A workshop held at Tel Aviv University discussed the question of whether there are risks to public health in the continued progress in research in the fields of nanotechnology and engineered food. Some of the participants asked to completely stop the research in these areas until their safety was checked, but the recommendation was that environmental research should be carried out at the same time
Avi Blizovsky, Galileo
When the train passes the tremendous speed of 50 km/h there will be danger to the lives of the passengers; the human body will not be able to withstand this speed. This is how experts in the 18th century warned against a technological innovation when it was in its infancy. On the other hand, in the 20th century we witnessed several technologies that promised to improve the quality of life and turned out to be harmful: the producers of DDT promised to exterminate malaria, but it turned out that the substance does not decompose and did a lot of damage.
So is the "miracle" drug Thalidomide, which caused terrible disabilities to newborns. The CFC - the freons found, among other things, in every refrigerator and ensuring better preservation of the food were found to destroy the ozone layer. And there are also many intermediate cases. In the end, we managed to get the best out of the technology, while trying to minimize the risks: X-rays are a representative example of this.
Now new technologies are on the agenda that are controversial, at least in the eyes of people, some of them scientists and some of intellectuals, who are not from the fields where the developments are taking place - mainly health and environmentalists. A conference held on May 16-15, 2005 at Tel Aviv University under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences dealt with the subject. The title of the conference was: "A brave new world - genetic engineering technologies for food needs and nanotechnology - the freedom of scientific research and the right of society to protect the environment and public health". The initiator of the conference and the person who chaired the conference committee is Prof. Hagit Maser-Yeron, from the Porter School of Environmental Studies and former chief scientist at the Ministry of Science.
A poignant question
The question is a poignant one for both sides: the accepted opinion in the scientific world (and the opponents had a relatively prominent representation at this conference) is that nanotechnology is a field that can bring blessings to humanity - and we saw examples of this in the exhibition that was adjacent to the conference: improvements in the transfer of drugs to the site where they are needed in the body, improvement in the utilization of solar energy, and more .
As the world's population grows, it will be necessary to make the plants more fertile and resistant to pests, and this can be achieved through genetic modification, especially of the edible plants used by humans and farm animals. The voices of those who fear genetically modified plants are now joined by those who fear developments in the field of nanotechnology.
The conference was opened by Prof. George Gray (Gray) from Harvard University, an expert in risk characterization. The subject of his lecture was: "Dealing with risks". At the beginning of the lecture, Gray clarified: "I am not an expert in nanotechnology or genetically modified organisms. I am an expert in analyzing the risks facing the individual and society. These are my opinions, I cannot speak on behalf of the government nor on behalf of my fellow members of the Harvard School of Public Medicine of which I am a member. We face many risks Every day we hear about something bad that has happened to someone. The question is how to sort them out Realistic, which ones are big and which ones are small, what needs to be taken care of and what not. And if we decided to take care of something - how do we do it, and what can we do to reduce the risk."
According to Gray, we constantly make decisions that involve taking risks: we decide on a personal level whether to undergo medical treatments, whether or not to install a smoke detector at home, whether to use a cell phone or not, and more. The government also takes risks when it decides to limit the speed of travel on the roads, establish safety procedures in hospitals, etc.; People want the benefits of technology but also expect the government to protect them.
Gray enumerates approaches in the field of risk management: an approach that says the basis should be medical - meaning that no one will be harmed from a health point of view; not taking any risk; An approach based on the risks - analyzing the risks from each topic according to the likelihood while taking a reasonable risk; An approach based on technology - for example which receptor to put on the chimney; an information-based approach; And finally an approach based on prevention out of caution such as the decision made in 1985 to reduce the amount of lead in fuel obtained thanks to a cost/benefit analysis. Another important area is the decision to reduce the emission of CFC substances that damage the ozone.
There is also the issue of alternatives: drugs versus side effects; Use of metals that ultimately harm a person, because the toxic heavy metals are washed into the sea and thus reach the edible fish. And what is the loss to humanity involved in canceling the benefits of technology that is delayed or stopped. In conclusion, Gray calls for increasing public awareness of the various aspects of any new technology so that public opinion will influence the decision makers. "There are many risks and poisons - we need good science, good analysis and good communication so that society makes good decisions."
Nanotechnology - a blessing for medicine or a health hazard?
Prof. Miriam Rafalovich, Director of the Institute for Materials Science and Engineering at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, reported on the results of an international study that she was one of the signatories of: "Nanotechnology is a revolution in the way materials are engineered today. Due to the large ratio of the surface in materials on a molecular scale, Nanoparticles are the driving force behind new technologies and applications range from electronics, physics, biology and medicine, so it is very important to test the effects of materials on a scale nanometers on living beings, and decide whether toxic effects exist only because of the tiny size of the particles. Therefore, a number of studies using the chemically inert "gold citrate" (Au citrate) particles have been applied to investigate the effects at the cellular level.
"Preliminary results already indicate that nanoparticles can have a dramatic effect when they are in the cellular medium. For example, the particles were observed to penetrate through the cell membrane within an hour, without endocytosis (a process of the penetration of clumps into the cell, by folding the membrane inwards).
Using an electron microscope it became clear that the nanoparticles filled spaces much larger than the size of the individual particle. After 48 hours of incubation, a decrease in the rate of cell proliferation was observed. Examination of the cell structure indicates that the cells did not spread to join their group properly, as the rotation of the actin protein in the cell appears to be impaired."
Hell or heaven?
"Genetic engineering in plants - not hell but not heaven either", this was the title of the lecture by Michael Korthals from Wacheningen University in the Netherlands. According to him, hell and heaven are the metaphors used to describe the new technologies for food production, by opponents and supporters of the technology (respectively), but the reality is probably somewhere in the middle. Korthals suggests taking a balanced approach and involving opponents in the decision-making process.
Although risk analyzes were expanded under the pressure of public opinion in Europe to cover not only risks to humans but to nature as a whole, so far no evidence of risks to human health, the environment and animals has been found. However, Cortes was very concerned about the social effects of these technologies. Who makes money from it, who gains, who loses, etc. According to him, it should not be left to conversations between executives of large organizations, policy makers or science managers.
In contrast to Messer-Yeron's main thesis that there is some risk in further technological development, there were also scientists who participated in the conference and disagreed with this opinion. In the field of genetic modification of living organisms (GMO), Prof. Nina Federov from the Department of Biology at the Pennsylvania State University claimed that genetic modification of organisms (GMO) is only "more than what exists", and is simply a direct continuation of the genetic manipulations that began in ancient times with the invention of agriculture, such as For example, a hybrid of two plant species. Messer Yaron claims that, at least for the purpose of the discussion, the premise was that it was something that was fundamentally different.
Prof. Mark Welland from the Center for Nanoscience at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom: "Nanoscience and nanotechnology today seem to have enormous potential to benefit many fields of research and applications, and therefore they are now attracting a lot of government funding and businesses in many places around the world. At the same time, it is clear Because these applications may raise new safety challenges; new legislation and ethical issues that will require public discussion in June 2003 The British government should have the Royal Scientific Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering carry out independent research into current and future developments in the field of nanotechnology and their implications." And adds Welland: "The study was published in July 2004 and the government's initial response was published in February 2005. The British government recognizes the importance of ensuring adequate licensing for nanotechnology, and funding for a new study that will examine the necessary legal requirements has been announced. The government is committed to a public dialogue about nanotechnology both in terms of In the directions of research and development and in the progress in the drafting of the regulations, the academies proposed that this program for dialogue will be developed in cooperation with the industries and non-governmental organizations."
Prof. Rashef Tana, director of the Department of Materials and Interfaces at the Weizmann Institute of Science, said unequivocally in a conversation with "Galileo": "We don't need more standardization but more research, environmental research can also be carried out. Of course we are all anxious about the environmental effects that may arise, but we need to continue the The research on nanotechnology issues as it is, without any procedural interference."
"We must be aware of the problems that can be caused by the nanomaterials. However, nanotechnology and nanomaterials will not be produced on a massive industrial scale in the next 10-5 years. Against the background of the fact that our air is full of nano particles from car emissions, from the chimneys of the electric company, from industrial pollutants - Aerosols that we don't know that much about - and because the addition in the next 15-10 years of new nanoparticles will be small and limited For small and protected places, it is possible to live with it. Even when the technologies become commercial, as in the case of the materials I developed, the production will probably be carried out in closed places. The private person will not breathe it.
"It's not that I don't think the health effects of nanotechnology should be investigated. At the conference there were those who proposed a moratorium on research and this is a dangerous thing. We understand too little about both the technology itself and its effect, but if we make a moratorium it will harm science and the economy. Nanotechnology is one of the growth engines of the world economy It's a technology in its infancy, it's a baby that needs to be allowed to grow, otherwise it won't deliver what is expected of it The same as kicking off stem cell research."
Is this what the conference participants said?
"Even in the conference itself, apart from a small number of statements, there was no talk of harming the freedom of research. The whole idea of the conference, as I understood it, was to create some kind of system of environmental research on nanotechnology on the side of research in nanotechnology. It may be necessary to allocate certain amounts for research topics on environmental effects , but why don't we do research on environmental effects in organic or inorganic chemistry or in biological studies that use nanomaterials? Some kind of environmental research. A certain environmental research was done on my materials and it was proven that they are non-toxic. The company established on the basis of my knowledge - the company Nano Materials - is in contact with huge companies from the automotive industry, some of which have signed contracts or sent letters of intent to purchase lubricants."
"The market is looking forward to these materials. They will reduce friction and wear and thereby improve the environment because when there is less wear there is less aerosol emission, the parts wear less, and drivers will have to visit the garage less. This is just an example of how we need to approach the issue with a controlled approach without too dark glasses and without glasses Too rosy. This is another type of science that is developing with promise on its side and with dangers that need to be studied and dealt with," Tana concludes.
The conference and exhibition concluded with a closed workshop with the participation of guests, academics and representatives of environmental organizations, held at the Science Museum in Jerusalem. Among the recommendations formulated at the workshop: maintaining full transparency for the general public in all matters related to the research topics in the field; control, taking measures to maintain safety in the field and setting standards accordingly; Adding members from the fields of environment, ethics, society and risk analysis to the various state bodies, such as the National Committee for Nanotechnology; A recommendation to the Israeli Academy of Sciences to establish a multidisciplinary committee that will monitor new technological developments and their impact on man, the environment and society.
what is happening in the world
The committee will examine dealing with new developments in the world, based on the experience gained in the US and the European market, and will recommend to the government the necessary control, if it finds room for it; a recommendation to start a public debate on the industry's responsibility for the safety of its products to the public and the environment; the possibility of recommending to the government to allocate from the public budget to nano Technology, a certain percentage for the study of the environmental, health and ethical effects of nanotechnology and to encourage and act for its continued existence of a broad public debate on these issues.
In a conversation with Galileo after the conference, Prof. Messer-Yeron said: "The question that the conference discussed is how research and even development of technologies that produce materials or compounds or components that nature does not produce naturally should be continued, with the two examples that we treated are examples of this - also nanotechnology that makes it possible to produce different materials Of those that exist, and also GMO that allows to make genetic combinations that nature would not normally reach. Should we behave differently in such situations and not according to the methods The normality of the normal scientific-technological progress. The main conclusion was that technological development should be accompanied by research that also examines the environmental, social and other effects that technologies of this type have.
One of the recommendations was that when public resources are used for research and development in areas such as nanotechnology or GMOs, a certain percentage should also be devoted to examining the potential risks and ways of dealing with these risks.
take the discussion out of the scientific community
Only about two months after the conference, on July 12, the Knesset's Science Committee held a debate with the same title and in which there was a majority for those who fear the developments. Nira Lamy, from the Commission for Future Generations: The decision on the application of technological developments in the field of medical science is usually made in the bioethics arena, by people of science, medicine, law and philosophers from the field of bioethics.
At the same time, decisions in this area may have far-reaching social consequences, in a way that makes their discussion socio-political and certainly not one that can be carried out at the front door of the scientific and bioethical community, not even one that the government has authorized to discuss the issue.
MK Leah Ness, chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, opened the meeting by reviewing the risks and prospects of technology and genetic engineering. "Besides the many advantages of technology, including information compression, improving the properties of materials, reducing the costs of existing applications, and more, there are concerns about The damages that this technology may cause to man and nature, by virtue of being new and unfamiliar."
At the meeting, Dan Wilensky, chairman of the "Applied Material" company, responded: I am sure that public health is important to all present, I believe that the industrialists should be prevented from making their money without worrying about public health. The danger is that if there are restrictions and we stop this entire industry, we will find ourselves With people who are unhealthy due to a lack of jobs, I think that the balance needs to be found between the concern for public health and safety and the development of technology, and at the same time take care of the opportunity. to harm the environment.
