Until now assessing the risks of nano-technology belonged either to science fiction or was made by rule of thumb. With a transdisciplinary case study on the risks and chances of this up-and-coming technology the Institute for Human-Environment Systems at ETH Zurich has entered the current debate about the dangers and benefits of nano-technology with a systematic approach. And just in time, it seems. Because the study reveals that industry doesn't pay much attention to the possible hazards.

Toxicity in many cases not sufficiently clarified

This is borne out, among other things, by the results of company surveys. Three out of four companies stated that no risk assessment was carried out on the new technology or the products. Half of the companies would appreciate if they had better methods at their disposal.

Only two of 32 companies stated that they had actually investigated the absorption of nano-particles by living organisms. Whether products with nano-particles might also be toxic was only examined by every fifth company. Half of them did not test for toxicity and a further quarter did not know whether tests had been carried out.

This has a lot to do with the self-perception of nano-particle producing industries. The majority of the industry's representatives proceeds on the assumption that nano-particles are as good as harmless and that, while handled, they cannot pass over into natural systems or the human body (e.g. via respiration), even though scientific studies exist that prove the contrary (1).

It seems almost paradox that the surveyed firms relied above all on their self-responsibility and did not wish for any state regulation. The responsibility, according to the industry, lies with the producers. Industrial standards, it is felt, should be sufficient to protect people and the environment from undesirable (secondary) effects when nano-particles are used . At the most, there are calls for state regulation when it comes to the disposal of the products.

What you don't know won't hurt you

The attitude of the industry as a whole stands also in contrast to the awareness of John Q. Public, who considers the risks of nano-technology high in products that literally get under one's skin. Bread produced with the addition of nano-particles, for example, comes off badly in comparison with conventionally produced bread. Consumers put such a product on a similar (low) level as bread made with genetically modified ingredients. Attitudes on cosmetic products, such as sunscreens, are similarly negative.

Packaging materials produced using nano-technological methods, on the other hand, find better acceptance. And, on the whole, consumers judge skis, car laquers or photo paper that come out of the laboratory of the nano-technicians to be acceptable. "Nano-products are less acceptable the nearer they get to the consumer", concludes head of study Arnim Wiek from the Institute for Human-Environment Systems. This means that the same destiny threatens to overtake nano-technology as that suffered by genetic technology. When consumers recognise the benefit of an application and where they trust the producer, they are more willing to buy such products. On the whole, experts' assessment of risk is lower than that of non-specialists.

Tests done on textiles with and without nano-coating: On the right-hand lapel, dirty water runs off the fabric without penetrating it; on the left, the fabric soaks up the water (Picture: www.olma-messen.ch) large

NGOs aren't filling the information gap

In order to build trust, however, more information is needed–and this is where the stumbling block lies. To be sure, the view of the actors in the nano business is that it is the responsibility of the media, NGOs and governing bodies to inform the population. In reality, however, they are not fulfilling this function. "The NGOs don't seem to have discovered this theme, yet" surmises Wiek. Switzerland's Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) and the Swiss Agency for the Environment (BAFU) are currently working on the construction of a new information platform on nano-technology.

Various scenarios for the future

In their case study the students and their supervisors turned their attention away from the present and developed five scenarios with regard to the future of nano-technology. These scenarios stretch from a nano-free future all the way to one where nano wins the day. In the case study neither of these extremes is judged to be the likely outcome. What is more likely, according to Arnim Wiek, is that the variants in between will prevail. In one of these, technology takes backstage and is limited to areas of IT and energy or medicine. In the best case, called "no nano contact“, nano-technology has entered many areas of our everyday lives but has not ended up in our food or in other products ending up directly on, or in our bodies.

In all, a total of 60 environmental science students and their supervisors, as well as 30 external experts, worked on the case study. Five groups examined different nano-technological aspects, including future scenarios, the actors involved and how they are interconnected, the awareness of risk and the acceptance of nano-technology. The investigators were advised by tutors and the two heads of project, Michael Siegrist and Arnim Wiek. Wiek foresees a further case study on the subject.