Nanotechnology Grab Bag

Among recent news items at Nanotechnology Now, these three caught my eye:

Nanotech's Rights and Wrongs

An Australian academic has been chosen as editor-in-chief of a new scholarly magazine devoted to the ethics of nanotechnology. Professor John Weckert is a professorial fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Charles Sturt University, where he runs a program called "IT and Nanotechnology: Ethics of Emergent Technology."

Weckert defines nanotechnology as "the manipulation of atoms and molecules to make materials and devices," and says it is expected to have a profound influence on areas including health, security, privacy, work and the environment. The new journal will be called Nanoethics: Ethics for technologies that converge at the nanoscale.

The 'Scientific Citizen' and Nanotech: Chasing an unrealistic ideal?

History, Nietzsche said, has a tendency to repeat itself. And he was right. The debate about public understanding and public acceptance of nanotechnology is just another example. Academics in the natural and social sciences struggle to figure out how to get the public more involved in scientific decision-making and how to make them more informed about nanotechnology. And often they tend to forget the lessons we learned from similar issues in the past, such as the debates surrounding genetically modified organisms and stem cell research. . .

In short, we can't make the public think like scientists, as much as proponents of literacy models like to think that we can. People rely on heuristics (in addition to information) to help them make decisions about issues such as nanotech. And they have to, at least to some degree, since they lack the scientific expertise or the time to develop a comprehensive understanding of every scientific issue that hits the policy arena.

The Safety Bandwagon?

It's an early stage, but are we detecting signs of a nano safety bandwagon?

A variety of people were in Washington last week, some calling for "10% of federal nano spending to go toward safety studies." This seems like an unworkable idea to us, and is a classic case of putting the cart in front of the horse. . .

Government funded research will only tell us whether a material presents a hazard. Whether it also presents a risk depends entirely on the application. There is a huge difference between the application of the same material as a polymer additive and a cosmetic when it comes to presenting a risk of interaction with the human body.

That last one is from our friends at TNT Log, with whom we often seem to disagree. In this case, I'd say they are mostly wrong, but partly right.

They are correct in saying that government funded research into materials safety is only a partial answer at best. We agree that the politician's favorite game -- throwing tax money at problems -- frequently is not the best solution. However, to say that it is too early or that 10% of federal nano spending is too much would be wrong on both counts.

The most alarming aspect of this argument is that it completely misses the point. Far more serious than nanoparticle safety issues are the dangers of molecular manufacturing. Until these concerns are carefully studied, and effective, responsible solutions are implemented, we will not be safe. That will take a lot of money and a lot of time. Unfortunately, we're running short on both.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Jules]

Hello! I have a blog on nano too...