I was so thrilled to spend two days with environmental activists, labor representatives, and some progressive representatives from Australia, Europe, and the USA. We were hosted by Friends of the Earth Berlin (BUND) to discuss our activities and collaborations related to nanotechnologies. It’s a topic of great interest because the very qualities that make nanomaterials commercially desirable can also make them more toxic than their normal-sized counterparts.

Because they are so small - the head of a pin is about 1 million nanometers across, nanomaterials appear to pass easily into the bloodstream when inhaled, swallowed, and possibly when applied to the skin (these data are primarily from laboratory animal and cell culture studies, and represent only a selection of nanomaterials). Once inside the body, many that have been tested have been shown to have access to most or all tissues and organs, including the brain. More recent as-yet-unpublished data reported that nanomaterials passed from the mother’s blood circulation to the fetal circulation. Although untested, it is reasonable to presume that nanomaterials may also pass through breast milk to a nursing infant.

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology predicted in a 2006 report that nanotechnologies development is, “… comparable perhaps to the Industrial Revolution—but compressed into a few years. This has the potential to disrupt many aspects of society and politics…Weapons and surveillance devices could be made small, cheap, powerful, and very numerous....”.

In 2005, a report by the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Committee, not exactly a “lefty” group, said, “The potential for NT [nanotech] innovations in chemical and biological weapons is particularly disquieting, as NT can considerably enhance the delivery mechanisms of agents or toxic substances. The ability of nanoparticles to penetrate the human body and its cells could make biological and chemical warfare much more feasible, easier to manage and to direct against specific groups or individuals.”

Many participants at the Berlin meeting stressed the need to move the conversation beyond traditional health risk considerations, to include equally crucial questions about nanotech: who owns the technology, who will benefit, and who will bear the risks? Will the global North reap the benefits of future nano-enabled cancer cures, while the global South ends up with our old nano-contaminated computers and electronics waste?  Will the industries and jobs go to regions with inadequate environmental and worker protection laws, while the products come to wealthier regions? How will military applications be used, and who will provide oversight?

The questions raised by public interest groups are of extreme interest to communities and populations that see themselves as potentially at risk from unsafe or untested exposures to nanomaterials used industrially or commercially. These issues deserve critical discussion and thoughtful action if we are to manage these new technologies safely into the future.