As health takes a nanotechnological drive so does the wedge of ethics as regards nanotechnology dig even deeper. The answer might be deceptively simple on the surface since it is the thirst of scientific innovation cannot be quenched by ethical considerations. However, an era is ensuing where ethics and science must become bedmates for the benefit of humanity at large. This is not only necessary but fundamental since both facets of human understanding work with the aim of achieving the overall good for the whole society.
As such scientific innovation such as nanotechnology must not only assess their own levels of threat to humanity based on the reasons behind the protection of humanity from such threats. To assess the extent that nanotechnology poses to health ethics, a theory of value is required. Most ethicists lean on the anthropocentric theory of value. For this reason health, environment and safety research issues in nanotechnology are all anthropocentric.
Being anthropocentric, they are thus construed as threats to the safety and health of human beings and likewise on the environment but only in so far as the effects of nanotechnology present themselves on the human populace. Other investigations of theory of value are non anthropocentric. Environmental holism is one aspect of a non anthropocentric investigation and it posits that looking from a non human effects point of view, the effects of nanotechnology on the environment should be analyzed independently so as to alienate the investigation from prejudices of human interests.
Ideally, to comprehensively evaluate the ethics of health related nanotechnology we are tied by virtue of the extent of this opportune timed presentation not only to posit in line with one understanding of a theory of value but to include all understandings of ethics with an aim of presenting a wholesome analysis of the ethics of nanotechnology inclusive of; pharmaceuticals, surgery, cosmetic creams or lotions, and medical research (Allhoff & Lin 2008).
Nanotechnology has grown to be the novel genetic modification technique, attracting multi billion funding and yet remaining embroiled in considerable uncertainties on risks, benefits and growing legal and ethical complexities. These questions face a wide berth of stakeholders such as the general public, investors, governments and businesses worldwide. These unpredictable fascinations in law, science, policy and regulation of the science of nanotechnology have created new levels of ethical considerations in health; considerations that were hitherto alien to the novel science.
Descriptively, nanotechnology can be defined as a field of science that controls matter at the molecular and the atomic scale. Dealing with structures with sizes of 100 nanometers or even smaller, it develops devices or materials that are within that minute scale of size. Thrust into the realms of atoms and nanostructures, nanotechnology presents itself as a novel science that is capable of reproducing materials that range from physical materials to biological components of life. Nanotechnology envisions a world of self replicating nanorobots.
Naturally, nature maintains life through self molecular replication at a subatomic scale. Cells; s nanomolecules exist in billions in the human system. They are the natural versions of nanomachines. Usually, manufacturing and assemblage of all biological molecules occurs at the nanoscale. The ability to manipulate this nanoscale lies behind the potential of nanotechnology to manufacture almost anything in life. It has the capacity to create a trillion dollar economy, cure a host of cancer and other neurological diseases, build super fast computers and reprocess wastes into useful valuable products.
Due to this unprecedented potentialities, the creation of devices and materials with wide ranging applications in pharmaceuticals, medicine, surgery, cosmetic creams or lotions; has created new worries of the adverse implications of nanotechnology (Myhr & Dalmo 2007). On one scale are the common concerns over new technologies such as adverse unpredictable and irreversible environmental impacts, toxicity, negative effects on global economies, public health disasters and horrid doomsday scenarios. These are the worries driving adoption of more stringent regulatory protocols.
Nanoethics in Health Health is a pervasive driving force of life. Although we infrequently appreciate the value of having good health, we realize its importance when it is compromised. In such instances of unsound health, almost all aspects of our lives cease to operate normally. Pegged on this importance, mankind has for centuries strove to find ways of maintaining the soundness of health as an incentive to the maintenance of activity in life. Health is viewed as a fundamental social good and a basic human right.
For these reasons human beings are generally supportive of research in medicine and technological advances that offer huge potentials for the improvement of health. Recent development in nanotechnology(NT) in particular, and nanoscience in general include alternative manufacturing systems, highly functional molecular systems, molecular computing , tissue engineering, recombinant DNA alteration technologies in bacterial, viral, animal and plant systems. These developments have tremendous effects on electronics, the manufacture of highly advanced materials, health medicine and environmental benefits.
With advanced nanotechnological systems it may become easy to perform anticancer therapies, design and synthesize pharmaceuticals, efficiently monitor life signs in a patient, and perform advanced microscopic repairs(EC 2004). Environmentally, nanotechnology will enable the elimination of landfills, nanomachines could be used to clean oil spills and toxins, and more importantly reduce the rate at which the natural resources are being exploited. Based on these benefits to the environment, human life may be greatly improved. This argument is based on the ability of a healthy environment to support a healthy population.
The role of the environment on human life and worldwide economies is a matter that is not under discussion since there are so many evidential facts supporting this association. Technological progress may dramatically improve the quality of life. On the other hand, nanotechnology also raises serious health, socioeconomic and environmental concerns that may obliterate the realization of the potential benefits. While nanotechnology is still in its nascence stage, these concerns must be proactively addressed by both the common citizenry and the politicians who represent them in higher decision making organs and in the government(EC 2004).
The handling of the negative effects with the evident paucity of scientific literature on nanotechnology marks beginning of the maturity of ethical discussions. Major concerns of nanomaterials and nanoparticles are related to their large surface area, reactivity, and crystalline structure. These properties facilitate the velocity of their transport in transport systems. When these materials enter the body, it may be completely impossible to control them even if they continue to interfere with crucial physiological processes.
Moreover, some nanoparticles, may exhibit levels of toxicity per unit mass that is far much greater than atomic particles of the same chemical substance. There is no research finding that conclusively reports that these ultra fine particles possess the same biological behavior and mobility in comparison to larger materials. This paucity of data showing the evidence of linear relationship of mass and effect means that the rate of absorption of and assimilation in cells of nanoparticles may be more rapid that larger molecular particles.
This difference may induce unpredictable cellular reactions that are adverse to health. Nanoparticles are invisible in nature; they cannot be seen or discerned by the naked eye. While this nature is crucial for the exhibition of its benefits, it cannot be wily wished that these particles could be accidentally or deliberately distributed into other living systems through soil, water or air. Their rapid absorption into all living systems will mean that all systems in nature will inadvertently accumulate particles that may inherently be dangerous to life. The damage to living tissues cannot be assumed to be non existent.
The expected use of these materials in any conceivable material for human use is by itself a cause for great alarm. In cosmetics, in lotions, in food, in medicinal drugs, these materials will be distributed to all living things and their distribution and effects on environmental health will be uncontrollable. Due to their ability to self reproduce, nanoparticles may not be cleaned out of the human body or the environment even when scientists will have noted some adverse effects(Myhr & Dalmo 2007). For nanoparticles to be useful in medicine, they will have to be produced in the gas phase.
The advantages behind the administration of nanoparticles in the gas phase are that continuous processing and the purity of the gas can be maintained. On the other hand, gaseous nanoparticles have very high mobility. In the context of occupational health, these particles can be emitted to the workplace environment through exhalation. Workmates who may unintentionally inhale and deposit these nanoparticles into their various body organs. Depending on the sites of deposition, the particles may induce the development of undesirable diseases.
Nanoparticle uptake into the cellular environment occurs through the respiratory tract through inhalation; or through the digestive tract through drinking and ingestion; or through dermal penetration as in creams and lotions. When nanoparticles are deliberately injected in the body through a preferred route of exposure, the rapidity of transportation will ensure that they are distributed into all body systems through the shortest time possible. The transportation of nanoparticles beyond the brain barrier should never just be analyzed with reference to the positive health concerns since the brain dosage cannot be effectively determined.
The evaluation of the effects of these particles in the environment will further be complicated by their natural existence in the natural world. Over millions and millions of years since the beginning of the world photochemical reactions and volcanic activity has continually emitted highly toxic nanoparticles into the atmosphere. These toxic particles have found their way into water systems and consequently into living systems. Human activities such as cooking, mining, combustion have also emitted nanoparticles into the natural environment and the effects of these emissions are not good either.
The rationale behind technology may be based on the false claim that human beings can completely control the effects of these particles on human health. In the event that control is impossible humanity may as well face a phenomenon with more risks that had been imagined before(Myhr & Dalmo 2007). In January 2006, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars presented a report evaluating the capacity of the current United States regulatory framework to control the infiltration of engineered nanomaterials in the population.
In a report titled, Managing the Effects of Nanotechnology, it reiterated the fear that currently these are hundreds of nanoproducts in the marketplace and many more are on their way to the public. The regulation of nanotechnology is impossible from the current regulatory framework. Despite the criticality of this era for nanotechnology and its products, the regulatory framework in the country with the most stringent compliance standards are inefficient to control the infiltration of nanoproducts to the general public(Morrissey 2006).
In line with the unique characteristics of the novel technology, the report noted that there is need to develop new legislations that are able to manage the negative effects of nanotechnology. Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHAct) and the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Acts should be expanded to include nanomaterials. This broad expansion will not only ensure public protection but also ensure that workplace safety is guaranteed. The pharmaceutical industry has been cited as one of the most important beneficiaries of nanotechnology.
Nanoparticle based medicine is novel but unpredictable. In the manufacture of nanoparticles to be used in therapeutics, these medicinal agents will be delivered to the target organs or organ systems through substrate and substrate modifications. In pharmacokinetics, the rate of phagocytosis is dependent on the physiochemical properties of the substrate polymer. This rate increases upon particularization. The surfaces of nanoparticles determine their nature of uptake by the cell. Certain polymer based nanoparticles may directly cause cytotoxicity and consequently apoptosis.
In the absence of cytotoxicity, the host cells may respond by secreting metalloproteinase and inflammatory cytokines responsible for tissue destruction and homeostasis. Accompanying secretions may have deleterious substances as components. These components may cause tissue damage(Myhr & Dalmo 2007). Different biological and physiological impacts occur after the administration of a drug. As for nanoparticle drugs, the induced health effects such as adverse side effects have not been thoroughly assessed.
Before, any conclusive assessment is done, the use of nanotechnology in the pharmaceutical industry may as well be halted in view of the unpredictable physiological effects of nanoparticle drug administration. Ethical Assessment of the Safety of Nanotechnology The impacts of nanotechnology in health are shrouded with to much uncertainty. Uncertainties exist due to the insufficiency of reliable safety data. For this reason models should be developed to assess the levels of these uncertainties. These models are based on the understanding that nanoparticles and nanomaterials are hazards that can be directly linked to a specific adverse event.
Therefore, the level of risk is representative of the probability of an event occurring and the consequences of the event. Likewise, uncertainty in nanotechnology defines the existence of a situation where the probability or the hazard is unknown but is considered known nonetheless. This uncertainty is occasioned to the novelty and the complexity of nanotechnological processes. A third aspect confirming the level of uncertainty is the level of ignorance. Ignorance in this case is representative of the measurement of the consequences of the hazard when the hazard itself is unknown.
Historical accounts of this situation is the mad cow disease, pesticides or dioxines that were assessed based on a predictable outcome but whose adverse consequences were way far different from the expected consequences. With regard to nanotechnology, unintended and unprecedented non target consequences may emerge through direct exposure or passive inhalation of nanoparticles. Since all the potential adverse effects of nanotechnology are health related, unexpected effects on the long run cannot be obviated owing to the degree of nanoparticle mobility, bioavailability and interorgarnismal transfers and ecotoxicology.
The fourth aspect of uncertainty is the indeterminacy of NT. This describes the inevitability of the gap between the conditions reminiscent experimentally and the reality. Indeterminacy is so profound because the consequences of nanotechnology in the creation of devices and materials with wide ranging applications in pharmaceuticals, medicine, surgery, cosmetic creams or lotions, are not fully predictable. For instance, these particles may exhibit unique interactions in the environment that can not be revealed by laboratory studies.
Their use may also cause accumulation into the contained environment. When these ramifications are understood in the context of the unpredictability and complexity of the natural social, environmental and biological systems, it can be concluded that these systems may not be regular but may exhibit non linear behavior or act according to thresholds that are currently unknown. The last aspect of this analysis is the ambiguity that arises when so many complicated frames of assessment are used to interpret the risks of nanotechnology.
The interdisciplinary nature of the science of nanotechnology will require frames of interpretation from chemistry, biology, physics, biotechnology, engineering and material sciences. With all these frames and many more, the complexities in the safety of nanotechnology may remain unresolved. This calls for a more comprehensive identification and systematization of uncertainty methods. Unless these complexities are resolved, then nanotechnology will remain ethically unsound. The application of engineering knowledge and wisdom requires moral courage.
Engineering encompasses practicalities in nanotechnology. The acquisition of experimental knowledge in nanotechnology is but the first step in solving a bioethical question. Engaging in a self reflective thought process enables one to advance reasoning with the aim of making an ethically right question. According to the professional codes of ethics, there is a provision for not deliberately engaging in a risky practical undertaking in the presence of a more morally upright alternative.
This is the reason why professionals are tied by nature of their professional codes of ethics to practice only in areas where they have been confirmed as competent. Nanotechnology presents real threats to health, medicine and surgery. These risks are self evident even to practically competent engineers. By designing and producing particles and materials that are evidently risky to human health owing to uncertainties that are yet to be dispelled, an engineer is thus ethically bound to desist from practices that are morally not upright.
Apart from the uncertainties inherent in nanotechnology, it should be noted that only decisions that are morally, financially and politically expedient cease to be controversial. Any other decision that creates considerable controversies need to be taken through a comprehensive ethical analysis is the adverse effects are to be escaped. Additionally, if an object of controversy is so complex, more time should be given to the assessment of the ethical dilemmas.
The generation of additional information through additional research will not only augment the basics but also necessitate the development of models of risk assessment necessary for the making of an ethically right decision. The practice of sound engineering, however complex and far reaching, must be buttressed with sound ethics. Since both depend on reliable and accurate information, additional interactive resources are always useful.
References
Allhoff, F & Lin, P. (2008). Nanotechnology and Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues Springer Press. p. 109-111 European Commission(EC). (2004). Nanotechnology, Innovation for Tomorrow’s Word. Brussels: Research Directorate-General, European Commission. Morrissey, R. Susan. (2006). Managing Nanotechnology. Report Evaluates Ability of U. S. Regulatory Framework to Govern Engineered Nanomaterials. Government & Policy. January 30. 2006. Volume 84, Number 5. p. 34-35 Myhr, I. Anne & Dalmo, A. Roy. (2007) Nanotechnology and Risk: What are the Issues. In Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology. By Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor. Wiley-Interscience. p. 149-158