Though I totally agree with your views towards nanotechnology, There is always two sides of a coin.
According to this article THE BAD (of Nanotechnology):
Health:
Nanoparticles have been shown to be absorbed in the livers of research
animals and even cause brain damage in fish exposed to them after just
48 hours. If they can be taken up by cells, then they can enter our
food chain through bacteria and pose a health threat like mercury in
fish, pesticides in vegetables or hormones in meat. The
increasingly-popular carbon nanotube (20x stronger and lighter than
steel) looks very much like an asbestos fiber – what happens if they
get released into the air? Being carbon-based, they wouldn’t set off
the usual alarms in our bodies, making them difficult to detect.
Environmental:
If nanomaterials really are as strong as diamonds, how decomposable or
persistent are they? Will they litter our environment further or
present another disposal problem like nuclear waste or space litter?
In the distant future, will self-replicating nanobots – necessary to
create the trillions of nanoassemblers needed to build any kind of
product – run amok, spreading as quickly as a virus, in the infamous
“gray goo” scenario?
Not only that Each country have a different point of view on the topic of nanotechnology in Health(or nano-medicine).
Government Response on Nanotechnology:
United Kingdom
In its seminal 2004 report Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties, the United Kingdom's Royal Society concluded that:
Many nanotechnologies pose no new risks to health and almost all the
concerns relate to the potential impacts of deliberately manufactured
nanoparticles and nanotubes that are free rather than fixed to or
within a material.
They want to change the existing regulation to be modified on a precautionary basis because they expect that the toxicity of chemicals in the form of free nanoparticles cannot be predicted from their toxicity in a larger form.
United States
Rather than adopt a new nano-specific regulatory framework, FDA convenes an 'interest group' each quarter with representatives of FDA centers that have responsibility for assessment and regulation of different substances and products. This interest group ensures coordination and communication. A September 2009 FDA document called for identifying sources of nanomaterials, how they move in the environment, the problems they might cause for people, animals and plants, and how these problems could be avoided or mitigated.
Berkeley, CA is currently the only city in the United States to regulate nanotechnology, which is still being opposed.
European Union
The European Union has formed a group to study the implications of nanotechnology called the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks which has published a list of risks associated with nanoparticles.
Consequently, manufacturers and importers of carbon products, including carbon nano-tubes will have to submit full health and safety data within a year or so in order to comply with REACH.
The application of engineered nanoparticles for medical use offers immense benefits
within areas like diagnosis, targeted drug delivery, and drug development and have been
marketed for more than 17 years (NanoRoad SME 2006, EGE 2007, Gaspar 2007).
Well-described and understood medicinal products containing nanoparticles in the form
of liposomes, polymer protein conjugates, polymeric substances or suspensions have
been given Marketing Authorizations within the EU under the existing regulatory
framework e.g. Regulation 726/2004 on authorization and supervision of medicinal
products for human and veterinary use, Directive 2001/83/EC on medicinal products for
human use, Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices, Directive 90/385/EEC
relating to active implantable medical devices, and Directive 98/79/EC on in vitro
diagnostic medical devices (EP & CEU 2004, Council of the European Communities
1990, 1993, 1998, 2001).
There is no specific mentioning of nanomedicine in the EU legislation on medicinal
products and devices, tissue engineering and other advanced therapies. None of these
regulations or directives was written with nanomedicinal applications in mind and
although their scope covers nanomedicine they have been accused for being general and
non-specific and fraught with concerns and difficulties when it comes to dealing with
drugs more complex than traditional ones (Editorial 2007, D'Silva and Van Calster
2008).
The use of nanoparticles in nanomedicine has not been subject to much regulatory
scrutiny since existing laws and regulatory instruments are believed also to cover
medical products based on nanotechnology. The extensive testing requirements prior to
marketing of medicine may also contribute to the notion that the potentially negative
effects will be discovered prior to marketing, that patients are adequately informed
about negative side-effects, and that benefits outweigh the risks or the adverse effects,
should such be found to occur (EGE 2007, N&ET Working Group 2007) .
