Post on 12-Feb-2018
Hamilton 1
Derek Hamilton
5/10/13
Writing 10
John Haner
Nanotechnology in Medicine:
Ethical Dilemmas & Societal Integration
For millennia, mankind has been searching for the “elixir of life” so to speak; that is, a
way to exceed natural human lifespan. The first of many theories yielding eternal life was that
of alchemy. From as early as 220 B.C., countless leaders have attempted to manipulate the
elements for a potion of eternal youth. China’s first emperor, Shi Huangdi, had many personal
alchemists who tried for years to accomplish this, and sampled countless concoctions until one
finally killed him with mercury poisoning. From trials in alchemy, to quests for fountains of
youth, many have obsessed over this quest and died in vain. Here we are centuries later, finally
on the verge of realizing the timeless human goal of prolonged life. The technology that will
finally bring the human race to that goal is nanotechnology (in cooperation with genetics).
Although complex nanotechnology is still in its developmental stages, the implications of its
integration into microbiology and immunology are already tremendous. With the current pace
of technological growth, it is expected to have nearly limitless nanotechnological possibilities by
the end of the century. Of this vast range of possibilities, the ones discussed will range from
Hamilton 2
microbiotic disease treatment, nanoblood cells, immunological supplements, and significantly
improved longevity.
The Rise of Nanotechnology in Medicine
In recent years, stem cell research was perhaps the cornerstone of modern biological
science and received huge publicity for its possibilities. It was an amazing feat that scientists
could essentially recreate human body parts from microbial cells. They achieved this by working
with what was considered the smallest possible level of biology to work with. However,
nanotechnology has brought a whole new perspective to microbiology. Nanotechnology has
become so successful, that it is almost possible to engineer nanobots the size of blood cells.
This fact alone makes way for nearly inconceivable ways to utilize nanotechnology in perfecting
the human species. Of all the ways people die, most of them are biologically responsible, for a
fairly small percentage of deaths are accident or violently related. Some common reasons for
death include heart attacks, failure of some vital organ or function, and hereditary risks such as
diabetes or cancer. All of these problems can be potentially neutralized with applications of
nanotechnology. With America rapidly approaching an increasingly sedentary lifestyle, the rate
of high blood pressure and high cholesterol are at insanely high rates never seen before in
history. Untreated, this leaves a decent percentage of the population at a fair risk of coronary
related complications. Imagine if any one of these at-risk individuals could take a simple
injection of nanobots into the bloodstream, which target cholesterol built up inside the arteries,
and dismantle them into manageable components the body can process. This exact same
Hamilton 3
ideology can be applied to cancer cells, simple bacterial life, or even fat cells. Any illness can be
cured; any disease can be destroyed; any imperfection can be relinquished.
What Does This Mean For Mankind?
We humans can essentially engineer ourselves to perfection. We can eliminate nearly
every biological issue ensuing premature death. Imagine a world without biological
imperfection; a world where an appointment with a doctor can remedy any and all illnesses,
diseases, and imperfections in minutes. This could be anyone’s world, for a price. Such
revolutionary impending treatments beg the question as old as history; how do we regulate it?
Does an individual’s wealth affect his or her ability to take advantage of this immunological
revolution? Even in modern day, many families cannot afford the health insurance needed to
ensure long healthy lives, while the wealthy have access to nearly limitless treatments, doctors,
and medication. The rift between the wealthy and the impoverished is already expansive in
terms of health care, and improvements of health technology will only serve to widen the rift.
Newly emerged procedures will surely fetch a pretty penny, and in this vision of the future,
more wealthy individuals will be able to afford the luxury of engineering their bodies to
perfection, while the less fortunate will not. This obviously raises a huge ethical dilemma. Why
should one’s economic standing affect one’s ability to simply live a healthy life? This division of
the population will also have several other social impacts, such as job discrimination, social
discrimination, and general segregation between the immunologically modified, and the
average human. Regardless of social ethics in question, this nanotechnological breakthrough
will nevertheless revolutionize the way humans live their lives. In a world where people attain
Hamilton 4
the realization that their bodies can be re-perfected at any moment, all sense of consequence is
instantly mitigated. People may disregard their diet entirely, knowing nanobots can essentially
“destroy” any extra weight they gain. People may intentionally drink much more irresponsibly
than they should, knowing nanobots can help the liver detoxify the blood. People may be
significantly more likely to engage in risky behaviors knowing any disease or virus conceived can
be destroyed by nanobots. In light of similar advancements, the sense of “reward” for proper
lifestyle choices has disappeared entirely. People will lead more reckless lives, not cognisant of
what would be the consequences had access to such treatments be taken away. Social and
moral ethics will unquestionably play a role in the “nanobiotech” revolution, but what will the
ethical dilemmas be?
The Future “Standard” of Health: For Better, or Worse?
In recent years, treatments utilizing nanoparticles have been developed, implemented,
and practiced somewhat commonly at an alarmingly high success rate. One specific treatment
involves putting nanomaterials inside the body of a cancer patient, designed to contact and
attach to cancer cells in the bloodstream. A couple different factors contribute to the success of
this treatment. Firstly, the nanomaterial is designed specifically to only attach to the deadly
cancer cells rather than living. Secondly, nanomaterials are made just large enough to be
unable to permeate the blood-brain barrier, keeping the patient safe from brain injury. Once
enough of the material has accumulated at the site, the patient is subjected a magnetic field in
such a manner that the nanomaterials oscillate at an incredible rate, physically breaking apart
the cancer cells through vibrations. This is a very painless, elegant solution to most cancers. As
Hamilton 5
Michio Kaku states, “The beauty of this is that it does not require complicated and dangerous
methods, which might have serious side effects” (210). This is just one specific example, and
treatments such as this will eventually be available for many aspects of general health upkeep,
such as nanobots created to destroy cholesterol, disassemble fat deposits, and even repair
specific living cells. With such an arsenal of health promoting treatments, humans can become
nearly indestructible from deteriorating health ailments creating a utopia of prolonged
consequence-free lives. Such therapies sound like they have an undeniable positive impact on
the world, but these advancements have much more controversiality than meets the eye. There
are many moral and ethical qualms to be had in multiple aspects of such procedures.
Time: The Currency of the Future
As frightening as it is, we almost live in a world where money literally buys life. With
ample wealth, one can purchase nanotechnological supplements for improve immune system
functioning, general cardiovascular health, live cell repair, abnormality prevention, and nearly
anything that comes to mind. A frightening component of engineering on the nanometric level
is that nearly anything is possible biologically. In current times, the wealthier can already afford
more experimental and expensive procedures that may not exactly be accessible to the less
fortunate; however, the scale of this imbalance in treatment accessibility will be significantly
magnified with the introduction of nano-supplements into the every-day setting. A less wealthy
man with a history of early heart problems may only live to be half as old as a wealthier
individual who can afford cholesterol inhibiting nano-supplements. The reality is that this
Hamilton 6
explicit chasm between the rich and poor in terms of standard of living will always be skewed
and unjust, but that is only the nature of wealth: the access to more possibilities.
Perfect Health: the New Economic Crevasse
Medicine has always been a touchy ethical topic in terms of the relationship between
affordability and availability. The most revolutionary treatments and procedures have been
unintentionally catered towards the wealthier class simply through cost of production in
conjunction with supply and demand. In an unfortunate quirk of reality, an economic crevasse
has separated the wealthy from the less fortunate in terms of the availability of health
remedying and disease diagnosing/treating technologies. As cited in the Encyclopedia of
Healthcare Information Systems, “Nanorobotics will be able to diagnose, as well as the cure, the
diseases quickly, efficiently, and effectively. Moreover, accurate and effective diagnosis of
incurable diseases like cancer and HIV/AIDS at early stages will turn out to be a great relief for
the coming generation from these deadly diseases.” Currently, this separation of opportunity
generally does not have a very significant effect on long-term health, but will this still be the
case when nanotechnology will be able to destroy diseases, rectify any irregularities, and
ultimately extend human longevity by an alarming factor? And even more importantly, how will
mankind unite to accommodate arising ethical concerns as well as address and regulate the
impact of the technology on society and economy? My stance is in congruence with this issue.
It is not fair that one’s relative success in the world dictates his or her accessibility to something
like living. This notion is ridiculous and although it would near next to impossible to offer this
Hamilton 7
nature of technology to be free, measures can be taken to at least make it reasonably
affordable.
Can we prevent it?
Several key components of addressing of this ethical dilemma include funding, government
and self-regulation, and socio-economic reform. Funding is a very complicated issue when it
comes to highly controversial technologies. The most universally known example is the
advancement of stem cell research. Government funding for stem cell research is an issue that
has been heavily debated and severely reformed countless times since it was pioneered, and
thus currently the funding for stem cell research lies entirely in the private investment sector.
What many people do not immediately realize, is that increased funding for technology allows
for opportunity to discover ways to more efficiently create and produce said technologies,
decreasing production costs, ultimately allowing for greater production quantities as well as
making the technologies more affordable. This specifically is a very important component to
this ethical dilemma, as a significant increase in availability and affordability would cause the
“unfairness” argument to begin to falter for the most part, and in turn decrease the public
opposition. Regulation would be one of the most unique factors to consider. If the life-
prolonging effects of any nano-technological advancement were significant enough to the point
where the wealthy and impoverished are drastically estranged, the government may be forced
to step in. The government implemented a section-8 housing program in which it helps low-
income families afford decent houses to shorten the economic gap between the homeless and
wealthy. In a similar way, the government may at one point implement programs to assist or
Hamilton 8
compensate illegible low income-families to afford life- extending technologies to avoid
contributing to an increasing separation of economic classes. Although utilizing technology to
artificially improve longevity and body functionality is a concept unfamiliar and uncomfortable
to most, but with proper integration into society, it could one day be just as routine as a
vaccination.
Nanomaterials: The Omnipotent Pollutant of the Future
As science has matured over the years, the human race has started to realize its role in
several key pollutants around the world and their lasting impact on the environment on a
global scale. The “big” pollutant of the generation changes from time to time, from lithium to
plastic to carbon dioxide, the debate is always changing. However, one of the single biggest
concerns for pollutants in the world of the future is the problem of nanopollution. Now,
nanopollution can mean a couple different things depend on what is being dealt with. The less
concerned type is environmental pollution. Typically, nanoparticles’ effect on the environment
is negligible compared to other polluting concerns at hand. The biggest concern of
nanopollution is strictly biological. Nanomaterials have a largely uninvestigated impact on
various ecosystems; although the little research that has been done strongly suggests the most
commonly used nanomaterials today have significant health risks, both to people as well as all
other organisms. The problems of this aspect of nanopollution lie in the lack of foresight of
nanoparticles in a larger system. Although nanomaterials are not inherently dangerous, many
corporation researches are not cognisant to their interaction with other components of a large
system of reactions. The most commonly known and investigated nanomaterial is Titanium
Hamilton 9
Dioxide, (TiO2) currently the most popular nanoparticle in macro-scale manufacturing. Titanium
dioxide is the most common agent in several of the biggest brand names of cosmetics, but is
now showing to be carcinogenic through extensive research. A recent article published by the
American Association of Cancer Research has stated, “Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles are
manufactured worldwide in large quantities for use in a wide range of applications including
pigment and cosmetic manufacturing. Although TiO2 is chemically inert, TiO2 nanoparticles can
cause negative health effects, such as respiratory tract cancer…” (8784.) This is a frightening
vision into what macro-environmental pollution problems can possible arise when countless
nanoparticles are carelessly washed into water supplies and introduced into the environment.
Consequences of Nano-pollution
The second huge ethical concern in regards to the increasingly popular integration of
nanotechnology into society is the matter of nano-pollution and nano-waste. Pollution has
been perhaps the largest environmental concern for any type of advancements since the
concept of pollution was established. But now we are talking about a very unique type of
pollution that is very complicated to hypothetically consider, for the entirety of its effects are
largely enigmatic. The little research that has been conducted however, has almost invariably
unveiled definite causation between specific nanoparticles and various cancers in conceivably
any living organisms that are overexposed to the nanomaterials. A recent article published by
the American Association of Cancer Research has stated, “Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles
are manufactured worldwide in large quantities for use in a wide range of applications including
pigment and cosmetic manufacturing. Although TiO2 is chemically inert, TiO2 nanoparticles can
Hamilton 10
cause negative health effects, such as respiratory tract cancer…” (8784). A slightly differing
concern is the chemical reaction between nanoparticles and specific chemical compositions in
the environment itself, disregarding living organisms. One such concern is the effect of
nanoparticles on the growth or oppression of algal blooms and the corresponding response of
the surrounding environment. The relieving news is that with proper education, regulation, and
nano-filtration technologies, nanopollution can be mitigated to a very manageable,
unthreatening level.
Regulating the Problem
Perhaps the biggest influence on nano-pollution control will be law-enforced
regulations. Fortunately, many scientists and policy-makers are already aware of the necessary
changes at hand. As indicated in the Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: The Law and
Politics of Sustainability, “In considering the commercial introduction of manufactured
nanomaterials to achieve potential environmental benefits, countries should also give due
consideration to potential health hazards or the environmental implications of the use of
nanomaterials during their whole lifecycle. This includes the potential effects of production of
the nanoscale materials, as well as the disposition of nanomaterials that may, for example,
require new programs of recyclers or cause new concerns for disposal.” Hypothetically, self-
regulation would be a great start and a strong component of regulating nano-pollution globally,
but this would hardly be the case. The reality of the situation is that without judicial and
economic repercussions for neglecting nano-pollution regulation, there would be no progress in
the preventing of polluting the planet and negatively impacting its various ecosystems. Just as
Hamilton 11
there are requirements that corporations must meet in terms of general pollution, safety
regulations, and production guidelines, standards must be set for the complete and effective
filtering of nanoparticles within all waste materials a corporation disposes of. A second
promising proponent of dealing with this ethical dilemma is the effectiveness of funding in
driving research towards both safer nano-material compositions and more efficient filtering
technologies. With proper funding, the general population’s unrest in the ethics of nano-
pollution can be strongly mitigated, as technology becomes more adept in increasingly safe and
efficient filtration. Technology and education are of trivial concern to the proposal of resolving
ethical concerns. The nano-filtration technologies that current exist are already at a level that
would be sufficient if implemented more effectively, and educating corporations and the
population of the environmental hazards and repercussions of general pollution has been
advocated for years, with limited success. The key proponents to successful neutralization of
the environmental threats of pollution will lie nearly entirely in regulation and related funding,
and these are the steps that are the most vital in our cause to prevent nano-pollution.
Ethics as a Whole
These huge ethical concerns are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to what we
can expect from the advancement of nanotechnology and its gradual integration into our
everyday lives. Although the potential is incredible, the ethical concerns will be a significant
factor in slowing the progress of research done to advance such technologies. The expected, as
well as unexpected consequences are enough for many to heed caution as they progress
aimlessly into this field of research. Almost as frightening as the foreseen issues ahead,
Hamilton 12
unexpected consequences are always a hard thing to gauge, but they can end up being some of
the most significant. It is an inevitability that the ethical and moral concerns encompassing the
advancement of nanotechnology are still very controversial and will continue to play a
significant role in its development as it evolves into the future.
The Future of Medicine: Successful Integration in Society
Although the ones discussed are of an ethical nature, there are always numerous
physical dangers and risks in controversial technology as well. Such concerns will be accidental
self-harm liability as well as long term deterioration of the immune system as humans grow
more and more dependent on nanotech-supplements. Although concerning, the ethical issues
are quite a bit more relevant on a societal scale and will be far more vital problems to address.
As our scientific abilities grow, we will see exactly what comes of various technologies and how
they will affect society. Just as our technological limits are what currently control growth of
experimental capabilities, society’s moral stigmas and ethical qualms will be the limiting agent
of technological growth in the future. There is no question that the incorporation of
nanotechnology into molecular biology and immunology will be complicated, but how will
mankind as a species unite to successfully integrate these innovations into society? Fortunately,
the first precautionary measures are already being devised and heavily considered. Although
the establishment of preemptive infrastructure may be time consuming & complicated, proper
utilization of regulation, education, funding, and technology growth can mitigate public
opposition and effectively address and accommodate the ethical concerns held worldwide.
Hamilton 13
Works Cited
"Nanorobotics: Applications in Bionanotechnology." Encyclopedia of Healthcare Information
Systems. Hershey: IGI Global, 2008. Credo Reference. Web. 07 May 2013.
"Chemicals Legislation and Policy." Berkshire Encyclopedia of Sustainability: The Law and
Politics of Sustainability. Great Barrington: Berkshire Publishing Group, 2010. Credo
Reference. Web. 07 May 2013.
Kaku, Michio. Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives
by the Year 2100. New York: Doubleday, 2011. Print.
Ferrari, Mauro. "Nanotechnology-Enabled Medicine - Mauro Ferrari - Discovery
Medicine." Discovery Medicine. Ohio State University, 25 July 2009. Web. 25 Mar. 2013.
Advances in Anti-Aging Medicine, Vol. I, edited by Dr. Ronald M. Klatz, Liebert press, 1996,
pages 277-286.
Owl.english.purdue.edu. "Welcome to the Purdue University Online Writing Lab (OWL)." 2006.
Web. 10 Apr 2013. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/
Ali Mansoor, G. et al. Nanotechnology in cancer prevention, detection and treatment: bright
future lies ahead. Chicago: University of Illinois, 2007. 226-256.
Trouiller, Benedicte et al. Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Induce DNA Damage and Genetic
Instability. American Association for Cancer Research, 2009. 8783-8790.