Advertisement

Potential Malfeasant Cooption of Nanotechnology

  • Margaret Kosal

Abstract

Among the highest priorities for the US and the Department of Defense in the twenty-first century is to deny the acquisition and use of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states, substate actors, or nonstate actors for use in acts against the US and its allies.2 Anticipating the types of threats that may emerge as science and technology advance, the potential consequences of those threats, and the probability that enemies will obtain or pursue them is necessary for preparing for the future security of the nation and the wider world community. This is also a critical part of near-term defensive planning. Nanotechnology is a prime example of this type of enabling and potentially game-changing technology. Today, almost all developed countries are vigorously pursuing nanotechnology developments with well-funded programs in the US, Japan, China, Russia, Israel, Taiwan, India, Iran, and across Europe. The global nature of this research means that much of the nanotechnology advancement recently achieved, and that projected for the future will likely be available to friends and adversaries.

Keywords

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Protective Antigen Lethal Factor Biological Weapon Hide Magnet 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes and References

  1.  1.
     1. Hammes TX (2007) Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges, Mil. Rev. May-Jun.: 14–23. http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun07/Hammes.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The White House (2006) Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.htmlGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Research Council (2006) A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. National Academy Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ding SY et al (2003) Quantum dot molecules assembled with genetically engineered proteins. Nano. Lett. 3:1581–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Williams E, Abarbanel H, Alivisatos P, Block S, Brenner M et al. (2002) Opportunities at the Intersection of NanoSci., Biology and Computation, The MITRE Corporation; McLean, VA, JSR-02–300, Nov. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/nanoint.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Medina C et al (2007) Nanoparticles: Pharmacological and toxicological significance. Br. J. Pharm. 150:552–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tan BH, Tam KC (2007) Review on the dynamics and micro-structure of pH-responsive nano-colloidal systems. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pantarotto DR, Singh D, McCarthy M, Erhardt JP, Briand M, Prato KK, Bianco A et al (2004) Functionalized carbon nanotubes for plasmid DNA gene delivery. Angew. Chem. 43:5242–5246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kam, NWS and Dai HJ (2005) Carbon nanotubes as intracellular protein transporters: Generality and biological functionality. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127(16):6021–6026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fong CL and Hui KM (2002) Generation of potent and specific cellular immune responses via in vivo stimulation of dendritic cells by pNGVL-3-hFLex plasmid DNA and immunogenic peptides. Gene. Ther. 9:1127–1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kam NWS and Dai HJ (2005) Carbon nanotubes as intracellular protein transporters: Generality and biofunctionality. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127:6021–6026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tiwari SB and Amiji MM (2006) Improved oral delivery of paclitaxel following administration in nanoemulsion formulations. J. Nanosci. Nanotech. 6:3215–3221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oberdorster G, Sharp Z, Atudorei V, Elder A, Gelein R, Kreyling W, Cox C et al (2004) Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhal. Toxicol. 16:437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dan Luo W, Saltzman M et al (2000) Enhancement of transfection by physical concentration of DNA at the cell surface. Nat. Biotech. 18:893–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Niidome T and Huang L (2002) Gene therapy progress and prospects: Nonviral vectors. Gene. Ther. 9:1647–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vijayanathan V, Thomas T, Thomas TJ et al (2002) DNA nanoparticles and development of DNA delivery vehicles for gene therapy. Biochem. 48:14085–14094.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marwick C (2003) Br. Med. J. 326:181; Dobson J (2006) Gene therapy progress and prospects: Magnetic nanoparticle-based gene delivery. Gene. Ther. 13(4):283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durcan N, Murphy C, Cryan SA (2008) Inhalable siRNA: Potential as a therapeutic agent in the lungs. Mol. Pharmaceutics ASAP Article, available at http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/mpohbp/asap/html/mp070048k.html Accessed June 30, 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Doyle JM (2006) What race and ethnicity measure in pharmacologic research. J Clin Pharmacol 46:401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    For some examples, see: Vijayanathan V, Thomas T, Thomas TJ et al (2002) DNA nanoparticles and development of DNA delivery vehicles for gene therapy. Biochem. 48:14085–14094; Dobson J (2006) Gene therapy progress and prospects: magnetic nanoparticle-based gene delivery. Gene. Ther. 13:283–287; Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, Li N et al. (2006) Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 5761:622–627; MIT Environmental Programs (2006) Potential risks of nanomaterials and how to safely handle materials of uncertain toxicity. http://web.mit.edu/environment/pdf/Nanomaterial_Toxicity_EHS.pdf; Lam CW, James JT, McCluskey R, Arepalli S, Hunter RL et al. (2006) A review of carbon nanotube toxicity and assessment of potential occupational and environmental health risks. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 36:189–217; Maynard AD, Aitken RJ, Butz T, Colvin V, Donaldson K et al. (2006) Safe handling of nanotechnology. Nat. 444:267–269; Holsapple MP, Farland WH, Landry TD, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Carter JM, Walker NJ, Thomas KV et al (2005) Research strategies for safety evaluation of nanomaterials, part II: Toxicological and safety evaluation of nanomaterials. Current challenges and data needs. Toxicolo. Sci. 88:12–17; Service RF (2003) Nanomaterials show signs of toxicity. Science 300:243.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Nanotechnology Initiative (2006). Environmental, Health, and Safety Research Needs for Engineered Nanoscale Materials. http://nano.gov/NNI_EHS_research_needs.pdfGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2007) Concepts of nanoparticle dose metric and response metric. Environ. Health Perspect. 115:A290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Poland CA et al (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nat. Nanotech. doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maynard A (2006) Nanotechnology: A research strategy for assessing risk, woodrow wilson center project on emerging nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/77Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Medina C et al (2007) Nanoparticles: Pharmocological and toxicological significance. Br. J. Pharm. 150:552–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J (2007) Concepts of nanoparticle dose metric and response metric. Environ. Health Perspect. 115:A290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bermudez E, Mangum JB, Wong BA, Asgharian B, Hext PM, Warheit DB, Everitt JI et al (2004) Pulmonary responses of mice, rats, and hamsters to subchronic inhalation of ultrafine titanium dioxide particles. Toxicol. Sci. 77:347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramires PA, Romito A, Cosentino F, Milella E et al (2001) The influence of titania/hydroxyapatite composite coatings on in vitro osteoblasts behaviour. Biomater. 22:1467–1474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Renwick LC, Donaldson K, Clouter A et al (2001) Impairment of alveolar macrophage phagocytosis by ultrafine particles. Toxicol. Appl. Pharm. 172:119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nel A, Xia T, Madler L, and Li N (2006). Toxic potential of materials at the nanolevel. Science. 5761:622–627. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/311/5761/622.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Long TC et al (2006) Titanium dioxide (P25) produces reactive oxygen species in immortalized brain microglia (BV2): Implications for nanoparticle neurotoxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4346–4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Long TC et al (2006) Titanium dioxide (P25) produces reactive oxygen species in immortalized brain microglia (BV2): Implications for nanoparticle neurotoxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4346–4352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    US Air Force Doctrine Document 2-1.8 (2004) Counter-Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Operations. http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afdd2–1–8.pdf.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pister KSJ, Kahn JM, Boser BE et al (1999) Smart dust: Wireless networks of millimeter-scale sensor nodes. Electro. Res. Lab. Res. Sum.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mourez M et al (2001) Nat. Biotech. 19:958–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pannifer AD et al (2001) Nature 411:229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abrami L, Fivaz M, Glauser PE, Sugimoto N, Zurzolo C, van der Goot FG et al (2003) Sensitivity of polarized epithelial cells to the pore-forming toxin aerolysin. Infect. Immun. 71:739–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Abrami L, Liu S, Cosson P, Leppla SH, van der Goot FG et al (2003) Anthrax toxin triggers endocytosis of its receptor via a lipid raft-mediated clathrin-dependent process. J. Cell. Biol. 160:321–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suntharalingam G, Perry MR, Ward S, Brett SJ, Castello-Cortes A, Brunner MD, Panoskaltsis N et al. (2006) Cytokine storm in a phase 1 trial of the anti-CD28 monoclonal antibody TGN1412. N. Engl. J. Med. 355:1018–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Freitas RA Jr. and Merkle RC (2004) Kinematic self-replicating machines, Landes BioSci., Georgetown, TX http://www.MolecularAssembler.com/KSRM.htmGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Moskovits M (2006) Nanoassemblers: A likely threat? Nanotech. Law Bus. 4:189–197.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Drexler KE (1981) Molecular engineering: An approach to time development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 78:5275–5278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Baum R (2003) Nanotechnology: Drexler and Smalley make the case for and against “molecular assemblers.” Chem. Eng. News 81:37–42. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8148/8148counterpoint.htmlGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Phoenix C and Drexler KE (2004) Safe exponential manufacturing. Nanotech. 15:869–872, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0957–4484/15/8/001/nano4_8_001.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Drexler KE (2007) The Road to Advanced Nanotechnologies, Presentation at the National Academy of Science Sackler Colloquia on Nanomaterials in Biology and Medicine: Promises and Perils, Washington, DC. 10–11 April 2007, http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageNavigator/SACKLER_nanoprobes_programGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    These include the Foresight Institute, the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, and The Lifeboat Foundation.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    National Research Council (2006) Molecular Self-Assembly in a Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    For some examples, see: Lehn J-M (2002) Toward complex matter: Supramolecular chemistry and self-organization. PNAS. 99:4763–4768; Whitesides GM and Boncheva M (2002) Beyond molecules: Self-assembly of mesoscopic and macroscopic components, PNAS. 99:4769–4774; Lehn, J-M (1995) Supramolecular Chemistry: Concepts and Perspectives (VCH, New York); Atwood JL, Davies JED, MacNicol DD, Vögtle F, Lehn J-M et al. (eds.) (1996) Comprehensive Supramolecular Chemistry (Pergamon, Oxford); Hof F and Rebek J Jr. (2002) Molecules within molecules: Recognition through self-assembly. PNAS. 99:4775–4777; Diederich F and Felber B (2002) Supramolecular chemistry of dendrimers with functional cores. PNAS. 99:4778–4781; Fréchet JMJ (2002) Dendrimers and supramolecular chemistry. PNAS. 99:4782–4787; Davis AV, Yeh RM, Raymond KN et al. Supramolecular assembly dynamics. PNAS. 99:4793–4796; Balzani V, Credi A, Venturi M et al. Controlled disassembling of self-assembling systems: Toward artificial molecular-level devices and machines. PNAS. 99:4814–4817; Cotton FA, Lin C, Murillo CA et al. The use of dimetal building blocks in convergent syntheses of large arrays, PNAS. 99:4810–4813; Roco MC (2003) Nanotechnology: Convergence with modern biology and medicine. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 14:337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Professor Cengiz Oskan (30 January 2007) UC-Riverside at Nanotechnology for Chemical and Biological Defense 2030 Workshop, Santa Fe, NM.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Braun E and Keren K (2004) From DNA to transistors. Adv. Phys. 53:441–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lee J, Hernandez P, Lee J, Govorov AO, Kotov NA et al (2007) Nat. Mate. 6:291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Maye MM et al (2007) DNA-regulated micro- and nanoparticle assembly. Small 3:1678–1682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wang X, Liu F, Andavan GTS, Jing X, Singh K, Yazdanpanah VR et al (2006) Carbon nanotube–DNA nanoarchitectures and electronic functionality. Small 11:1356–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologySam Nunn School of International Affairs Center for International StrategyMariettaUSA

Personalised recommendations