There are two different approaches to Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery,  making drug crystals smaller to increase solubility and bioavailability, or using some form of carrier to deliver them in a more effective manner.

If we look at the total market size in 2021, it is a 60/40 split in favour of drug nano crystals although we feel that developing new delivery mechanisms may allow more value to be created.

The best performing nano carriers are shaping up to be:

1. Liposomes  (28%);
2. Gold Nanocarriers (17%);
3. Dendrimers  (17%);
4. Micelles (11%);
5. Polymer-based Nanocarriers (5%);
6. Nanoshells  (2%);
7. Ceramic Nanocarriers (<1%);
8. Calcium phosphate Nanocarriers (<1%).

Cientifica Ltd published Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery 2011  on 2 November 2011. Here’s a few of the key findings.

MARKET ANALYSIS BY KEY TECHNOLOGY

Of All Key Technologies Studied…

An analysis of the Total Addressable Market (TAM) in 2010, for nanotechnology in drug delivery (NDD), all key technologies studied shows the following values in 2010 (by descending order):

1. Drug Nanocrystals (596 US$ Million Dollars), (45%);
2. Total Nanocarriers (434 US$ Million Dollars), (32%);
3. Targeted Delivery (178 US$ Million Dollars), (13%);
4. Solubility + Bioavailability (139 US$ Million Dollars), (10%).

Nanocarriers as a Whole…

An analysis of the TAM in 2010, for NDD, nanocarriers as a whole shows the top 5 nanocarriers TAM values in 2010 as follows (by descending order):

1. Liposomes (118 US$ Million Dollars), (28%);
2. Dendrimers (84 US$ Million Dollars), (19%);
3. Micelles (63 US$ Million Dollars), (15%);
4. Gold Nanocarriers (56 US$ Million Dollars), (13%);
5. CNTs (56 US$ Million Dollars), (13%).

Nanocarriers Versus Drug Nanocrystals…

Regarding total nanocarriers versus drug nanocrystals, drug nanocrystals show a higher TAM value in 2010, when compared with total nanocarriers:

• Drug Nanocrystals (596 US$ Million Dollars), (58%);
• Total Nanocarriers (434 US$ Million Dollars), (42%).

So, how advanced is NDD now? Which trends are being designed to 2021? Where will be opportunities for investment? Reading Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery 2011 will answer to these questions and many more and explain why?

Good question!

Technology Review, besides being a great magazine edited by Jason Pontin, who I have known since the heyday of Red Herring, also puts on some great conferences. So I was excited and honoured to be invited to EmTech Spain, a two day conference in Malaga focussing on emerging technologies.

Along with my World Economic Forum colleague Javier García Martínez of Rive Technology and the University of Alicante,  we were discussing what nanotechnology is, how to build a business out of it, and where it will take us.

Normally at these kind of conferences, discussing everything from the future of cities to social media, nanotech is one of the most futuristic and least understood technologies on the agenda – making me feel like a cuckoo in the nest when most peoples idea of emerging technology is something that they can have on their iPhone next week. However the “imagine a world where…” speech was given by Richard Kivel this time, discussing regenerative medicine, while Javier and I discussed existing and future applications of nanotechnologies.

So what use is nanotechnology? Simple, I think is makes a key contribution to addressing issues such as energy and health, allowing us to support today’s 7 billion and tomorrow’s 10 billion people in an increasingly sustainable manner. You can read my thoughts in the original Spanish, or as a rougher and less polished Q&A in English below.

While working on our report on Using Emerging Technologies to Address Global Risks, one of my favourite SciFi authors, Neal Stephenson, popped up with an essay on Innovation Starvation.

It echoes Tyler Cowen‘s arguments that all the easy big stuff has been done,  and that all we have left to look forward to are incremental improvements rather than world changing technologies.

Stephenson, being a science fiction writer, looks at space as an example where a culture of risk avoidance, cost cutting and politics combine to stifle innovation. As he points out, even China’s space program is merely copying what the USA and Soviet Union were doing 50 years ago rather than doing anything innovative.

It is undoubtedly a problem that plagues the world.  Whether it is large ambitious space programs, or providing a government stimulus for technology companies, the emphasis is always on avoiding failure, which involves avoiding anything innovative.  The million lost by a failed company always generates more headlines for governments than the hundred million successfully leveraged as we can see with the furore over Solyndra – although governments have a poor track record of picking winners.

So how can we kick start global innovation? As I argue in Using Emerging Technologies to Address Global Risks we need to focus on the big issues that we can all agree on. Water might be a good start.

Over the past five years I have come across numerous innovative approaches to water scarcity, from desalination plants that double as greenhouses to nanostructured membranes that dramatically cut the energy needed for desalination, but I cant remember a single one of them attracting significant investment. That wasn’t because the technology is poor, it is simply because of the costs involved in getting it to market put it outside the risk which any early stage investor would be comfortable with. Raising $50 million for social networking is relatively simple, but for water remediation it is a stretch too far. Development times in excess of 3 years and uncertainty about who will pay for the technology combine to make it almost unfundable.

For a small fraction of the current cost of dealing with drought – something that will only increase in the future – we could develop a suite of technologies to mitigate the shortage of potable water. But we won’t.

I’m not convinced by the innovation starvation argument, I think we have plenty of innovation but we lack the political will to deploy them.  The challenge isn’t so much stimulating innovation as effectively making the case for governments and international institutions to use it.

On July 7, 2011, University College London made an announcement of an breakthrough which is an historic landmark in the field of nanotechnology in tissue engineering: surgeons in Sweden have successfully implanted, for the first time ever, a totally synthetic, tissue-engineered organ (a trachea) into a patient suffering from a terminal-stage tracheal cancer.

A team leaded by Professor Alexander Seifalian (UCL Division of Surgery & Interventional Science; professor of nanotechnology and regenerative medicine at University College London, UK), whose laboratories are headquartered at the Royal Free Hospital, created a glass mold of the patient’s trachea from X-ray computed tomography (CT) scans of the patient. In CT, digital geometry processing is employed to generate a 3D image of the inside of an object from a large series of 2D X-ray images taken around one single axis of rotation.

Then, they manufactured a full size y-shaped trachea scaffold at Professor Seifalian’s laboratories. The scaffold of the trachea was built using a novel nanocomposite polymer developed and patented by Professor Seifalian. Professor Seifalian worked together with Professor Paolo Macchiarini at Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (who also holds an Honorary appointment at UCL).

Professor Seifalian and his team used a porous novel nanocomposite polymer to build the y-shaped trachea scaffold. The pores were millions of little holes, providing this way a place for the patient’s stem cells to grow roots. The team cut strips of the novel nanocomposite polymer and wrapped them around the glass mold creating this way the cartilage rings that conferred structural strength to the trachea.

After the scaffold construct was finished, it was taken to Karolinska Institutet where the patient’s stem cells were seeded by Professor Macchiarini’s team.

For this purpose, a solution of stem cells from the patient’s bone marrow was poured onto the synthetic trachea. The solution included chemicals that induced the cells to differentiate into the types of cells found in a trachea. Tissue was grown on top of the scaffold from the patient’s own stem cells inside a bioreactor (the InBreath, specially designed for the procedure by Harvard Bioscience) to:

• Protect the organ;
• Provide the correct environment for cells differentiation and tissue growth (e.g. sterile and warm);
• Promote cell differentiation and growth.

It took about two days for tissues to form the world first totally synthetic, tissue-engineered trachea.

Finally, the implant surgery was carried out (June 2011) by Professor Macchiarini (at KarolinskaUniversityHospital in Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden). The patient has now made a full recovery.

This work is highly relevant due to the following reasons:

• It is a pioneer work:
  • In the field of nanomaterials. The nanomaterials have other potential uses such as coronary stents and grafts;
  • In the field of nanotechnology applied to the construction of scaffolds for tissue engineering. Scaffolds play a key role in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. Doors will be opened to the improvement of these constructs;
  • In the field of nanotechnology applied to tissue engineering. Doors will be opened to mere breakthroughs in the field of regenerative medicine and regenerative medicine;
  • In the field of nanotechnology applied to the organ transplantation. Under de complexity perspective, trachea is a simple organ. However, doors will be opened to the transplantation of com complex organs, artificial by nature;
• It is an important advance in the field of personalized medicine, since the artificial trachea was custom made.

Besides, artificial organs are superior to donor organs:

• They can be obtained more quickly than a donor organ can often be found;
• Are grown from the patient’s own cells;
• They do not require dangerous immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection (rejection is out of the equation).

Furthermore, one of the technologies intensively studied in nanotechnology in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering is nanoscale topography and nanoscale engineering of the surface of cells and tissues. These techniques employed are several, and include:

• Nanolithography;
• 3D printing.

I strongly believe that very soon it will be possible to print in 3D the mold of a customized scaffold for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering purposes.

This will open doors to the capability of 3 D printing the scaffold itself.

3D printers will also be available.

Finally, the nanotechnology-based tissue engineering, regenerative medicine and organ transplantation will be a routine practice of nanomedicine.

Professor Paras N. Prasad, Ph.D. (executive director of University of Buffalo‘s Institute for Lasers, Photonics and Biophotonics and SUNY Distinguished Professor in the Department of Chemistry in the UB College of Arts and Sciences) was a co-author with colleagues from the University of Buffalo‘s Photodynamic Therapy Center at Roswell Park Cancer Institute on a paper published in Molecular Pharmaceutics on April 19, 2006: “Diacyllipid Micelle-Based Nanocarrier for Magnetically Guided Delivery of Drugs in Photodynamic Therapy”.

This paper resulted from a work carried out by Professor Prasad and his colleagues and demonstrated that a nanoparticle-based drug delivery system directed by an applied magnetic field lead to the accumulation in tumour cells of nanocarriers custom-designed and drug-filled.

The magnetic field (externally applied) played the role of remote control. This magnetic field remote control directed the nanocarriers to the targeted area in the cell culture. Once the magnetic field was applied (switched on) the concentration of drug inside the tumour cells in the target area showed an increase.

The team of Professor Prasad achieved these results with a novel nanocarrier system, developed from polymer micelles, consisting on nanosized water-dispersible clusters of polymeric molecules.

Professor Prasad explained that polymeric micelles are excellent nanocarriers for photodynamic therapy (PDT) drugs, which are mostly water-insoluble.

When exposed to laser light (in other PDT studies, other wavelength may be used), these drugs generate toxic molecules that destroy the cancer cells.

Along with the PDT drug, the team of Professor Prasad encapsulated inside the nanocarriers iron oxide nanoparticles, which allowed them to respond to externally applied magnetic fields.

The in vitro results showed that magnetically guided delivery to tumour cells of these customized nanocarriers proved to be a more precise targeting, while boosting cellular uptake of the PDT drugs contained inside them.

The in vitro results were supported by confocal microscopy studies.

The main undesirable side-effect associated with cancer PDT is the patient’s strong sensitivity to light for four to six weeks after treatment, a result of PDT drugs that accumulate in the skin.

The relevance of this highly innovative approach work of Professor Prasad and his team stands on the following:

• The use of magnetophoretic control to deliver PDT drug to tumour cells resulting in increased accumulation inside those cells (tumours show the propensity to retain higher concentrations of photosensitive drugs than normal tissues);
• Shows potential to reduce drug accumulation in normal tissues;
• It will open doors to treatments that explore more deeply the advantages of nanotechnology-based PDT drug delivery as well as the technique optimization;
• Shows a wide range of applications for a variety of disease areas, including neurological disease and cardiac disease;
• Opens doors to a wide range of innovation in the nanotechnology-based medical devices industry.

Regarding this last point, in a near future the patient will be in the bedside and close to her/him will be a computer equipped with powerful software that controls remotely the drug delivery to the patient.

On a more advanced phase of innovation, portable, personal and affordable medical devices will be available for patients, avoiding her/his staying at the hospital bedside (depending on the advance of the disease).

Nanotechnology in drug delivery and nanotechnology in medical and biomedical diagnostics have many cross roads, since both fields share technologies, strategic approaches and targeting concerns.

Thus, on an even more advanced phase of innovation, those portable, personal and affordable medical devices will be able to perform nanotechnology-based diagnostics and nanotechnology-based drug delivery, on a context of personalized medicine. Those medical devices will be the first generation of nanotechnology-based theranostics medical devices: nanotheranostics medical devices.

Search and destroy. Better saying: detect early and cure.

Each time an individual suffers a heart attack and survives, unfortunately something happens to the heart permanently: some of the cells that constitute this organ die. Those cells can be:

• Cardiomyocytes (striated muscle cells found in the heart, derived from cardiac myoblasts);
• Neurons (in the wall of the heart).

These dead tissues give to the heart muscles weakening. Consequently, the heart becomes weaker and more vulnerable to future recurrent heart attacks.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of patients worldwide are believed to suffer from heart attacks related to the weakness caused by weakened heart muscle due to a previous heart attack.

The scientist Bikramjit Basu (Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India) and scientists at Brown University in the USA carried out studies employing nanotechnology to create small synthetic nanostructures with the capability of regenerating those two different types of natural tissue cells of the heart that have died in previous heart attacks (cardiomyocites and neurons in the wall of the heart).

Those scientists used a polymer to attach carbon nanotubes (CNTs) helical-shaped, generating these way nanofibers. Those studies demonstrated that when the nanofibers were seeded with natural heart tissue cells, five times as many cells colonized the surface within four hours.

Those findings are presently yet to be submitted to tests through clinical trials. This work was published in the Acta Biomaterialia.

The relevance of these studies carried out by the scientist Bikramjit Basu (Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India) and researchers at Brown University in the USA lies in the following benefits:

• They have created the very first fix for resuscitating dead heart tissues in the world;
• An approach was discovered that can help millions of heart attack patients avoid a recurrent heart attack. This highly ingenious and meritorious work will open doors for a dramatic reduction in repeated heart attacks;
• These studies, once optimized, promise a quick and very effective therapy of the damaged heart;
• This work will also open wide doors to significant progresses in the adoption of nanotechnology in regenerative medicine and tissue engineering.

Regarding the last benefit presented, it is important to enhance some of the breakthroughs that can be made in the future, unleashed by these and other studies:

• Regeneration or resuscitation of neurons responsible for paraplegic and quadriplegic patients;
• Regeneration or resuscitation of neurons of patients suffering from conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS);
• Reconstruction or regeneration of whole organs fully or partially damaged by injury or illness.

The researchers Fredrik Nederberg, Kazuki Fukushima and James L. Hedrick from IBM Research at IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA, USA and the researchers Ying Zhang, Jeremy P. K. Tan, Chuan Yang, Shujun Gao and Yi-Yan Yang from the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology, in Singapore made an important discovery in nanomedicine. Their discovery, published online in Nature on 3 April 2011, demonstrated that:

• New types of polymers can physically detect and destroy antibiotic-resistant bacteria and infectious diseases like Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (known as MRSA) Biodegradable nanostructures are physically attracted to infected cells like a magnet attracts iron filings, allowing them to selectively eradicate hard to treat bacteria without destroying healthy cells on the surroundings;
• These nanostructures also prevent the bacteria from developing drug resistance by actually breaking through the bacterial cell wall and membrane, thereby inducing the lyses of these cells. This mode of attack approach is fundamentally different from the traditional antibiotics approach.

MRSA is just one type of dangerous bacteria that is commonly found on the skin and easily contracted in places like gymnasiums, schools and hospitals.

In 2005, MRSA was responsible for about 95,000 serious infections and was associated with almost 19,000 hospital stay-related deaths in the USA. This is why MRSA is designated as a hospital bacterium.

The challenge to combat bacterial infections such as MRSA has two aspects:

• Drug resistance occurs because microorganisms are able to evolve to a new form effectively resistant to antibiotics (previously administered antibiotics prior to the evolution). This happens because current treatments leave their cell wall and membrane typically undamaged;
• The high doses of antibiotics required to kill such an infection destroy both contaminated cells as well as healthy red blood cells, through a indiscriminately way.

Once these polymers come into contact with water in our body, they self assemble into a new polymer structure that is designed to target bacteria membranes based on electrostatic interaction and break through their cell membranes and walls (inducing lyses). Upon the physical pesrpective, this action prevents bacteria from developing resistance to these nanoparticles. The electric charge naturally found in cells is crucial because the new polymer structures are attracted only to the infected areas, combating bacteria, while preserving the healthy red blood cells.

This discovery is highly relevant because it strongly enhances the potential application:

• IBM Research created an entirely new mechanism of nanotechnology in drug delivery specifically designed to target an infected area to allow for a systemic delivery of the drug, which can become more specific and effective;
• The use of those new biodegradable nanostructures highly and effectively contributes to viable therapy of MRSA and other infectious diseases. Unlike most antimicrobial materials, these are biodegradable: they are naturally eliminated from the body (rather than remaining into the body accumulating in organs).

Ironically, the discovered was achieved by applying principles used in semiconductor manufacturing.

IBM has a long and continuing commitment to nanoscience and nanotechnology. Just a few examples, among many:

• On 1981, the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope (STM) was invented by Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohrer (at IBM Zürich) – Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986.
• On September 28, 1989, the IBM researcher Don Eigler (at the IBM Almaden Research Center), using a STM and 35 individual atoms of Xenon, printed the IBM logo;
• On 3 April 2011, the breakthrough described above launches IBM at full speed in the fields of nanotechnology in drug delivery.

It is my strong conviction that, in what concerns to IBM research in the adoption of nanotechnology to medicine and biomedicine, the very best is yet to come.

Most sciences and technologies develop faster than regulators can regulate. This is no secret.

Altough this is “normal”, the special case of nanotechnology and its adoption in several fields (including medicine and biomedicine) may be critical. While nanotechnology shows a huge potential for tremendous benefits, this emerging and fast developing field of science and technology also s has the potential to engender a wide range of dangers, risks and menaces.

According to the Científica Limited’s great report “The Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Market Report”, “there are long admission procedures including for example several clinical trials. Due to the close interface between technology and Human beings there is a special velocity of development which is reflected in long and preferably well defined admission procedures, including for example several clinical trials. In some cases, it is not the nanoparticles to be the constraint or limiting factor but the pharmaceuticals. Most of the basic things that will slow many developments will certainly be the lack of understanding of complex biological systems”.

While regulation has been discussed for a long time there has been little in the way of concrete action.  Nevertheless, many other organizations have demonstrated significant efforts in order to develop a qualified work in nanoregulation, for example regulatory entities such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Health & Consumer Protection Directorate of the European Commission already started working with the potential risks of nanoparticles.

Still according to Científica Limited’s report “The Nanoparticle Drug Delivery Market Report”, “market development is being slowed down by lack of regulatory case law, manifest over public concern over the potential health and environmental impacts of manufactured nanoparticles. This will be improved as new products emerge onto the market and more in the United States especially, this is attracting attention and investigation from governmental organisations, and strong collaborations are being set up with academia, with particular regard to the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON), established at Rice University’s Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology, is conducting comprehensive safety studies for the FDA”.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is also working on Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is developing Guidelines for “Protecting Workers from Potential Risks of Manufactured Nanomaterials” in order to address occupational risks of nanomaterials.

In 1995, the Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was founded to strengthen cooperation and increase coordination in the field of chemical safety. The IOMC organizations organize regular meetings together to ensure co-ordination. At these meetings, the status of activities related to nanotechnology has been discussed.

The WHO together with Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations is providing member states with scientific advisory on the assessment of foods related to nanotechnology.

Finally, during the current year, regulatory entities have shown a significant increase in work regarding concerns about nanosafety. Almost everyday Google news provides us with up-to-date advances in nanoregulation with the FDA being especially active  regarding the adoption of nanotechnology in medicine and biomedicine.

One of key barriers to adoption of nanotechnology in general and adoption of nanotechnology in medicine and biomedicine, in particular has been the hype that surrounds it. Mass media makes a massive hype about nanotechnology directed to world audiences.

Nano-hype is basically about massive communication and cognitive barriers in the perception of nanotechnology that it generates. Let’s analyze the causes and consequences of nano-hype.

Regarding the causes on nano-hype, several factors trigger this phenomenon. Follow some examples:

• The massive communication of the benefits promised by nanotechnology to a wonderful and fascinating new world;
• The massive communication of studies (e.g. industry reports, market reports) pointing to unrealistic numbers (e.g. forecasts and estimates of sales and market growth of nanotechnology-based products reaching the range of trillions in a unrealistic short number of years);
• The massive communication of the consequences of nanoparticle exposure (nanotoxicity and nanopollution);
• The massive communication of nanoethics concerns;
• The massive communication of military applications of nanotechnology;
• The massive communication of issues related with resistance to change;
• The massive communication about a too much delayed and still disorganized nanoregulation;
• The massive communication of a poor and disorganized nanoeducation implemented below its potential.

Regarding the consequences of nano-hype, in some cases the massive communication of the factors pointed above is made without professionalism and accuracy. Nano-hype generates three direct consequences:

• Fear;
• Suspicion;
• Speculation.

One example of speculation in nanotechnology is that it is very easy to find in the Internet videos approaching nanotechnology as a menace to the society. Some of them denote that were made with a doubtful trustworthiness and under the auspices of a conspiracy theory.

Besides, a fact that adds more complexity to the nano-hype equation is that reports and studies show that the public in general is polarized in what concerns to perceptions of nanotechnology: those perceptions tend to radically diverge.

Ignorance and uncertainties about a new emerging field of science or technology are a fertile ground to sow fear, suspicion and speculation. Unfounded speculation or inappropriately founded speculation always induces fear and suspicion to the world population.

On the other hand, the public’s fears, suspicions and speculations need and must to be taken seriously. In the case of nanotechnology, the terms “nanophobia” and “nanoparanoia” are already in use: an unreasonable and exaggerated feeling especially present among the scientifically and technologically illiterate public.

Regarding the expectations generated by nano-hype through reports pointing to unrealistic numbers like forecasts and estimates of sales of nanotechnology-based products and market growth reaching the range of trillions in a very short period of time, although this nonsense predictions and forecasts may sell some reports, it no longer attracts financing. In fact, this phenomenon highly contributes to generate a counter-reaction from part of funders and investors, influenced by nano-hype. Funders and investors, instead of being highly excited, they lose the interest because they gain the conviction that something is wrong. Besides, the ones that have money to invest appreciate to invest in something that is still a secret of the gods. Many funders and investors still have not forgotten the disaster of the dot.com’s during the transition from the Old Economy to the New Economy. Being funders and investors on a defensive position, the predictions of the reports described above become even more unrealistic and out of context.

Since nanotechnology started to receive more publicity, many organizations have focused in the ethical and societal implications, and other concerns about nanotechnology and its applications, both now and in the future. The ethical and societal implications and concerns of nanotechnology and its applications very diverse and include:

While one of the key defence applications of nanotechnology involves diagnosis and treatment of injuries, the mere mention of military applications conjures up science fiction scenarios of killer nanobots in the mind of the general public, leading to a negative impression.

Another ethical and societal concern of nanotechnology is access to nanotechnology. In a near future, terrorism may also tend to be highly “innovative”. If terrorist groups access nanotechnology, this emerging and promising scientific and technological field can be used for killing and scaring an unpredictable number of human beings (although similar concerns have existed over biotech risk for many years).

Concerning environment protection, this topic was already addressed in my last post: “Why the Adoption of Nanotechnology in Medicine and Biomedicine isn’t as Fast as it Could Be? – Part 1: Nanotoxicity and Nanopollution”.

There have also been concerns over invasion of privacy. Many people fear that if nothing is done in terms of regulation, nanotechnology will facilitate access to the private information of individuals such as health. Even though the major threat to privacy and the weakest link are the databases in which this information is held there are still ethical questions about data protection, privacy and piracy.

So nanotechnology applied to medicine and biomedicine faces ethical concerns due to the poor knowledge about nanorisks and a delayed, confused and as yet poorly implemented regulatory system. Not only nanotechnology in drug delivery is in debate. Also other topics are now being discussed, such as:

Human enhancement is the ability of human beings to use technology to enhance the bodies and minds of human beings, in opposition to its application for therapeutic purposes. The use of nanotechnology for Human enhancement purposes is somehow tempting and a critical issue in terms of nanoethics. It raises many debates about applications of nanotechnology for trans-humanisist purposes (transforming Human Beings into Post-Humans).

Concerning to human enhancement, questions and concerns of an anthropological nature are also raised. To take one of many examples: will it be legitimate that in the future surgeons will use nanosurgery to produce supra-human capabilities? For instance, the ability to see in the IR or UV portion of the electromagnetic spectrum or even see in the dark using implanted nanotechnology-based sensors. Or perhaps the opposite, must future surgeons use only nanosurgery to restore and maintain normal functions of human beings? This opens up a whole new area of debate about whether these enhancements will be available to all, or just those wealthy enough to afford them. In the case of the former, how will scarce surgical resources be allocated, and how will governments fund them?

Consumer protection is also an issue as people may be exposed to nanoparticles while using nanotechnology-based products. This topic raises many questions, most of them related with nano safety, although as with any drug there is a huge difference between it being administer by a trained clinician and self administration or accidental exposure..

Taking all these factors into account, it is hardly surprising that the adoption of NanoTechnologies is rather slower than many enthusiasts had imagined!!!

One of the oddest arguments of the molecular manufacturing community (the bunch that believe that nanofactories will lead to eternal life. personal freedom, and do away with the need for money, government, clothes and apparently, good manners or common sense) is their possessiveness of the term nanotechnology.This extract from a recent tirade is typical:

By appropriating the term nanotechnology for what it was they were doing, the scientists had pulled a neat rhetorical trick: they were associating themselves with the wonderful promises of Drexler’s vision without having explicitly promised anything themselves. And they reaped the benefits of billion-dollar funding levels worldwide, interest from investors and the media, the cream of the students, and all the rest.

What always mystified me about the Foresight Institute(and associated groups) is that they simultaneously wanted to keep nanotechnology to themselves but put no effort whatsoever into doing any science that make make their dreams come true. As soon as the scientific community begins to investigate nanotech they start prancing wildly around waving sticks and accusing all kinds of people of stealing it. Now, as a recipient of the Foresight Communications Prize in 2003 I recall that the molecular manufacturing community did all that they could to reap the benefits, it’s just that sitting in front of a computer all day speculating about what a nano enabled Utopia would be like wasn’t felt by government or industry to be an any more worthy recipient of funding than sitting in front of a computer all day speculating on what it would be like to be a potato.

It’s a real shame. The early work by Drexler was uniquely visionary,and I can’t help thinking that his adoption by a bunch of silicon valley nerds rather than exploring the ideas within the scientific community is a mistake of tragic proportions. Certainly demanding that scientists do what they were unwilling or incapable of doing and then getting all bitter and twisted over a word, and a poorly defined one at that, isn’t going to advance their cause.

The Independent, the organ of middle class, slightly left leaning, middle of the road, organic veg munching people with a perpetually concerned expression on their faces (at least the ones I know) distills all the recent fuss into one big question, which it then fails to answer.

Should the Government call a moratorium on nanotechnology?

Yes…

* The risks are simply too great to carry on business as usual until we know more

* We have managed perfectly well so far without nanotechnology, so why take the chance?

* If there is any doubt at all, it would do no harm to call a temporary halt until we know more

No…

* We already enjoy too many benefits from nanotechnology to be able to straightforwardly stop now

* The risks are hypothetical and it would be a mistake to stop without harder evidence that the risk is real

* The potential benefits that are just around the corner far outweigh any possible risks

It’s easy to poke holes in this, even if it mainly concerned with nanomaterials rather than nanotechnologies, but to be fair, it’s in the nature of science journalism that it tends to be generalist and rather ill informed.

Even a polymath such as Leonardo Da Vinci would have had trouble dealing with the whole of science, from space walks to stem cells, and then breaking it down into 500 word chunks that non scientists could understand (and would have been no doubt lumbered with being the arts correspondent too).

However, in common with almost every other nanotech scare story in the last decade I suspect that this will be quickly forgotten by most, although those organisations who take up cudgels against any form of scientific progress will no doubt use the recent reports to claim legitimacy for their often rather unscientific arguments.

Nanotech Breast Improvement - apparently

“The ideal breasts are the ones that are round, laid high on the chest wall, large and firm. If the breasts are not meeting such criteria, this makes not only the women feeling down but her social value also gets tarnished since she feels ‘not so happening’ in any public places such as parties or some sort of get-together. Breasts, being out of the body frame are obvious to get targeted by the gravitational force and over the times, they droop or sag.”

Not my personal opinion of course, but this comes from the marketing for an allegedly nanoparticle based “instant way to Breast Enhancement & Firmness” which the Daily Mail would no doubt classify as “Toxic ‘grey goo’ by stealth.”

The web site video may have caused apoplectic fits or aneurysms for some of the Mail’s readership, though perhaps others would be more than willing to pay $90 for the experience.  Despite intense scrutiny, no one in our office can see any difference in the before and after photos.

As the financial crisis swirls around the world I’m seeing an increasing number of nanotech companies running increasingly short of cash as investors pull in their horns. It’s a good opportunity for cash rich companies to make acquisitions, something that is keeping me in the air this month, and any company that raises an equity round must be something a bit special, which brings me to this recent news from Nanosight.

Salisbury, November 2008 – NanoSight Limited, the nanoparticle characterization company, is excited to announce the completion of a new round of financing which will provide £920,000 to enable the company to expand the business with the development of new products and sales channels in the US market.

NanoSight has just closed almost £1m of investment finance in a month that has seen unprecedented financial turmoil worldwide. Having been close to breakeven for the first half of 2008, hitting sales targets and with margins better than anticipated, it was clear to the company that growth was limited by resource but not by market opportunity. Having successfully weathered the start-up process during the past four years, NanoSight can become more robust with investment in personnel, technical support and development of the underlying technology.