Nanowater
by Gregor Wolbring

August 30, 2006

More than 1 billion people in the world lack access to clean water, and 2.6 billion to sanitation, according to a recent United Nations Development Program report (see also). Halving the number of people without access to water and sanitation is on the list of Millennium Development Goals.

Nanotechnology can be involved with water in numerous ways, including desalination, detoxification, sanitation, decreased use of water, hydrogen usage, and hydro-generated power, to name a few.

Many documents, such as the Determinants of Health by the Canadian Population Health Initiative, the Public Health Agency of Canada Determinants of Health, the different declarations of the international conferences on health promotion and the Declaration of Alma-Ata International Conference on Primary Health Care, (Alma-Ata, USSR, 1978) state that access to clean water and sanitation is an essential determinant of health.

NBIC (nano, bio, info, cogno) technologies -- especially nanofilter, nanocapsules, nanotubes and other nanowater technologies for water treatment and remediation -- have many promising applications (see links below).

Water recently made it to third place in a ranking of the top 10 nanotechnology applications for development.

The Choice is Yours

It appears that a lot of research is now being done into nanowater and filters -- as was previously the case with biofilters. But is that enough? Technology alone will not solve the problem of accessibility, and all stakeholders should have a place at the table.

A few questions have to be asked.

Are existing filters less useful than nano-based filters in general, or for a particular application like desalination? Do they cost more? How successful are nano-based filters in reaching people in need? The Human Development Report states that 1.2 billion people have gained access to clean water in the past decade (see also).

Why do we still have more than one billion people without water? Will they be reached by nano-based technologies, or will nano just replace bio and other technologies we have in use already? Many water purification systems exist that have been developed without the "nano" label.

How do we choose the best paths to solve a particular problem? How do we choose between different technologies? We have very few assessment tools, and those we do have compare different technologies -- not costs and benefits, efficiency, or the utility of a technological solution compared with a social intervention (one of my future columns will deal with technological versus social solutions).

If we shift into the political arena, what role do nanowater technologies play in the public debate around ownership of water, and debates in the World Water Forums? How will they be affected by the current debate on nanoparticle safety?

Last but not least, do the technologies used to generate clean water and sanitation take into account every group of society? With regard to disabled people, the question has to be answered with a 'No'. Disabled people - from both the North and the South - have rarely been involved in the discourse around clean water and sanitation. It is rare that initiators and organizers of stakeholder meetings think of disabled people as stakeholders. It is rare that disabled people are identified as a group affected by a particular issue related to water.

A recent report on water written by 25 UN agencies ignored the different needs disabled people have with respect to water and sanitation. Their problems are often different from those of non-disabled people. Clean water and sanitation is inadequate, if delivery does not take into account the different modes of functioning of disabled people (see links below on access to water for disabled people).

It is insufficient to highlight technological advances, and reference applications that increase public acceptance of the technology. These problems are much too serious to fall prey to sales pitches. Technology -- whether high-tech or low-tech -- is of utter importance in achieving clean water and sanitation for all. But a technology is only as good as society allows it to be, and as good as the input that is considered in defining the problem. Political, policy and technological discourse at the United Nations, or at the government, industry NGO or CSO level, will gain a lot from broadening the discourse.

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website.

©Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2006. Reprinted with permission.