Bio- and nanomaterials are already changing diagnosis and treatment, but their mass deployment is hindered by safety issues and cost. In a discussion among scientists from Slovakia and Norway, concrete benefits and limits were highlighted, from contrast agents in MRI to vaccines and point‑of‑care diagnostic devices. Cooperation with the University of Bergen promises progress in simulations, NMR, and the development of magnetic nanoparticles for medicine.
Where nanomaterials are already helping
Nanomaterials are already found in practice: lipids protect mRNA in vaccines and improve its transport, gold nanoparticles enable rapid paper tests, and in radiology they increase contrast, especially in MRI. Magnetic hyperthermia is also under development, in which a tumor is locally heated with magnetic nanoparticles in order to spare healthy tissues. The goal of drug delivery is to hit the tumor and minimize “off‑target” effects, but a fully specific target is mostly lacking in practice.
Despite the successes, this is still only a small share of medicines. The reasons are the complexity of the materials and fundamental safety requirements. Experience from laboratories shows that what works in a model does not always behave the same way in the body, and optimizing size, shape, or surface charge is both expensive and time‑consuming.
Safety, regulations, and reliable testing
A key question is long‑term effects and biocompatibility: nanoparticles penetrate cells, can affect organelles and molecules, trigger inflammation, oxidative stress, or damage DNA. The effect also depends on dose and behavior in the environment; at high concentrations, particles aggregate and their interaction with tissue changes. We need to know how they accumulate, degrade, and what metabolic pathways they have in the organism and in the environment.
The European Union is tightly regulated, which slows approvals but increases safety; the USA and China are moving faster in deployment. The discussion emphasized the need for reliable methods and biological models, because nanomaterials can interfere with standard tests and skew results. Therefore, reagent‑free approaches, such as electrical impedance measurements, are gaining ground, along with combinations with computer modeling, with manufacturers, scientists, regulators, and the public needing to cooperate.
Future and personalization: from idea to practice
The potential for personalized medicine is evident especially with superficial tumors, where nanoparticles help better mark lesions and deliver treatment more precisely. In models of reconstructed oral mucosa, for example, higher uptake of nanoparticles by tumor tissue than by healthy tissue was observed, with behavior also depending on concentration and aggregation. Individually “tailored” particles for each patient are, however, economically and technologically unrealistic today.
New techniques bring hope, such as quantum biosensing with nanodiamonds for early biomarker detection in point‑of‑care devices. The problem for now is expensive, poorly scalable manufacturing, so work is underway to improve the growth of thin diamond films and production reliability; strong groups are, for example, in Australia and Japan. Alongside funding, the ecological footprint and unknown impacts of nanoparticles in the environment remain a challenge, which will shape research in the coming years.
