Skip to main content
Log in

Nanotoxicology and Ethical Conditions for Informed Consent

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While their strength, electrical, optical, or magnetic properties are expected to contribute a trillion dollars in global commerce before 2015, nanomaterials also appear to pose threats to human health and safety. Nanotoxicology is the study of these threats. Do nanomaterial benefits exceed their risks? Should all nanomaterials be regulated? Currently nanotoxicologists cannot help answer these questions because too little is known about nanomaterials, because their properties differ from those of bulk materials having the same chemical composition, and because they differ so widely in their applications. Instead, this paper answers a preliminary ethical question: What nanotech policies are likely to contribute to society’s ability to give or withhold free informed consent to the potential risks associated with production and use of nanomaterials? This paper argues that at least four current policies appear to jeopardize the risk-disclosure condition that is required for informed consent. These are the funding problem, the conflict-of-interest problem, the labeling problem, and the extrapolation problem. Apart from future decisions on how to ethically make, use, and regulate nanomaterials, this paper argues that, at a minimum, these four policies must be modified. Government must spend greater monies on nanotoxicology; ensure independent nanotoxicology research; label consumer products containing nanomaterials; and avoid assuming that nanotoxicological properties are based merely on mass and chemical composition. Otherwise free informed consent to these new technologies and materials may be jeopardized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. ABT Associates (ABT) (2000) Particulate-related health benefits of reducing power emissions. ABT Associates, Bethesda, MD, 2000

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Public Health Association (APHA) (2005) Increasing research funds for environmental and occupational health and safety implications of nanotechnology. APHA, Washington, DC (December 14, 2005). Policy number LB-7, available at http://www.apha.org/legislative/policy/policysearch/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&id=1317 and accessed 10 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  3. American Public Health Association (APHA) (2003) Supporting legislation for independent post-marketing phase IV comparative evaluation of pharmaceuticals. APHA, Washington, DC (November 18, 2003). Policy number 2003, available at http://www.apha.org/legislative/policy/policysearch/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&id=1265 and accessed 10 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  4. American Public Health Association (APHA) (2002) Preserving right-to-know information and encouraging hazard reduction to reduce the risk of exposure to toxic substances. APHA, Washington, DC (November 13). Policy number 2002-3, available at http://www.apha.org/legislative/policy/policysearch/index.cfm?fuseaction=view&id=279 and accessed 10 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arnall AH (2003) Future technologies, today’s choices. Greenpeace Environmental Trust, London. Available online at http://www.greanpeace.org.uk/MultimediaFiles/Live/FullReport/5886.pdf#search-%22Greanpeace%20nanotechnology%22; accessed 9 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  6. Arison S (2006) Nanotechnology needs nano-scale regulation. Pacific Research Institute, San Francisco. Available at http://www.pacificresearch.org/press/opd/2006/opd_06-01-13sa.html and accessed 9 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey R (2003) The smaller the better, on reasononline, available at http://www.reason.com/0312/fe.rb.the.shtml and accessed 9 October 2006

  8. Beauchamp TL, Childress JL (1994) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beder S (2002) Global spin. Chelsea Green Publishers, White River Junction, VT

    Google Scholar 

  10. Birsch D, Fielder J (1994) The Ford Pinto case. SUNY Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  11. Colvin VL (2003) The potential environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials. Nat Biotechnol 21(10):1166–1170 (October)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cranor C (2006) Toxic torts. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cunningham A (2006) Particular problems. Sci News 169(18):280 (May 2)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Denison RA (2005) Getting nanotechnology right the first time: statement to the National Research Council. Environmental Defense, Washington, DC (25 March)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donaldson K, Stone V, Tran CL, Kreyling W, Borm PJ (2004) Nanotoxicology. Occup Environ Med 61:727–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ehrlich P, Ehrlich A (1996) Betrayal of science and reason. Island, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. ETC Group (2006) Nanotech product recall underscores need for nanotech moratorium. ETC Group, Ottowa. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/14/01nrnanorecallfinal.pdf and accessed 9 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  18. European Environmental Agency (EEA) (2003) EEA multilingual environmental glossary. Online at http://glossary.eea.eu,int/EEAGlossary/P/precautionary_approach

  19. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL (1987) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Garnett MC, Kallinteri P (2006) Nanomedicines and nanotoxicology. Occup Med 56:307–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hart PD (2006) Attitudes toward nanotechnology. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington, DC (September)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jennings B, Kahn J, Mastroianni A, Parker L (eds) (2003) Ethics and public health. Association of Schools of Public Health, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krimsky S (2003) Science in the private interest. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD

    Google Scholar 

  24. Maynard AD (2006) Nanotechnology: a research strategy for addressing risk. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  25. McCullach D (2002) Report calls for nanotech Laissez-Faire. CNET News.com. (21 November); online at http://www.news.com.com/2100-1023-966766.html accessed 9 October 2006

  26. Mnyusiwalla A, Daar A, Singer PA (2003) Mind the gap: science and ethics and nanotechnology. Nanotechnology 14:R9–R13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Monastersky R (2004) The dark side of small. Chron High Educ 51(3):A12–A15 (September 10)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nel A, Xia T, Maumlder L, Li N (2006) Toxic potential of material and the nanolevel. Science 311:622–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2005) Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Environ Health Perspect 113(7):823–839 (July)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Oberdorster E (2004) Manufactured nanomaterials (Fullerenes, C60) induce oxidative stress in brain of juvenile largemouth bass. Environ Health Perspect 112:1058–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Parr D (2005) Will nanotechnology make the world a better place? Trends Biotechnol 23(8):395–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pope A (2003) Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate air pollution. Circulation 109(6):71–77 (Jan 2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Pope A, Burnett RT, Thun NT, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K, Thurston GD (2002) Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9):1132–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (2001) Trade secrets: a Moyers report. Public Affairs Television, New York. Available at http://www.pbs.org/tradesecrets/transcript.html and accessed 10 October, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  35. Rampton S, Stauber J (2001) Trust us, we’re experts. Tarcher-Putnam, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rejeski D (2006) FDA-regulated products containing nanotechnology materials. Woodrow Wilson International Center, Project on Emerging Nanotechologies, Washington, DC (October 5). Available at http://nanotechproject.or/consumerproducts and accessed 10 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  37. Reynolds GH (2002) Forward to the future: nanotechnology and regulatory policy. Pactific Research Institute, San Francisco. Available at http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/technoi/forward_to_nanotech.pdf#search=%22Reynolds%20Pactific%20Research%20Institute%20nano%22 and accessed 9 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  38. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering (RS) (2004) Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties. The Royal Society, London. Available at http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm and accessed 10 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  39. Science Advisory Board, US Environmental Protection Agency (SAB-EPA) (2000) Comments on the use of data from the testing of human subjects, EPA-SAB-EC-00-017. US EPA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  40. Seaton A, Donaldson K (2005) Nanoscience, nanotoxicology, and the need to think small. Lancet 365:923–924 (March 12)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Service RF (2005) Calls rise for more research on toxicology of nanomaterials. Science 310:1609–1610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Service RF (2004) Nanotechnology grows up. Science 304(5678):1732–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Shrader-Frechette K (2007) Taking action, saving lives: our duties to promote environmental and public health. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  44. Shrader-Frechette K (2002) Environmental justice: creating equality, reclaiming democracy. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shrader-Frechette K (1991) Risk and rationality. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  46. Shvedova A, Kisin ER, Mercer R, Murray AR, Johnson VJ, Potapovich AI, Tyurina YY, Gorelik O, Arepalli S, Schwegler-Berry D, Hubbs AF, Antonini J, Evans DE, Ku BK, Ramsey D, Maynard A, Kagan VE, Castranova V, Baron P (2005) Unusual inflammatory and fibrogenic pulmonary responses to single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice. Am J Physiol 289(5):L698–L708 (November)

    Google Scholar 

  47. US Congress (2004) Implementation of the new air quality standards for particulate matter and ozone, S. HRG. 108–502. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  48. Valent F, Little DA, Bertollini R, Nemer LE, Barbonc G, Tamburlini G (2004) Burden of disease attributable to selected environmental factors and injury among children and adolescents in Europe. Lancet 363:2032–2039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Wargo J (1997) Our children’s toxic legacy. Yale, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  50. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (WWIC) (2006) A nanotechnology consumer products inventory. Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.nanotechproject.org/index.php?id=44 and accessed 9 October 2006

    Google Scholar 

  51. World Health Organization (WHO) (2005) Effects of air pollution on children’s health. WHO, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Shrader-Frechette.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shrader-Frechette, K. Nanotoxicology and Ethical Conditions for Informed Consent. Nanoethics 1, 47–56 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0003-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-007-0003-x

Keywords

Navigation