I remember, the answer was around 15% of the R&D
budget.

Q 30. How do we get companies to share their safety data to add to the body of evidence on safety?

Find mechanisms by which companies can share useful safety data without compromising their business,
and develop trust and partnerships between businesses and other stakeholders to make data sharing
easier. This is a tough one though. Most people in the business think it’s important and should be
possible, but no-one’s come up with a viable solution yet.