Colvin urges Congress to study public’s nano concerns

Colvin
urges Congress to study public’s nano concerns
…………………………………………………………………

Rice’s Vicki Colvin led a panel
of expert witnesses that testified before the U.S. House Science Committee April
9, urging 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.”

The hearing was designed to shed
light on environmental, ethical and societal concerns associated with nanotechnology
before the committee members vote 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, director of the Center for Biological and Environmental
Nanotechnology and associate professor of chemistry, mentioned “Prey,”
a novel by Michael Crichton about “a chilling scenario in which swarms
of nano-robots — equipped with memory, solar power generators and powerful
software — begin preying on living creatures and reproducing.

“This may be gripping science
fiction. It is not science fact,” she said. “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.”

Funded by the National Science Foundation,
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. Colvin 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.

Colvin noted that the National Academy
of Sciences found that societal and ethical implications were underfunded and
underemphasized by the granting agencies.
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.

“I expect developments in nanotech-nology
to improve our lives, but as with all technologies there may be some instances
where we create new challenges even as we solve existing problems,” said
Rep. Chris Bell, whose 25th Congressional District includes Rice. “Too
little of our federal dollars are spent to ensure that society reaps only positive
benefits from nanotechnology. We should ensure that the environmental and toxicological
impacts of nanotech applications are studied during the development process
so that problems can be spotted early and fixed before damage is done.”

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.

Rep. Nick Smith, chair of the House
research subcommittee, said it was important for Congress to set aside adequate
spending to ensure that the public benefits of nanotechnology would be realized.

“Nanotechnology holds incredible
promise for improving human health, increasing economic growth and enhancing
our general welfare,” Smith said. “It is important that we ensure
that progress in nanotechnology is not unnecessarily hindered by the same alarmist
rhetoric that damaged the biotechnology industry in its early stages of development.”

A complete transcript of Colvin’s
testimony is available online at <http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/apr09/colvin.htm>.