This column is about management of technological risk. Most value the outcome of successful technical developments. But sometimes their success brings unintended failure. Human history is replete with unintended consequences. Today, modification of matter at the atomic scale (nanotechnolo-gy, done in a controlled environment) offers new opportunities we value and consequences we don't imagine. If everything on our planet is organizations of atoms, why wouldn’t modification at the atomic scale offer potential for profound change — both favorableand not so? It would!

PRAY READ “PREY”
Read Michael Crichton's 2002 novel “Prey.” It's about unexpected consequences of a managed development (nan-otechnology), but so also is (are):
• The Trojan horse in ancient war
• Use of fire in forest management
• The ban on DDT and disease control in Africa
• Atomic fission/fusion and energy management
• Inert chlorofluorocarbons and the ozone layer, and
• Theconflict in Iraq

A TIME FOR SCIENCE
In November 2006, this column covered the atomic force microscope — the “eyes” of nanotechnology — and in January 2007 covered superhydrophobicity — avalued characteristic of surfaces and an outcome produced by nanotechnology.

A TIME FOR HUMANITY
The followers of Ned Ludd opposed development of modern (in the 1800s) textile weaving machines because they feared for their jobs. A Luddite is one opposed to technological change — whether for personal, financial, or politicalreasons.

And they were right. Many did lose their jobs. Some were punished by law. Some were injured by the new machines. And also, some got new jobs.

A TIME FOR QUESTIONS
Can scientific change be managed to minimize the potential for unintended consequences?Can it? Should we? Who should do it? How should it be done?

The stakeholders dependent upon the answers to those and other questions are all of us. To characterize us in terms of our interests, there are at least four stakeholders (to use simple broad-based characterizations): industrialists, environmentalists, regulators, and citizens.

A TIME FOR AN AGREEMENT
On February 26, some of the first three released a draft agreement, and asked for comments. Du Pont, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the U. S. EPA published a draft version of their framework for risk management. The partnership had started discussions in October 2005.
Basically, the framework is an iterative, six-step process that companies canfollow before bringing a nano-material to market. The steps are, in order:

•Describe the application and the material
• Develop a life cycle profile for it
• Evaluate the risks associated with that profile
• Assess how to manage those risks
• Decide to effect that management, document it, and act
• Review the outcome(s) and learn The framework recognizes that some developmental information is proprietary,but deserves limited scrutiny.