Nanotech was the talk of the town in Washington again today as the US Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on "Developments in Nanotechnology." Among the witnesses was Dr. J. Clarence Davies, senior advisor, the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"We have a unique opportunity to 'get it right' this time," Davies told the committee, "and, by doing so, reduce risks to human health and the environment, ensure public confidence in nanotechnologies, and realize the full potential of this new technology."

Yesterday, Altairnano CEO and president Alan J. Gotcher spoke before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, outlining nanotech's benefits and calling for more funding.

Meanwhile, Altairnano's collaboration with universities to develop arrays capable of detecting illegal drugs caught the eye of fellow nanotech blogger Christine Peterson at the Foresight Institute, who wondered how eager the students would be to pursue that line of research.

She raised the issue in a talk at the University of Minnesota last year, and this week the Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy there released a report entitled, The Nanotechnology-Biology Interface: Exploring Models for Oversight.

The report raises important concerns about the potential side effects of nanotech efforts to "improve human senses, memory, strength and appearance; delay or stop aging; and even control emotion and personality traits."

The competing agendas and conflicting perspectives surfacing this week across the country remind us that nanotechnology isn't by itself good or bad, but will be a powerful reflection of our multidimensional human nature.

One thing is clear though. The era of calling for more discussion about nanotech, especially its social and environmental effects, is passing and we are entering the era of full-blown discussion. Let's hope it leads to the right balance between economic development and social and environmental quality.