When the government asked the Royal Society to assess nanotechnology, it was expecting the same rubber-stamping service that it got from it on GM foods. But the attempt has backfired, as the much-awaited report highlights a plethora of nano-risks and calls for enhanced regulation.

Pro-nuclear and famously employed by the Blair government to run a spin unit defending GM foods, the Royal Society can usually be relied on to to give a hearty cheer for new corporate technologies and a sneer to anyone raising tricky questions. That was probably what Lord Sainsbury was expecting last year, when he asked the Royal Society in collaboration with the Royal Academy of Engineers to run a year long investigation into whether nanotechnology raises any societal issues.

Well it now seems that the heavy scientific guns have inadvertently backfired. Far from giving nanotech the all clear, the Royal Society report “Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties” available online at www.nanotec.org.uk) vindicates groups who have been expressing concern about the dangers of nanoparticles, and highlights the lack of regulations for this emerging industry. It unambiguously concludes that uncertainties about the risks of manufactured nanoparticles “need to be addressed immediately” and that far more public debate is needed. Among its recommendations are:

• Nanoparticle ingredients should undergo a full safety assessment before being commercialized - in effect a moratorium on new nanoparticle consumer products.
• Environmental releases of free nanoparticles should be minimalised, and their use in environmental applications such as remediation prohibited until further research is done.
• Chemicals in the forms of nanoparticles should be treated by regulators as new substances, thus acknowledging that properties of nano-size particles may be different from the same chemical substance in larger forms.
• Factories and research laboratories should treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as hazardous materials.
• Industry should make public all relevant data related to safety assessments of manufactured nano-particles.
• Consumer products containing nanoparticles should be clearly labeled.
• All relevant regulatory bodies in the UK and Europe should review whether existing regulations are appropriate to protect humans and the environment from potential nanotech hazards.

Unfortunately the report was quite poor on addressing many of the serious societal issues that nanotech will raise. While acknowledging the issues of ownership and control as fundamental, concerns about corporate control over matter through nano-patents were entirely left out. As one of the report's authors told me, "we chose not to deal with all the problems of industrial capitalism - it simply wasn't in our remit". But a narrow remit meant that there was no discussion of nanotech monopolies or the implications of nanotech for the global South. "There have been plenty of red flags, but the dollar signs have blotted out the warnings signs", said Rory O'Neill, editor of the TUC's Hazards magazine. Ethical issues such as how using nanotech for human enhancement will impinge the rights of the disabled and affect the definition of "normal" were touched on but not explored. The amount of military spending assigned to nanotech and the potential of nano-sensors for surveillance were also pointed out, but no concrete suggestions made.

Most strangely, considering the continual comparison with GM foods, the report fails to examine the impacts of nanotech on agriculture and food production and also falls short in its assessment of the potential risks of mixing nanotech with genetic engineering.