Water Purification with Nanotechnology

[The following text is an example or "case" that can serve as a starting point for reflection and discussion. Some examples may be based on real events, while others are fictional representations.]

Let us imagine that a group of researchers has developed a prototype of a technology designed to purify water. This technology consists of a filter containing tiny nanoparticles that prevent bacteria, viruses, heavy metals, and organic material from passing through with the water. The researchers in this group are deeply committed to global justice and have been working on water filtration ever since they learned that the lack of clean water is one of humanity’s greatest challenges today. In many parts of the world, people die because they drink contaminated water. Now, they are eager to bring the technology to market so it can start saving lives!

The research group needs approval from their country's authorities to begin production of the technology for commercialization. The water filter requires approval from both health and environmental agencies. The authorities determine that a scientific risk assessment must be conducted. The purpose of this is to establish whether the water filter has any negative consequences that would make large-scale use irresponsible. Among other things, it must be examined whether nanoparticles could pass through the filter along with the water and end up in the digestive system or in nature, potentially being toxic to humans, animals, or other organisms.

The research group is required to conduct the necessary experiments themselves and submit documentation proving the technology is safe along with their application for commercial production of the water filter. One of the experiments involves feeding mice with water that has passed through the filter. Since they are eager to bring the technology to market, the researchers decide that it is sufficient to observe the mice for four weeks after the feeding experiment, which is the minimum requirement set by the authorities. The mice are eventually euthanized, and a mandatory set of analyses is performed on their major organs. The experiments show no signs that the filtered water has any negative effects on the mice. None of the other experiments yield negative results either, and the researchers happily submit their application for approval.

However, the day after, when the researchers are cleaning the laboratory after the experiments, they discover that some of the now euthanized and dissected mice appear to have had unexplained rashes around their snouts. This leads to an intense discussion within the group. One of the researchers, Petra, believes that they have fulfilled the requirements set by the authorities and have thus provided sufficient documentation to prove that the technology is safe. She argues that the symptoms are probably unrelated to the water filter and points out that if they report this now, they will be required to conduct further experiments, which could delay the technology’s market release for many years. Meanwhile, thousands of people will die from contaminated water.

Bob strongly disagrees. He believes it is irresponsible to initiate large-scale production of a new technology when so little is known about its consequences. He acknowledges that the symptoms may not be linked to nanoparticles from the water filter but has always thought that four weeks is far too short to determine whether the technology is truly safe. "Perhaps any negative effects only appear in the next generation, or maybe the filter is harmless to mice but toxic to gerbils," he exclaims.

Sivert points out that one can never be completely certain about anything, and with Bob’s mindset, the world would come to a halt. Some risks must be taken. In this case, he argues, the fact that the water filter could save human lives should be the overriding concern.

What should be concluded in this debate?

Note: This is a translation of the Norwegian original text by Johanne Svanes Oskarsen.