As with all new technologies, there may be cause to concern about impacts, such as on security, health and the environment. Nanotechnologies have been the subject of many assessments seeking to anticipate possible consequences of their deployment, to humans and to the environment. For instance, the Woodrow Wilson Center carried out a Nanotechnology project [25] from 2005. The project managers said that "manipulating materials at the atomic level can have astronomic repercussions, both positive and negative. The problem is no one really knows exactly what these effects may be." This was the motivation for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnology at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Another initiative came from the International Risk Governance Council — IRGC’s Nanotechnology project [26]. Two expert workshops were held. The first in May 2005 focused on how to frame nanotechnology, its risks and its benefits. A distinction was made between the nanotechnologies of the so-called Frame One (passive or classical technology assessment) and Frame Two (active or the social desirability of innovation). The second, in January 2006, concentrated on identifying gaps in nanotechnology risk governance and developing recommendations for improved risk governance.

A symposium on the subject took place in Zurich in July 2006. A presentation by Ortwin Renn[27] discussed the policy implications of Frame One, referred to in Fig. 4. The fact is that "most people have no clear associations when it comes to nanotech. They expect economic benefits but no revolutionary technological breakthroughs. Risks are often not explicitly mentioned but there is a concern for unforeseen side effects. There is a latent concern about industry, science and politics building a coalition against public interest. And one negative incident could have a major negative impact on public attitudes."

The IRGC’s Nanotechnology project concluded[28], among other things, that "communication about nanotechnology’s benefits and risks should reflect the distinction between passive and active nano-materials and products, stressing that different approaches to managing risks are required for each. Care should also be taken to ensure that potential societal concerns about the possible impacts of Frame Two active nano-materials do not have the effect of unnecessarily increasing anxiety regarding Frame One products using only passive nanostructures." This is further expounded by Renn [29] as follows: "Frame One passive nanostructures are found, for example, in easy-to-clean surfaces, paints or in cosmetics. Frame Two refers to active nanostructures and molecular systems which could be able to interact actively or could be understood as evolutionary biosystems which change their properties in an autonomous process."

In reality, nanotechnologies are already facing challenges. Man-made nano-materials have been banned by the UK Soil Association from all its certified organic products. The 2008 annual report of the Soil Association of the UK contains the following statement [30]: "The Soil Association published the world’s first standards banning nanotechnology. The risks of nanotechnology are still largely unknown, untested and unpredictable. Initial scientific studies show negative effects on living organisms, and three years ago scientists warned the Government that the release of nanoparticles should be ‘avoided as far as possible’. There are many parallels with GM in the way nanotechnology is developing, particularly because commercial opportunities have run ahead of scientific understanding and regulatory control. What’s more, while nano-substances are being rapidly introduced to the market, there is no official assessment process or labeling of the products — which is even worse than GM.

Health and beauty products that use nanoparticles are of concern for their potential toxicity if they get under the skin. Similar concerns exist regarding food and textiles. Definitely, more studies about health and environmental impacts are needed, to alleviate public concerns.

On the other hand, there is so much potential for nanotechnologies to do good, that Frame One and Two assessments should proceed as new applications evolve, including for instance more effective delivery of drugs to fight human and animal disease.

Fig. 5 showing a RNA nano-particle created by Peixuan Guo of Purdue University, illustrates the point. Strands are spliced together from two kinds of RNA — a scaffold and a hunter to find cancer cells. This nano-structure has proven effective against cancer growth in living mice as well as lab-grown human nasopharyngeal carcinoma and breast cancer cells.

2. Conclusions

Increasing demand for energy services in the decades ahead will require an expanding supply of liquid fuels, despite efforts at improving energy efficiency and diversification of energy systems, including growing use of electricity in transportation. Biofuels have a key role to play in this scenario. However, the future supply of biofuels must be of such a scale that non-food feedstocks and new technologies are intensively employed. Nanotechnologies are primary candidates to play a prominent role in this energy future. They will help bring to markets liquid biofuels, including renewable hydrocarbons, from algae, carbohydrates, fatty esters and biogas. Nanotechnologies will also play a role in augmenting the efficiency of using current and future liquid fuels, especially biofuels, by providing improved

combustion of nanodroplets. While there are risks in each and every new technology, the world today is much better equipped to assess risks and act accordingly, that it seems possible to advance nanotechnologies applied to biofuels, without jeopardizing security, public health or the environment. But, the reach of nanotechnologies is vast and goes much beyond biofuels and offer hopes in so many areas, including importantly, human health.