The Chancellor's column

February 2009

Nanotechnology science and regulation

I was privileged to give the welcome address at two nanotechnology events at Monash University last year. One was for the launch of a book called New Global Frontiers in Regulation: the Age of Nanotechnology, by Monash University academics Graeme Hodge (BE 1976, MEngSc 1979, MBA 1989, PhD 1997), Diana Bowman (BSc 2002, LLB 2004, PhD 2008) and Karinne Ludlow (BSc 1984, LLB(Hons) 1986, PhD 2005). The other was a conference on the theme ‘Nanotechnology science, policy and public perspectives’. Clearly, Monash University is active in nanotechnology across the spectrum from fundamental science to regulation and ethics, but what actually is nanotechnology and why do we care about regulating it?

Most man-made molecules such as medicines are small – that is the nature of chemistry. What makes nanotech molecules special is that in addition to being small they are assembled to have a structure that adds to their function. For example, carbon nanotubes are like a microscopic straw. Their tubular structure gives them unique properties such as high electrical conductivity and longitudinal strength. They are as different from the carbon in a pencil as the carbon in a pencil is different from the carbon in a diamond.

To be formally regarded as a nanotech molecule, the longest dimension must be shorter than 100 nanometres. This is the length of 1000 atoms arranged along a line like a string of pearls. In comparison, bacteria – the smallest fully functional living organisms – are at least twice that length.

The first time the idea of nanotechnology was suggested to the world was in 1959, by the Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, however it took another 30 years before a hint of practical nanotechnology surfaced.

I recall my excitement in 1989 when I saw a picture published by Don Eigler at IBM that showed how he had manipulated 35 individual xenon atoms to make the letters I B M. This was an extreme example of atomic level manipulation that fired up the imagination of scientists and entrepreneurs worldwide.

But statements by investors at the turn of the century that nanotechnology would be a trillion dollar industry by about now made me sceptical. They were actually exaggerating their claims by incorporating into their estimates existing industries such as the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries, which although they deal with small molecules and small structures at the time failed either the requirement for atomic level assembly or the requirement for extraordinarily small size.

Since then, though, I have seen impressive examples of nanotechnology. I’ll mention just one here. This is an example at the very high end of the commercially useful scale, where nanotechnology molecules will contribute to saving the Earth. That’s a tall claim but consider the following. The biggest problem our planet faces is climate change resulting from carbon dioxide emissions. Of all the sources of carbon dioxide emissions, the second largest source is the transport industry. The solution is simple: replace all of our petrol and diesel-powered vehicles with electric vehicles. Easy, except for one thing – batteries. Electric cars need batteries that can store abundant energy for long drives, can be charged rapidly, will last for 10 years and will not overheat or explode. For decades such batteries have been the holy grail but finally, after the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars of development money, batteries are starting to emerge that come closer to these requirements. How? By using nanotech molecules on the surface of their electrodes to lower the electrical resistance and improve the efficiency of the interaction of the electrodes with the chemicals inside the battery.

This is good, but there is a relatively high level of public concern about the possible deleterious effects of nanotechnology. Some of this concern is the legitimate worry about the unanticipated adverse side effects of a pervasive new technology. On the other hand, some of the concern arises from fantasy novels that portray swarms of evil nanotech robots that invade human bodies or poison the food supply. Either way, the public has the right to know that the adoption of nanotechnology materials will be regulated in a way that will maximise their safety. Past experiences that were mishandled by governments and regulators have generated much of the concern about nanotechnology. For example, it took 60 years for governments to act definitively after the first reports that asbestos was linked to deaths in the industry. More recently, we saw governments react too slowly, then overreact, to the tragedy of mad cow disease and the resulting human illnesses.

The public needs to know that the regulators are on the job. So, too, do investors. Investors are better off operating in a regulated market that provides some certainty than in an unregulated market that might one day see the value of their investment decimated by new legislation. Consider as an example of the latter the kind of uncertainty that the electricity-generation companies in Victoria currently face as the government deliberates various versions of a carbon emission trading scheme that wasn’t contemplated when those companies purchased their generators in good faith from the Victorian Government in the 1990s.

To legislate wisely, governments need to understand 1) the technology and 2) the potential impact of various regulatory approaches. Monash University contributes to both kinds of understanding.

In respect of the technology, at the Monash Institute for Nanosciences Materials and Manufacture researchers develop nanotechnology for personalised health and environmental sustainability. Elsewhere, across the length and breadth of the University, researchers benefit from access to the Monash Centre for Electron Microscopy, where powerful microscopes allow them to peer at the exquisite arrangements of individual atoms. Nearby, researchers can access the Australian Synchrotron. In an adjacent facility currently under construction, researchers will have access to the Melbourne Centre for Nanofabrication that will provide core facilities such as clean rooms, and focus on manufacturing, commercialisation and marketing.

In respect of regulation, at the Monash Centre for Regulatory Studies in the Faculty of Law, experts study the nature and extent of the regulatory environment and work to understand the implications of changes, additions and oversights in the regulations. It is a multidisciplinary effort, so despite being located in the Faculty of Law, the Centre calls upon experts from the faculties of Business and Economics, Arts, Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, and Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences.

I believe that in the case of nanotechnology the obligation on the regulators is even more difficult than normal because unlike stem cells, asbestos and other new technologies, the public is unlikely to ever understand “nanotechnology” in its broadest sense. Nevertheless, if the experts get it right nanotechnology will coexist with other technologies and contribute to a better world.

The ‘Nanotechnology science, policy and public perspectives’ conference was a perfect example of Monash University helping to expand the community’s understanding of the social consequences of nanotechnology by engaging the public and the experts in meaningful discussion of the complex social, economic and cultural consequences of nanotechnology.

Dr Alan Finkel AM (BE 1976, PhD 1981)
Chancellor
Monash University