Content uploaded by Noela Invernizzi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Noela Invernizzi on Jun 04, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Nanotechnology Law & Business
Journal
Volume ,Issue Article
Nanotechnology and the Developing World:
Will Nanotechnology Overcome Poverty or
Widen Disparities?
Noela Invernizzi∗Guillermo Foladori†
∗UNICAMP, Brazil,
†UNAM, Mexico,
Copyright c
2005 Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal. All rights reserved. No part
of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the publisher. Nanotechnology Law & Business
Journal is produced by The Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress).
http://pubs.nanolabweb.com/nlb
Nanotechnology and the Developing World:
Will Nanotechnology Overcome Poverty or
Widen Disparities?
NOELA INVERNIZZIand GUILLERMO FOLADORI
ABSTRACT
Nanotechnology proponents expect that it will offer solutions to key problems facing developing
countries. In this article, Doctors Noela Invernizzi and Guillermo Foladori argue that this optimistic
view overlooks the social factors that shape science and technology development. Invernizzi and
Foladori challenge what they see as overly optimistic assessments within recent articles concerning
nanotechnology’s impact on developing nations. They argue that applications that may benefit poorer
nations are only a starting point and that dominant socioeconomic hierarchies may still prevent
nanotechnology from benefitting the poor. By recognizing these realities, the nanotechnology community
can avoid repeating the mistakes of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries and enable
nanotechnology to become a tool to alleviate rather than widen disparity.
INTRODUCTION
ne of the most hotly debated issues, and one of the most difficult to discern in advance in the
growing discussion on nanotechnology, is its possible effects on poorer countries and less
fortunate segments of the population. There are optimistic stances, wherein nanotechnology
is considered to be a panacea, and there are pessimistic viewpoints which suppose that the gap between
rich and poor will widen as a result of the diffusion of this kind of technology. The debate on these
different stances, supported by theoretical arguments and empirical data, is fundamental for arriving at a
balanced viewpoint of the situation.
In early 2005, several influential articles claimed that nanotechnology is a viable alternative for
resolving most of the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations.
1
Some scholars have even
Noela Invernizzi is a Ph.D. in Scientific & Technological Policy (UNICAMP, Brazil). Dr. Invernizzi is in the
Doctoral Program on Development Studies at the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, México, and is a member of
the International Nanotechnology and Society Network.
Guillermo Foladori is a Ph.D. in Economics (UNAM, México). Dr. Foladori is a professor in the Doctoral
Program on Development Studies, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, México. He is also a member of the
International Nanotechnology and Society Network. He can be reached via telephone at (52-492) 923-9407 ext.
2778, or by email at fola@estudiosdeldesarrollo.net.
O
1Invernizzi and Foladori: Nanotechnology and the Developing World
attempted to list the top ten nanotechnology applications that will most benefit those in poorer nations.
While it is undoubtedly useful to determine which aspects of nanotechnology promise the most to poorer
nations in terms of application, the international community needs to question this optimism, placing
these new technologies in their social context.
I. NANOTECHNOLOGIES AS DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Nanotechnology manipulates atoms and molecules to make or build things (or living beings). One
may imagine a laboratory which, by combining suitable molecules in quality and quantity, could create
electric drills. Although this is theoretically possible, it will take some time, at least until there are
nanobots that could do the job by themselves. But this will be at a later stage, if ever. At the moment,
what can be made are nanoproducts, in which scientists manipulate matter at the nanoscale to give them
special or more efficient uses. Witness the introduction of nanotextiles in recent times.
According to the Nanotech Report, among the first products commercialized in 2004 with
nanotechnological content were the following: thermal shoes (Aspem Aerogels); dust and sweat-repelling
mattresses (Simmons Bedding Co.); more flexible and resistant golf clubs (Maruman & Co.);
personalized cosmetics for different ages, races, genders, types of skin and physical activities (Bionova);
dressing for cuts and burns that prevent infections (Westaim Corporation); disinfectants and cleaning
products for planes, boats, submarines, etc. (EnviroSystems); spray that repels water and dirt that is used
in the building industry (BASF); treatment for glass to repel water, snow, insects etc. (Nanofilm); cream
that combats muscular pain (CNBC, Flex-Power, Inc.); and dental adhesives that set the tooth crown
better (3M ESPE).2 Lux Research, a company dedicated to the study of nanotechnology and its business,
estimates that the sale of articles with nanoparticles will surpass the mark of $500 billion in 2010.
3
At least four aspects make nanotechnology a great new development. First, it revolutionizes the
manufacturing process. Nanotechnology builds from the smallest number of atoms and molecules to
make the biggest final product—the bottom-up process. Nanotechnology can also reverse the process—
instead of starting with physical matter as it is found in nature, according to its own structures, by
reducing it to the size of the objects to use as has been done until now—the top-down process. Despite
this road being familiar in chemical processes, the novelty is that, now, atoms and molecules can be
directly manipulated to manufacture products.4 This constitutes a novelty in the history of humanity and
a new way of thinking in the world. Its consequences are unlimited. It is even conceivable to think that a
process of production that manufactures by summing up molecules will, in theory, generate no waste.
Second, at this nanoscale level, there are few differences between biotic matter and abiotic matter in
that it is potentially possible to apply biological procedures to material processes or interfere with
materials in living bodies, adapting the latter to certain purposes or offering certain advantages. It may
also be possible to manipulate biological matter or procedures to perform specific tasks. One example
1
See, e.g., Fabio Salamanca-Buentello et al., Nanotechnology and the Developing World, 2 PLOS MED. E97
(2005), available at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15807631 (last
visited June 4, 2005).
2Top 10 Nanotech Products of 2004, 3 NANOTECH REPORT 1 (2004).
3
Stephen Baker & Adam Aston, The Business of Nanotech, BUS. WK., Feb. 14, 2005, at 64. As a reference, all
exports from Latin America and the Caribbean in 2004 totaled $461 billion; foreign debt in Latin America and the
Caribbean in 2004 totaled $721 billion. ECON. COMM’N. OF LATIN AM. & CARIBBEAN (“ECLAC”), STATISTICAL
YEARBOOK FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBAN (2004), available at
http://www.eclac.cl/publicaciones/Estadisticas/4/LCG2264PB/p1_2.pdf (last visited June 7, 2005).
4 ROYAL SOC’Y & ROYAL ACAD. OF ENG’G, NANOSCIENCE AND NANOTECHNOLOGIES: OPPORTUNITIES AND
UNCERTAINTIES, July 29, 2004, at http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm (last visited June 27, 2005).
2Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal Vol. 2 [2005], No. 3, Article 11
http://pubs.nanolabweb.com/nlb/vol2/iss3/11
would be a way of allowing the body to rest without sleep, which would be very useful in war and other
activities that are very physically or mentally demanding.
Third, nanoparticles may have physical and chemical properties (conductive, electric, mechanical,
optical, etc.) which differ from the same elements on a macroscopic scale. By changing the physical
properties of the matter, possibilities arise that surprise and excite scientists who are dedicated to this
study. Many nanomaterials that are on sale offer great advantages in this way. Carbon nanotubes, for
instance, are harder than diamonds and can be fifty to a hundred times stronger than steel.
Finally, nanotechnology combines several kinds of technologies and sciences such as information
technology, biotechnology and materials technology. The latter is not a lesser element if we consider that
the true development of nanotechnology will require a totally new professional education which will
require rethinking schooling, maybe from the primary level.
The potential benefits of nanotechnology are impossible to calculate. Here we can mention a few of
the more probable. In the field of health, it could increase the quality and length of life. Nanosensors,
incorporated into the organism, could travel through the bloodstream similar to the way a virus does and
detect illnesses before they spread to the rest of the body and combat them efficiently. In the future,
drugs may no longer be generic for all people, but may be specifically designed according to the genetic
make-up of the individual and his/her gender, age and diet. Ageing mechanisms could be retarded and
even reversed, with the human lifespan’s being lengthened significantly. With these artificial sensors, a
person could become a bionic being, improving her biological capacities and developing others. Some
even envision nanotechnology applications that will improve human perception and ability at
fundamental levels. The field of prostheses is also among the most promising.
In the materials field, one novelty will be intelligent nanoparticles. Your wardrobe, for example,
could be reduced to one single article. The item of clothing you have will react to changes in
temperature, rainfall, snow and sun, among other elements, keeping the body always at the programmed
temperature. Furthermore, it will repel sweat and dust, which will mean that it will not require washing.
As if this were not enough, it would stop bacteria or viruses from penetrating it, protecting it even from
possible bioterrorist attacks. In the case of an accident, your clothes would have healing effects, offering
first aid. The same that applies to clothing could be adapted to certain dwellings and modes of transport.
Another novelty is that carbon nanotubes are stronger than steel and only 1/6 of its weight. This will have
a special impact on the aerospace, construction, automobile industries and many others.
The field of computer science will be one of the earliest industries affected and will enjoy the most
revolutionary change. Computers can be a hundred times faster and much smaller and lighter, and can be
custom built according to the tastes of the buyer in terms of design, size, shape, color, smell and
resistance. Prototypes with built-in sensors will speed up designs, adapting to flexible production
processes in different parts of the world, overcoming many of the barriers that distance now imposes.
The old “just-in-time” production mode will become obsolete and may very well become the “as-you-
need” mode of production. The possibilities for monopolistic concentration of production (global
business enterprises) will multiply.
The combination of computerized systems, chemical laboratories, miniature sensors and living
beings adapted to specific functions will revolutionize medicine (e.g., lab-on-a-chip) and also provide
rapid solutions to the historical problems of contamination. Small bacteria with sensors may be able to
consume bodies of water that have been contaminated by heavy metals, or decontaminate the atmosphere
in record time. Nanocapsules with combined systems of sensors and additives will revolutionize the
industries such as lubricants, pharmaceuticals and filters, to make no mention of others.
3Invernizzi and Foladori: Nanotechnology and the Developing World
Nanotechnology may become a disruptive technology that will make obsolete the current
competitive technologies, once established and entrenched in economies around the world. The social
and economic effects on the international and national levels are difficult to foresee, but an effort must be
made at this critical juncture in order to reduce the possible negative or unwanted consequences that have
historically accompanied such dramatic transformations.
II. NANOTECHNOLOGY AS A SOLUTION FOR THE POOR?
Despite the voices that warn of the possible negative consequences or risks of nanotechnology, there
are others that suppose that the new technology will be beneficial to everyone, including the poor. In this
light, the recent U.N. Millennium Project Report, Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation,
puts forward the idea that nanotechnology will be important to the developing world because it harbors
the potential to transform minimal work, land and maintenance inputs into highly productive and cheap
outputs; and it requires only modest quantities of material and energy to do so.
5
However, these same
qualities could be seen as harmful because poor countries have abundant labor, and, in many cases, land
and natural resources. In this way, nanotechnology may cause displacements and disruptions in the
economies of poorer nations.
Reasoning in a purely technical and linear fashion, any country could theoretically join the
nanotechnology wave. An effort for public funding may create the bases to establish specific
nanocomponent industries to meet determined needs; or it is possible that businesses with a scientific
tradition might justify a technological leap at a relatively low cost. This seems to be the opinion of the
authors of at least one article
6
that has received a great deal of attention from the international scientific
press.
7
Fabio Salamanca-Buentello and several of his colleagues from the Joint Center for Bioethics at
the University of Toronto introduce nanotechnology as the solution to many problems in developing
countries.
8
They understand the effort for harnessing nanotechnology in developing countries as a
demonstration of the willingness of such countries to overcome poverty: “. . .we show that developing
countries are already harnessing nanotechnology to address some of their most pressing needs.”
9
After
interviewing sixty-three experts in nanotechnology from several developed and developing countries, the
authors identified the ten main nanotechnologies that could provide a solution to such problems as water,
5
CALESTOUS JUMA & LEE YEE-CHONG, U.N. MILLENIUM PROJECT TASK FORCE ON SCI., TECH. & INNOVATION,
INNOVATION: APPLYING KNOWLEDGE IN DEVELOPMENT (2005), available at
http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/documents/Science-complete.pdf (last visited June 27, 2005). See also David
Dickson, Scientific Advice ‘Essential’ to Meet Development Goals, SCIDEV.NET, Jan. 10, 2005, at
http://www.scidev.net/gateways/index.cfm?fuseaction=readitem&rgwid=4&item=News&itemid=1835&language=1
(last visited June 4, 2005).
6
Salamanca-Buentello et al, supra note 1.
7
Catherine Brahic, Developing World ‘Needs Nanotech Network’, SCIDEV.NET (June 4, 2005), at
http://www.scidev.net/News/index.cfm?fuseaction=printarticle&itemid=1923&language=1 (last visited June 4,
2005); Charles Q. Choi, Top 10 for Developing World, UNITED PRESS INT’L (Apr. 18, 2005), available at
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20050415-114140-8159r (last visited June 4, 2005); Taking Nano to the
Needy: A Small Times Q&A with Fabio Salamanca-Buentello, SMALL TIMES, June 15, 2005, at
http://smalltimes.com/print_doc.cfm?doc_id (last visited June 16, 2005).
8
It must be noted that these authors explicitly recognize that science and technology are not enough: “Like any
other science and technology waves, nanoscience and nanotechnology are not ‘silver bullets’ that will magically
solve all the problems of developing countries; the social context of these countries must always be considered.”
Salamanca-Buentello et al., supra note 1, at 2. The authors do, however, visualize science and technology
investments and scientists involved in developing countries as an indicator of willingness to overcome poverty. See
id.
9
Salamanca-Buentello et al, supra note 1, at 1.
4Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal Vol. 2 [2005], No. 3, Article 11
http://pubs.nanolabweb.com/nlb/vol2/iss3/11
agriculture, nutrition, health, energy and the environment.
10
The technologies range from energy
production and conservation systems, with sensors that will increase agricultural productivity and the
treatment of water, to the diagnosis of diseases. In the article, the creation of a Global Fund is proposed
for the development of these technologies for all developing countries. Overflowing with good
intentions, the proposal reflects the mechanical idea that if a problem can be identified correctly, then all
that has to be done is to apply a suitable technology, and it will be solved. Most of the examples used do
not take into account the reality that the relationship between science and society is much more complex
than identifying a technology and its potential benefits.
11
Let us put some of the examples in their social
context.
1. The Experience of Poorer Nations with HIV/AIDS Pharmaceuticals
Salamanca-Buentello and colleagues suggest that quantum dots could detect HIV/AIDS molecules
in the early stages, thereby facilitating the treatment of AIDS and reducing the number of new cases.
While quantum dots may, in fact, provide a useful solution to the HIV/AIDS crisis in developing
countries, Salamanca-Buentello’s article does little to place this novel technology into the historical
experience of poorer nations with advances in the medical field more generally.
The authors seem to forget the story of the last several years, which has been one of seemingly open
war between multinational pharmaceutical corporations and the governments of countries that intended to
manufacture antiretrovirals against AIDS. In this conflict, the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) and
the Commercial representative of the United States have systematically played the role of front-line
soldier for these corporations. The rigors of the patenting system have used monopolist economics to
drive medicine pricing for the last twenty years. This makes it impossible for poor people to buy
medicine from companies that hold patents. Experience over the last several years has shown that when
an epidemic occurs, some countries cannot afford to cover the cost of remedies very much needed by
people within these poorer countries.
One of the most alarming historical cases, illustrating the behavior of the multinational
pharmaceutical corporations that tends to undermine public health, was the action brought in 2001 by
thirty-nine of the major pharmaceutical corporations against the government of South Africa. In that
case, several of the corporations prevented the South African government from producing generic
medicine for AIDS treatment. A lawsuit over the matter was soon filed. The lawsuit, which the South
African government won, showed total insensibility to human rights on the part of the pharmaceutical
corporations. The statements of one of the pharmaceutical company’s representatives bore out this
insensitivity. According to the reasoning of certain pharmaceutical companies, the court’s ruling
allowing the government of South Africa to produce affordable generic medicine could have a
precedential effect allowing other governments to cheaply develop generic medicines: “while South
Africa may represent less than 1% of world drug sales, the precedent of allowing a government to step on
drug companies’ patent rights would have far-reaching effects, beyond the questions of cost and crises.”
12
Nanotechnology products are already being patented, typically by the most important and largest
corporations in the world. A patent in the U.S. costs $30,000 in legal bureaucracy, and a worldwide
patent may be as much as a quarter of a million dollars.
13
For an underdeveloped country, it is very
10
“In order to provide a systematic approach with which to address sustainable development issues in the
developing world, we have identified and ranked the ten applications of nanotechnology most likely to benefit
developing countries. We used a modified Delphi Method. . .to identify and prioritize the applications and to achieve
consensus among the panelists.” Salamanca-Buentello et al, supra note 1, at 3.
11
D. Sarewitz et al., Science Policy in its Social Context, PHILOSOPHY TODAY, 2004 Supplement, at 67.
12
Robert Block, AIDS Activists Win Legal Skirmish in South Africa, WALL ST. J., Mar. 17, 2001, at A17.
13
A. Regalado, Nanotechnology Patents Surge, WALL ST. J., June 18, 2004, at A1.
5Invernizzi and Foladori: Nanotechnology and the Developing World
difficult to develop any medicine for which there is an important market (as is the case of AIDS) if we
take into account the economic and legal medicine market’s international “war,” as well as the
bureaucratic restrictions which drive up costs and reduce availability. This story has a simple moral:
technology is produced in a given social context, and the efficiency and implications of its application
depend on that social context.
2. The Experience of Poorer Nations with Biotechnology
Salamanca-Buentello and his colleagues identify nanotechnology as the solution to five of the eight
Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. Among these supposed solutions are nanosensors
and nanocomponents to improve the dosage of water and fertilization of plants. With this technology, it
would be possible to reduce poverty and hunger in the world. Simply identifying a potentially useful
application, however, overlooks the clear historical experience of poorer countries. Not so long ago, in
the 1980s, genetically modified organisms were hailed as the solution that would put an end to hunger
and poverty. However, genetically modified organisms ended up being used mainly in developed
countries; and three out of four patents are today in the hands of four large multinational companies.
There has been no improvement for Third World countries; quite the contrary, transgenics turned up
where they were not wanted or expected, as was the case of the contamination of corn in Oaxaca, Mexico.
In the case of genetically modified organisms, commercial and technological dependence was increased,
not reduced.
14
This historical example could well foreshadow the path that nanotechnology takes in
worsening existing gaps between the developed and less developed world unless steps are taken now to
avert a repeat of history.
It is far from a foregone conclusion to assume that agricultural nanotechnology will follow the
controversial road taken by genetically modified organisms. However, avoiding such a situation requires
a healthy debate concerning the possible social, economic and political implications in real time.
15
Michael Mehta highlights three lessons for nanotechnology that should be learned from the experience
with biotechnology: (1) to provide legislation on nanotechnology products in such a way that public
participation will not be undermined by science-based assessment; (2) to label products with
nanocomponents in order to gain acceptance with the corresponding empowerment of the consumer; and
(3) to use the precautionary principle in a way that could prevent serious risks without limiting the
possible development of these sciences.
16
One limitation with the above analysis is that nanoproducts are already facing political and
economic pressure, in part responsible for building the nanotechnology revolution; and past experience,
so far, plays too limited a role in this process. And the difficulty presented by efforts to categorize and
regulate nanotechnology frustrates ready-made solutions for the industry to avert the problems
encountered by the biotechnology industry with genetically modified organisms. Take the following two
statements as an example: nanotechnology products face the paradox that they are (1) elementary particles
of known chemical elements; and (2) manipulated in a way that is not natural. As for the first statement,
nanoproducts do not always need to go through drug trials and registration. Regulations seem not to
accompany the speed of technical improvements. A document by the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars is explicit on the contradiction between the reality of nanoparticles and the ambiguity
of the American regulatory standards, and it concludes on the need to reform the Toxic Substance Control
14
M. SCHAPIRO, BLOWBACK IN GENETIC ENGINEERING in ALAN LIGHTMAN, DANIEL SAREWITZ & CHRISTINA
DESSER, LIVING WITH THE GENIE (2003).
15
David H. Guston & Daniel Sarewitz, Real-Time Technology Assessment, 24 TECH. IN SOC’Y 93 (2002).
16
Michael Mehta, From Biotechnology to Nanotechnology: What Can We Learn from Earlier Technologies?, 24
BULL.OF SCI., TECH. & SOC’Y 34 (2004).
6Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal Vol. 2 [2005], No. 3, Article 11
http://pubs.nanolabweb.com/nlb/vol2/iss3/11
Act (“TSCA”).
17
Considering that first statement above, then, nanoproducts are nothing new; rather, they
are part of nature.
The clear implication of the second statement is that nanoproducts are being patented as new
elements which are not found naturally in that state. The following quote exemplifies this paradox: “[i]t
is true that you cannot patent an element in its natural form as found in nature. However, if a purified
form of this element is created with industrial uses—for example, [] neon—the new [forms] have a secure
patent.”
18
The conclusion at first blush is that it seems as if “business as usual” characterizes the current debate
about the implications of nanotechnology and the poor, rather than the old adage that learning from past
experience prevents future mistakes.
The moral of the story is that the choice of a technology is not a neutral process. Choosing a
technology depends on political and economic forces. It is not necessarily true that the technology which
best meets our needs will be the one to survive.
III. WITHOUT A VOICE? THE POOR AND THEIR INCLUSION IN THE DEBATE ON
NANOTECHNOLOGY
Salamanca-Buentello and his colleagues also presuppose that interviewing thirty-eight scientists
from developing countries and twenty-five from developed countries permits them to speak of the
inter ests of the developing countries as if they were, in fact, spokespeople for those within developing
countries. In a prior article,
19
three of the same authors maintained that the position adopted by Prince
Charles
20
(arguing that nanotechnology will widen the gap between rich and poor countries) and by the
ETC Group
21
(requesting a moratorium on public funding for nanotechnology) “ignores the voices of the
people in developing countries.”
22
Surely, Salamanca-Buentello and his colleagues intended to give voice
to the people of developing countries on the issue of nanotechnology by conducting research interviews
with nanotechnology scientists from the developed and developing world. Their genuine concern for
those in the developing world is certainly not doubted here. Unfortunately, the opinion of scientists
involved in nanotechnology does not necessarily fall within the most appropriate of pathways for
satisfying the needs of the poor. The relationship between scientists and sociopolitical pressures are
replete with examples of doubtful practices. In the biomedical arena, for example, we can find cases of
independent determination of standards in biomedical trials compromised or auto-censored by the
influence of pharmaceutical corporations;
23
and there are examples of funds given by pharmaceutical
17
WOODROW WILSON INT’L CTR. FOR SCHOLARS, NANOTECHNOLOGY & REGULATION: A CASE STUDY USING THE
TOXIC SUBSTANCE CONTROL ACT (TSCA), Discussion Paper No. 2003-6 (2003).
18
Lila Feisee, Anything under the Sun Made by Man, Address at Biotechnology Industry Organization (April 11,
2001), available at http://www.bio.org/speeches/speeches/041101.asp (last visited June 27, 2005).
19
E. Court, A.S. Daar, E. Martin, T. Acharya & P.A. Singer, Will Prince Charles et al Diminish the Opportunities
of Developing Countries in Nanotechnology?, NANOTECHWEB.ORG, Jan. 28, 2004, at
http://nanotechweb.org/articles/society/3/1/1/1 (last visited June 4, 2005).
20
See Geoffrey Lean, One Will Not Be Silenced: Charles Rides into Battle to Fight a New Campaign,
INDEPENDENT, July 11, 2004, available at http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=540022
(last visited June 4, 2005) (explaining the position of Prince Charles on nanotechnology).
21
ETC GROUP, THE BIG DOWN (2003), available at http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf (last
visited June 4, 2005).
22
Court et al., supra note 19.
23
Annabel Ferriman, WHO Accused of Stifling Debate about Infant Feeding, 320 BRITISH MED. J. 1362 (2000),
available at
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7246/1362?ijkey=334d739b3ac3456846aa637addf43d5bad31bbf0&
7Invernizzi and Foladori: Nanotechnology and the Developing World
corporations to universities in order to have influence on decisions pertaining to research and
development (“R&D”) and to gain the right for subsequent licenses. Even still, there are examples of
pharmaceutical companies’ bankrolling academic studies that downplay their interests.
24
Some have
made claims of fraudulent or doubtful laboratory trials conducted by some large pharmaceutical
companies.
25
Still others describe the pharmaceutical corporations’ inciting physicians to use
governmental forms fraudulently in order to obtain reimbursements for medicine obtained for free from
pharmaceutical companies.
26
Pharmaceutical corporations have also been accused of putting pressure on
researchers to impede the flow of detrimental information into public forums.
27
And the list can go on
and on. Academic opinions, therefore, can hardly be said to represent completely the voices of the poor.
28
Technology is simply a part of a puzzle. Scholars may concur, for example, that infectious diseases
constitute one of the main problems that the developing world is facing, but they may differ radically on
how a solution to this problem should be attained. Prevention is not the equivalent of a cure.
Nanotechnology is not necessary to reduce malaria radically, for example, as is suggested by Salamanca-
Buentello and colleagues. There is no doubt that nanosensors could help to clean water, nor that
nanocapsules could make drugs more efficient. Nevertheless, in the Hunan Province of China, malaria
was reduced by 99% between 1965 and 1990 as a result of social mobilization backed up by fumigation,
the use of mosquito nets and traditional medicine.
29
Vietnam reduced the number of malaria-related
deaths by 97% between 1992 and 1997 with similar mechanisms.
30
The moral of this story is twofold: (1)
scientists are not always the best spokespeople for the poor, even when they come from poor countries;
and (2) there are many means to an end; and technology is not always the solution. Organizing people—
which some refer to as social technology—can be just as important. In this way, identifying potentially
useful scientific technologies for the developing world must become part of a much larger and inclusive
social technology if gains are to be actualized in poorer countries.
keytype2=tf_ipsecsha (last visited June 7, 2005); see also Richard Woodman, Open Letter Disputes WHO
Hypertension Guidelines, 318 BRITISH MED. J. 893 (1999), available at
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7188/893/b (last visited June 7, 2005).
24
Richard Smith, Medical Journals are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies, 2
PLOS MED. E138 (2005), available at http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-
document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138 (last visited June 7, 2005); J. Montaner, M. O’Shaughnessy & M.
Schechter, Industry-Sponsored Clinical Research: A Double-Edged Sword, 358 LANCET 1893 (2001); Eyal Press &
Jennifer Washburn, The Kept University, 285 ATLANTIC MONTHLY 39 (2000).
25
S. Shah, Globalization of Clinical Research by the Pharmaceutical Industry, 33 INT’L J. OF HEALTH SERVS. 29
(2003); T. Bodenheimer, Uneasy Alliance—Clinical Investigations and the Pharmaceutical Industry, 342 NEW ENG.
J. MED 1539 (2000); CAMPAIGN AGAINST FRAUDULENT MED. RES. (“CAFMR”), THE PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG
RACKET—PART ONE (1995), available at http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/medical/drug1a.html (last visited
June 7, 2005); CAFMR, THE PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG RACKET—PART TWO (1995), available at
http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/research/drug2a.html (last visited June 7, 2005); JOHN BRAITHWAITE,
CORPORATE CRIME IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY (1984).
26
Scott Hensley, Pharmacia Nears Generics Deal on AIDS Drug for Poor Nations, WALL ST. J., Jan. 24, 2003, at
A1.
27
J. Collier & I. Ilheanacho, The Pharmaceutical Industry as an Informant, 360 LANCET 1405 (2002).
28
This argument is not meant to dogmatically equate academicians or scientists with pharmaceutical companies.
Rather, it is meant to expose the deep and entrenched connections between pharmaceutical corporations and
scientific/academic research to illustrate potentially how a new technology or medical application can be
manipulated to prevent poorer nations from mechanically applying a useful technology to a problem which is
identified by scientists/academicians, even if they come from poorer countries.
29
SUKHAN JACKSON, ADRIAN C. SLEIGH & XI-LI LIU, ECONOMICS OF MALARIA CONTROL IN CHINA: COST
PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF HUNAN’S CONSOLIDATION PROGRAMME, WLD. HEALTH ORG. (“WHO”)
SOCIAL, ECON. & BEHAVIORAL RES. REPORT SERIES No. 1 (2002), available at
http://www.who.int/tdr/publications/publications/sebrp1.htm (last visited June 27, 2005).
30
WHO, Vietnam Reduces Malaria Death Toll by 97% within Five Years, 2002, at http://www.who.int/inf-
new/mala1.htm (last visited June 7, 2005).
8Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal Vol. 2 [2005], No. 3, Article 11
http://pubs.nanolabweb.com/nlb/vol2/iss3/11
IV. OPENING THE DEBATE AND PLACING NANOTECHNOLOGY IN ITS SOCIAL
CONTEXT
The history of science and technology is full of examples of technologies that have not always
helped the poor. In order to serve the needs of the poor, technology has to be used in a favorable socio-
economic context. Furthermore, the building characteristics of the technology, and the technological
path, usually impede it from being freely used for the benefit of the masses in developing countries.
31
Despite the optimistic assessments recently offered, experience suggests that nanotechnology could
follow the mainstream economic trends that increase inequality. First, the development of
nanotechnology faces many of the same problems faced by prior technological developments because
large multinational corporations are patenting the majority of the nanotechnology products. Patents are
monopolistic guarantees of earnings for twenty years—something that certainly works against the rapid
diffusion of the beneficial potentials of this technology for the poor.
32
Second, nanotechnology’s novel solutions and potentially laudable achievements may never come to
fruition in developing countries because the main problem for a developing country is not so much the
fixed costs of a laboratory of average sophistication, but the social context that is necessary for really
incorporating nanotechnologies into the economy. Without fluid mechanisms of vertical integration
between the sectors that produce nanoparticles and the companies that are potential buyers, the
nanoparticles will never get out of the laboratory. From many accounts, this seems to be happening,
nowadays, in developed countries. Wildson affirms, based on his conducting interviews of individuals
with English companies that produce nanoparticles, that “nanoparticles are a solution in search of a
problem.”
33
Despite their numerous potential applications, the English producers say that they have a
shortage of clients. This is confirmed by the cover story in a recent edition of Business Week, which,
based on information from Lux Research, tells us that despite a promising future, many companies that
sell nanotechnology products faced financial difficulties in 2004.
34
The linkages between the science and
technology system and the productive sectors are very tenuous in most of the developing countries.
Third, nanotechnology’s development in much of the world will do little to help the developing
world due to the difficulty in finding qualified workers. A country’s ability to foster and support
technological careers requires a social context that supplies the necessary equipment and human capital in
the long term. It will be difficult for many Third World countries to find the staff necessary to work inter-
disciplinarily in nanotechnology. Mexico, for instance, the thirteenth largest exporting power in the
world, only has eleven research teams in three universities and two research centers in nanotechnology,
with a total of ninety researchers and no official support program for field research.
35
Brazil, which
launched a pioneer program for research and development in nanotechnology in Latin America
(considering that it was in the same year as the U.S. initiative—2000) had between fifty and one hundred
31
D. Sarewitz et al., supra note 11.
32
Corporate intellectual property (“IP”) departments, which have increasingly sought to turn patents into major
revenue streams, are stoking the trend. According to data compiled by the National Science Foundation, IBM won
the most nanotech-related patents in 2003. Also among the top ten: computer-memory giant, Micron Technology
Inc. of Boise, Idaho; manufacturer, 3M Corp. of St. Paul, Minnesota; the University of California; and Japan’s
Canon Inc. See Regalado, supra note 13, at A1.
33
James Wildson, The Politics of Small Things: Nanotechnology, Risk, and Uncertainty, 23 IEEE TECH. & SOC’Y
MAGAZINE 16 (2004).
34
Baker & Aston, supra note 3. (“A 2004 study by Lux Research found that many of the 200 global suppliers of
basic nanomaterials failed to deliver what they promised.”).
35
Ineke Malsch & Volker Lieffering, Nanotechnology in Mexico, Nov. 5, 2004, at
http://www.voyle.net/Guest%20Writers/Drs.%20Ineke%20Malsch/Malsch%202004-0001.htm (last visited June 7,
2005).
9Invernizzi and Foladori: Nanotechnology and the Developing World
researchers in 2002 and proably around 300 in 2004.
36
Despite these seemingly impressive numbers in
Brazil, challenging barriers remain which will continue to plague the ability of nanotechnology scientists
in developing countries to produce benefits for the poor. Many nanotechnologists in developing countries
may be enticed by higher wages out of poorer countries and into richer ones. The reason that this
potenti ality must be addressed now is as follows. Some estimate that nanotechnology will mean
restructuring all learning to break down the traditional disciplinary frontiers, which, in practice,
nanotechnology has already overcome. It is possible that changes in study plans would have to take place
starting at primary education.
37
This means that multi-sector efforts are gambled on these changes, and
elevated social demands are required. In many instances, poorer nations lack the resources, infrastructure
and facilities for such interdisciplinary efforts as nanotechnology—particularly, where transformations
must take place at so fundamental a level. Given the higher stakes and more interdisciplinary nature of
nanotechnology, therefore, it is possible that the race for qualified scientists will heat up and increase the
brain drain from the Third World into more advanced countries. This polarization of the labor market
will punish poorer countries with less qualified labor. It is unlikely that the vast majority of developing
countries will have the wherewithal, infrastructure and labor force to be able to join the nanotechnology
wave and capitalize on its potentials to transform society and industry.
Finally, even if large developing countries that could join the nanotechnology wave (such as China,
India and Brazil, for example) can produce nanoproducts that could eventually result in clean and cheap
energy options, in clean drinking water or in greater agricultural yields, this does not mean that the poor
majority will benefit. For them socio-economic structure is a much more difficult barrier than
technological innovation. Nanotechnology, even where fully integrated in developing countries, does
nothing to change these socio-economic structures; instead, it could serve to exacerbate existing gaps and
further the technological and socio-economic isolation of the poor.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Nanotechnology is still in its early stages, but the later we choose to address its social and economic
implications, the less chance there will be for the technology to help the poor before nanotechnology
begins to put down roots within the mainstream hegemonic socioeconomic structure, characterized by
worldwide inequality.
36
Laura Knapp, Brasil Ganha Centro de Pesquisa de Nanotecnologia, O ESTADO DE S. PAULO em linea, Jan.
20,2002, at http://busca.estadao.com.br/ciencia/noticias/2002/jan/20/138.htm (last visited June 7, 2005).
37
C.L. Alpert, Introducing Nanotechnology to Public and School Audiences, NANOSCIENCE & TECH. INST., at
http://www.nsti.org/Nanotech2004/showabstract.html?absno=581 (last visited June 7, 2005) (“The NSF envisions a
revolution in science education from elementary school through the post-graduate level; a systemic change that
recognizes the convergence of research in physics, chemistry, biology, materials science, and engineering. . .”).
10 Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal Vol. 2 [2005], No. 3, Article 11
http://pubs.nanolabweb.com/nlb/vol2/iss3/11
