RE: NanoFrontiers - A Newsletter - RECOMMENDED IN PART

NanoFrontiers Newsletter should not be confused with the NanoFrontiers report published earlier this year by Woodrow Wilson/PEW and written by Karen Schmidt (reviewed elsewhere).

These newsletters are distinct from the podcasts which are also available at the Woodrow Wilson/PEW site (http://www.nanotechproject.com) which will be reviewed later.

The Newsletter is written by Mark Bello, a science fellow from Commerce who is temporary associated with Woodrow Wilson/PEW and while I have some complaints, there are relatively minor and do not indict the project or the issues.

There are two published issues to date: Nanotechnology and Low-Income Nations (Summer 2007) see www.nanotechproject.org/134 and On the Horizons of Medicine and Health Care (Issue 1, May 2007) see www.nanotechproject.org/114.

For some reason, these were not easy to open from the Woodrow Wilson/PEW site and the download frozen a few times.

The layout of the publication is strong with colorful graphics and endnotes in the left margin. In terms of the Low-Income Nations, my review has more to do with the willingness to take issue with some of the arguments and reported potentials. This complaint is hardly unique to this publication. The discussion improving health and access to care was superficial. While the data on India's Mission on Nano Science is interesting the focus of the discussion needed to be on getting developments to low-income nations. In addition, there is the never ending problem of finding a true nano-application, such as the Indian HIV and the TB diagnostic kits. At other times we read statements like "four U.S, universities are teaming up to develop micro-arrays"(p. 7) (Who are they? Where does the promotional rhetoric end and the effectiveness data begin?). Finally, the section on water hardly did justice to this issue.

On the Horizons of Medicine and Healthcare is replete with "could" and "should" claims which undercuts the validity of the claims being made. This problems haunts reviewers of nanotechnology. The sources out there are often promotional and journalists become talking head for the industry.

The entire issue of personalized medicine might sound good but the economics of the pharmaceutical industry is based on consumption of products that are ineffective. Much of the time, the drugs you take will not work for you and your physician is forced to try another compound or another mix of drugs until you can benefit on any level. Every time you use a drug that does not work, you fund the industry. Personalized treatments will be incredibly expensive to produce and may not be sufficiently profitable for the industry. This is a major issue.

I did find the Medicine issue better than the Low-Income Nations issue and believe this is a interesting project. TO BE FAIR AND OBJECTIVE, I have begun writing a series called THE CITIZENS GUIDE TO NANOTECHNOLOGY. While these guides are less glitzy, my goal was to provide a readable review of nanoscience and nanotechnology for the general public written in a registry that is common in publication like USA Today. I wrote for Knight-Ridden and am accustomed to this format. To date, we have three in internal circulation: COSMETICS, FOOD (covering food products), and NATURE (covering food production).
They will be posted on web sites at South Carolina and North Carolina State in the new month.

These Woodrow Wilson/PEW newsletters make no claims to cover the breadth of these issues. Indeed, on the cover page of each newsletter, we get "Issues will provide a sampling of recent developments..."and I can appreciate how difficult that can be. The grounds for sampling needs to be re-examined.

PLEASE CONTINUE these newsletters. They will be wonderful additions to the public clearinghouse on nanotechnology if anyone gets one of them up (which is grist for another complaint).