• Google
    This Blog Web

October 2011

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          

RSS Feed

Bookmark and Share

Email Feed



  • Powered by FeedBlitz

« Code of Ethics | Main | C-R-Newsletter #31 »

June 09, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451db8a69e200d8345ef0bc69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Problem with Prey:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alan B. Shalleck

The way our industry can shift off "prey" is to take the toxocology and risk effects out of the hands of the regulators and the public by creating an industry financed "NanoTech Council of Risk Assessment" made up of recognized independent "authorities. " This "Council of Peers" should be empowered by the entire industry to create product standards, tests, and performance and safety criteria for the entire industry.

If we aggressively take a stand and provide an open and auditable procedure ourselves, we can gain the credibility and the confidence of the public in what we will inevitably create and develop.

If we create this Council now for "mods of products", the procedures will be in place and accepted when we get to the "self assembling designer molecules" of the next few years. We have to be pro-active.

I've said this at many meetings and I don't see anything happening. I hear words from the NanoAlliance people but not from the top executives of nanocompanies. These line guys are the necessary ones. If the public sees line executives placing their careers and bonus's on the line for societal concerns, we will take a major step in building public approval of nanotechnology and preventing unwanted, unjustified and restrictive regulation.

The comments to this entry are closed.