Nanotechnology Lawyer & Attorney : Porter Wright Morris & Arthur : Nanotechnology Law Report - Germanium nanobead image provided by UT-Battelle, which manages Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Department of Energy

Nano Pet Products is marketing a line of dog beds and apparel touted as "the most technologically advanced dog bed on the market. Using the performance fabric finishes NanoSphere® and ActiveSilver®, these beds stay clean and kill bacteria naturally, standing up to the wear and tear of the most active dog."  The "Dog Gone Smart Bed" and "Dog Gone Smart Wear" is being debuted at the Global Pet Expo in San Diego, wrapping up today.

There is no further information available on what "NanoSphere" or "ActiveSilver" is other than both are "based on nanotechnology."  Does this mean we should add our pets to the list of "family" members we should be concerned about exposing nanotechnology to (much like nano-based sunscreens?).  As you can see, my dog Simon loves his bed, nanotechnology or not, so maybe these guys are onto something?

First, nanoSLIM claims to use nanotechnology in its manufacturing process and features the trademarked and patent pending "Nano-Diffuse" technology.  While nanoSLIM does not define Nano Diffuse technology, other products that use this proprietary method describe it as, "Nano-Diffuse is a high tech process of micro-pulverizing the amino acid particles to a range of 2 to 50 microns in size using ultrasonic pneumatic machinery."  Other products that use Nano-Diffuse include Muscle Tech Nitro-Tech and SleepMD.

Second, on the nanoSLIM box, the manufactures state, "the key ingredients in nanoSLIM are pulverized into micron-sized particles."  And prominently featured at the words "Nanotechnology at Work."

However, I would caution readers to something you have probably already seen: nano and micro are not the same.  This brings to light a growing problem in the nano world--the use of "nano" as a marketing tool when nano really isn't involved (does everyone remember Magic Nano?).  Because these kinds of supplements are not tightly regulated by the Food & Drug Administration, just about anything goes.  While I'm not familiar with the technology being put to use, it sure feels like there is no nanotechnology here and the "nano" is used to draw attention to the product (which seems to be working given I purchased the second to last box on the shelf).

Oh, one other thing.  The warning on the box reads in part: "Not intended for use by persons under 18.  Do not use if pregnant or nursing.  Consult a medical doctor before use if you have been treated for, or diagnosed with, or have a family history of, any medical condition including (but not limited to) diabetes, or if you are using any prescription or over-the-counter drug."

Caveat emptor, indeed.

A previous post on nanoethics appears here, and I'm seeing more and more discussion as the idea becomes part of the agenda.

We've already heard from The Nanoethics Group, and seen the journal NanoEthics, (no direct relation, I'm told), and now comes an anthology collection of 40 authors, Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Nanotechnology,  that "gives the reader an introduction to and basic foundation in nanotechnology and nanoethics, and then delves into near-, mid-, and far-term issues. " 

While there is the expected crossover between these three items, authors from one will certainly appear in another's publication, the increasing volume with which nanoethics is being discussed is noteworthy. 

Responsible development of both the technology and any accompanying regulation cannot be made in a vacuum.  Consideration of the wider societal impacts, both positive and negative, is critical in order to have worthwhile discussions.   The ends of the spectrum have already been voiced: a complete lack of regulation on the developing science until more is known on the one hand, and a total moratorium on technological advancement until the risks are sufficiently understood and accounted for on the other.  While I can't speak for my co-authors, I believe the answer lies somewhere in the middle.  As to the second argument, the proverbial genie is out of the bottle--scientific advancement cannot be stopped at this stage.  R&D labs, universities, and private companies will continue to research and learn about nanotechnology.  As to the first argument, a complete disregard for the potential hazards that may develop is, at best, irresponsible. 

We've not heard the last of the nanoethics discussion, and quite the contrary, I think we're just hearing the beginning.  But that's just my opinion, I'd be curious to know what you think.

ASTM, International, by its own description is, "one of the largest voluntary standards development organizations in the world-a trusted source for technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services. Known for their high technical quality and market relevancy, ASTM International standards have an important role in the information infrastructure that guides design, manufacturing and trade in the global economy."  ASTM, International develops many of the standard testing methods and procedures for scientific processes, and they have now created standard definitions for nanotechnology.

Standard E 2456-06 is a collection of definitions and terminology that should help to alleviate some of the confusion inherent in many organizations using slightly different definitions for nanotechnology related terms.  Because it is copyrighted material, it cannot be reproduced or linked here (the standard can be purchased at the above link).  However, terms addressed by the Standard include: nano, naoparticle, nanotechnology, and nanoscale. 

This release by ASTM, International is important because that organization is heavily relied upon for developing and maintaining many of the world's scientific standards and procedures.  The fact that they have now developed, what we hope to be, standardized definitions in the nanotechnology arena, helps to alleviate any confusion surrounding what is properly within the field of nanotechnology, and what is not.  This, in turn, frees up those working in the field to turn their attention to the substantive issues at hand.  While not binding on any organization or agency, the Standard reflects an attempt by several scientific organizations, including the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, NSF, International, the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International to reach a consensus concerning the scope of nanotechnology.