2004 was certainly the year the nanoparticles hit the fan. Environmental organizations such as the ETC Group continued to highlight the risks of nanotechnology, while a report from the UK's Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering put these risks into context. I have spent a lot of time discussing health and environmental issues with everyone from Greenpeace to the European Commission and there have been a number of positive outcomes.
The reports from groups such as ETC have focused attention on several issues that could be potentially harmful. While it is not, and should not be, the responsibility of every post-doctoral researcher to attempt to predict the long-term implications of their research, this attention has certainly woken up department heads and governments.
Research institutions around the world have been putting in place studies into toxicology, something I have been working on in both Europe and Asia over the last year. And there are few nanotechnology meetings which fail to address health and environmental concerns. As a result, many environmental organizations have praised those working on nanotechnology for being much more responsible than proponents of previous emerging technologies.
Last year was also the year that the tricky issue of the Drexlerian idea of molecular manufacturing - the version popularised by the Foresight Institute - finally began to be addressed in a scientific manner. This is long overdue and I am grateful to Professor Richard Jones of Sheffield University for covering the matter eloquently and concisely both in his book Soft Machines and in his blog. There is much work to be done, however, to build trust between the scientific and molecular nanotechnology communities if we are ever to determine the boundary between science and science fiction.
But let's get back to 2005. Two news items, both relating to drug delivery, have proved notable so far.
Firstly, Irish company Elan announced an extended licensing agreement with Roche to apply Elan NanoCrystal technology to a number of Roche's proprietary products. In other words, it can be assumed Roche thinks it works. Hot on the heels of this news came the revelation by American Pharmaceutical Partners that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved its nanoparticle-based treatment for breast cancer.
What is remarkable about these two pieces of news is that nanotechnology is finally beginning to have an impact on the real world. Of course, we have had bouncier tennis balls, stain-resistant clothes and better golf balls, but it would be hard to argue that any of these come close to meeting some of the claims made for nanotechnology, or justify the huge spending worldwide.
These two drug delivery breakthroughs raise another key issue that is often overlooked in the headlong rush to praise or dismiss nanotechnology. In both cases, nanotechnology is not producing a new drug or compound, but simply providing a better way to deliver existing ones. Neither of these companies could be called nanotechnology businesses. Despite being perennial favourites in many nanotechnology indices, they are very clearly pharmaceutical companies. So, what we are seeing is our understanding of nanoscience being translated into making better or more effective treatments.
The year 2005 marks the fifth year of the large-scale and dedicated funding of nanoscience research. That said, I never tire of pointing out that many scientists were working on the nanoscale long before nanotechnology became fashionable. A large number of the new, dedicated facilities are already built, equipped and staffed, with many more due to enter service in 2005.
This year should also be the year in which we get some economic return on the investment in nanoscience, as Elan, Roche and American Pharmaceutical Partners are doing.
Of course nanotechnology is not, and should not be, just about economic returns. It still has much to offer in the areas of providing energy, health and water to the less developed regions of the planet.
Most importantly, 2005 marks the true beginning of nanotechnology. Much of what we have seen, discussed and funded over the last five years has been primarily nanoscience. From now on, we are in a position to apply that science. Balancing those applications between economic and societal benefits will be the challenge for much of this decade.