Research Stories

by Joe Kullman

The Center for Nanotechnology in Society (CNS) at Arizona State University is one of only two such centers in the United States funded by the National Science Foundation. (The other is located at the University of California, Santa Barbara). The mission for researchers working at the center is important. Their task is to help prepare government leaders, educators, scientists, industry leaders, and members of the general public for a world that will increasingly be shaped by nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is the science and art of manipulating materials on a very small scale in order to build microscopic machinery and other devices. Scientists actually have the ability to work with single atoms. The new technology has the potential to transform the way we live in ways not yet imagined.

David Guston is director of CNS-ASU. He’s been in charge since its inception in 2005. Guston oversees research on the implications of nanotechnology. Scientists at CNS-ASU also are responsible for training students in skills needed to gain new insights into the field and its ramifications.

CNS-ASU hosts public forums, helps arrange collaborations with nanoscientists and engineers, and promotes other outreach and engagement efforts. Work conducted at CNS-ASU is part of larger national effort to ensure societal issues raised by nanotechnology advances are addressed at a pace matching the rapid progress in research and development.

An interview with David Guston, director of ASU’s Center for Nanotechnology and Society

Research Stories: Nanotechnology has the potential to have an impact on so many facets of life. Does that tend to raise apprehension about it?

David Guston: Nanotechnology’s promoters talk about “the next industrial revolution.” There’s a lot of societal change wrapped up in even a fraction of that impact. We want to help people to understand the relationships between scientific and societal values, and go from there into how to best make decisions about using emerging technology to the greatest benefit.

It’s critical to raise awareness among a lot of people from all sectors and walks of life if we are going to have the best outcomes. The decisions about how to implement new nanotechnologies will emerge from a mix of viewpoints from political leaders, business leaders, researchers, advocacy groups, the media, and citizens and consumers. You can’t sidestep the concerns of any of those groups.

RS: What are some of the big concerns revolving around the power of nanotechnology?

Guston: There are serious questions about the impact on freedom, privacy and security. With nanotechnology, the sensing capabilities are immense. How do we cope with development of technology that allows us to place sensing devices on or in anything or anybody that might reveal almost everything about an individual’s activities or physical condition?

RS: Are we getting into areas that merge humans and machines? Are we blurring the lines between the human and the technological?

Guston: We are certainly moving in that direction. Nano-wires may enable more precise and sensitive connections between human brains and machines controlled by those brains. Anti-bacterial nano-coatings and nano-enhanced batteries may extend the life and decrease the size of implantable devices. There are concerns not only about the ethics and priority of this kind of research, but also about the equitable access to such technologies, should they come on line. There is also great military interest in these technologies for the battlefield performance and rehabilitation of soldiers and the design of remote and semi-autonomous weapons.

RS: How do you approach public discussion of such technological capabilities in a way that provides a balanced perspective?

Guston: As with genetic and stem cell research, we are trying to grapple with both the known and imagined consequences of rapid and potentially revolutionary steps in science and technology.

We’re always engaged in close collaborations with scientists and engineers. But part of this collaboration is about how to place the public interest as the highest priority in guiding their research. In the past we have benefitted from controversy involving science and technology when we have used the debate as a learning experience and a path to delineating our societal values. The scientists and engineers we work with understand our role in helping them reach their goals of positive social returns to their research.

RS: You’re optimistic that there is common ground to be found on managing nanotechnology?

Guston: It’s not a battleground that we haven’t tread on before. We as a species have co-evolved with our ability to control our environment, and there has always been concern about the relationships between humans and the instruments we create and what they mean for us.

Even in a highly charged political atmosphere, a democratic system gives you a basis for a healthy debate.

RS: Can we stay on course in nanotechnology advances and still deal in a timely way with issues surrounding its application?

Guston: There are some things already in the marketplace, such as nano-silver used as an anti-bacterial agent in consumer products that raise questions about health or environmental impacts. We’re only just getting around to dealing with these things, and we’re finding that it’s incredibly complex to do the environmental health and safety research. The immediacy of environmental and health risks have overshadowed issues of social risk like ethics, equity, privacy and so forth. There’s a growing sense that nanotechnology may be so broad that virtually nothing is going to remain outside its influence. So the sooner we respond to issues, the better the outcome for everyone.