Nanobioethics and Nanoethics

Nanobioethics and Nanoethics help (and help crucially) nanomedicine, nanobiotechnology, nanoscience, nanotechnology and other fields of science that meet the nano-bio convergence to be practiced, developed, grown and find applicability highly beneficial to all society, through a sustainable way. All debates on Nanobioethics and Nanoethics must have the level of excellence (and not just part of them).

Preface

Continuing with a series of articles started by a first article titled "The Roots of Nano-Fear Decoded", I discussed some of the various topics that I believe are the basis of the nano-fear.

Therefore, follow the topics which I addressed and the name of the respective articles published by me here, in NanoMedRev Blog:

• Nanopollution. The articles dedicated to nanopollution are:
• "Nanopollution Revised";
• "Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution";
• Nanotoxicity. The articles dedicated to nanotoxicity are:
• "Nanotoxicity in Humans";
• "Indicators of Nanotoxicity";
• "Some of The Main Types of Nanoengineered Nanoparticles Reported as Nanotoxic";
• "Nanoengineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Goods";
• "A World Without Nanotoxicity";
• Nanoregulation:
• "Why Nanoregulation Must be a Top Priority on Political Agendas";
• "Nanoregulation For The Future";
• "One Nanoregulation";
• Nanoeducation. The article dedicated to nanoeducation is:
• "Nanoeducation 3.0";
• Ethics. The article dedicated to Ethics is:
• This current article;
• Media Professionals (no articles published in NanoMedRev Blog yet).

This article is dedicated to Ethics in nanomedicine, nanobiotechnology, nanoscience and nanotechnology. To be more specific, this article addresses the thematic of Nanobioethics and Nanoethics.


My purpose in this article is, once again contribute with my advice to help demystifying the nano-fear.



Introduction

Ethics in science and technology comprises the study and debate of problems, possible threats and questions raised by scientific and technological advances in research and its materialization into industries, products, services and consumer goods, among many other aspects.

There are various thematic areas related to nanoscience and nanotechnology that have been the subject of studies and debates of ethical nature.
The Ethics involved into these thematic areas includes:

• Debate of matters of a social nature (including impact on society);
• Discussions of anthropological nature;
• Philosophical debate or discussions put under a philosophical perspective
• Discussions of matters of legal nature,
• Discussions of matters of religious nature.

Frequently, these ethical topics are viewed and analyzed from a historical perspective (past, present and future) - e.g. the history of civilizations, the history of human evolution, the history of the emergence of the various industrial revolutions (just to mention some of the historical perspectives).

Some of these topics already existed before the development of nanoscience and nanotechnology. These topics started to gain shape and critical mass with the advances of sciences such as genetics, biomedicine and molecular biology.

Over the past decades with the gradual development of these sciences were also gradually raised ethical questions that gradually began to be the subject of intense debate: Bioethics.


With the development of nanoscience and nanotechnology during the 2000-2010 decade, nanomedicine also raised and was object of development and growth.

Nanomedicine proved to be possible to achieve results that would be impossible to achieve with biomedicine (or at least these results would be achieved more slowly and the success would be more limited). Thus in a way, some of the topics of Bioethics also started to have a "nano" perspective: let's call it Nanobioethics.

On the other hand, nanoscience and nanotechnology brought enormous promises of benefits but also threats. These threats have also been the subject of study and debate on the ethical perspective: let's call it Nanoethics.


The Controversy And The Sensitive Nature

The topics and questions raised in Nanobioethics and Nanoethics are usually moral in nature and are therefore controversial. The way they are raised and discussed is delicate.

Even the selection of what topics are of an ethical nature is itself sensitive, controversial and delicate

And as if that was not enough, the way these issues are commented and spread to populations is (in a significant percentage of cases) careless, irresponsible and consequently also disastrous.


Some of The Topics on Nanobioethics And Nanoethics

The definition of topics arising from Nanobioethics and Nanoethics differs greatly depending on one’s point of view on the issues involved.

As if that were not enough, the simple grouping of these topics into categories is also controversial because somehow may possibly reflect the personal opinion of whoever sets up the grouping.

I selected a few examples among many. The selection does not reflect any preference from me. Due to reasons of convenience of reading, I tried to group them into thematic categories. The way I grouped the thematic categories do not reflect any personal opinion on these matters. If perhaps the thematic grouping into categories seems inadequate, incorrect, biased or dysfunctional, it only reflects ignorance on my part. Follow the examples I selected (among many), grouped into thematic categories:

• Health and health care: 
• HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s disease and other diseases and conditions;
• Nanotoxicity;
• Organ transplantation;
• Stem cell research;
• Nanoengineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Goods;
• Anthropological:
• Eugenics, Human enhancement, Life extension, transhumanism, immortality and design of Human evolution; 
• Environment:
• Nanopollution and other environmental issues 
• War and security: 
• Microbotics and nanobotics in vigilance and warfare. 

The Nano-Fear

This latter aspect that I referred generates in populations what I designate nano-fear, which in turn leads to a bad acceptance of nanoscience and nanotechnology by the populations.

In the background (and in my personal opinion) a vast field of science and technology - as is the case of nanoscience and nanotechnology - that can bring to society an entire immensity of inestimable benefits, eventually becoming bad accepted by a significant percentage of the populations due to the following factors:

• The risks associated; 
• All background ​​noise at the level of communication made around this issue. 

And why all this?

Because:

• The debate on these matters has not been conducted in all seriousness that it deserves;
• The poor quality of communication to populations.

The Wise Attitude

Reading what I wrote above and the way I expressed myself, it may seem that I see the ethical approaches as an impediment to the development and advancement of nanoscience and nanotechnology.

No conclusion could be more wrong with regard to this text. On the contrary, many years ago I took a strong awareness that if there are problems on the horizon, the best solution is to face them upfront. Facing problems upfront includes, among several actions, an open, intensive and exhaustive discussion on these problems.

It is not hiding the problems under the carpet and drowning out the communication of news that conditions are created for the establishment of a "politically correct" climate of "stability and serenity". If at some moments in the history of Mankind this approach seemed to result, in the times we live in today this recipe does not work anymore nor will surely result in the future.

Hiding the truth (or the search for truth) only causes the postponement of finding solutions to solve the problems. Additionally, hiding the truth (or the search for truth) only fuels the most exaggerated and delirious conspiracy theories.


One of the changes that the Internet and the World Wide Web introduced into our society was the game change: populations have much more easy and immediate access to information (and misinformation and counter information as well).


So What is Lacking in Nanobioethics and Nanoethics?

Much of the discussion on Nanobioethics and Nanoethics are endowed level of excellence: nothing missing.

However, other debates on Ethics still have room for improvement.
If we look at the debates on Ethics as a whole, there is no uniformity in quality: some are conducted with better quality than others.

So what is lacking in Nanobioethics and Nanoethics?The direct answer to this question in one sentence: all debates on Nanobioethics and Nanoethics must have the level of excellence (and not just part of them).



The Importance of Nanobioethics and Nanoethics

Nanobioethics and Nanoethics are extremely important and necessary for the practice, development, growth and applicability of nanoscience, nanotechnology, nanomedicine, nanobiotechnology and other diverse fields of science and technology that "fit" within the nano-bio convergence in our society.

In my personal opinion, science and technology without Ethics are neither science nor technology. They are something else, another "thing". I cannot think a name for this "thing". It is something that is "practiced", "developed", "grown" and have "applicability" in a manner unsubstantiated, ungoverned and without direction. The consequences tend to be harmful: it leads to dumbing down the populations. Besides, major investments become brutal and obscene spending of funds. In addition, there is no guarantee that real benefits are taken out of it. Science and technology deprived of Ethics can lead to degradation of Life on Earth and can ultimately lead to the extinction of the Human species (as we know it today or to the absolute and total extinction) and eventually lead to the extinction of all life on our planet.

The debates of Nanobioethics and Nanoethics, conducted with a level of excellence, have the ability to beneficially influence the nanoregulation. Saying the same, but in a more accurate way, the debates of Nanobioethics and Nanoethics, if conducted with a level of excellence, have the ability to act as guidelines for the nanoregulation.

I cannot say the same about the debates conducted with a level of quality considered questionable.

When I defend that debates on Nanobioethics and Nanoethics have the ability to beneficially influence the nanoregulation, I need to explain my recommendation based on my personal opinion. It is not acting as a pressure group or a blocking force against regulatory organizations that must be practiced the influence of Nanobioethics and Nanoethics. This influence does not seem to be beneficial. Many organizations, when faced with pressure (or pressure brought to the extreme of the blockade) react in the opposite direction: this it is certainly not a beneficial influence.

Instead, organizations engaged in debates of Nanobioethics and Nanoethics must be partners and interlocutors in a healthy and optimistic environment of constructive dialogue, sitting at the same table with nanoregulators, with the aim of working together.

Nanobioethics and Nanoethics help (and help crucially) nanomedicine, nanobiotechnology, nanoscience, nanotechnology and other fields of science that meet the nano-bio convergence to be practiced, developed, grown and find applicability highly beneficial to all society, through a sustainable way.


Can Nanobioethics And Nanoethics be Integrated into the Great Spiral of Sustainability?

Absolutely. Undoubtedly.

I mentioned and explained in numerous previous articles this concept that I have been developing gradually: The Great Spiral of Sustainability.

The great spiral of sustainability has begun, thankfully. It started somewhere, a few years ago. It began shyly. And gradually have been increasing: the spiral of best practices in nanomedicine, nanobiotechnology, nanoscience, nanotechnology and other sciences within the nano-bio convergence. In this spiral of best practices participate players (individuals and organizations) from the most diverse sectors directly or indirectly related to these areas of science and technology: students, researchers, professors, universities, industries, regulatory organizations, education organizations, organizations involved in combating and preventing nanotoxicity and nanopollution ... and also groups and organizations engaged in the debate on Nanobioethics and Nanoethics. Gradually, all these actors come into competition with each other to see who best implements the best practices. This highly healthy competition will gradually bring numerous benefits to science, technology, society, Mankind, all living beings, the environment and our planet.




Luís Bastos

Why Nanoregulation Must be a Top Priority on Political Agendas

... of ALL COUNTRIES

Preface

Following the alignment of my article "The Roots of Nano-Fear Decoded", I have pointed briefly which are the main roots of nano-fear (or at least some of them). Some of them have already been addressed in subsequent articles published by me in NanoMedRev Blog:

• Nanopollution. The articles dedicated to nanopollution are:
• "Nanopollution Revised";
• "Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution";
• Nanotoxicity. The articles dedicated to nanotoxicity are
• "Nanotoxicity in Humans";
• "Indicators of Nanotoxicity";
• "Some of The Main Types of Nanoengineered Nanoparticles Reported as Nanotoxic";
• "Nanoengineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Goods";
• "A World Without Nanotoxicity";
• Nanoregulation (addressed in this current article);
• Nanoeducation. The article dedicated to nanoeducation is:
• "Nanoeducation 3.0";
• Ethics (no article published in NanoMedRev Blog yet);
• Media Professionals (no article published in NanoMedRev Blog yet).

This article is dedicated to nanoregulation. I'll try to do my best to point and suggest paths for the future, with regard to nanoregulation. My goal in this article is to contribute to the nanoregulation to become a real legal instrument to be used to its full potential by ALL COUNTRIES, thereby contributing to a better world for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren and so on.


Introduction

Nanoregulation is already underway. Obviously those differences at the level of attitudes are abyssal, when making a comparison between different Countries:

• A minority of  pioneer Countries are already working at full speed;
• The majority of Countries is divided into two groups:
• The Countries that are waiting for the pioneering Countries in pursuing nanoregulation, so that they may decide to imitate them or affirm themselves by the difference;
• The Countries that are fully asleep, regarding nanoregulation; never heard of such a thing or if heard, it is a low-priority issue on their political agendas.

What Nanoregulation has to do With Priority on The Political Agendas of All Countries?

An interesting question. Though this question sounds simple, an appropriate and quite enlightening response is complex. I'll try to do my best to be clear and at the same time correct and synthetic.

There are several reasons. I'm going to address the ones I consider more critical.


01. Nanopollution

Problem: Humans and the environment spread nanoparticles to the entire Biosphere.

As I explained in my article "Nanopollution Revised", nanoparticles are present:

• In the air (atmosphere);
• In water (hydrosphere)
• In the soil (lithosphere).

They are thus gathered all the requirements necessary for the entire biosphere being contaminated with presence of nanoparticles. It can therefore be said that the nanoparticles tend to be ubiquitous.
Just as an example, nanoparticles that are present in the air (atmosphere):

• Mix well with the humidity in the air. As a consequence, when precipitation occurs (e.g. rain, sleet and snow) this gets contaminated with nanoparticles. The precipitation reaches the soil and open water (e.g. oceans, seas, rivers, lakes);
• Contaminate drinking water exposed to air;
• Contaminate open water (e.g. oceans, rivers, streams, lakes);
• Contaminate the surface of the soils;
• Contaminate the groundwater through infiltration;
• Contaminate the inner part of soils (trough groundwater);
• Enter into the plants through their aerial components (involved in the process of photosynthesis, respiration and transpiration);
• Enter into the animals through respiration, eyes, skin, etc.;
• Contaminate foods exposed to air.

Again, just as an example, nanoparticles that are present in the water (hydrosphere):

• Return to the air (atmosphere), ascending together with the water vapour during the evaporation process of water;
• Are absorbed by the roots of aquatic plants, entering this way into these;
• Enter into the aquatic, underwater, marine animals as well as amphibians;
• Contaminate food during washing with water (supposedly drinking water);
• Contaminate food during the cooking process, when water is used (presumably drinking water).

Once again, and just as a third example, nanoparticles present in soils:

• Return to the air (atmosphere), ascending together with the water vapour during the evaporation process of water;
• Are absorbed by the roots of terrestrial plants, entering this way into these;
• Enter into the underground and terrestrial animals; 
• Contaminate groundwater.

On the other hand, nanoparticles present into plants and animals traverse the entire food chain until reach Humans.

Fact: Countries in general occupy the entire (or almost all) of the surface of the lithosphere (nanopolluted) of the planet Earth. Due to reasons of sovereignty, most countries hold territorial waters (hydrosphere, nanopolluted, by the way) and airspace (atmosphere, also nanopolluted, by the way).

Therefore, it starts to become quite clear that nanopollution affects ALL Countries of planet Earth.

By consequence, it is also clearly explained why the regulation has to do (a lot) with the priorities defined in the policy agendas of all countries.

The pollution itself is a reason more than enough to justify the engagement of ALL countries in the nanoregulation

02. Nanotoxicity

Therefore, since nanoparticles are present into the entire environment (which includes ALL COUNTRIES) these easily enter into the Human body of ALL POPULATIONS OF ALL COUNTRIES.

Nanotoxicity and nanotoxicology are highly complex subjects. It falls out of my objective a full coverage of this topic on this article. I will address two only:

• Routes for entry of nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles into the Human body;
• Destinations of nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles, after entering the Human body.

Regarding the routes for entry of nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles into the Human body, as I explained in my article "Nanotoxicity in Humans", in general terms, nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles may enter into the human body via different routes. This entry of nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles into the Hyman body happens through episodes usually incidental and/or involuntary. For example, Humans may:

• Inspire accidentally and/or involuntarily air (previously contaminated with nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles);
• Absorb casually and/or involuntarily through their skin (through the skin breathing process) air (previously contaminated with nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles);
• Absorb accidentally and/or involuntarily, through the eyes, air, raindrops
  dew droplets, droplets humidity or water vapour or other impurities (previously contaminated with nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles);
• Accidentally and/or involuntarily eat food (previously contaminated with toxic nanoengineered particles);
• Drinking accidentally and/or involuntarily, water (supposedly drinking water) and consumption beverages (previously contaminated with nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles).

These incidental and/or involuntary episodes are associated with a lack of knowledge, information, awareness and nanoeducation by populations of ALL COUNTRIES. Therefore, through episodes of incidental and/or involuntary nature, the nanoparticles can enter the Human body via (not necessarily by this order):

• Inhalation;
• Cutaneous and eyes;
• Ingestion;
• Other.

Regarding the destinations of nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles, after entering the Human body, these can undergo different fates:

• Can be totally or partially excreted;
• Can be totally or partially metabolized;
• Can be totally or partially cumulated into cells, tissues and organs.

Regarding excretion, follow some different examples of excretion of nanoengineered nanoparticles:

• Through the kidneys, during the blood filtration in which the nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles are to be a product of excretion (a constituent of the urine);
• Through the intestines, during the formation of faeces and excreted through the anus;
• Through the sweat glands in order to be excreted in sweat during perspiration;
• Through the lungs (after venous blood having executed gas exchanges with the lung alveoli) being released into the environment during the exhalation.

In what concerns to metabolism, follow two examples of where nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles can be metabolized:

• In the liver; 
• In the spleen.

Regarding total or partial bioaccumulation into cells, tissues and organs, nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles which are insoluble or poorly soluble in biological fluids are of great concern in terms of public health:

1. Some nanotoxic nanoengineered nano particles which are insoluble or of low solubility can pass through the various defence mechanisms of the body. Thus, these nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles which are insoluble or low solubility can be transported along the human body in an insoluble form: passing into the blood stream (blood and/or lymphatic vessels) after passing through the respiratory membranes (lung alveoli via gas exchanges) and/or gastrointestinal membranes. These nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles which are insoluble or low solubility are then distributed to the various organs and eventually may accumulate at specific sites.
2. Other nanotoxic nanoengineered nanoparticles which are insoluble or poorly soluble can still find a direct link to the brain: after they are inhaled, they can travel through the olfactory nerves and penetrate directly into brain neurons.

As a consequence of what I explained above, it is easy to conclude that nanotoxicity is or should be a concern of ALL COUNTRIES.


03. Nanobiopharmaceuticals

Pharmaceuticals, biopharmaceuticals and nanobiopharmaceuticals are allowed to enter into the commercial channels after approval by regulatory authorities.

As a rule base, it can be stated that the regulatory authorities have as jurisdiction territory the Country where they belong. In other words, regulatory authorities operate in their own country and only in their own country.

As far as I know, there may be regional agreements in Organizations of Countries regarding some aspects of regulation.

If a pharmaceutical, for example, is approved in one country A, this fact does not necessarily imply that other country B adopts the introduction into their commercial channels, just because it was approved in the country A.

This general concept, described to pharmaceuticals, also applies to biopharmaceuticals and nanobiopharmaceuticals.

Since the nanomedicine is relatively new, these nanobiopharmaceuticals are also relatively new. They present a whole series of challenges in terms of legislation and regulation to the diverse regulatory authorities of ALL COUNTRIES around the globe. Most of these Countries are not yet ready to face these challenges, but one day will be.

This is therefore a reason per se more than sufficient to justify that ALL COUNTRIES include the nanoregulation subject as a top priority in their political agendas.


04. Nanoengineered Nanoparticles Present in Consumer Goods

As I explained in my article "Nanoengineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Goods", there are consumer goods being sold as commercial products containing nanoengineered nanoparticles in their composition.

As we can naturally imagine, the trade relations between countries are highly dynamic:

• New business relationships are always flourishing among the most diverse and distant countries;
• Import and export flows are developed or are changed;
• New distribution networks and channels are constantly created, so that a good produced in a country can be sold in other countries across the globe.

I want to emphasize that this dynamics also covers consumer goods being sold as commercial products containing nanoengineered nanoparticles in their composition.

These consumer goods are divided into several categories, regarding the use that consumers give them and the intended purpose. Nevertheless, there is a group of consumer goods already released into the commercial channels, which has been a particular target of debate: cosmetics, sunscreens and personal care products. Follow some examples: deodorants, soaps, toothpastes, shampoos, hair conditioners, sunscreens, anti-wrinkle creams, lipsticks, blushes, eye shadows, nail polishes, perfumes and after-shave lotions (just to mention a few).

Regarding the possible beneficial, harmless or nanotoxic effects of these nanoparticles to consumers, the information available to consumers is, in some cases, none, a bit vague or enlightening.

Personally, I am convinced of the presence of nanoengineered particles in consumer goods is not necessarily harmful, as was published in the sensationalist and non-specialized press.

I even admit that:

• A significant percentage of (or even most) of these manufacturers have performed quality and safety tests into their laboratories, in order to determine the beneficial, harmless or nanotoxic effects of these nanoengineered nanoparticles and the results have confirmed that they were safe;
• A significant percentage (or even most) of these manufacturers have hired independent external laboratories (outsourcing) to perform laboratory tests in order to  determine the beneficial, harmless or nanotoxic effects of these nanoengineered nanoparticles and the results have confirmed that they were safe.

However, given (a) the enlightening information (or absent) provided to consumers about the nanosafety of these nanoengineered particles in some consumer goods and given (b) the background noise made ​​by some sensationalist and not specialized media, the atmosphere of suspicion and fear was gradually settling into a few layers of populations.

Therefore, how consumers can rely on the results of laboratory tests? How can consumers trust the quality of these products?

In my personal opinion, there is only one answer: nanoregulation.

As we can naturally imagine, the trade relations between countries are highly dynamic:

• New business relationships are always flourishing among the most diverse and distant countries;
• Import and export flows are developed or are changed;
• New distribution networks and channels are constantly created, so that a good produced in a country can be sold in other countries across the globe.

Is therefore once again demonstrated ALL COUNTRIES must include nanoregulation as a top priority on their political agendas, with the objective of putting some order regarding this subject of the presence of nanoparticles into consumer goods.

Again, The Great Spiral of Sustainability (Now With ALL COUNTRIES Involved)

As I described in several pprevious articles, there is a phenomenon that has already been triggered - it's what I call "the great spiral of sustainability". Entities, organizations and players (in the world of nanotechnology, science, science-related, academia, industries) already started to compete with each other to see which is the one that applies and implements the best of the practices. Now, whith the advice I presented in this article - nanoregulation must be a top Priority on political agendas of ALL COUNTRIES - Countries will start to compete with each other to see which is going to develop the best nanoregulation.

In fact, this competition already started. In other words, some Countries have already joined (even without taking aware of it) to the big spiral of sustainability.

Again, this whole competition of best practices is highly positive and beneficial to the entire world.

Conclusion

I could have presented a lot more reasons for ALL COUNTRIES include nanoregulation as a top priority on their political agendas. However, I am absolutely sure that the four topics I presented above fully justify it.

The Countries that are waiting for the pioneer Countries in nanoregulation to proceed further (in order that they can then decide to imitate them or affirm themselves by the difference) don't need to do it. They can change of attitude and be proactive - by starting their own home work.

The Countries that are fully asleep in what regards nanoregulation can also change their attitude. They can start to be proactive - by starting their own home work.

Besides, there is a world trend to let it happen.

A World Without Nanotoxicity

Proposal of solutions and directions to combat and prevention of nanotoxicity and nanopollution.

Preface

Following my article "The Roots of Nano-Fear Decoded", I have addressed briefly some aspects of nanotoxicity and nanotoxicology in four articles:

• "Nanotoxicity in Humans";
• "Indicators of Nanotoxicity";
• "Some of The Main Types of Nanoengineered Nanoparticles Reported as Nanotoxic";
• "Nanoengineered Nanoparticles in Consumer Goods".

I start here an attempt to point out ways and propose solutions which I believe will help to combat and prevent effectively nanotoxicity (and nanopollution).

Introduction

From the strategy perspective, I identify three major groups of actions to combat and prevent effectively nanotoxicity:

1. Strategic planning of actions to be implemented immediately or ASAP; 
2. Preventive actions against the increase in nantoxicity; 
3. Actions to combat the already existing nanotoxicity or to minimize the current levels of nanotoxicity down to levels without risk. 

This approach through three points is somehow similar to the three points approach I presented in my article "Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution". Obviously, the details differ.

Concerning to point one, it is far too obvious: if simple actions often require strategic planning, when we have to face highly complex actions such as fighting and preventing nanotoxicity and nanopollution, strategic planning becomes vital and indispensable.

With respect to points two and three, I should add that it is (at least to me), difficult to handle them separately: fighting and prevention. There is an extremely complex chain of actions that must be implemented (after being the subject of an effective strategic planning, of course). The need for effective actions is so huge that in practice most of actions can be implemented for preventive purposes and at the same time taken (and adapted) to combat nanotoxicity that already exists (or to minimize the current levels nanotoxicity down to levels without a significant risk).

I also believe that it is simply impossible to implement points two and three in a sequence. It simply makes no sense and would be disastrous. Thus, these two points must be applied simultaneously in a coordinated, interconnected, integrated, without losing sight of combating and preventing nanopollution.

Strategic Planning of Actions to be Implemented Immediately or ASAP

A strategic planning of actions to be implemented immediately or ASAP requires, at least, the following issues (not necessarily by this order):

• Integration with nanopollution. To be more precise, integration with the fight against nanopollution and its prevention. These two issues are so inextricably interconnected that an effective combat and prevention presupposes necessarily take into account these two aspects - nanotoxicity and nanopollution;
• An urgent debate, serious, extensive, intensive, constructive, optimistic (and integrated with nanopollution). This debate must be conducted under the auspices of the collaboration with the aim of building a better world for us All. We live in times of reinventing everything. Moreover, the issue of nanotoxicity is relatively emerging in time. On the other side yet, our society has been conditioned by a formatted thinking. This formatted thinking has conditioned and atrophied the development of new ideas. The highly qualified specialists have to develop this debate with their spirit free of limiting concepts and wide open to new ideas and innovation in its purest essence. Therefore, the approach to combat the toxicity will require new ideas, new concepts, new practices, new perspectives and ways of seeing things from the scientific, technological and social perspectives. A debate with the participation of actors from different fields of knowledge, under the auspices of a constructive atmosphere, may have the potential to generate an effective strategic planning;
• Prioritizing: Establishing levels of priorities. More specifically, the establishment of priorities in the context of a complex chain of processes and actions to be implemented in steps. Although much valuable work has been done, much more needs to be done. This applies not only to combat but also to prevention. An intelligent scheduling of priorities is essential. If the scheduling of priorities fails, the combat and prevention will not progress and chaos will dominate the situation. The scheduling of priorities also involves the definition of population groups at high risk, medium risk and low risk.
• Regulation. As far as I know, regulation regarding nanotoxicology and nanopollution is already underway. It is, however, absolutely necessary to proceed with this work. Regulation is, among other things, a legal instrument. It is necessary to strengthen regulation, speed it up, and get an international engagement and consensus.

Preventive Actions Against The Increase in Nanotoxicity And Actions to Combat The Nanotoxicity That Already Exists or to Minimize The Current Levels of Nanotoxicity Down to Levels Without Significant Risk


Preventive measures and actions to combat nanotoxicity require, at least, the following issues (not necessarily by this order):

• The creation and dissemination of appropriate awareness and an entire culture and mindset of best practices, always under the auspices of absolute transparency, the highest sense of responsibility and aiming to build a better world for us ALL. All people (actors and civil society) must be clearly informed, using an accessible language, through positive, constructive, informative, transparent and optimistic campaigns. Media campaigns should be carefully planned and created, targeting different audiences, using different languages​​, always appropriate for the target audiences;
• Practices related to risk. Similarly to combat and prevent pollution, practices related to risk necessarily involve the following three aspects (among many others): risk monitoring, risk detection and risk assessment. My proposal goes to the creation of a network of screening centres - operating at full sync and collaboration among themselves and with the nanopollution observatories (as I proposed on my article “Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution”). Again, I do not mean "a network watchdogs". Rather, I refer to screening centres operated by highly qualified professionals, equipped with sophisticated computer technology, databases. I mean screening centres receiving constantly reported data from R&D facilities (academic and industry) as new discovered, engineered or already known nanosized molecular structures are nanofabricated, engineered or employed. These screening centres will not operate in real-time. However, if the operations are well planned and implemented, the delay between the input of data and the event time will be short. In other words, these screening centres will not operate in real-time; however, will operate in a quasi-real-time mode. This modus operandi, as I describe here, will allow the ability to send automatic warnings (or alerts) to the operating teams. The automatic warnings (or alerts) may be scaled in warning (or alert) levels, linked to pre-established protocols of measures to be triggered accordingly. Still with respect to the practices related to risk, I propose the following:
• Standardization of a list of consensual known indicators of nanotoxicity in order to allow routine practices of research, monitoring, risk assessment, risk evaluation;
• Establishment of a system of databases comprising the following information:
• Nanosized molecular structures reported as nanotoxic;
• The respective several levels (or degrees) of nanotoxicity for specific conditions;
• All known data regarding characterization of these nanosized molecular structures;
• Known routes of entrance into the body;
• Known effects caused in the body;
• Known measures to minimize those nanotoxic effects;
• Known possible cumulative effects and how, where, when, how long, etc.;
• Known forms of excretion by the body to the outside;
• Known possible consequences at the level of nanopollution;
• Known possible consumer goods containing at least one of these nanosized molecular structures;
• All known bibliographic references of published material regarding each item described above and free access permission granted to highly qualified and duly authorized staff;
• Permanent update with new reported information.
• R&D. Once again, as I stated in my article “Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution”, since nanotoxicology is closely related to nanopollution, will be very useful that R&D covers the two aspects. Follow some aspects I consider important, among many others:
• Intensive studies on computational simulation and behaviour prediction. Every time a nanosized molecular structure is planned to be produced, nanofabricated, nanoengineered or somehow modified in a facility (academia or industry), prior exhaustive studies on computational simulation and behaviour prediction must be carried out. The reports of the studies must be evaluated by a screening centre having into account the eventual potential risks in terms of nanotoxicity and nanopollution. Depending on the results reported, only then the process of production, nanofabrication, nanoengineering or other modification can be carried out. The screening centres must have legitimate authority (under international consensus) to approve or disapprove the continuation of processes (the passage to the processes of production, nanofabrication, nanoengineering or other modification). We have excellent qualified bioinformaticians, cheminformaticians and computer biologists all over the world. There are excellent industries dedicated to the industry of bioinformatics, cheminformatics and computer biology. These industries must be encouraged and supported to develop intensive R&D in order to release software tools oriented to these purposes;
• Intensive studies on nanocharacterization, nanotoxicology and nanopollution. Every time a nanosized molecular structure is produced, nanofabricated, nanoengineered or somehow modified, exhaustive studies on nanocharacterization, nanotoxicology and nanopollution must be carried out;
• Verification of traceability. Much R&D is required as well as a whole platform of collaborative organizations and individuals in order to implement an effective verification of traceability of the nanosized molecular structures which are reported as nanotoxic and nanopollutant. This means two aspects:
• Verification of traceability (inside the body) of the nanosized molecular structures which are reported as nanotoxic (carried out by the screening centres I proposed);
• Verification of traceability (into the environment) of the nanosized molecular structures which are reported as nanopollutant (carried out by the nanopollution observatories I proposed);
• R&D of key-technologies to fight effectively, in a clean and safe way the nanotoxicity.
• Regulation. Again, I believe that regulation has a role here which is crucial, fundamental and decisive: without regulation is simply not possible to carry out the prevention or combating nanotoxicity. The rules must be very clearly defined, with no gaps and no room for bad and/or ineffective practices. Unfortunately, regulation does not fall from the sky. The regulation is built in stages, gradually. As the information arrives, is analyzed and conclusions are taken, matured and consolidated. Then, decisions are taken and regulation is released. New unexpected situations emerge: the cycle repeats itself and regulation is updated and/or upgrated. Regulation must take into account all matters discussed above and many emerging and unexpected others. Since nanotoxicity affects the entire biosphere and the entire environment on a planetary scale, regulation must also require the participation and consensus of all countries. Regulations to combat and prevent nanotoxicity must involve experts and players from various sectors around the world, working in a collaborative context with the aim of building a better world for us ALL. All countries must provide timely data to a multinational organization (provided with multinational approved authority) to monitor compliance or infringement of the rules established. Measures must be studied to be applied in case of any country violating these regulations. Sanctions must be applied to infringing countries. The screening centres I proposed above must report directly to this multinational organization. Through this way, screening centres will also have authority and legitimate mandates to carry out effectively their mission.
• Change of mindset, attitudes and practices. Education of professionals in the academia and in the industry in changing processes and practices that facilitate the fight against nanotoxicity and nanopollution and their prevention. Again, a whole wide culture of best practices needs to be strengthened, intensified, generalized and adopted as the only option possible.

The Great Lessons That Nature Has to Teach us

It is very common for Humans pass through Life without taking even one single lesson that nature has to teach us. And nature has so many lessons to teach us.

I could start here a never-ending list of examples. I selected two only (not necessarily the most appropriate ones). Those two examples will help me to explain how I perceive a world without nanotoxicity and how it is possible to achieve this status. Nevertheless, dear reader, remember: metaphors and analogies are a good way to explain ideas. However, they are not perfect. Follow the two examples I selected:

• Mutations tend to occur frequently in the cells. However, cells have mechanisms of self-correction which are in a state of alert to prevent the occurrence of such mutations. Through this natural mechanism, most of mutations do not progress and, instead, are naturally corrected and return to normal.
• Tumours tend to form more often than they actually are formed. The immune system has defence mechanisms which prevent early that the vast majority of these tumours have a chance to develop and proliferate. Again, the body has mechanisms of self-protection which are in a state of alert to prevent that these malignancies. Again, through this natural mechanism, the majority of tumours does not grow and, instead, are naturally killed.

These two examples will help me to explain what I call "a concept based on a dynamic and preventive balance".


A World Without Nanotoxicity: a Concept Based on a Dynamic And Preventive Balance

A world without nanotoxicity.

Written this way, even sounds like a fairy tale. Not exactly. At this point, it is appropriate to explain how I perceive and what I mean by "a world without nanotoxicity".

Therefore, in my modest opinion, a world without nanotoxicity is a world in which the existing nanotoxicity does not present significant levels of risk, and these are monitored, evaluated and controlled by a vast, diverse and complex apparatus of highly competent experts and organizations working together in a coordinated and complex network and in continuous mode, combating and preventing nanotoxicity and nanopollution through a process similar to natural defence mechanisms.

I sincerely and strongly believe that the Human species has all the skills and resources to achieve this level in our civilization.


The Great Spiral of Sustainability Applied to Combat And Prevent Nanotoxicity and Nanopollution

Some very important and decisive steps have been taken, with regard to combating and preventing nanotoxicity and nanopollution. There is still much hard work to be done. This is an irrefutable fact. There is no question about it. However, the combat and prevention of nanotoxicity and nanopollution is not exactly in phase zero. Much valuable work has already been developed in various fields.

There is a whole vast and diversified chain of actors, individuals and organizations related to nanoscience, nanotechnology, nanomedicine, life science, physics, chemistry - just to name a few - and science in general. I do not just mean the academia, the industry and the scientific community only.

It was (somewhere in this chain) triggered the implementation of a culture of best practices. I have already observed this. It is extremely important that this culture (which is still in its infancy) is strategically maintained and enhanced to have a strong social impact. If this culture of best practices gains social impact, it will generate a kind of chain reaction along the whole chain of chain actors, individuals and related organizations. This process will generate a highly positive effect that will gradually increase the awareness in all individuals and actors in this chain.

At one point in the future (and may be a near future), we will see actors competing among themselves to see who implements the "best of best practices". This dynamic competition will be highly beneficial to strengthen and implement a vast combat and prevention of nanotoxicity and nanopollution. The world, the biosphere, the human species and the environment will benefit greatly from this great spiral of sustainability.

The Roots of Nano-Fear Decoded

In my opinion, it is impossible to isolate the responsible for the roots of nano-fear. The world and society are too complex and dynamic for such a task. However, it is possible to identify "clouds of higher probabilistic density" where responsibility for the roots of nano-fear is more likely to be located. This article will try to decode the roots of nano-fear. Or rather, I will try to decode those which are the main roots of nano-fear (or at least some of them).

Introduction

Whenever a new technology with relevance emerges; whenever the science shows to the world an important discovery, usually a whole range of complex and dynamic processes are initiated. Follow some of them (not necessarily in that order):

• The industry triggers a race to introduce new product offerings and services into commercial channels;
• If applicable, the field of medicine or health care develops applications of this new emerging technology or scientific discovery with relevance, to improve the health and welfare of populations; 
• Regulatory authorities study, monitors, discuss and evaluate the whole process of innovation under various angles and develop work that will generate legislation;
• Communication professionals communicate (or deliver) to the world news, stories and a whole range of information regarding this new emerging technology or scientific discovery with relevance;
• Part of the population (usually with less access to information) reacts with fear and suspicion (although this is not a generalized rule, it often happens).

It is also generally known and common sense that a new emerging scientific or technological discovery with relevance can be used for various purposes (whatever they are).

The principles that I presented above are also applicable to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Processes and their dynamics did not happen suddenly. However, succeeded very gradually, over the years.

After Richard Phillips Feynman, December 29th, 1959 presented the famous talk at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), called "There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom" the world in general was not prepared for the reach of his message.

The words of Richard P. Feynman needed interpretation, the recognition that he obtained through a Nobel Award and the development of many scientific studies, so that a significant part of the world could understand the importance of he said.

In fact, as I wrote in "The Origins of Nanotechnology", the Nobel Prize in Physics 1965 was awarded jointly to Sin-Itiro Tomonaga, Julian Schwinger and Richard P. Feynman "for their fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics, with deep-ploughing consequences for the physics of elementary particles".

Thus, the scientific and technological advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology gradually succeeded over the years. In the last decade, the number of discoveries and published articles has increased in a way - I would say - approximately exponential.

During this last decade, the media also focused their attention on the theme of nanoscience and nanotechnology and all issues that spin around.

Finally, what do we have now?

1. We have, on one hand, a notorious progress in nanoscience and nanotechnology which has been welcome, or reasonably recognized by the scientific community, industry and other players as well;
2. On the other hand, we have citizens adopting a position of scepticism, suspicion and fear towards the dissemination and communication of advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology;
3. We also have a third group which comprises people who have not yet formed a consolidated opinion. 

Regarding the first group, those have access to information published on scientific articles. This group is well informed, on a scientific and technological perspective.

In my opinion, it is impossible to isolate the responsible for the roots of nano-fear. The world and society are too complex and dynamic for such a task. However, it is possible to identify "clouds of higher probabilistic density" where responsibility for the roots of nano-fear is more likely to be located.

This article will try to decode the roots of nano-fear. Or rather, I will try to decode those which are the main roots of nano-fear (or at least some of them).


Nanotoxicity And Nanopollution

Populations are exposed to (1) naturally occurring nanoparticles present in the environment and to (2) nanoparticles produced by Humans during their work activity (e.g. into R&D laboratories, industrial facilities and surroundings).

In what concerns to nanoparticles produced by Humans present in products produced by Humans, these are normally nanoengineered nanoparticles (NENPs) or, in other words, engineered nanoparticles. NENPs are nanoparticles that have been specifically designed for a specific function (e.g. packaging coating, protection of radiation in sunscreens). 

In addition, Humans are exposed to a wide range of nanoparticles incorporated into consumer goods. As consumer goods, the waste is thrown into the trash and follows (seeing this process through an optimistic perspective) the entire cycle of garbage separation and subsequent treatment.

Therefore, nanoparticles are present in (1) the air, (2) the water and (3) the soils. Thus, all requirements for the entire biosphere is contaminated with the ubiquity of nanoparticles are gathered.

On the other hand, nanoparticles present into plants and animals traverse the entire food chain until reach Humans.


The Tremendously Enormous Complexity of Nanoregulation

In fact, nanoregulation is an intricate network of interconnected processes that require expertise and experience of many people currently working in an articulated, coordinated way, under the auspices of the positive and constructive debate, cooperation and collaboration. Nanoregulation is anything but easy. At a certain point and in many cases it is necessary to understand science, nanoscience, nanotechnology and legislation at the same time.

Explained the matter this way, it is not surprising that nanoregulation had begun to be developed with some delay. In my personal opinion, I believe that is extremely unfair to throw responsibilities to regulatory authorities. The nanoregulation is complex and complicated by nature and definition. I dare to state that nanoregulation is one of the aspects (or the aspect) of nanoscience and nanotechnology with greater complexity, higher degree of difficulty to be solved and that requires more resources.

Even then, the regulation started with some delay and that's a fact. The reasons, these I already explained above.

The consequence: fear ("what will happen to our world, our planet, we and the environment, if the authorities do not implement nanoregulation?").

Anyway, the regulation is currently (at least in some parts of the world) being developed at full speed. One among several examples, I have already presented in a previous article: "Good Winds From FDA".


Gaps (which will disappear) in Regulation

From what I've observed, most of the industries that operate totally or partially in the field of nanotechnology adopt a policy of transparency and good practices. Also from what I've seen, only a minority of industries has chosen the path of the lack of transparency, good practices, thus leading to poor credibility.

As I pointed above, nanoregulation is extremely complex.

Drugs that require medical prescription are, due to statutory requirements, introduced in the commercial channels after being approved on clinical trials. This principle applies to drugs that do not rely on nanotechnology, but also to nanotechnology-enabled drugs.

However, health care products (such as a lot of cosmetic products) do not require medical prescription and are not subject to legal requirement for clinical trials. This applies to products which do not use nanotechnology, but also those nanotechnology-enabled medical products.

Nanotechnology-enabled medical products contain (as it is understandable) nanoparticles. This is not necessarily bad. Rather, it can be highly advantageous. If clinical trials clearly show that the following requirements (with respect to nanoparticles of the drug) are met, then the nanotechnology-enabled drugs present an added benefit and are highly advantageous from the therapeutic point of view:

• Nanoparticles are not toxic to the patient;
• Nanoparticles are not toxic to the workers;
• Nanoparticles are not toxic to the environment;
• Nanoparticles actually contribute to increase the therapeutic efficacy of the drug.

Industries in general, even with an absence of regulation, choose the path of transparency to consumers - the right choice, that reveals responsibility and clear thinking and brings high benefits to the corporate credibility.

However, on the other hand, the absence of regulation for certain medical products creates opportunity for some industries (which I believe to be a minority) to adopt a posture less transparent to consumers.

Again, this absence of transparency to customers, once communicated to citizens (specially if the information is communicated by communication professionals who have a poor knowledge of what they are talking or writing about) produces fear and suspicion.

Intensive work is under development now in order to eliminate or minimize these regulatory gaps. I personally believe that the nanoregulatory landscape will change the rules within a relatively short time.


Nanoeducation

Nanoeducation has been undervalued. Today the perception of nanoeducation is wrong and dysfunctional. It is common practice to perceive nanoeducation as a set of academic programs (e.g. courses, degrees, masters, doctorates, post docs) directed to nanoscientists or other scientists interested in career advancement and enrich their curriculum vitae. This is in fact nanoeducation. More precisely, this is just a tiny part of nanoeducation (according to my personal way of thinking).

An excellent nanoeducation would complement and fill an enormous range of gaps in the entire nanotechnology framework – something that unfortunately does not happen.

A world population with a wrong, distorted or dysfunctional perception of nanotechnology and the benefits it can bring to society can trigger the decline of nanotechnology.

Bioethics, Nanoethics and Nanobioetichs / Bionanoethics. In One Word: Ethics

The vast majority of the promises that nanoscience and nanotechnology bring us, when evidence-based (in most cases); fill us with hope for a better life and better world.

However, there are a whole range of ethical issues that require serious debate, intensive and comprehensive, carried out by experts from various sectors. Many of these debates are already being carried out in a serious, intensive and comprehensive way, by experts from various sectors.

Follow some aspects that are the object of debate:

• Nanotoxicity and nanopollution. Although this issue has already been described above, it does have a serious ethical component;
• Bad practices carried out by a minority of industries in contrast to the good practices undertaken by most industries. Although this topic has also been identified above, has also a serious ethical component;
• Consumer protection. This point is raised by the existence of bad practices carried out by minority of manufacturers of consumer goods. As expected, this aspect also contributes to the nano-fear and suspicion;
• Nanomedicine, increased life expectancy, increasing world population, Human enhancement and sustainability. As evidence of many scientific papers published, nanomedicine offers tremendous potential for populations: (1) earlier and more accurately diagnostics of diseases; (2) more effective treatment of diseases; (3) more effective cure of diseases; (4) significantly increase of the welfare of the population; (5) significantly increase the life expectancy of human beings. Directly or indirectly, nanomedicine will help the populations having better health and living up later. This contribution reinforces the estimates of the global population growth and increased average life expectancy of populations. So here we all have a real and serious problem of sustainability for all our descendants. Human enhancement is the set of efforts, actions and technologies to overcome (temporarily or permanently) the current limitations of the human body employing natural or artificial means. The definition of "Human enhancement" is not very clear and there are divergences in relation to this matter. Some bioethicists and  nanobioethicists prefer to restrict this term to the non-therapeutic application of specific technologies to Human biology. Some examples: nanotechnology, gene technologies, neurotechnologies and cybertechnologies. This issue unleashes controversy about what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to do. The debate also discusses where must begin and where must end the Human Enhancement Technologies (HET). The debate involves ethical, bioethical, nanoethical, nanobioethical, anthropological, philosophical, religious aspects among many others;
• Applications of nanotechnology in defence. Just the mere mention of this aspect alone creates fear and suspicion. Applications can even serve only to make the equipment lighter, for example. However, fear and suspicion are emotional and therefore irrational feelings;
• Unauthorized access to nanotechnology by individuals or groups of individuals with bad intentions. We live in an era of innovation and reinvention. Developing this idea with some irony, even terrorist groups need to innovate and reinvent their methods of spreading terror;
• Theft of private health information. The development of nanotechnology applications is reflected in the development of nanoelectronics, the construction of new semiconductors, and computers with processing speed, storage capacity and number of functionalities incomparably more powerful of the ones currently used. This development paves the way to an enormous benefit: the development of management systems for health information, which will benefit not only patients but also all health systems. As happens today, there may be a risk of theft of private health information.

The Responsibility of Media Professionals

Regarding the second and third groups (on Introduction), people in general (the average citizen) are informed through the media:

• If the information is independent, accurate, accessible and of quality, people are well or acceptably informed;
• However, if the information is partial, speculative, unfounded, inaccurate, explained in a confusing way and of dubious quality, people get a distorted picture of reality. 

In my personal opinion, communication professionals are divided into two main groups:

• Those who are well informed or know the bare minimum about what the subject is about and, in this case, communicate seriously;
• Those who simply know nothing about it and due to their profession, treat the information with negligence and with a doubtful credibility;

Those communication professionals, who simply know nothing about nanoscience and nanotechnology (or even science) and due to their profession, treat the information with negligence and with a doubtful credibility are the ones who deliver partial, speculative, unfounded, inaccurate information. This bad information is also explained in a confusing way and is of dubious quality. Consequently, people start to have a distorted view of reality.

What are the direct consequences of this? Fear and suspicion.

Are those communication professionals who simply know nothing about nanoscience and nanotechnology (or even science) and treat the information with negligence and with a doubtful credibility the solely responsibles for the nano-fear? By no means.

Media professionals (in general) are simultaneously:

• The last link of a complex and dynamic chain of actors and processes, placed immediately before being triggered various discussions and an atmosphere of (1) acceptance, (2) indifference or (3) fear and suspicion;
• The most influential communication interface with the average citizen.

Final Comments

In this article I tried to decode the roots of nano-fear (or rather, those that seem to be the main roots of nano-fear or at least some of them).


As everything in Life, pointing out what is (or was) wrong (or has room for improvement) is not enough. It is also necessary to point out ways and solutions. This is what I will do in some of my next articles.


References

Regarding Richard Phillips Feynman, his work and his famous lecture "There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom", I use Wikipedia as source.

Regarding the The Nobel Prize in Physics 1965, I used the following source:

"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1965". Nobelprize.org. 16 Apr 2012 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/