Specifically, if a hammer whacks you on the thumb it’s a “bad” hammer. That same hammer, driving a nail, is “good.”

Of course, this is ridiculous.  Technologies are tools to enable progress.  Sure, they’re exciting — and coupled with intelligent management and adequate financing can be very lucrative to invest in.

Still, good investment is as much about paying attention to risks as the perception of possibilities. Nanotechnology has been a favorite of mine for years, because I believe it offers untold profit possibilities as well as a potential for building a far better world.

Already, nanoparticles are finding their way into mainstream products.  Bowling balls are coated with them to create an ultra-slippery surface.  Soon, we’ll have countertops and bathroom surfaces that are specially coated so that bacteria die upon contact.  Paints are being suffused with nanoparticles such that minor scratches self-repair.

These are but a few examples of hundreds either in the laboratory or now emerging into the marketplace, many of which will make our lives far better.  And it’s just the beginning.  I expect that within 10 years nanotechnology will be regarded as something akin to a “genie technology”.

I’ve trumpeted the potential of nanotechnology in other writings.  Now comes some research that should give us pause for reflection.

Most nanoparticles and nanotechnology machines represent something new in the world.  Not only is the technology to make them revolutionary, but the particles themselves are unlike anything ever discovered in nature.  This is both good and bad. The bad part arises when such particles interact with biological systems — especially people — in unfortunate ways.

Most researchers have assumed that if a large particle of a certain chemical has been thoroughly and safety tested and proven harmless, that far smaller nanoparticles of the same material will also be harmless.New research suggests this to be false. Nanoparticles are being used in sunscreen creams to provide extra protection against dangerous ultraviolet light.

According to research published in the journal Nature, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has found that nanoparticles of titanium oxide are harmful to mice brains. (Larger particles of titanium oxide have been generally recognized as safe for decades.)

Essentially, these particles are recognized as invaders and trigger a protective response. However, the response doesn’t deal with them effectively so it goes on for a long time, with potentially harmful side effects.

Titanium dioxide is used as a white pigment in paint, and is considered safe. Likewise, it has been used in sunscreen creams because it absorbs UV light.

Unlike larger particles, nanoparticles can enter the bloodstream and pass the body’s critical defensive blood-brain barrier. This means that such particles must be examined in a way that their bigger counterparts are not.

In the EPA research, nanoparticles were added to protective cultures of mouse brain cells. These special cells, called microglia, protect the brain by surrounding invaders and attacking them with oxygen.

The problem is that, unlike bacteria or viruses, the microglia attack titanium oxide particles for a long time rather than in a short burst of activity. The excessive oxygen could be harmful to brain tissue, and that has the researchers concerned.

We are cautioned not to make too much of this at this point. It’s not clear whether such particles, when applied to the skin, can migrate to the brain or not.  It’s also not clear whether the behavior in mouse cell cultures will translate to humans (though it typically does 80% of the time, which is why rats and mice are favored as laboratory animals).

What does this really mean?  If rational science prevails, nanoparticles made of previously generally recognized as safe (GRAS) substances will be studied anew for possible toxic effects. That’s good science and good public safety.

There is some risk that a hue and cry will arise similar to the one now plaguing genetically modified organisms (GMO), particularly in Europe. One thing that could drastically slow nanotechnology progress would be political constraints similar to those currently being imposed on stem cell research.

As a practical matter, I expect all this will serve to greatly increase the demand for automated toxicology-testing systems.  Fortunately, our Transformational Technologies Portfolio includes several companies whose technology enables or supports such systems. Hepalife (HPLF.OB: OTC BB) is developing a test bed platform based on its liver assist technology, and may soon be followed by Stem Cell Innovations (SCLL.OB: OTC BB).  I expect Accelrys (ACCL: Nasdaq) to enter this field as well.

Every new technology creates both promise and perils. The history of technology is one of promise being identified and then realized, followed by peril being identified and then dealt with. Usually, the peril is met by other more advanced technologies.

Every such advance creates profit opportunities for the astute alert investor. That’s our mission.

To your profitable future,

Jonathan Kolber
June 21, 2006

Dangerous Nanoparticles? was originally featured in the Penny Sleuth.