In this blog post, we will examine the benefits that advancements in nanotechnology will bring, as well as the ethical risks associated with them, and discuss ways to use this technology safely.
Most people tend to think of “nano” simply as “something very small.” To be precise, “nano” is a prefix meaning one-billionth. One nanometer is equivalent to the size of three to four atoms; to put this in more everyday terms, it is one-eighth of a human hair’s thickness, which makes it easier to understand. Alternatively, it can be likened to a soccer ball inside the Earth. The world at the nanometer scale is a realm governed by laws completely different from those of the physical world we experience daily. For example, the surface of a material that we can feel with our hands appears in a completely different form at the nanoscale, and the material’s properties change entirely as a result.
When materials shrink to the nanometer scale, they exhibit entirely new properties. The field of study that investigates these unique properties and phenomena of nanomaterials is called “nanoscience,” and the technology that uses nanoscience to create materials and components necessary for our daily lives—thereby making life more convenient—is called “nanotechnology.” The essence of nanoscience lies in understanding the new phenomena that emerge at this microscopic scale and using that understanding to develop innovative technologies. These technologies must go through various stages before they can be commercialized, and new challenges inevitably arise at each stage. For example, there remains uncertainty regarding how nanotechnology—which manifests only under specific conditions in the laboratory—will function in real-world environments.
In everyday life, a centimeter (cm) is considered a small unit, but from a nanoscale perspective, it is a very large unit. As mentioned earlier, when a material is reduced to the nanoscale, unique properties emerge that were not present at larger scales. Specifically, this can result in increased strength or electrical conductivity, changes in color, or catalytic effects. These changes in properties occur because the interactions between atoms and molecules at the nanoscale differ from those at larger scales. For example, gold nanoparticles change color depending on their size, while silver nanoparticles exhibit new properties such as enhanced antibacterial effects. Utilizing these properties opens up the possibility of developing innovative products across various industrial sectors.
Such nanotechnology is already widely used in everyday life. It is applied in diverse fields such as chemical materials, automotive machinery, electronics and telecommunications, and environmental energy, and its potential applications extend far beyond these. To give some familiar examples, we can cite fine dust masks utilizing nanofibers, sunscreen containing nanoparticles, ultra-lightweight laptops, QLED displays, automotive exhaust purification systems, and water purifier filters. These products are already deeply embedded in our daily lives, demonstrating that many of the items we use are the result of nanotechnology. Furthermore, nanotechnology is a key element in the development of new materials, playing a crucial role in creating lighter and stronger materials by replacing or complementing existing ones.
Nanotechnology is often referred to as the “alchemy of the 21st century” because it can alter the bonding structures of atoms or molecules to create new materials by leveraging their novel properties, and it is regarded as a groundbreaking technology. Nanotechnology allows us to artificially create properties that cannot be found in nature, enabling groundbreaking advancements across various industrial sectors. However, given that the risks associated with this technology must be considered alongside its potential, the development of nanotechnology extends beyond mere technical progress and may also raise social and ethical issues.
However, during a 2008 House hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative Act, nanoscientist Andrew Meynard stated, “Moving forward into the future of nanotechnology is like diving into water with your eyes closed.” This serves as a warning about the potential hazards of nanomaterials and underscores the need for a clear understanding of them. Furthermore, The New York Times, in its list of “The Top 10 Disasters That Could Lead Humanity to Ruin,” identified nanotechnology—alongside climate change and genetic modification—as a technology that could lead the Earth to ruin. Therefore, we need to deeply reflect on the risks and social issues associated with nanotechnology development. What kind of negative issues might actually arise? Voices warning of these risks remind us that technological advancement does not always yield positive results. Technological development must proceed in a direction that benefits humanity, and this requires more careful and thorough scrutiny.
First, I would like to discuss “new chemical reactions.” Currently, using high-throughput screening technology, approximately 10,000 toxicity tests are conducted each week. However, as mentioned earlier, properties change at the nanoscale, and characteristics vary depending on the material. Therefore, it is clear that nanomaterials require toxicity testing far more frequently than conventional chemical substances. While nanotechnology is advancing at a rapid pace, the technology for verifying its safety has not yet kept up with this pace. In particular, there is no guarantee that, in such a situation, if a nanomaterial that has not been filtered out comes into contact with a specific substance in the environment, new chemical reactions—such as the formation of toxic substances or the display of explosive properties—will not occur. For example, if toxicity manifests only after a long period of accumulation in the body—as seen in the humidifier incident—consumers and workers of such nanoproducts could be at risk, and compensation issues would inevitably follow. In particular, these toxicity issues must be treated with even greater seriousness because it is often impossible to predict how nanomaterials will act within the body.
Second is the issue of inequality in military power. Nanotechnology is highly valuable for creating impact-resistant military security equipment or developing superior military communication technologies. However, we need to pay attention to the dangers posed by small objects. While larger objects may offer a sense of intimidation and power, small objects possess unique advantages and capabilities. In other words, small things also have their own terrifying aspects. If we become increasingly obsessed with smaller technologies and develop small, inconspicuous military weapons, the power dynamics between nations could be determined by the possession of sophisticated and successful nanotechnology, as well as the capital and knowledge required to sustain its development—much like how the current balance of power is defined by the presence or absence of nuclear weapons. If such powerful military weapons are developed, the invisible power dynamics between current developed nations and Third World countries could deepen, further exacerbating inequality between nations. In such a situation, if an invisible fear begins to take root, a world where trust between nations has completely collapsed will emerge. This military imbalance is highly likely to ultimately act as a factor threatening world peace.
Third is the “society of surveillance labor.” Let us consider this specifically within the context of the employer-employee relationship among various “powerholder-subordinate” dynamics. If employers in businesses, factories, companies, or department stores were to introduce nano-CCTVs under the pretext of monitoring and supervising workers, the extent and scope of surveillance over workers’ every move could become severe. Furthermore, we must consider the possibility of harsh situations arising where such surveillance and supervision are conducted without the workers’ knowledge. Drawing a slight analogy from the circular prison known as the Panopticon, this prison is designed with a tall central watchtower, and the prisoners’ cells are arranged in a circle around the perimeter outside the tower. The central tower is kept dark, while the prisoners’ cells are kept bright, so that the prisoners cannot tell where the watcher’s gaze is directed from the center. As a result, prisoners feel that they are constantly being watched, and eventually internalize discipline and surveillance to the point where they monitor themselves. While CCTV is sometimes criticized as an “electronic panopticon” in modern society, I would like to warn that in the future nano-era, we may enter a so-called “nano-panopticon” society where we won’t even know where the CCTV is hidden. In such a society, personal privacy may cease to exist, and the fear of surveillance will suppress individual freedom.
What we must also consider goes beyond the one-dimensional issues arising from nanotechnology itself. This is because, while nanotechnology is innovative in its own right, it holds even greater value when applied to technologies in other fields. Earlier, I mentioned that the essence of nanotechnology lies in effectively utilizing the characteristics of nanomaterials across various fields. However, if we completely reverse this perspective—that nanotechnology is a versatile technology capable of being applied and integrated into diverse fields—it follows that this technology could cause problems in various places. For example, it could cause problems when combined with A, and cause problems when combined with B. There is a possibility that nanotechnology could act as a catalyst, amplifying or accelerating the problematic outcomes inherent in various technologies. These issues are merely a fraction of the potential side effects that the advancement of nanotechnology could bring, and we need to anticipate and prepare for them in advance.
First, let’s consider the scenario where nanotechnology combines with “artificial intelligence” to further advance AI. According to Professor Kim Jin-young of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Seoul National University, semiconductors are at the core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This is because the storage, transmission, and management of data are ultimately determined by semiconductors. The speed and performance of these semiconductors improve as the width of the circuit lines becomes thinner, and it is expected that manufacturing such semiconductors through nanotechnology will enable the creation of more accurate and faster artificial intelligence. However, will this yield results as positive as expected? Issues such as income, social, and cultural disparities—already serious problems stemming from the digital divide—as well as educational inequality could worsen even more rapidly. This could lead to an extreme situation where personal, social, and national wealth gaps become completely polarized. The digital divide is already a serious issue, and caution is needed because nanotechnology could further accelerate these problems.
Let’s now consider the implications of combining nanotechnology with “medical technology.” In the field of medical science, the primary expectation from nanotechnology is the “nanobot.” The idea is that tiny nanobots can enter the body and destroy cancer cells. While this sounds like a perfect plan for eradicating cancer, what is the reality? Can the deployed nanobots carry out their missions successfully 100% of the time? There is also a possibility that nanobots could attack cells other than cancer cells. This means unintended side effects from medical technology could occur. There is also concern that nanobots inserted into the body to treat a disease could instead cause side effects, potentially leading to the emergence of new diseases. A research team from the Department of Synthetic Biology and Chemical Engineering at Texas State University predicted that if nanobots designed to directly target and attack virus-infected or cancer cells were commercialized, the nanoparticles themselves could actually cause disease. They explained that even if biocompatible materials are used, once reduced to the nanoscale, their physicochemical properties change compared to their original size, potentially causing toxicity within the body. For example, they could interact with immune cells or signaling proteins called cytokines, excessively activating or suppressing immune responses such as inflammation. The research team published these findings in June 2013 in the Royal Society journal *Chemical Society Reviews*. In addition, experts are concerned that because nanoparticles are smaller than most biomolecules, they could damage DNA and cause serious, incurable diseases.
While these issues have already been raised, I would like to take this a step further and consider who would be held responsible if such side effects actually occurred once nanobot therapy begins to be commercialized. Would this be considered a simple medical accident? The manufacturer created the malfunctioning nanobots, and the doctor administered them into the patient’s body. In such a situation, if cancer cells are not treated, the number of scenarios requiring consideration—whether the issue lies with the nanobots’ operation or other factors—increases significantly. Doctors at hospitals must possess the ability to make the final judgment. Doctors who use nanobot-based treatments must possess the necessary knowledge and information, and they must also accept the corresponding responsibility. Even if the nanobot malfunctions, if doctors lack a sense of responsibility, wouldn’t those who directly administer the nanobots and monitor the patient’s condition adopt an irresponsible attitude toward patient care? However, others might argue: “The doctor merely administered the nanobots; it was the manufacturer who caused the problem, so why should the doctor be held responsible?”
A similar issue arises regarding liability for accidents involving self-driving cars. When a self-driving car causes an accident, does the responsibility lie with the driver or with the manufacturer? If problems arise during treatment using nanobots, will the doctor bear the responsibility, or will the manufacturer? Or to whom should greater responsibility be attributed? These are issues that require further discussion in the future.
In this way, nanotechnology is a convergent field related to all disciplines—including chemistry, medicine, life sciences, the environment, information and communications, energy, and biotechnology—and is closely linked to human life; it will continue to be researched as long as humanity endures. However, we need to thoroughly study the safety and purpose of the technology, as well as its potential negative aspects depending on the field of application. Unconditional optimism regarding technology is dangerous; we need the wisdom to respond to the speed and outcomes of technological advancements. To prevent a situation where nanotechnology dominates all fields and ultimately becomes uncontrollable, we must develop it in a rational and ethical manner.
