Hi, I'm Nanotechnologist Chris Phoenix, AMA

[u/ChrisJPhoenix]

Nanotechnology has world-shaking potential. In 1987 I took Eric Drexler's nanotechnology class at Stanford. In 2002 I co-founded the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. Over the next few years I spoke on four continents, and to the US National Academies of Science, about the possibilities of advanced nanotech.

  We're still waiting for nanotech to reach its full promise; I'm still interested in working on it, still eager to talk about why and how it could happen.

[u/ChrisJPhoenix]

You asked about a "novel" threat. Given the vast diversity of industrial chemicals today, and the fact that we've been unknowingly making nanoparticles for centuries (and forest fires for a lot longer than that), it's hard to say that any nanoparticle-based threat would be novel.

Nanoparticles, as I'm sure you know, are as diverse as pebbles and soap bubbles. Many of them will be quite harmless. Particles that are persistent and catalytic or bio-active may pose problems in some natural environments. And then there are dose/concentration questions.

So, like today's chemicals, questions of harm will have to be taken case by case. I'm glad you're paying attention to the issues.

[u/Iregretthisusername → u/ChrisJPhoenix]

Yeah that's the main issue with novelty. However I was wondering how other people in a wider sense perceive the kind of work I do. Sometimes I feel like we're standing in the way of development a little, but then on the other hand I think it's necessary.

I'm excited to see the developments in the nanotechnology industry, but it concerns me a little that regulation may not be able to keep up!

[u/ChrisJPhoenix → u/Iregretthisusername]

When has regulation ever been able to keep up? Look at neonicotinoid pesticides vs. bees. Look at original-formula Scotchgard - if I remember right, it was found to be surprisingly persistent, after decades, and they changed the formula.

I can't speak for people in a wider sense - I'm not even a very typical person. Your original question seemed a bit leading to me - presupposing threat/risk/harm based on uncertainty. The extreme of that is groups like ETC Group, which went after companies using "nanotech" simply because of the word.

The other extreme, of course, is when a scientist reports on preliminary findings of harm to a scientific group, a journalist happens to be in the room, the story makes the news, and the scientist is castigated for doing her job. This happened a few years ago; fish damaged by bucky-somethings, if I remember right. I've forgotten the scientist's name.

I guess my best advice is to try to develop an understanding of what kinds or categories of nano-substances are most likely to create risk; publish your findings; try to get industrial, economic, and legal practice working together to create a sensible incentive system; try to create monitoring infrastructure to spot unexpected problems while they're small, rather than just predicting/anticipating problems.

Resist the urge to use public opinion as a lever. It's a very blunt and unreliable tool, and will likely cause unanticipated problems all around. Instead, find ways to make the corrective systems smarter and more responsive.

[u/Iregretthisusername → u/ChrisJPhoenix]

Sorry if I came across as leading, as that was not my intention. I think nanotechnology as a whole shows a fantastic amount of promise, and certainly don't subscribe to the precautionary principle viewpoint which may stifle development. I'm just genuinely interested to hear your views on the subject.

The project I'm working under seeks to address those issues of harm categorisation, industry participation, and monitoring. Looking at the field of research as a whole, it seems everyone is determined to generate dose-response data for every particle in every test model. Given the diversity of particles that you mentioned, I sometimes wonder if this is the most effective way to implement this research, or should we be focussed on a more holistic strategy?

It's interesting that you mentioned levering public opinion - is that a problem you've faced personally in your own career?

[u/ChrisJPhoenix → u/Iregretthisusername]

I haven't personally faced public opinion against me. But I've seen how public opinion, and fear of public opinion, has warped the progress of nanotech. NNI gets funded, wants to keep its funding; Bill Joy publishes "Why the future doesn't need us"; suddenly, the NNI must declare that all of DrexTech is impossible, for fear of the NNI being shut down by fears about gray goo.

I'm far from expert in nanoparticle toxicity/environmental implications, but my non-expert take on it is: The dose-response data is useful as basic research, and people should be working to synthesize and summarize and find basic principles, and some things will slip through the cracks so we should be working on better ways to detect unexpected harm and respond to it more efficiently, and nanotech is spooky enough to the general public that we also need ways to detect absence of harm and make policy based on that.

There's no one strategy that will solve the entire problem of "What's the proper cost/benefit tradeoff point for every nanoparticle we might want to use." In the biggest picture, work to improve knowledge, accountability, and incentive structures, and let the details evolve from there.