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

Nanoeducation 3.0

When the standard answer to this common question would become "what I want to be when I grow up? An astronaut? No! I want to be a nanoscientist. This is more cool!", then, on that day, much of what I proposed in this article already materialized.

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 (no articles published in NanoMedRev Blog yet);
• Nanoeducation (addressed in this current article);
• Ethics (no articles published in NanoMedRev Blog yet);
• Media Professionals (no articles published in NanoMedRev Blog yet).

Therefore, as I referred above, this article is dedicated to nanoeducation. I'll try to make here a brief diagnosis of the current state of nanoeducation, identify what is right and what needs improvement and propose solutions.


Introduction

Only with the aim of illustrate how the world in general perceives what is nanoeducation, I present here a definition or description of Nanotechnology education.


Nanoeducation 1.0

Nanoeducation started to be something very close to the definition or description I presented above. It is common practice perceiving nanoeducation as a set of academic  programmes (e.g. courses, degrees, masters, PhDs, post docs, e-learning programmes, summer schools) oriented to nanoscientists or scientists and engineers from various fields of science and technology who are interested in advancing their personal career and to enrich their personal curriculum vitae for future professional challenges. Generally, these academic programmes aim to provide the most complete and reliable information on current developments in nanoscience and nanotechnology.

This is in fact nanoeducation. More precisely, this is just a tiny part of education (according to my personal opinion, I might add).


The definition or description of Nanotechnology education I presented illustrates my point.

This concept of nanoeducation is what I denominate "Nanoeducation 1.0".


Nanoeducation 2.0

Having been established what I termed "Nanoeducation 1.0", some organizations have begun to make additional serious efforts towards diversification, coverage of a wider range of target audiences and to go further.

In the meantime, the academic programmes (as I referred in Nanoeducation 1.0) multiplied, grew in quality, specificity and degree of specialization. Today we have a wide range of very good offers in the field of academic programmes, many of them with a level of excellence. Target audiences: nanoscientists or scientists and engineers from various fields of science and technology who are interested in developing their personal career, improving this way their personal curriculum vitae to become suitable for future professional challenges.

Therefore, nanoeducation moved up a level: it moved up from what I termed "Nanoeducation 1.0" to what I call "Nanoeducation 2.0": nanoeducation programmes more mature, complemented by initiatives and actions aiming diversification (coverage of a wider range of target audiences).

Follow some examples (among many):

• Organization of open days (for society), promoted by Universities and research institutions. Public in general and children, adolescents and young students from schools that organize study visits have opportunity to interact directly with nanoscientists and actively participate in simple and didactic experiments, handle some equipment, etc. Target audiences:
• General public;
• Pre-teens;
• Teens;
• Youth;
• Promotion of other programmes (not academic), initiatives and activities aiming to reach other segments of target audiences. Examples: partnerships with science museums and schools. Target audiences:
• Citizens who visit science museums;
• Children, adolescents and young students from schools that organize study visits to science museums;
• Setting up nanoeducation networks, working in a commitment to boost local partnerships between R&D and science education organizations in order to teach the general public, pre-teens, teens and youth about nanoscience, potential applications and impacts and additionally to get them to think about these subjects. Target audiences:
• General public;
• Pre-teens;
• Teens;
• Youth;
• Organization of educational events dedicated to children, with the aim of familiarizing them with the basic principles of nanoscience and nanotechnology. As an example, during these events are presented to children basic concepts and made available to them buckyball toys, Lego® bricks to build models of nanosized structures, etc. target audience: children;
• Creation of portals in the World Wide Web and other web platforms (e.g. social networks) with the aim of releases, on an educational context, the basic concepts of nanoscience and nanotechnology and some important aspects, such as the various applications, benefits and risks. Target audiences (note: these target audiences depend strongly on the Search Engine Optimization and/or the management of the presence in social networks):
• General public;
• Public who is enthusiastic in matters of science and technology;

In my personal opinion and according to the concepts that I presented and will present in this article, the current nanoeducation is on the level of what I call Nanoeducation 2.0.


Nanoeducation 3.0

Nanoeducation 3.0 is a concept that I propose here. In other words, Nanoeducation 3.0 is a model of reinvention of nanoeducation proposed here.

Nanoeducation reinvented.

Really? And why nanoeducation needs to be reinvented?

Because nanoeducation has been undervalued. I would say highly undervalued. Today the perception of nanoeducation is wrong, distorted, disjointed and dysfunctional.

Despite the academic programs of high quality available all over the world (nanoeducation 1.0 and nanoeducation 2.0), despite the highly meritorious and professional efforts to diversify and reach other target audiences (Nanoeducation 2.0), there is still much to do and much target audience to reach.

As I pointed in my article "The Roots of Nano-Fear Decoded", finally, what we have now?

1. We have on the one hand, a remarkable progress in nanoscience and nanotechnology, which has been welcome, or at least reasonably recognized by the scientific community, industry and other players;
2. On the other hand, we have citizens who adopt an attitude of distrust, suspicion, scepticism and fear, in the face of communication of advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology;
3. And we also have a third group of individuals who have not yet formed a consolidated opinion.

The second and third groups are highly diversified in terms of target audiences. The third group includes individuals who never heard absolutely nothing related to "nano".

These target audiences are as diverse as one can imagine or even more:

• Different age groups:
• Pre-adolescent;
• Adolescent;
• Young people;
• Adults;
• Aged people;
• Different types of professions (or unemployment), such as (just to mention a few):
• Regulators;
• Professionals in the field of innovation, entrepreneurship and technology transfer;
• Patent attorneys;
• Lawyers and jurists;
• Stakeholders and investors;
• Financial managers, economists, key account managers, accountants;
• Environmentalists;
• Psychologists and psychoanalysts;
• Geographers;
• Meteorologists;
• Historians;
• Translators;
• Writers; novelists; poets;
• Journalists; communication professionals and media professionals in general;
• Professional athletes;
• Military professionals; police professionals; security professionals;
• Politicians;
• Different positions in the hierarchy of leadership within organizations, such as (just to mention a few):
• Top managers;
• Chiefs interim;
• Staff;
• Different types of unemployed individuals:
• Short term, medium-term; long-term  unemployed individuals and unemployed individuals with early retirement;
• Young, adult and older unemployed individuals;
• Unemployed individuals without responsibilities of sustenance of their Family; unemployed individuals with responsibilities of sustenance of their Family;
• Unemployed individuals with large financial resources;  unemployed individuals living in extreme poverty;
• Unemployed individuals with academic education; unemployed individuals without academic education;
• Unemployed individuals living in rich countries, unemployed individuals living in poor countries;
• Unemployed individuals living in countries in peace; unemployed individuals living in countries at war;
• Different academic backgrounds;
• Different levels of literacy (high, medium and low level of literacy);
• Different permeabilities of the tabloid press of dubious quality;
• Different cultures and religions;
• Different countries (each with their own realities that distinguish them from others).

Nanoeducation must also be perceived as a vehicle to communicate with the entire world. It is necessary to take the entire world as the biggest audience and divide it in several segments, sub-segments and niches of target-audiences.

There is an urgent need of implementing several nanoeducation programmes, each customized to a specific target audience (just a few examples described above), using the right and appropriate language to each target audience.

It is required an entire apparel of communication operating according with the following guidelines:

• Communication must be absolutely transparent. Hiding sensitive topics purposely never worked. The same way it will not result in nanoeducation: always the truth, transparency and credibility;
• Different target audiences must meet different and appropriate (a) approaches, (b) different ​​and appropriate contextual languages and (c) different and appropriate educational content. However, in all or in most cases, the benefits and risks must always be addressed. In all cases the truth and transparency ​​must be considered sacred values;
• Communication must be organized by countries. For countries with a diverse culture, it must be organized by regions and sub-regions within the same country. Particular care should be taken regarding:
• The local dialects;
• Religious values;
• The local infrastructure and should be prepared in accordance with the auxiliary means of communication and educational to be used.

Since these target audiences are scattered all over the world, the cultural and language barriers (among many other barriers) are a fact. Therefore, trainers/educators must include the following features on their profile:

• Must be local professionals;
• Must be accredited professionals
• Must speak the right and proper approach directed to the target audience;
• Must speak the same local idiom/language;
• Must use presentation methods and auxiliary educational tools (slide shares, videos, electronic guides, printed guides, books, brochures, etc.) correctly translated into the idiom/language spoken locally;
• Must be prepared for the most unexpected questions that may arise and know how to respond properly, in a transparent, honest and credible way.

Nanoeducation 3.0 Concept versus Reinventing Nanoeducation

At this point it is important to highlight the following. I defend (as well as I can) the reinvention of nanoeducation according to a model that I propose (in this case, what I call Nanoeducation 3.0). Below, I present benefits of the adoption of my concept, followed by risks inherent to the not adoption my concept. However, if the reinvention of nanoeducation is implemented, not following my concept, but somehow close to it (even if the designation and some aspects are ignored or modified), the result is very positive for me. What I really consider important is the (good) reinvention on nanoeducation. It is that all that matters.

The Benefits of Implementing The Nanoeducation 3.0 Concept

Nanoeducation should never ever be undervalued. Neither the concept of Nanoeducation 3.0 should ever be underestimated.

The benefits of a Nanoeducation 3.0, as I propose here, with a level of excellence as a whole and its various parts are immense, vast, broad and crucial:

• The Nanoeducation 3.0 concept will fill a wide range of gaps in the framework of the entire nanotechnology and its acceptance in society;
• The Nanoeducation 3.0 concept will play a complementary role that is tremendously important. This complementary role is tremendously important to help establishing and consolidating a balance of harmony so necessary within the framework of various aspects of nanotechnology: R&D, nanoregulation, risk assessment, risk management, implementation a culture and mindset of best practices, the combat and prevention of nanopollution and nanotoxicity;
• And finally, I have kept to the end what I personally consider the greatest benefit of implementing the Nanoeducation 3.0 concept: the Great Spiral of Sustainability. The Great Spiral of Sustainability will be strengthened tremendously and gain greater momentum. Many steps, initiatives and actions have been put into practice with regard to nanoeducation, improving it, its strengthening, increasing the offer (both in quality and quantity), increasing the range of new and more diversified target audiences. This is an undeniable fact. But ... much more is needed. There is still much hard work to be done. And this is also an irrefutable fact. There is here a highly important aspect that I consider never be too much to highlight. As I explained in my articles "A World Without Nanotoxicity" and "Fighting & Preventing Nanopollution", there is a whole vast and diversified chain of players, individuals and organizations related to nanoscience, nanotechnology, nanomedicine, life science, physics, chemistry - just to name a few - and science in general. I don’t mean the academia, the industry and the scientific community only. It is a complex and intricate chain of players. The implementation of a culture of best practice has already been triggered in some link somewhere within this complex and intricate chain of players, individuals and organizations. I have already observed this several times. It is extremely important that this culture of best practices (who still lives in his childhood) is strategically maintained and enhanced in order to have a strong impact on our society. Once this culture of best practices earns social impact, it will generate a kind of chain reaction along the entire whole, vast and diversified chain of actors, individuals and organizations. This chain reaction will generate a highly positive effect that will gradually increase awareness in all subjects and actors in this chain. In the case of this concept of nanoeducation 3.0. is implemented sometime in the future (and I admit the possibility of being in the near future), this concept will mix throughout the referred chain reaction. We will see players competing against each other to see who implements the "best of the best practices" even at level of nanoeducation. This unstoppable and dynamic competition will be and highly beneficial to strengthen and implement a range of best practices, ranging from nanoeducation reinvented to an effective combat and prevention of nanopollution and nanotoxicity. Our civilization will benefit greatly from this great spiral of sustainability.

The benefits of implementing the concept of Nanoeducation 3.0 seem to be below the expectations? Well, wait till you read the risks of not implementing this concept.

The Risks of Not Implementing The Nanoeducation 3.0 Concept

In my opinion, however, this is far from happening. A world population with a wrong, distorted or dysfunctional perception of nanotechnology and of the benefits and risks that nanotechnology can bring to our society (in the present, in the near future and in the medium and long term) may simply result in the decline of the entire nanotechnology.

If nanotechnology declines, the consequence is simply a disaster. Just a sample (negligibly small) of elucidative examples:

• No truly effective solutions to water desalination, and as a consequence, to obtain purified drinking water available at a cheap price for the entire world population;
• No significant progress in medical, biomedical, pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical sciences;
• No truly effective solutions for obtaining clean energy sources, environmentally friendly, renewable, available at cheap prices for the entire world population (the world will remain dependent on fossil fuels with all the consequences that we know);
• Decline in the fight to improve the environment of our planet (decline of environmental remediation applications);
• No quantum computing and the immense and diversified solutions it can provide to our world as we know it;
• Decline of big data management;
• Decline of the mobile communications industry;
• Decline of the semiconductors and semiconductor devices industry;
• Decline of the electronics industry;
• Decline of the displays industry;
• Decline of the aerospace industry;
• Decline of the automotive industry;
• Decline of transportation applications;
• Decline of the steel industry;
• Decline of the glass industry;
• Decline of the coatings industry;
• Decline of the construction industry;
• Decline of the disinfectants industry;
• Decline of security industry;
• Decline of fire protection and detection;
• Decline of household appliances;
• Decline of printing industry;
• End of intelligent and functional clothing.

The crisis the world is currently experiencing will be nothing when compared to the crisis caused by a decline of nanotechnology (if it happens).


Final Comments

In case of this concept or something similar became implemented, what indicators do the experts have available to monitor the ongoing process of implementation? Well, there are many metrics.

However, there will be a qualitative signal that tells everything or at least almost everything.

It is common to ask pre-teens something like "What would you like to be when you grow up? An astronaut?"

When the standard answer to this common question would become "what I want to be when I grow up? An astronaut? No! I want to be a nanoscientist. This is more cool!", then, on that day, much of what I proposed in this article already materialized.

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/