Toxicity
Just as the nano-scale has opened a whole world of potential commercial applications, it has also opened a new world of risk. Profit motivated corporations have rushed into commercialising the first generation of nanotechnology based products (nano- particles) before adequate safety testing procedures, let alone regulations, are in place to deal with them. Given that nano-particle products including cosmetics and wound dressings are already on the market, and food and environmental remediation applications are not far off this should be ringing alarm bells. The main reason for developing nano- particles has been to take advantage of the fact that everything is different at the nanoscale. Simply by reducing the size of particles to the nano-scale their properties change and interesting new applications become possible. However, it seems that the dazzling array of potential applications has blinded researchers from asking more searching questions about what new risks emerge in a world where everything is different. There is a growing body of scientific opinion which claims that a unique set of problems are associated with the toxicity of manufactured nano-particles. The concern is two fold: Firstly that by being reduced to the nano-scale materials become more reactive and therefore potentially more toxic. Secondly, our bodies have not evolved to recognise nano-particles. Prior to their deliberate manufacture as nano-particles relatively few particles of this size existed in the world. As a result our bodies' protective filters, from the skin to the lining of the lungs to the blood/brain barrier, do not recognise and filter out nano-particles. Nano-foreign bodies therefore have the ability to reach the places other foreign bodies can't reach with, potentially dangerous effects. Despite nano-particle-based products already being on the market there are very few studies on the toxicology of nano- particles. Those studies that have happened have shown problems, for example fish exposed to carbon nano- particles quickly developed brain damage. Even the traditionally pro-technology Royal Society has urged caution about the use of nanotechnology, especially nano- particles, and has stressed the need for tight regulation of nano- particles to be put in place. We are only dealing with the first generation of relatively simple nanotechnology based products and there are already significant safety issues. As the scope of commercial nanotechnology increases we can expect further safety problems to arise. For example, what will the bio-safety implications of nanobiotechnology be? At present there are no regulatory frameworks designed specifically to deal with nanotechnology anywhere in the world.

"There is evidence that UFPs [Ultra Fine Particles or nano-particles] can gain entry to the body by a number of routes, including inhalation, ingestion and across the skin. There is considerable evidence that UFPs are toxic and therefore potentially hazardous. The basis of this toxicity is not fully established but a prime candidate for consideration is the increased reactivity associated with very small size." Dr Vyvyan Howard, toxicologist

Corporate control is increased Colonisation of the nano-scale
Just as colonial explorers hoisted the flag of their home country to lay claim to their new-found colonies, so too corporations have used corporate logos to lay claim to their stake in the new world of the nanoscale. In 1989 scientists working for IBM announced to the world their ability to manipulate matter atom by atom by using a scanning tunnelling microscope (IBM's own patented technology) to rearrange 35 xenon atoms to spell out the letters I- B-M on the surface of a nickel crystal.

New enclosures/new monopolies
Nanotechnology opens a new world of ownership and corporate control. Just as biotechnology's ability to manipulate genes went hand in hand with the patenting of life, so too nanotechnology's ability to manipulate molecules has led to the patenting of matter. The last few years has seen a gold rush to claim patents at the nanoscale. Over 800 nano-related patents were granted in 2003, and the numbers are increasing year on year. Corporations are already taking out broad ranging monopoly patents on nano- scale discoveries and inventions. For example, two corporations, NEC and IBM, hold the basic patents on carbon nanotubes, one of the current cornerstones of nanotechnology. Carbon nanotubes have a wide range of uses, and look set to become crucial to several industries from electronics and computers, to strengthened materials to drug delivery and diagnostics. Carbon nanotubes are poised to become a major traded commodity with the potential to replace major conventional raw materials. However, as their use expands, anyoneseeking to manufacture or sell carbon nanotubes, no matter what the application, must first buy a license from NEC or IBM.

Changing the size and shape of corporations
If nanotechnology opens up a whole new world of technological possibilities, it also rise to a new world of corporations. Just as the biotechnology revolution resulted in the lifesciences company (in which chemicals, pharmaceuticals, seeds and materials interests were merged together) nanotechnology is likely to result in companies with traditionally very different areas of operation working together, merging or buying each other due to their similarities at the nano-scale. The beginnings of this are already happening albeit at a small scale. For example, Bridgestone Corporation is finding that its nano-applications, initially developed for tyres, are equally useful in making flat screens and is about to go into production. Given the diverse range of companies embraced by a nano-enabled technological convergence, what are the corporate mergers of the future going to look like? How powerful will those companies be and what priorities will they be governed by?

Nano-disruption

“Just as the British industrial revolution knocked hand-spinners and hand weavers out of business, nanotechnology will disrupt a slew of multi billion dollar companies and industries” Lux Nanotech Report 2004

Another major problem with nanotechnology is its potential to cause huge economic and social disruption. There are plenty of examples in history, from the mechanisation of cotton weaving in 19th century England to the introduction of GM soya to Argentina in the last ten years, of how the introduction of new technologies leads to massive social and economic disruption, felt hardest by the poorest, most marginalised sectors of society.

As nanomaterials become widely used there is the potential for major traded commodities, from iron and copper to rubber and cotton, to be replaced by nanotech based equivalents. For example, the use of carbon nanotubes in the electronics industry looks set to make a sizeable dent in the copper extraction industry. The hardest impacts of these changes in commodity flows will be felt not by large corporations dealing in copper (who will simply relocate or diversify their business) but by local communities who have been made reliant on extractive industries such as copper mining.