CHAPTERSustainable16Nanotechnology:A Regional Perspective

Matthew S. Hull, Marina E. Quadros, Rachael Born,

John Provo, Vinod K. Lohani and Roop L. Mahajan

CHAPTER OUTLINE

16.1 Introduction395

16.2 Environmental considerations400

16.2.1 Introduction400

16.2.2 Nanomaterials and health401

16.2.3 Nanomaterials and the environment402

16.2.4 Sustainable nanomanufacturing and green nanotechnology403

16.2.5 Conclusions404

16.3 Societal considerations406

16.3.1 Introduction406

16.3.2 Societal and ethical considerations407

16.3.3 Spiral-theory-based undergraduate engineering curriculum410

16.3.4 Work in progress414

16.3.5 A students perspective on sustainable technologies414

16.4 Economic considerations of nanotechnology and sustainability415

16.4.1 Introduction415

16.4.2 Virginias New River Valley416

16.4.3 Conclusions about the NRV nanotech economy418

16.5 Summary419

Acknowledgment420

References420

16.1 Introduction

Nanotechnology has been hailed as the next industrial revolution (Roco, 2003), and the current convergence of tools, materials, and know-how suggest a future of tech-nological advances that merit such a superlative. Without question the last 100 years have shown marked increases in wealth and well-being around the world (Figure 16.1). Such dramatic improvement in the human condition can be largely attributed

Nanotechnology Environmental Health and Safety.395 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

396CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

FIGURE 16.1

Comparison of two key measures of health and wealthlife expectancy and income

per person, respectivelyfor various geographic regions around the globe in 1912 and 2012. Note: Wealth is reported in terms of gross domestic product, GDP, per person adjusted for differences in purchasing power (in international dollars, fixed 2005 prices, purchasing power parity, PPP, based on 2005 International Comparison Program, ICP). Graph is generated using the GapMinder tool developed by Hans Rosling and is considered free material from www.gapminder.org.

to the benefits of industrialization allowing a convergence of advancements in mechanization, transportation, materials processing, and, of course, medicine.

Yet, as we reflect on the advances of the first industrial revolutioncrowning achievements in science and technology, increased life span, wealthier and more robust economieswe must also reflect on the unforeseen legacy of human and ecological side effects that accompanied them (Janerich et al., 1981; Kazan-Allen, 2005; Thompson et al., 2011). The question that society ultimately must consider is this: Can we afford a nano-enabled industrial revolutionsocially, economi-cally, and environmentally? Given the societal challenges currently facing human-ity (United Nations, 2006), a more appropriate question might be: Do we have any choice but to look to nanotechnology to resolve our global challenges in renew-able energy, clean water, and health? An increasing human population confined to a world of finite space and resources must seek ways to accomplish more with lessless material, less space, less cost, and less time. How is it then that we might accomplish more with less? Where Malthus saw limits to growth (Malthus, 1798), Feynman saw plenty of room at the bottom (Feynman, 1960).

The challenges presently facing humanity are indeed daunting; yet for almost any critical problem, the literature offers a dozen or more nano-enabled technolo-gies with potential remedies. Consider, for example:

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly one out of every five deaths in children under the age of five is attributable to a water-related 16.1 Introduction 397

disease (World Health Organization/United Nations Childrens Fund, 2013). A broad spectrum of nanoscale materials ranging from carbon nanotubes

to quantum dots offer the potential to detect and eliminate contaminants in drinking water (Qu et al., 2013).

Earths carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have risen substantially over the last 200 years (Norby and Zak, 2011) prompting broad interest in new technologies to reduce CO2 emissions from combustion sources and to sequester CO2 already in the atmosphere. Nano-enabled solutions have been proposed ranging from titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanotube arrays that use sunlight to recycle CO2 and water vapor into hydrocarbon fuels (Roy et al., 2010), to nanometric thin films capable of separating CO2 from flue gas (Yave et al., 2010). According to the WHO, more than 7 million people are expected to die of cancer around the world in 2013. Although many cancers can be prevented by basic lifestyle changes (Anand et al., 2008), many cases, particularly in developing countries, may be attributable to factors, such as micronutrient deficiencies (Key et al., 2004), over which individuals may have little or no control. Nano-enabled approaches for diagnosing and treating cancers have become a focal point for nanomedical research and companies like Cerulean Pharma, Inc. (Cambridge, MA) and Arrowhead Research Corporation (Pasadena, CA)

have nanopharmaceuticals in clinical trials. Abraxane, which employs paclitaxel bound to albumin nanoparticles, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treatment of certain types of breast, lung, and metastatic pancreatic cancers (approvals granted in 2005 for breast cancer, 2012 for non-small cell lung cancer, and 2013 for metastatic pancreatic cancer).

Amidst the hype it can be difficult to recognize that we are still at the cusp of understanding our expanding capabilities to not only manipulate matter with atomic precision but also do so across length scales. Nearly a decade ago, four generations of nanotechnology products and processes were predicted by Roco, spanning from:

First generation (year ~2000): passive nanostructures;

Second generation (year ~2005): active nanostructures;

Third generation (year ~2010): integrated nanosystems;

Fourth generation (years ~20152020): molecular nanosystems.

Beyond these four generations, converging technologies (nano-, bio-, and infor-mation technologies) are expected to form complex systems of systems. Based on the original timeline of succession for these generations, we are currently in a transition zone between the third and fourth generations. A quick tour of Nanowerk, a popular news site for all things nano, seems to validate those early predictions; the sites top articles for 2013 describe applications of nanoscale science and engi-neering in areas ranging from brain-inspired computing, to squishy electronics, to artificial retinas.

But theres more to the nano hype than just technological wizardry. Nano-enabled products are commercially available now and industries are reshaping andCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

emerging to support their manufacture and deployment to consumer markets trends that are expected to continue well into the future. In 2011, Roco reviewed nanotechnology progress since the development of the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) in 2000. In his review, Roco (2011) used six key indicators to quantify nanotechnology development during the last decade and to project future development to 2020. It is certainly worth cautioning here that the process of quantifying and predicting development of the massive and dynamic global nanotechnology enterprise is a complex and inherently flawed process, and Rocos primarily US-centric analyses and estimates represent a single and poten-tially biased perspective. Nevertheless, Roco has published extensively on this subject, so his findings are broadly available for critical reviews that extend well beyond the focus of this chapter.

From 2000 to 2008, Roco describes an era of remarkable growth:

The nanotechnology workforce grew at an average annual rate of ~25%.

The number of Science Citation Index (SCI) papers reflecting discoveries in the nano domain grew by ~23%.

The number of patent applications citing nanoscale science and engineering grew by ~35%.

The market for final products incorporating nanotechnology grew by ~25%.

The amount of R&D funding grew by ~35%.

The amount of venture capital invested in nanotechnology grew by ~30%.

Over the next decade, Roco predicts that those growth rates will remain steady. If these trends indeed hold, then by 2020 the global nanotechnology workforce (which Roco defines as the number of researchers and workers involved in one domain or another of nanotechnology) will reach roughly 6 million, and the worldwide market for nanotechnology products (which Roco defines as products incorporating nanotechnology as the key component) will reach approximately US$3 trillion.

As technological achievements at the nanoscale continue to accumulate across a broad range of industrial sectors, we recognizeperhaps now more than ever beforethat along with new technologies come unexpected challenges that are highlighted elsewhere in this book in Chapters 2, 13, and 15. Who would have ever thought that new refrigerants could threaten to destroy the Earths protective ozone layer or that widespread use of life-saving pesticides could have severe eco-logical consequences? In consideration of these lessons from human technologi-cal deployments throughout history, the United States NNI ensured that one of its four primary goals was to support the responsible development of nanotechnol-ogy. Further, as the cumulative NNI investment has grown to more than US$16.5 billion (as of 2012), the portion of that investment allocated to responsible devel-opment [or a combination of funding for environmental health and safety (EHS) research, education, ethical, legal, and other societal dimensions] is approaching US$1 billion, or approximately 6% of the total US federal investment. While some may question whether this level of investment is adequate, many would agree that it16.1 Introduction 399

represents a fundamental shift in how we pursue the development and commerciali-zation of new technologies.

More than half of the NNI funding allocated for the responsible development of nanotechnology has funded studies investigating the potential EHS issues associ-ated with nanoscale materials. Yet, the challenges of fostering a globally sustainable nanotechnology enterprise extend well beyond degradation of the natural environ-ment and include complex societal and economic issues. Consider, for example, the Appalachian region of the eastern United States, which is defined as:

a 205,000-square-mile region that follows the spine of the Appalachian Mountains from southern New York to northern Mississippi. It includes all of West Virginia and parts of 12 other states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

The region is home to more than 25 million people, many of which (~40%) inhabit rural areas. Historically, Appalachia was known for its rich natural resources, most notably an abundance of readily accessible coal, which once promised prosperity to local communities and fuel for the industrial age. Instead, Appalachia remains one of the poorest areas within the United States despite dec-ades of social and economic policy interventions and billions of investment dollars from both state and federal economic development funds (Partridge et al., 2013). Will nano-enabled industries create new Appalachias? What new mistakes will communities make as they begin to weigh the promise of new nanotechnology jobs and opportunities alongside the risks? Most importantly, how can we learn from the past to implement effective social, economic, and environmental policies to ensure that nano-enabled industries grow sustainably?

Despite remarkable progress in nanoscale science and engineering, and our recognition of the risks that accompany our tinkering in this domain, numerous challenges remain before the benefits of sustainable nanotechnology are fully real-ized. Some widely used nanomanufacturing techniques remain highly inefficient, with yields below 1% by mass (see, for example, Hull et al., 2009, and references therein). Scalable nanotechnology education and workforce development remain a challenge, especially when a majority of the general public has never heard of the terms nano or nanotechnology (Waldron et al., 2006). Local economies are struggling to translate the promise of nanotechnology into new businesses, jobs, and robust economic development. Some communities have invested heav-ily in nanotechnology infrastructure (building laboratories and acquiring special-ized instruments), marketing, and recruitment efforts targeting nanotechnology businesses, and hiring professionals to both develop and staff these facilities [see, for example, the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute (ONAMI) and the Center for National Nanotechnology Innovation and Commercialization (NNICC) in Albany, NY]. All are betting that their gambles will pay off, and that their efforts will become thriving economic engines that translate the powers of nanoscale science and engineering into new products that remedy critical societalCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

needs and create jobs and prosperity. But what will winning and losing at the nanotechnology game look like? Can everyone win? Could everyone lose?

Clearly, the path forward requires us to focus on achieving sustainability across the entire life cycle of nano-enabled productsfrom the extraction of the raw mate-rials used to create them, through their production and use in commerce, and ulti-

mately to their recovery/reuse or disposal. Conservation of the environment and natural resources are one component, but we must also consider the societal and economic aspects. How will we educate students and retrain workers to fill the 6 million nanotechnology jobs predicted by 2020? How might struggling econo-mies benefit from the estimated US$3 trillion economic impact of nanotechnology? Nurturing the development of sustainable industry is a complex process, and often the ramifications of regulatory approaches meant to achieve positive outcomes can have unexpected negative consequences.

The concept of sustainable nanotechnology is complex, ambiguous, and mis-understoodbut its a concept with critical importance to future generations. This chapter explores the three core components of sustainabilityenvironmental con-siderations, societal dimensions, and economic impactsfrom the perspectives of three experts who play different, but fundamentally important roles in shaping the future of sustainable nanotechnology. Dr. Marina Quadros, Associate Director of the Virginia Tech Center for Sustainable Nanotechnology (VT SuN) within the Institute for Critical Technology and Applied Science (ICTAS), will describe the EHS challenges associated with nanotechnology and the current research aimed at improving our understanding of the potential risks of nanoscale materials. Dr. Vinod K. Lohani, Professor of Engineering Education at Virginia Tech, and Dr. Roop L. Mahajan, Director of Virginia Techs ICTAS, will examine the soci-etal challenges of educating engineering students about nanotechnology. The per-spective of an undergraduate engineering student, Ms. Rachael Born, on sustainable technology development is also provided. Dr. John Provo, Director of Virginia Techs Office of Economic Development, will discuss the challenges of harnessing the potential of nanotechnology to create lasting regional economic impact.

16.2 Environmental considerations

by Dr. Marina E. Quadros

16.2.1 Introduction

As research and development (R&D) in nanotechnology brings a myriad of pos-sibilities for consumer product enhancements, novel medical devices, and energy solutions, among many other applications, a debate emerges on the potentially neg-ative effects of nanotechnology to people and the environment.

There are at least two well-known environmental cautionary tales describing the story of materials with promising applications that became laced with environ-mental and human safety issues. Asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) are two16.2 Environmental considerations 401

groups of materials that were considered to be promising technological solutions of the twentieth century, until both were found to cause serious irreversible environ-mental issues (see also Chapter 3).

Silicate minerals in the asbestos group have been used for over 4000 years, but industrial production of asbestos fibers boomed in the late nineteenth century and throughout the twentieth century, when the occupational exposure to airborne asbestos fibers was finally linked to the development of severe lung diseases such as asbestosis and mesothelioma (Spirtas et al., 1994). The production and use of asbestos has been since regulated or banned in many countries and reportedly more than $100 billion were spent to removing asbestos from school buildings in the United States (Ross, 1995).

The CFC group was considered a great discovery for its use as a nontoxic and nonexplosive refrigerant and propellant gas. It was widely used until 1974, when it was found to be largely responsible for the ozone layer depletion (Molina and Rowland, 1974). The use of CFC started to be discontinued worldwide after the establishment of the Montreal Protocol in 1987.

The phaseout of asbestos, in many countries, and CFC, worldwide, has incurred costs that could have been avoided had we more thoroughly investigated their poten-tial impacts before their widespread use. While the scientific discoveries linking lung disease to asbestos exposure and CFC to the ozone layer depletion were not made pre-ventively, we have since experienced great advancements in the environmental science and engineering field. We now have a much-improved understanding of our environ-ment, health, and safety issues compared to our colleagues in the twentieth century.

While nanomaterials are complex in nature and, thus, hard to characterize and understand, our past experiences have taught us to make an extra effort toward developing novel materials that are safe and sustainable by design. The environ-mental sustainability of nanotechnology is a multifaceted issue, comprised of the potential impacts to human health, the extent of environmental contamination and associated toxicity, and the efficiency of nanotechnology manufacturing in terms of energy and materials consumption.

16.2.2 Nanomaterials and health

The current state of knowledge of the effects of nanotechnology on human health is complex. Nanomaterials are thought to bring substantial contributions to the medi-cal field. In diagnostic medicine, nanoparticles can be used as contrast agents and nanoscale devices, such as nanocantilevers and nanoporous chips, which offer great potential in disease screening (Hu et al., 2011). In disease treatment, nanomaterials are currently being explored to serve as drug-delivery devices for, for example, can-cer treatment. There is also great potential for combining diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities in one device, thus the newly coined term theranostics, or theragnos-tics (Cattaneo et al., 2010). While great effort is being made in developing nano devices for medicine, much information is still needed to ascertain the long-term health effects of nanomaterials.402CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

From an occupational exposure perspective, the inhalation route for exposure is more likely to affect health, particularly because ultrafine aerosols (defined as airborne particles smaller than 100nm in aerodynamic diameter) are likely to pen-etrate deep into the respiratory system and deposit on the lungs, potentially causing oxidative stress or even translocating to the cardiovascular system and other organs (Quadros and Marr, 2010). Silver nanoparticles, for example, caused toxicity to the liver of Wistar rats (Espinosa-Cristobal et al., 2013) and decreased lung function in Sprague Dawley rats (Song et al., 2013). Titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nanoti-tania) can induce the formation of free radicals in human cells, which can in turn cause cell inflammation and DNA damage (Magdolenova et al., 2014).

Nano-fibrous materials are also of special concern, as they might affect the res-piratory system similarly to asbestos fibers. Both single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT) and multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) were found to be bioper-sistent in lungs and cause cellular toxicity (Papp et al., 2008). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH, 2013) estimated a working lifetime exposure of 0.22g/m3 (8-h total weighted average concentration) of MWCNT to be associated with a 10% excess risk of early stage adverse lung effects.

While in vitro and in vivo studies reveal cases in which nanomaterials can exert toxic effects (which are discussed at length in Chapters 5 and 6), these effects are largely dependent on a multitude of nanomaterial characteristics such as chemical composition, particle number and size, aggregation state, core composition, surface area, surface properties (surface chemistry and charge), and crystallinity (Abbott and Maynard, 2010; Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska et al., 2009; Grassian, 2008; Magdolenova et al., 2014; Oberdrster et al., 2007). See Chapter 4 for a discussion of the importance of characterization in nanotechnology EHS studies.

More importantly, potential effects of nanomaterials to human health are heavily dependent on other key factors:

Likelihood of human exposure to nanomaterials, bioavailability, and the associated doses, that is, occupational exposure versus environmental exposure (Hull et al., 2012; Magdolenova et al., 2014)

Physical and chemical characteristics of nanomaterials at the time of exposure, that is, after environmental processing and aging (Lowry et al., 2012; Magdolenova et al., 2014)

Exposure pathway, or point of entry into the body, for example, dermal and ocular contact, inhalation, ingestion, or digestion (Abbott and Maynard, 2010; Quadros et al., 2013).

16.2.3 Nanomaterials and the environment

There is a fast growing body of knowledge on the fate and environmental toxic-ity (or ecotoxicity) of nanomaterials. Nanoparticles, especially metallic (e.g., sil-ver), metal oxides (e.g., nanotitania, cerium oxide, zinc oxide), and carbonaceous nanomaterials (e.g., CNT, graphene, and fullerene), at sufficiently high concen-trations, have been shown to be toxic to a variety of model microorganisms, such16.2 Environmental considerations 403

as bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other model organisms, such as Daphnia magna (Adams et al., 2006; Navarro et al., 2008; Nowack and Bucheli, 2007; Quadros and Marr, 2010).

Kim et al. (2012) identified nanotitania in wastewater treatment sludge and sludge-amended soils, indicating the great potential nanomaterials have for long-term transport through the environment. Nanotitania also has the ability to seques-ter trace metals and transport them along their journey through the environment (Kim et al., 2012). Park et al. (2014) found that the environmental behavior of gold nanoparticles was greatly affected by their coatings and the liquid medium charac-teristics. Gold nanoparticles with a positively charged coating, for example, were stable in standard media and aggregated in natural waters, while their negatively charged counterparts behaved mostly the opposite manner and were unstable in some natural waters. Silva et al. (2014) studied the ecotoxicity of silver nanoparti-cles to two model organisms (Escherichia coli and D. magna) and showed that tox-icity was dependent on nanoparticle size, surface charge, and concentration.

While the environmental fate and specific toxicity mechanisms can vary greatly from one type of nanomaterial to anotherand even between variants of the same nanomaterial (e.g., with size, crystallinity, and presence of coatings)the current state of knowledge on the environmental effects of nanomaterials confirms most researchers primary assumption that environmental toxicity is heavily depend-ent on the transformations that nanomaterials undergo after their release into the environment. Because of their high reactivity and surface area to volume ratio, nanomaterials released into water, soil, or the atmosphere are likely to aggregate or agglomerate, undergo redox reactions, become coated by natural organic mat-ter, dissolve, or get incorporated by sediments and other environmental substrates (Lowry et al., 2012; Park et al., 2014). A complex combination of these physico-chemical transformations dictates the fate and transport of nanomaterials and likely alters their potential for toxicity.

16.2.4 Sustainable nanomanufacturing and green nanotechnology

In addition to the potential toxic effects of nanomaterials to human health and the environment, another roadblock to sustainability is the notoriously energy- and resource-intensive nature of nanomanufacturing. Carbon nanotubes, for example, can be more energy-intensive to produce than the most high-tech silicon semicon-ductors (Seager et al., 2012).

The emerging field of green nanotechnology has spun from green chemis-try with the main goal to support the responsible development of nanotechnology, mainly through responsible nanomanufacturing practices. These practices range from minimizing the use of toxic chemicals to selecting processes and materials in a conscious effort to minimize waste, the use of reagents and water, power con-sumption, and the generation of greenhouse gases (Karn and Wong, 2013).

A promising material on the route to green nanotechnology is nanocellulose. Nanocellulose has been largely considered a green nanomaterial because cellulose,CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

the macro-sized counterpart, and the top-down precursor to nanocellulose is (i) derived from renewable feedstocks, (ii) biodegradable, and (iii) biocompatible. However, the green-ness of nanocellulose or any other nanomaterial depends on many factors beyond toxicity, as mentioned above. As noted by Li et al. (2003), there are multiple top-down and bottom-up approaches for synthesizing nanocel-lulose, each associated with their own demands for materials, energy, and water, as well as waste generation. The environmental footprint of nanocellulose production, according to Li et al., is mostly dependent on the processes chosen for chemical modification and the mechanical disintegration of the wood pulp into nanofibers (Li et al., 2013). Chapter 10 provides additional information on the life cycle EHS con-siderations for nanocellulose production.

Another example of a nanomaterial with great potential for becoming more sustainable is the photocatalytic mineral titanium dioxide (nanotitania). Although the toxicity of nanotitania can be considerable, as discussed above, there are many promising industrial and environmental applications, which might offset the associ-ated risks. Nanotitania has great potential as an environmental remediation agent due to its capacity to adsorb trace metals (Kim et al., 2012) and was described by Jayapalan et al. as a promising cement composite that could revolutionize the con-struction industry. Nanotitania can be added as a filler to cement and concrete to increase the rate of cement hydration and to confer photocatalytic properties (self cleaning, reaction with atmospheric pollutants, and antimicrobial activity) to the final product (Jayapalan et al., 2013).

16.2.5 Conclusions

As noted throughout this chapter, sustainable nanotechnology includes considera-tion of human safety, and environmental preservation and conservation. The hand-ful of examples in this section demonstrate that, while great progress is being made in understanding the potential health and safety hazards of nanotechnology, there is still plenty left to learn. On a quest toward environmental sustainability of nano-technology, there are three guiding questions that we can consider throughout the entire nanomaterial life cycle (Figure 16.2):

Are we using the best available practices to minimize the use of water, energy, resources, and waste generation?

Are the product and its manufacturing process designed to minimize human health effects and environmental toxicity?

Do the benefits of nanomaterial applications outweigh the unavoidable impacts?

The third question is laced with almost unanswerable ethical dilemmas because the answer depends on the amount of value imparted into environmental issues ver-sus technological development. And even if we answer, Yes! to all three ques-tions for a certain nanomaterial, can we claim that it is truly environmentally sustainable?16.2 Environmental considerations 405

FIGURE 16.2

Sustainability issues considered at different steps of the nanomanufacturing life cycle.

Sustainability is arguably one of the least straightforward modern concepts, as described in a report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting (Adams, 2006).

Environmentalists, governments, economic and political planners and business people use sustainability or sustainable development to express sometimes very diverse visions of how economy and environment should be managed. (. . .) The concept is holistic, attractive, elastic but imprecise. The idea of sustainable development may bring people together but it does not necessarily help them to agree on goals. In implying everything sustainable development arguably ends up meaning nothing.

Sustainable nanotechnology is a growing and ever-expanding path for nanomanufacturing practices, not a fixed location or even an attainable goal; or a box to be checked. Unfortunately, there is no recipe to guarantee the sustainabil-ity of any nanomanufacturing process, because there are always associated impacts to human health and the environment. The best we can do is to follow the best available practices throughout the nanomaterial life cycle and to continually ask ourselves if the benefits of the nanotechnology industry outweigh its associated environmental impacts.406CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

16.3 Societal considerations

by V. Lohani, R.L. Mahajan, R. Born

16.3.1 Introduction

At a 2003 Energy & Nanotechnology Conference at Rice University, noted scien-tist and Nobel Prize winner R.E. Smalley presented the following list of the top 10 problems of humanity for next 50 years:

1. Energy

2. Water

3. Food

4. Environment

5. Poverty

6. Terrorism and war

7. Disease

8. Education

9. Democracy

10. Population.

These problems have a few characteristics in common. They are challenging and complex, are interconnected, have a high degree of uncertainty, and are global in scope. For example, alleviating poverty and providing safe drinking water to fight waterborne diseases for the growing world population, especially in develop-ing countries, will produce a significantly higher demand in energy. Meeting the worlds basic needs at all is a challengedoing so without adversely affecting the environment requires a revolution in how we approach innovation.

To get an idea of the enormity of this task, consider the basic needs of one segment of the population: rural communities. In large swaths of the developing world rural communities face an array of poverty-related challenges including lack of housing, infrastructure, access to good quality healthcare, education, and a steady means of income. Despite a historic population shift toward urban areas, global poverty remains a massive and predominantly rural phenomenon. According to the Rural Poverty Report 2011 (Nwanze, 2010), of the 1.4 billion people liv-ing in extreme poverty (less than US$1.25/day) in 2005, approximately 1 billion around 70%lived in rural areas. With an estimated global population of 8.3 billion in 2030, the rural population in less developed countries, after accounting for the expected migration from rural to urban areas, is estimated to be over 3 bil-lion (Ahleson, 2009; Cohen, 2003).

Unfortunately, the massive shift of rural population to the urban cities in search of jobs and opportunities to eke out a living has led to the emergence of megacities with tens of millions of people. This has led to well-documented problems of urban sprawl, noted by poverty-burdened people living in slums oftentimes larger than the city centers themselves; inefficient energy and water production and use resulting in16.3 Societal considerations 407

heavy smog and uncontrolled wastewater; and overburdened transportation systems that impede, rather than enable, human mobility (Wehrmann, 2014).

Addressing the global needs of rural and urban communities for basic com-modities and services (food, water, energy, shelter, transportation, and healthcare), while minimizing the impact of human activities on Earths climate and ecosys-tems, is thus indeed a mammoth undertaking. Fortunately, there is a set of powerful emerging and converging technologies that can provide new capabilities and solu-tions to global sustainability. Emerging technologies, which can be defined as con-temporary cutting-edge developments in various fields of technology, are generally associated with the potential for large impact on society. In a recent op-ed, The coming Tech-led Boom (Wall Street Journal, January 30, 2012), Mills and Ottino list three grand technological transformationsbig data, smart manufacturing, and the wireless revolutionpoised to transform this century as much as telephony and electricity did in the twentieth century. Converging technologies usually refer to nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science (NBIC) which according to the NSF DOC Report (Roco and Bainbridge, 2002) are poised to unleash new understanding of matter at the atomic scale and the complex working of the human brain, creating opportunities for new industries, robust job growth, and enhanced human capabilities.

Perhaps the most enabling of these technologies is nanotechnology. It is widely expected to usher in a nano-enabled industrial revolution with a wide spectrum of applications including those in electronics and computers, medicine and health, aeronautics and space applications, environment and energy, biotechnology and agriculture, and materials and manufacturing. A new portfolio of sustainable tech-nologies such as technologies for renewable energy, rain water harnessing and wastewater reuse, targeted delivery of fertilizer and pesticides has the potential to offer transformative opportunities for sustainable development (Johnson, 2005; Joseph and Morrison, 2006).

16.3.2 Societal and ethical considerations

The confluence of nanotechnology with the other converging and emerging tech-nologies discussed above is poised to spur inventions and knowledge to develop solutions to provide sustainable energy, safe drinking water, sustainable agriculture, and basic animal and human healthcare. Similarly, achieving sustainable environ-mental development in cities through the integration of existing technologies and practices such as those for water conservation and reuse, green buildings and trans-portation, and smart grid infrastructure can be transformative. However, technolo-gys progression is also filled with instances of errors and unintended consequences (as with dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethaneDDT, genetically modified crops and Chernobyl), resulting in a public suspicious of new technologies and technolo-gists (see additional discussion in Chapters 2 and 3). There is also a perception that technology is out of control and that, too often, societies dont have the ability to orchestrate a responsible development of powerful technologies that have theCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

potential for robust economic development. This has undermined the confidence of public in the power of technologies to solve problems and improve their quality of life (Swierstra and Rip, 2007).

Another dimension of this perception is that the majority of the public does not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and conceptsas noted previously by Waldron et al. (2006) in the context of nanotechnology. These findings from a report issued by the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) and the National Research Council (NRC) are reinforced by another 2001 survey conducted by the International Technology Education Association (ITEA) that revealed that adults are very interested in but relatively poorly informed about technology (Rose and Dugger, Jr., 2002). Also, engineers and scientists, too often, work in isolation and dont engage the public in an effective dialogue. In the absence of such a mean-ingful dialogue between the scientific/engineering community and public on the potential pros and cons of the new technologies, the public generally ends up form-ing its opinion based on the headlines in the media and sometimes popular science fiction. In a science fiction book, Prey by Michael Crichton (2002), a swarm of nanoparticles goes astray and starts hunting human beings. The book reinforced the perception that there are lurking dangers of nanotechnology that technologists have not shared with the public. In yet another nanotechnology gone astray scenario, it was posited that submicroscopic machines designed to share intelligence but capa-ble of replicating themselves without human intervention could crowd the skies and devour the planet. Prince Charles raised the specter of this grey goo scenario and called for a moratorium on further development of nanotechnology (Radford, 2003).

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies around the world (e.g., the Royal Academy of Engineering) seem to be cognizant of the changing public perception. For example, in the NSF Report on NBIC (Cohen, 2003), the authors specifically stress the need to address ethical, legal, and moral issues while experimenting with the emerging technologies for improving human performance. To some, however, attempts to halt the development of these technolo-gies, until all the unanswered questions about the socio-environmental impact are answered, are considered unethical. Consider, for example, the following quote from Philip J. Bond, US Under-Secretary of Commerce (Rose and Dugger, Jr., 2002).

Given nanotechnologys extraordinary economic and societal potential, it would be unethical, in my view, to attempt to halt scientific and technological progress in nanotechnology. Nanotechnology offers the potential for improving peoples standard of living, healthcare, and nutrition; reducing or even eliminating pol-lution through clean production technologies; repairing existing environmental damage; feeding the worlds hungry; enabling the blind to see and the deaf to hear; eradicating diseases and offering protection against harmful bacteria and viruses; and even extending the length and the quality of life through the repair or replacement of failing organs. Given this fantastic potential, how can our attempt to harness nanotechnologys power at the earliest opportunityto alle-viate so many earthly illsbe anything other than unethical?16.3 Societal considerations 409

However, a rush to develop and deploy disruptive technologies without due considerations to societal and ethical considerations is troublesome, as noted in Chapters 2 and 13. Based on our experience of engineering education and pro-fession, we believe that in general, we fail to do an adequate job of training our engineers to integrate societal and ethical considerations as essential factors in the development and/or adoption of new technologies. In fact, our traditional engineer-ing curriculum falls woefully short of even introducing students to the emerging technologies. Although students and practicing engineers are familiar with the ethos Do no public harm, they are not well trained to handle the complex ethical issues that may arise with the introduction of new technologies. Finally, we believe that as engineers and scientists, we do not engage the public effectively to increase its awareness of emerging technologies. It is time for engineers to start building bridges againthe bridges to effective communication, mutual understanding, finding com-mon objectives, and reaching for sustainable, holistic solutions to human needs.

Fisher and Mahajan (2003) presented similar arguments and made a case that the curriculum must be liberalized with the goal of producing humanistic engineerstwenty-first century engineers who are able to initiate and engage in effective dialogue with nontechnical audiences regarding socio-humanistic cri-tiques of engineering processes and products, and who are able to adopt multiple perspectives and become their own socio-humanistic interlocutors. To this end, they suggested that such a curriculum should integrate technical and humanistic perspectives in both directions in a truly multidisciplinary fashion, drawing from innovative collaborations that reflect the continuous and interconnected fabric of the real world, and take full advantage of the limited time already devoted to the humanities, arts, and social sciences, coordinating them with engineering education objectives but without compromising their disciplinary integrity. They cautioned that to be effective, the nontechnical components of a humanistic engineering curriculum need to go beyond existing attempts that, for whatever reasons, nei-ther represent nor engage engineering perspectives. Otherwise, this component all too easily becomes little more than a counterproductive conscience, lacking con-vincing authority in the eyes of technical students and reinforcing traditional ste-reotypes that are carried into professional life. The authors did not outline an ideal curriculum incorporating these principles but presented a few initiatives taken at the University of Colorado, Boulder, to integrate some core concepts in teaching and research. These included multidisciplinary, collaborative courses on, Technology and Culture, a lecture and seminar series on Dialogues Between Two Cultures, an Earth Systems Engineering initiative, and the founding of the student organi-zation, Engineers without Borders, among others.

Looking ahead, there is a need to develop and implement undergraduate engi-neering curriculum that introduces students to the emerging technologiestheir impact and the associated complex societal and ethical dimensions. It should weave societal, humanistic, environmental, and leadership contexts and considerations into the technical curriculum itself. Of course, the question must be asked whether or not students will actually want these elements in their educationour experienceCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

has been that many students do, but such is not always the case. As stated above, the goal is largely to reflect practical conditions in order to increase the likeli-hood that engineers are, at the very least, responsive to nontechnical demands and scrutiny and, ideally, are able to consider and take into account such issues and perspectives on their own. Similar considerations apply in the context of gradu-ate education and research. In the text to follow, we discuss a spiral-theory-based approach to infuse nanotechnology learning modules into an undergraduate engi-neering curriculum.

16.3.3 Spiral-theory-based undergraduate engineering curriculum

The twentieth century psychologist, Jerome Bruner, proposed the concept of the spiral curriculum in his classic work The Process of Education (Bruner, 1960) and The Culture of Education (Bruner, 1966). Bruner advocates that a curriculum as it develops should revisit basic ideas repeatedly, building upon them until the student has grasped the full formal apparatus that goes with them. Bruners idea was that learnerseven beginnerscould engage successfully with the central problems and questions inherent in any discipline if those key questions could be represented in a manner that invites real experimentation and inquiry at the appropriate level. One key to this idea is that the learning curriculum could be arranged so that the central questions, or themes in a discipline, would be returned to again and again as learn-ers advance in their knowledge and intellectual capacity. The learning trajectory is thus represented as a spiral rather than the linear pathway that is characteristic of traditional schooling. As learners participate in increasingly complex investigations, organized carefully around the major themes of choice, they acquire in a more natural way the knowledge they need because it is connected to problems of real import and interest, and they acquire also the full intellectual apparatus associated with being the scientist, historian, or engineer rather than learning about their chosen discipline.

Sheppard et al. (2009) has discussed a spiral-type approach to reform under-graduate engineering education.

The spiral-theory approach was adopted in a 5-year (20042009) curriculum reform grant under a Department-Level Reform (DLR) program of the NSF at Virginia Tech. Two major outcomes of this project were:

Spiral curriculum reformulation of bioprocess engineering within the Biological Systems Engineering (BSE) department

Enhanced freshman engineering program at Virginia Tech.

We extended our experiences of implementing spiral-theory-based curriculum reformulation in the BSE for developing a conceptual foundation of a nanotechnol-ogy option discussed here. This work was supported under the Nanotechnology in Undergraduate Education in Engineering (NUE) program of the NSF during 2008 2010. The implementation of the nanotechnology option includes learning modules designed to impart knowledge at four learning levels (i.e., Level 1 through Level 4, see Figure 16.3). These modules include stages of knowledge that students will16.3 Societal considerations 411

Level 4: Undergraduate research

Literature review

Current research topic

Ethical research conduct

MD simulations

Data collection

Research documentation

Level 3: Introduction to computational molecular mechanics

Intermolecular forces and potential models

Molecular dynamics simulations

Literature review

Report summarizing important conclusions

Level 2: Introduction to nanoscale Characterization and fabrication

Imaging methods

Manipulation techniques

Fabrication recipes

SEM, TEM, AFM, etc.

Level 1: Nanotechnology module for freshmen

Fundamental (intermolecular) forces

Potential engineering applications of nanotechnology

Computational techniques and experimental instruments

FIGURE 16.3

Nanotechnology option developed using the spiral-theory approach.

gain through the spiral curriculum, with the content and complicacy of the learning experience gradually increasing from Level 1 through Level 4. Key learning objec-tives at the various learning levels of the nanotechnology option were defined so that key concepts are repeated at various learning levels. For example, the knowledge students acquire about the role of intermolecular forces during the freshman nano-technology module (Level 1) recurs when they learn about the computational tech-niques in molecular mechanics (Level 3). Likewise, the brief description of common experimental instruments used for nanoscale characterization provided during Level 1 is repeated in depth in Level 2, with hands-on experiences with the fabrication and experimental procedures. These learning experiences are revisited during the under-graduate research experience at Level 4. Details of the various learning objectives at the different levels of the nanotechnology option are given in Balasubramanian et al. (2011).

The Level 1 freshman engineering nanotechnology module (Figure 16.3) was implemented into Virginia Techs freshman engineering program begin-ning in spring 2008. All engineering freshmen are required to take a two-credit Engineering Exploration (EngE 1024) course during their first semester at Virginia Tech. The course focuses primarily on developing problem solving, critical think-ing, and engineering design skills. The delivery format includes a 50-min lectureCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

followed by a 90-min hands-on workshop every week. One of the learning objec-tives of the course is that students will be able to demonstrate a basic awareness of contemporary global issues and emerging technologies, and their impact on engineering practice after successful completion of the course. The nanotechnol-ogy module met this objective. Feedback from students in spring 2008 was used to enhance the module that was again implemented in the entire freshman class of about 1450 in the 2008 fall semester. Students feedback in fall 2008 was used to further improve the module and this trend continued until fall semester in 2011. Approximately 6000 freshmen participated in learning basic nanotechnology concepts using this module until fall 2011. The freshman module included the following:

A nanotechnology video presentation and PowerPoint slides

A 60-min hands-on nanotechnology activity

A nanotechnology experiment video that was made at the Virginia Tech Nanotechnology Characterization and Fabrication Lab (NCFL).

The video and presentation slides, prepared by an expert in nanotechnology, were used in the lecture part of the course and included key topics like a brief his-tory of nanotechnology, consideration of the domain of nanotechnology among different length scales, interdisciplinary aspects of nanotechnology, nanostructures in nature, ethical aspects, and everyday uses of nanotechnology. The experimental video demonstrated use of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) in characterizing carbon nanotubes and human hair samples at the NCFL. An expert demonstrated use of the microscope and discussed issues related to sample preparation and image analysis. The hands-on workshop activities evolved over various semesters as a result of student feedback. Initially, an engineering software program (LabVIEW) was used to plot the attractive and repulsive forces due to the LennardJones poten-tial between two interacting molecules and measurements of typical carbon nano-tube dimensions using the VISION toolkit of LabVIEW. Before implementing the nanotechnology module, students learned these LabVIEW concepts as part of programming instruction in EngE 1024. Students were provided with carbon nano-tube image files and the supporting LabVIEW VIs for image analysis and plotting. Students computed the surface area to volume ratio of a typical carbon nanotube and compared it with that for a standard PVC pipe. The dimensions for the PVC pipe and the formulae for obtaining the surface area to volume ratio are provided to students beforehand, while carbon nanotube diameter and length are computed by students using the LabVIEW. The use of LabVIEW for nanotube image files analysis was dropped after the first few semesters since students mixed learning nanotechnology concepts with the LabVIEW concepts. A free software program, developed by Dr. Shigeo Maruyama (2010) in Japan, was adopted to generate carbon graphene sheets and students observed an animation of how these sheets form nanotubes. Figures 16.4 and 16.5 provide a summary of student responses in the course exit survey for eight semesters (spring 2008 through fall 2011). As can be seen, on average, about 19% of students expressed an interest in pursuing a

16.3 Societal considerations413

120

100

011110242

8161318

171116

80

27

12

21

29

29

60

32

282927

40

3936523530343635

20

2213

1418172016

13

0

43

31323

0

s'08f'08s'09f'09s'10f'10s'11f'11

SA A NO D SD No answer

FIGURE 16.4

Student responses to exit survey statement: Video presentation and hands-on activities motivated me to pursue a nanotechnology minor/option ((s08, n=49; f08, n=314; s09, n=66; f09, n=329; s10, n=73; f10, n=610; s11, n=56; f11, n=211)

(SA= strongly agree, A= agree, NO = no opinion, D = disagree, SD = strongly disagree).

120

100

80

No answer

60

Major not decided

40

No

20

Yes

0

s'08f'08s'09f'09s'10f'10s'11f'11

FIGURE 16.5

Student responses to exit survey question: Do you see relevance of nanotechnology in your intended engineering major? (s08, n=49; f08, n=314; s09, n=66; f09, n=329; s10, n=73; f10, n=610; s11, n=56; f11, n=211).

nanotechnology minor or option. Also, about 52% of students saw nanotechnology education relevant to their intended engineering major. Further details and addi-tional assessment results are discussed in Balasubramanian et al. (2011).

The Level 2 module (see Figure 16.3) evolved into a senior/graduate-level nano-technology course at Virginia Tech which has been taken to date by 40+ students, undergraduate and graduate, representing diverse disciplines such as Materials Science and Engineering, Electrical & Computer Engineering, Geosciences, Engineering Science and Mechanics, Biology, Mechanical Engineering, and Aerospace Engineering.414CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

16.3.4 Work in progress

An interdisciplinary team comprised of experts in nanotechnology, engineer-ing education research and curriculum design, learning technologies, education research, and academic assessment is working together at the time of this writing to expand the scope of the nanotechnology education work discussed above. It is pro-posed to develop and implement over a 2- to 3-year period a series of web-enabled nanotechnology modules along with a concept for a Nanotechnology Training Network that prepares undergraduates and trains/retrains professionals for diverse careers in an increasingly technology-intensive and globally competitive economy. Once implemented, this program will create a series of nanotechnology learn-ing modules that integrates spiral-theory-based instruction with scalable hands-on learning experiences. The foundations of all learning modules will be based in active and engaged learning, timely and constructive feedback, and a spiraled curriculum. The learning experience will begin with an introductory module that will resemble the structure of a massive open online course (MOOC). Meaningful yet scalable hands-on learning experiences leveraging remote interface control of advanced nanoscale characterization equipment at Virginia Techs NCFL will be developed, and simulation tools will be made available through the NSF-sponsored nanoHUB. Technology for interactive course delivery will be leveraged to increase the collective intelligence of the students, to increase interaction, and to allow stu-dents to develop their own understanding of these complex topics. The team has generated two research questions that will:

Examine the potential of a MOOC in learning fundamentals of nanotechnology,

Examine the effectiveness of live and virtual experiments in learning nanotechnology.

At the time of this writing (January, 2014), we are exploring various funding sources to implement this proposal.

We note that the spiral approach presented in Balasubramanian et al. (2011) was specifically designed for incorporating nanoscale science and engineering into an already established undergraduate engineering curriculum. This approach can be easily adapted to incorporate nanotechnology with emphasis on sustainability including ethical and societal considerations at all the learning levels.

16.3.5 A students perspective on sustainable technologies

As we have thus far considered the opinions of experts on sustainable nanotech-nology, we must also consider the perspectives of the experts of the future. Ms. Rachael Born is currently enrolled as a student at Virginia Tech, and offers the fol-lowing perspective on the complex societal and ethical considerations of emerg-ing technologies such as nanotechnology. The concept of sustainability challenges the paradigm that new technologies are inherently good for society. Instead of asking for forgiveness after a product is released onto the market, sustainability16.4 Economic considerations of nanotechnology and sustainability 415

requires that we first ask permission. Innovations are no longer innocent until proven guilty; the precautionary principle places the burden of proof of safety with developers, not the next generation. While some argue the precautionary princi-ple can stifle progress, the economic impacts of a harmful product or process can be exponentially more costly to fix (see, for example, the discussion in Chapter 1 regarding the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon disaster). Further, such a policy could give regional planners the impetus to craft stronger partnerships between research and small business, allowing economically distressed regions to better develop a niche market for themselves. Yet, the nature of the precautionary princi-ple requires predicting what is often unpredictable and the line of when a product can be considered safe is left to a subjective definition of sufficient evidence. It requires that we rank job creation, social welfare, safety, and the environment in a hierarchy of moral obligationsand then make a seemingly arbitrary conclusion. Also, it is unclear what entity is responsible for this decisioncan change be mani-fested through concerned citizens, regional economic planning, legal restrictions, or competition within the market? What if each of these entities makes their own sustainable decisions and each comes to a different conclusion based on their own interests? There will never be a comfortable answer to all of these questions, nor a solution that accounts for every facet of the all-encompassing definition of sustainability. Yet just asking these questions is a start. Informed decision making, no matter how limited our power, can make an impact. What starts as an idea can eventually influence larger entities and can influence state, national, or even global changes.

16.4 Economic considerations of nanotechnology and sustainability

by J. Provo

16.4.1 Introduction

The path and form for new technology to impact the economy is shaped by foun-dational investments at the national level. In the United States, the NSF and other federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and National Institutes for Health (NIH) provide support for novel research that serves as the foundation for future marketable technology and ideas. In the field of nanotechnology, focused investments are distributed by a multiagency NNI, referenced earlier in this chapter (see Section 16.1).

Beyond these foundational investments in basic science, the United States nur-tures and sustains new technologies on the path to commercialization in the market by a loosely connected mix of public agencies, higher education administrators, entre-preneurs, and investors. For distressed regions, such as the mountainous Appalachian region of the eastern United States mentioned earlier, additional federal agenciesCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

provide focused support. However, financial commitments to these programs such as the Appalachian Regional Commission or the US Economic Development Administration have declined in recent decades. Many of these programs are also bound through statute and politics to dedicate most of their investments to traditional infrastructure like highways and water systems (Isserman and Rephann, 1995).

Even when they are applied creatively, these funds represent relatively blunt instruments for providing a stimulus through decentralized commercialization of transformative technologies. European Union (EU) countries, for example, are much more explicit in their efforts to invest in lagging regions, often committing themselves to much more centrally developed explicit industrial policies (Carbonell and Yaro, 2005). Other countries are investing consciously in national innova-tion strategies; for example, Chile has reinvested mineral resources in developing human capital in technology fields and in unique initiatives to attract technology entrepreneurs from around the globe (OECD, 2007; Startup Chile, 2013).

The interaction between the commercialization of new technology and spatial development is increasingly important. Economists describe a process of economic development, through which places not only expand their economic output but also grow increasingly sophisticated at adding value to the goods and services they trade with the world. Our understanding of the foundations of economic development has long been built on theories of growth based on capital, labor, and the productivity that results in their interaction shaping business cycles (Solow, 1988). But how did productivity change?

In recent decades, greater attention has been given to the role of technology and innovation as a driver of economic development. This new growth theory argues ideas enjoy an increasing return to scale; expensive to produce they are incredibly cheap to reproduce. Proponents argue this notion is hardly new and see technologi-cal change weaved throughout our economic history (Romer, 1986).

Policy implications drawn from this theory include the idea that places matter; their history, assets, and institutions are crucial factors in shaping their economic development. The economic history of a place is often likely to be a story of evolu-tion rather than revolution, as technologies, along with infrastructure and assets that support them build on each other and change incrementally. Where revolutions do happen, they build on specific industrial and institutional assets and networks that have successful experiences with change (Cortright, 2001).

16.4.2 Virginias New River Valley

The New River Valley of Virginia is within the Appalachian Mountain Range in the western part of the state, about a 4-h drive southwest of Washington, DC. The Valley is centered on the Town of Blacksburg, which is the core of a small metro politan area of more than 160,000 people spread over 1400 square miles. The regions economic base historically focused on agriculture and mining, the former of which has diminished in recent years and the latter completely disappeared in the 1970s. The present pillars of the regions economy are higher education and16.4 Economic considerations of nanotechnology and sustainability 417

manufacturing. More than 40,000 students are enrolled in the regions two public 4-year degree-granting institutions, and the largest private employers including makers of heavy trucks, munitions, and plastic food product containers (New River Economic Development Alliance, 2013). One of the regions higher education insti-tutions, Virginia Tech, is the states largest research university ranking 41st in the nation with US$450 million in annual R&D expenditures (Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center, 2013). That base of activity has been leveraged in the creation of a corporate research center adjacent to campus, which is home to 150 small to midsize companies together employing more than 2000 workers in an array of tech-nology fields, the largest of which are software and life sciences (Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center, 2013).

In 2010, the region completed a series of studies looking at the potential for industrial development around nanotechnology. These included explorations into the creation of a new industrial park anchored by nanotechnology assets (Daugherty et al., 2008), market analysis for a recruitment effort to entice new firms to locate within the region (Jones et al., 2010), and the creation a virtual hub to assist firms in developing EHS applications for this new technology (Daugherty, 2010). This process was led by a coalition at times including regional and local public agencies, higher education administrators, entrepreneurs, and investors in a process supported by the Appalachian Regional Commission and US Economic Development Administration.

At the beginning of the process in 2008, the region was home to a handful of small to midsize firms working with nanotechnology. These included faculty-led firms at the start-up stage and second stage of growth where products were beginning to enter the marketplace. The region was also home to one firm from a legacy indus-try that was attempting to transition into nanotechnology development (Daugherty et al., 2008). None of these were highly capitalized, which is a common challenge across industries in rural areas and remains a challenge for the New River Valley today (Roanoke Blacksburg Innovation Blueprint, 2012). At the same time, Virginia Tech was a leader in the state for attracting federal research in nanotechnology with expenditures reaching almost US$10 million annually during the studies. Further, the state of Virginia was a leader in securing Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funds, a set-aside program to direct a portion of research funds in federal agencies to small business for early stage proof of concept activities (Jones et al., 2010).

While Virginia Tech provided the basic science and the SBIR awardees could take those discoveries on an initial path toward the market, the region lacked inter-mediary facilities to scale up proven nanotechnology concepts and deploy them in the market. This is a broader issue for the region. While it is home to a healthy community of smaller technology firms and several large manufacturing firms, there was essentially no connection between the two.1

1In 2013, The Corporate Research Center has just seen its first graduate move into the manufactur-ing space. Aeroprobe Corporation began as a faculty spin-off. It constructs sensors and probes at the microscale for extreme environments: http://ww2.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/313667/.418CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

The regional planning process uncovered expertise in EHS analysis at the uni-versity and prospects for federal investment in this area led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Nanotechnology environmental and health impacts have been a concern since the technology entered the public consciousness and the prospects of rapid dissemination onto new products, especially in consumer mar-kets, made this even more salient. Pursuing a niche role in testing would allow the region, in close concert with existing assets at Virginia Tech, to enter the market with limited capital risk when compared with a recruitment strategy seeking to pop-ulate an industrial park (Daugherty, 2010).

As envisioned in the final report, the New River Valley would create a NanoFab Hub to serve as an advocate for member companies and the region, bringing a new focus to nanotechnology. In particular, the Hub would provide expertise in sup-port of the development of EHS programs related to nanotechnology. This would include developing specialized information for companies in the region and coor-dinating with federal regulatory agencies to ensure the flow of appropriate infor-mation, and leveraging Virginia Tech expertise and assets in the nanotech space. The Hub would also work with Virginia Tech and community colleges in the region to develop the necessary education and training programs. It would further work with partners across the region to develop prototyping facilities capable of scaling up nanotechnologies to production. The idea of a scale-up facility to help move technologies from initial proof of concept toward deployment remains a topic of discussion bridged currently by virtual services (Center for Innovation Based Manufacturing, 2013).

Since this report the university has been involved in two testing and certification ventures in other rural parts of the state in nuclear engineering (Center for Advanced Engineering and Research, 2013) and vehicle/tire dynamics (Craig, 2013). One is run by an independent regional entity and the other by a university research institute in close collaboration with regional partners. While neither has yet resulted in major industrial expansion, both have resulted in job creation and created new connections and networks for their regions to industrial partners elsewhere.

16.4.3 Conclusions about the NRV nanotech economy

The lessons learned from the New River Valley study highlight opportunities and challenges for bringing nanotechnology into the local, rural economy. Orchestrating the necessary linkages between university technology transfer, capital access, and business incubation support, as well as nurturing the presence of specialized infra-structure and educated technical workers, represent a tall order for many places. This suggests the need for a realistic, sustainable approach, especially in distressed regions, focused on carving out niche roles as specialized hubs within a larger network, rather than chasing unrealistic aspirational strategies by competing for broader roles that may be ill-suited to regional assets and culture and may remain the province of dominant players.16.5 Summary 419

16.5 Summary

Realizing the promise of sustainable nanotechnology-enabled industries requires conscious, creative, and continuous efforts to apply important lessons learned from past experiences with new technologiesthat environmental disasters can occur in both predictable and unimagined ways; that unintended imbalances can polarize social groups and undermine public support; and that shortsighted economic devel-opment policies can lead to the collapse of regional economies and communities. While it remains unclear precisely what sustainable nanotechnology looks like in practice and which strategies will promote it in one form or anotherboth at the local level and beyondwe can reasonably expect that the most successful strat-egies will include meaningful provisions that prioritize human and environmental health, social well-being, and long-term economic prosperity.

In this chapter, we have explored the three domains of sustainable nanotechnologyhuman and environmental health, social and ethical dimensions, and economic development considerationsfrom a collection of regional perspec-tives. The insights and lessons learned provided through these accounts may inform sustainable nanotechnology initiatives in similar regions across the United States and beyond. As Quadros notes in her section, although there has been significant progress made toward understanding the potential human and EHS risks of engi-neered nanomaterials, three guiding questions should continue to inform strategies aimed at promoting the environmental sustainability of emerging nanotechnologies. These questions encourage technology developers and policy-makers to minimize resource consumption, characterize and reduce adverse effects of nano-enabled products and manufacturing processes on human and EHS, and weigh the benefits of specific applications of nanotechnologies against their potentials risks.

In their section about society and education, Mahajan, Lohani, and Born describe the importance of fostering approaches that build bridges between the public and the scientists and engineers who develop new technologies for societal needs. They describe innovative curriculum development efforts underway in one university that are intended to develop humanistic researchers in nanoscale sci-ence and engineering that have a deepened understanding of real-world societal challenges with uncompromising disciplinary integrity. While these curriculum development efforts are focused initially on undergraduate engineering students, plans are under way to expand the program to help train professionals for careers in nanotechnology-enabled fields. A student perspective provides an important exam-ple of how future science and engineering professionals may view the responsibil-ity for sustainable development of emerging nanotechnologies as resting with the developers of those technologies rather than with society as a whole.

Provos section on the economic dimensions of sustainable nanotechnology highlight opportunities and challenges encountered during a regional economic development initiative aimed at fostering a commercial nanotechnology enterprise in rural Appalachia. The success of that initiative was that it allowed economicCHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

development leaders to better understand regional strengths and weaknesses, and to devise a more strategic and sustainable economic development approach that lever-ages strengths in a niche area. That niche, ironically, focuses on providing EHS ser-vices in support of nanotechnology developers and manufacturers.

In closing, we emphasize the complexity involved with realizing sustainable nanotechnology-enabled industries, regionally, nationally, and around the globe. Businesses are not created to harm people and environments; social policies and educational initiatives are not intended to alienate; and economic development lead-ers do not intend to promote industrial ventures that devastate communities. And yet, these things happen; they have happened; and, they color our current fears regarding the consequences that poor decision making can have on realizing the societal benefits of new technologies in a sustainable manner. Regardless of the challenges involved, we must make the effort, and sharing perspectives on the suc-cesses and challenges encountered along the way provides an important means for learning from one another and promoting nanotechnology development and imple-mentation strategies that achieve the most desirable outcomes.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation through Grant 0741364. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this chapter are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank Drs. Ishwar Puri and Ganesh Balasubramanian for their valuable assis-tance in developing and implementing the nanotechnology module in the freshman engineer-ing class. We thank Mr. Steve McCartney of NCFL, ICTAS, and Video/Broadcast Services, both at Virginia Tech, for helping us develop the nanotechnology experiment video and to Dr. Terry Wildman, Professor of Education Psychology at Virginia Tech, who introduced us to the spiral curriculum theory.

References

Abbott, L.C., Maynard, A.D., 2010. Exposure assessment approaches for engineered nano- materials. Risk Anal. 30 (11), 16341644. Adams, L.K., Lyon, D.Y., Alvarez, P.J.J., 2006. Comparative eco-toxicity of nanoscale TiO2, SiO2, and ZnO water suspensions. Water Res. 40 (19), 35273532.

Adams, W.M., 2006. The future of sustainability: re-thinking environment and develop- ment in the twenty-first century. The World Conservation Union. Report of the IUCN Renowned Thinkers Meeting, 2931 January 2006.

Ahleson, H., 2009. Trends in rural and urban populations in less developed regions, 1960 2030 (estimates and projections). UNEP GRIDArendal. Retrieved from: < http://www .grida.no/graphicslib/detail/trends-in-urban-and-rural-populations-less-developed- regions-1960-2030-estimates-and-projections_bd04>. Anand, P., Ajaikumar, B., Kunnumakara, C., Sundaram, Kuzhuvelil, Harikumar, B., Tharakan, S.T., et al., 2008. Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes. Pharm. Res. 25 (9), 20972116.References421

Balasubramanian, G., Lohani, V.K., Puri, I., Case, S., Mahajan, R., 2011. Nanotechnology educationa first step in implementing a spiral curriculum approach. Int. J. Eng. Educ. 27 (No. 2), 333353.

Bruner, J., 1960. The Process of Education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bruner, J., 1966. The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Bystrzejewska-Piotrowska, G., Golimowski, J., Urban, P.L., 2009. Nanoparticles: their

potential toxicity, waste and environmental management. Waste Manage. 29, 9. Carbonell, A., Yaro, R., 2005. American spatial development and the new megaloplois. Land

Lines: J. Lincoln Inst. Land Policy 17, 2.

Cattaneo, A.G., Gornati, R., Sabbioni, E., Chiriva-Internati, M., Cobos, E., Jenkins, M.R., et al., 2010. Nanotechnology and human health: risks and benefits. J. Appl. Toxicol 30 (8), 730744.

Center for Advanced Engineering and Research. < http://caer.us/> (accessed online 28.09.13). Center for Innovation Based Manufacturing. < http://www.cibm.ise.vt.edu/>. (accessedonline 28.09.13).

Cohen, J.E., 2003. Human population: the next half century. Science 302 (5648), 11721175. Cortright, J., 2001. New growth theory, technology and learning: a practitioners guide. Rev.Eco. Devel. Lit. Pract. 4 (6), 135.Craig, Ann. National Tire Research Center to open. < http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles /2012/10/101912-vtti-tirecenteropening.html> (accessed online 28.09.13). Crichton, M., 2002. Prey, a Novel. Harper Collins, New York.

Daugherty, R., 2010. New River Valley Nanofab Hub Business Plan. Virginia Tech Business Technology Center, Blacksburg, VA.

Daugherty, R., Nutter, D., OBrien, P., Oner, A., Provo, J., 2008. Virginias Nanotechnology Park: Cluster Analysis. Virginia Tech Office of Economic Development, Blacksburg, VA. Espinosa-Cristobal, L.F., Martinez-Castanon, G.A., Loyola-Rodriguez, J.P., Patino- Marin, N., Reyes-Macias, J.F., Vargas-Morales, J.M., et al., 2013. Toxicity, distribution, and accumulation of silver nanoparticles in Wistar rats. J. Nanopart. Res. 15, 6.

Feynman, R., 1960. Theres plenty of room at the bottom. Eng. Sci. 23 (5), 2236.

Fisher, E., Mahajan, R.L., 2003. Humanistic enhancement of engineering: liberalizing the technical curriculum. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Education, July, Valencia, Spain, pp. 2125.

Grassian, V.H., 2008. When size really matters: size-dependent properties and surface chem- istry of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in gas and liquid phase environments. J. Phys. Chem. C. 112 (47), 1830318313.

Hu, Y., Fine, D.H., Tasciotti, E., Bouamrani, A., Ferrari, M., 2011. Nanodevices in diagnos- tics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Nanomedicine Nanobiotechnol. 3 (1), 1132.

Hull, M.S., Kennedy, A.J., Steevens, J.A., Bednar, A.J., Weiss Jr., C.A., Vikesland, P.J., 2009. Release of metal impurities from carbon nanomaterials influences aquatic toxicity. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (11), 41694174.

Hull, M.S., Kennedy, A.J., Detzel, C., Vikesland, P.J., Chappell, M.A., 2012. Moving beyond mass: the unmet need to consider dose metrics in environmental nanotoxicology studies. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (20), 1088110882.

Isserman, A., Rephann, T., 1995. The economic effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission: an empirical assessment of 26 years of regional development planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 61 (3), 345364.

Janerich, D.T., Burnett, W.S., Feck, G., Hoff, M., Nasca, P., Polednak, A.P., et al., 1981. Cancer incidence in the love canal area. Science 212 (4501), 14041407.422CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

Jayapalan, A.R., Lee, B.Y., Kurtis, K.E., 2013. Can nanotechnology be green? Comparing efficacy of nano and microparticles in cementitious materials. Cement Concrete Comp 36 (0), 1624.

Johnson, A., 2005. Agriculture and Nanotechnology. Retrieved from: < http://www.tahan. com/charlie/nanosociety/course201/nanos/AJ.pdf> (accessed online 28.09.13). Jones, M., Nutter, D., Provo, J., 2010. Planning for Nanotechnology Initiatives in the New River Valley. Tech Office of Economic Development, Blacksburg, VA.

Joseph, T., Morrison, M., 2006. Nanotechnology in agriculture and food. Nanoforum Report. Retrieved from: < ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/nanotechnology/docs/nanotechnology_ in_agriculture_and_food.pdf> (accessed online 28.09.13).

Karn, B., Wong, S.S., 2013. Ten years of green nanotechnology. In: Shamim, N.; Sharma, V. K. (Eds.), Sustainable Nanotechnology and the Environment: Advances and Achievements, vol. 1124, American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp. 110.

Kazan-Allen, L., 2005. Asbestos and mesothelioma: worldwide trends. Lung Cancer 49, S3S8.

Key, T.J., Schatzkin, A., Willett, W.C., Allen, N.E., Spencer, E.A., Travis, R.C., 2004. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of cancer. Public Health Nutr. 7 (1A), 187200. SPI.

Kim, B., Murayama, M., Colman, B.P., Hochella Jr., M.F., 2012. Characterization and envi- ronmental implications of nano- and larger TiO2 particles in sewage sludge, and soils amended with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Monit. 14 (4), 11291137.

Li, Q., McGinnis, S., Sydnor, C., Wong, A., Renneckar, S., 2013. Nanocellulose life cycle assessment. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.

Lohani, V.K., Wolfe, M.L., Wildman, T., Mallikarjunan, K., Connor, J., 2011. Reformulating general engineering and biological systems engineering programs at Virginia Tech. Adv. Eng. Educ. J. ASEE.

Lowry, G.V., Gregory, K.B., Apte, S.C., Lead, J.R., 2012. Transformations of nanomaterials in the environment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (13), 68936899.

Magdolenova, Z., Collins, A., Kumar, A., Dhawan, A., Stone, V., Dusinska, M., 2014. Mechanisms of genotoxicity. A review of in vitro and in vivo studies with engineered nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 8 (3), 233278.

Malthus, T., 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London.Maruyama, S., 2010. Retrieved from: < http://www.photon.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~maruyama/index

.html> (accessed online 28.09.13).

Molina, M.J., Rowland, F.S., 1974. Stratospheric sink for chlorofluoromethaneschlorine atomic-catalysed destruction of ozone. Nature 249 (5460), 810812.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 2013. Occupational expo- sure to carbon nanotubes and nanofibers. In center for disease control. Curr. Intell. Bull. 65, 156. pages.

Navarro, E., Baun, A., Behra, R., Hartmann, N.B., Filser, J., Miao, A.J., et al., 2008. Environmental behavior and ecotoxicity of engineered nanoparticles to algae, plants, and fungi. Ecotoxicology 17 (5), 372386.

New River Valley Economic Development Alliance, 2013. < http://www.nrvalliance.org/> (accessed online September, 28).

Norby, R., Zak, D., 2011. Ecological lessons from free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experi- ments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 42, 181203.

Nowack, B., Bucheli, T.D., 2007. Occurrence, behavior and effects of nanoparticles in the environment. Environ. Pollut. 150 (1), 522.References423

Nwanze, K.F., 2010. Rural Poverty Report 2011. Retrieved from: < http://www.ifad.org/ rpr2011/report/e/rpr2011.pdf> (accessed online 28.09.13). Oberdorster, G., Stone, V., Donaldson, K., 2007. Toxicology of nanoparticles: a historical perspective. Nanotoxicology 1 (1), 225.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2007. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy. < www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/science-and- technology/oecd -reviews-of-innovation-policy-chile-2007_9789264037526-en#page4> (accessed online 28.09.13). Papp, T., Schiffmann, D., Weiss, D., Castranova, V., Vallyathan, V., Rahman, Q., 2008. Human health implications of nanomaterial exposure. Nanotoxicology 2 (1), 927.

Park, S., Woodhall, J., Ma, G., Veinot, J.G.C., Cresser, M.S., Boxall, A.B.A., 2014. Regulatory ecotoxicity testing of engineered nanoparticles: are the results relevant to the natural environment? Nanotoxicology 8 (5), 583592.

Partridge, M.D., Betz, M.R., Lobao, L., 2013. Natural resource curse and poverty in Appalachian America. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 95 (2), 449456.

Qu, X., Alvarez, P., Li, Q., 2013. Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. Water Res. 47 (12), 39313946.

Quadros, M., Pierson IV, R., Tulve, N., Willis, R., Rogers, K., Thomas, T., et al., 2013. Release of silver from nanotechnology-based consumer products for children. Environ. Sci. Technol.

Quadros, M.E., Marr, L.C., 2010. Environmental and human health risks of aerosolized sil- ver nanoparticles. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 60 (7), 770781.

Radford, T., 2003. Brave new world or miniature menace? Why Charles fears grey goo nightmare. The Guard., 29.

Roanoke Blacksburg Innovation Blueprint2012. Innovation Blueprint Work Plan. November 2012.

Roco, M., 2003. Broader societal issues of nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle Res. 5, 181189.

Roco, M., Brainbridge, S., 2002. Converging technologies for improving human perfor-mance is a 2002, report commissioned by the US National Science Foundation and Department of Commerce.

Roco, M.C., 2011. The long view of nanotechnology development: the National Nanotechnology Initiative at 10 years Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020. Springer, The Netherlands, 1-28.

Romer, P., 1986. Increasing returns and long run growth. J. Polit. Econ. 94, 10021038. Rose, L., Dugger Jr., W.E., 2002. ITEA/Gallup Poll Reveals What Americans Think About

Technology. International Technology Education Association, Reston, VA.

Rose, L., Dugger, Jr., W.E., 2002. Responsible nanotechnology development, in the SwissRe workshop of December 2004, p.7.

Ross, M., 1995. The schoolroom asbestos abatement programa public-policy debacle. Environ. Geol. 26 (3), 182188.

Roy, S., Varghese, O., Paulose, M., Grimes, C., 2010. Toward solar fuels: photocatalytic con- version of carbon dioxide to hydrocarbons. ACS Nano 4 (3), 12591278.

Seager, T., Selinger, E., Wiek, A., 2012. Sustainable engineering science for resolving wicked problems. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics. 25 (4), 467484.

Sheppard, S.D., Sullivan, W.M., Colby, A., Shulman, L.S., 2009. Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.424CHAPTER 16 Sustainable Nanotechnology: A Regional Perspective

Silva, T., Pokhrel, L.R., Dubey, B., Tolaymat, T.M., Maier, K.J., Liu, X., 2014. Particle size, surface charge and concentration dependent ecotoxicity of three organo-coated silver nanoparticles: comparison between general linear model-predicted and observed toxicity. Sci. Total Environ. 468469, 968976.

Solow, R., 1988. Growth Theory: An Exposition. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Song, K.S., Sung, J.H., Ji, J.H., Lee, J.H., Lee, J.S., Ryu, H.R., et al., 2013. Recovery from

silver-nanoparticle-exposure-induced lung inflammation and lung function changes in Sprague Dawley rats. Nanotoxicology 7 (2), 169180.

Spirtas, R., Heineman, E.F., Bernstein, L., Beebe, G.W., Keehn, R.J., Stark, A., et al., 1994. Malignant mesotheliomaattributable risk of asbestos exposure. Occup. Environ. Med. 51 (12), 804811.

Startup Chile. < www.Startupchile.org> (accessed online 28.09.13).

Swierstra, T., Rip, A., 2007. Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: patterns of moral argumentation about new and emerging science and technology. Nanoethics 1 (1), 320.

Thompson, D.W.J., Solomon, S., Kushner, P.J., England, M.H., Grise, K.M., Karoly, D.J., 2011. Signatures of the Antarctic ozone hole in Southern Hemisphere surface climate change. Nat. Geosci. 4 (11), 741749.

United Nations Millennium Declaration, 2006. Millennium development goals. The Elgar Companion Dev. Stud., 382.Virginia Tech. < http://www.vt.edu/about/factbook/measures-excellence.html> (accessed online 28.09.13).Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center < http://www.vtcrc.com/> (accessed online 28.09.13).World Health Organization/United Nations Childrens Fund, 2013. Diarrhoea: why childrenare still dying and what can be done. < http://www.unicef.org/health/index_51412.html> (accessed online 28.09.13). Waldron, A.M., Spencer, D., Batt, C.A., 2006. The current state of public understanding of nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle Res. 8 (5), 569575.

Wehrmann, B., 2014. Land development strategies in megacities: guiding land use and land rights in the context of urban sprawl and informality In Megacities. Springer, The Netherlands, 75-80.