NanoHype: Nanotechnology Implications and Interactions

TAKING THE SUMMER OFF

2010-06-21T10:35:00.001-05:00

I have been busy traveling with my new LLC (Center for Emerging Technologies). Got a few contracts and we are doing well as a consultancy. Still working on our NIRT which is due to lapse in 2011. Most recently we submitted articles for Nanotechnology Law and Business and another to Nanotoxicology (out of UK). The first article will appear in the Summer issue and examines (critically) the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies consumer product inventory. The second is the first data from the Delphi we completed under the NIRT. My students and I are working on six more articles and we expect at least two from each of our NIRT subawards - Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Carolina. I submitted a NUE proposal for the next two years and am pending. I am also on a U19 NIH grant proposal that is pending and a P48 NIH Superfund grant as well.

While I have been approached to write another book on Nanotechnology, I haven't pull the trigger on that. I am also attempting to rewrite a piece I wrote for Nature Nanotechnology but the reviewer were all over the map with recommendations (some of which were totally off base) and given the length restrictions attempting to accommodate this recommendations is nearly impossible. So, beyond the six articles and the work on my new book on FEAR I am a bit overwhelmed.

I will be at the 4S (social science of science) Conference in Tokyo in August. I will be speaking at the Nano-dialogue meeting at the Free University of Amsterdam in September and have two papers for a NCA ARST (rhetoric of science and tech) meeting in San Francisco in November and a SRA(risk) meeting in Salt Lake in December. In addition, I am teaching a CRD 893 class in Social Media in the fall and CRD 790 Issues in Communication, Rhetoric, and Digital Media and COM 562 Communication and Social Change in the spring. Pending grant may affect some of this.

We did manage a hire to work with PCOST (Public Communication of Science and Technology). Dr. Andrew Binder from U Wisconsin will join us as an assistant professor in communication and will be associate director of PCOST. I expect a small team of doctoral and masters students to work with me as well.

So.... we will take a few months off and re-examine the state of this blog. I would like to broaden the subject field. Let me know what you think.

PROBLEM WITH NANO TATA

2010-03-31T07:47:00.003-05:00

An embarrassing moment for Nano Tata. The article appeared in multiple outlets though I found it on DISGRASIAN.com.

We are examining how this event is being amplified in the net-media especially social media.

The incident happened by a man from Mumbai who escaped the explosion. The explosion was linked to a faulty electric switch. The V that appears over the plate is composed a flowers, a celebratory wreath that went up in flames as well.

To date, there is little evidence this event is being amplified in the discourse over nanotechnology in print or in netnews.

FRENCH PROTESTS AND THE NOTORIOUS 7 PERCENT

2010-01-21T12:05:00.007-05:00

Recently, the French government decided on a series of engagement exercises (4 months in 7 cities). For more information go to their Special Commission for the Public Debate on Nanotechnology (it is in French). We are trying to translate as much as it as we can.

The first event was held in Lyons. AAAS Science Insider posted a review of the event. My graduate students were transfixed by the protests at the Lyon event. There is a video of the event on Dailymotion.

For years I have been speaking about the 7-10 percent solution. It is not only a parochial novel about Sherlock Holmes and his cocaine addiction, it designates the percentage of the population that seriously consider science and technology policy when they engage in civic behavior, including voting. We are working on this data set and expect to entertain more scholarship on this soon. Our working hypothesis is the public engagement is fine for many reasons, however to influence public sentiment we need to engage selectively.

More to come. Sorry for my absence but I have been working on two NIH grant submissions and digging out from under a lot of data we produced from our NIRT on intuitive toxicology.

Nanotechnology Risk Symposium

2010-01-19T12:26:00.000-05:00

I will be speaking tonight at a Nanotechnology Risk Symposium hosted by the Research Triangle Chapter of the Society for Risk Analysis. The event will be streamed live at this address. Use the following login information:

Username: sra
Password: sra011910

Speakers will start at 6:30pm est. Additional information can be found at www.rtc-sra.org.

UPDATED BIB ON NANO-PERCEPTION

2009-10-21T11:48:00.001-05:00

Here's sources for the above.

Bibliography of research on public perceptions of nanotechnology

Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4(6), 561-570. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022805516652

Besley, J. C., Kramer, V. L., & Priest, S. H. (2008). Expert opinion on nanotechnology: Risks, benefits, and regulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(4), 549-558. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-007-9323-6

BMRB Social Research. Nanotechnology: Views of the general public, quantitative and qualitative research carried out as part of the nanotechnology study. BMRB International Report 45101666 (2004). http://www.nanotec.org.uk/Market%20Research.pdf. Accessed June 30, 2008.

Burri, R. V., & Belluci, S. (2008). Public perception of nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 10(3), 387-391. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-007-9286-7

Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 221-239. DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281473

Cobb, M. D. & Hamlett, P. (2008, June). The first national citizens’ technology forum on converging technologies and human enhancement: Adapting the Danish consensus conference in the USA. Paper presented at the 10th Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology, Malmo, Sweden.

Cobb, M. D. & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology. Risks, benefits, & trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-004-3394-4

Cook, A. J., & Fairweather, J. R. (2007). Intentions of New Zealanders to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology, British Food Journal, 109(9), 675-688. DOI: 10.1108/00070700710780670

Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J., & Turner, S. (2006). What drives public acceptance of nanotechnology? Nature Nanotechnology, 1, 153-155. DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2006.155

Einsidel, E. In the public eye: the early landscape of nanotechnology among
Canadian and US publics. Azonano 1, 1–10 (2005).

European Commission. (2001). Europeans, Science and Technology. Eurobarometer Special Survey 154, organized and supervised by DG Press and Communication, Brussels.

European Commission. (2005). Europeans, Science and Technology. Eurobarometer Special Survey 224, organized and supervised by DG Press and Communication, Brussels.

Fujita, Y., Yokoyama, H. & Abe, S. Perception of nanotechnology among the
general public in Japan—of the NRI Nanotechnology and Society Survey Project.
Asia Pac. Nano. Wkly 4, 1–2 (2006).

Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. A., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2004). Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials, 3, 496. DOI: 10.1038/nmat1181

Gaskell, G., Eyck, T. T., Jackson, J., & Veltri, G. (2005). Imagining nanotechnology: Cultural support for technological innovation in Europe and the United States, Public Understanding of Science, 14(1), 81-90. DOI: 10.1177/0963662505048949.

Kahan, D., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. http://www.nanotechproject.org/108/survey-finds-emotional-reactions-to-nanotechnology. Accessed March 7, 2007.

Kahan, D. M., Slovic P., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Cohen, G., & Kysar, D. (2008). Biased assimilation, polarization, and cultural credibility: An experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Research Brief No. 3.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. The Future of
Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: An Experimental Investigation of Two
Hypotheses (SSRN eLibrary, 2008); available at ,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089230.

Kuzma, J., Romanchek, J., & Kokotovich, A. (2008). Upstream oversight assessment for agrifood nanotechnology: A case studies approach. Risk Analysis, 28(4) 1081-1098. DOI: 10.111/j.1539-6924.2008.01071.x

Lee, C. J., & Scheufele, D. A. (2006). The influence of knowledge and deference toward scientific authority: A media effects model for public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(4), 819-834.

Lee, C. J., Scheufele, D. A., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies – Examining interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240-267. DOI: 10.1177/1075547005281474

Macoubrie, J. (2006). Nanotechnology: Public concerns, reasoning, and trust in government. Public Understanding of Science, 15(2), 221-241. DOI: 10.1177/0963662506056993.

Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D., & Ulph, F. (2007). Risks and benefits of nanotechnology:
How young adults perceive possible advances in nanomedicine compared with conventional treatments. Health Risk & Society, 9(2), 159-171. DOI: 10.1080/13698570701306856

Peter D. Hart Research Associates (2008). Awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Technologies. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Nanotechnologies/final-synbioreport.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2009.

Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2006). Public awareness of nano grows – majority remain unaware. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Project on Emerging Technologies. http://nanotechproject.org/78/public-awareness-of-nano-grows-but-majority-unaware. Accessed October 3, 2006.

Peter D. Hart Research Associates. (2007). Awareness of and attitude toward nanotechnology and federal regulatory agencies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/138/9252007-poll-reveals-public-awareness-of-nanotech-stuck-at-low-level. Accessed October 10, 2007.

Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K. & Rogers-Hayden, T. Deliberating the
risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States
and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotech. 4, 95–98 (2009).

Satterfield, T., Kandlikar, M., Beaudrie, C. E-H, Conti, J., Harthorn, B. H., Anticipating the perceived risk of nanotechnologies. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 1-7. doi:10.1038/nnano.2009.265

Sheetz, T., Vidal, J., Pearson, T. D. & Lozano, K. Nanotechnology: awareness and societal concerns. Technol. Soc. 27, 329–345 (2005).

Scheufele, D. A. (2006). Messages and heuristics: How audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In J. Turney (Ed.), Engaging science: Thoughts, deeds, analysis and action (pp. 20-25). London: The Wellcome Trust.

Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Dunwoody, S., Shih, T.-J., Hillback, E., & Guston, D. H. (2007). Scientists worry about some risks more than the public. Nature Nanotechnology, 2, 732-734. DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2007.392

Scheufele, D. A, & Lewenstein, B. V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7, 659-667. DOI: 10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2

Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-j., Dalrymple, K. E. & Ho, S. S. Religious
beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United
States. Nature Nanotech. 4, 91–94 (2008).

Schutz, H., & Wiedeman, P. M. (2008). Framing effects on risk perception of nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 369-379. DOI: 10.1177/0963662506071282

Siegrist, M., Cousin, M. E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49(2), 459-466.

Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople’s and experts’ perception of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27(1), 59-69. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00859.x.

PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF NANO - A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

2009-10-20T14:17:00.003-05:00

SO I am reviewing all the public perception data on nanotechnology. I had to reread all the studies and select data portions that I will next examine for a 4S presentation at the end of the month. I will post an updated bibliography later.

APPLICATIONS AND PURCHASING BEHAVIOR

Currall, King, Lane, Madera & Turner, 2007
This study examined involving a nationwide web survey in the USA to collect data from 4,542 likely consumers. “Nanotechnology involves human-designed materials or machines at extremely small sizes (atomic or molecular level) that have unique chemical, physical, electrical, or other properties”. This definition was followed by descriptions where they manipulated the level (high or low) of the health or environmental risks and benefits of the four-nanotechnology applications. Respondents were then asked how likely they would be to use such applications on a scale that ran from 1 (extremely unlikely to use) to 7 (extremely likely). To validate the web study, we also conducted telephone interviews with a national random sample of 501 adults. Our results showed that for both the web and telephone samples, respondents did not consider the risks or benefits of nanotechnology independently. Rather, in a pattern that held true for both health- and environment-related applications, the effect of benefits on the use of nanotechnology applications was more pronounced when risks were lower than when risks were high. Thus, our findings showed that public perceptions of nanotechnology are not as simple as previously assumed — risks and benefits are both enmeshed in a complex decision-making calculus. For instance, when the benefits are low, consumers are more concerned about risks than when benefits are high. Although the difference between the responses for high benefit/low risk and low benefit/high risk may seem modest, it is substantial for a survey of this nature. Similarly, the fact that the most positive response (that for high benefit/low risk) is still slightly below the mid-point of the 1–7 scale is not surprising because many respondents had not been exposed to nanotechnology products before the survey.

Siegrist, Cousin, Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007.
They examined how lay people (N = 153) perceive nanotechnology foods and nanotechnology food packaging, and we examined the factors that influence willingness to buy these products. Participants received some general information about nanotechnology, and specific information about four nanotechnology applications. Overall, participants were hesitant to buy nanotechnology foods or food with nanotechnology packaging. Results suggest, however, that nanotechnology packaging is perceived as being more beneficial than nanotechnology foods. Results further suggest that social trust in the food industry is an important factor directly influencing the affect evoked by these new products.

Cook & Fairweather, 2007.
This study examined intentions of New Zealander to purchase lamb or beef made using nanotechnology. This was a national postal survey (N=565). Most had a positive attitude and intention to purchase (76.6%) and were the type of person who would purchase (self-identity) (49.2%). Most considered they had the support of people whose views are important to them (subjective norm) and few felt an impediment to purchasing (perceived behavioural control). Attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control and self-identity explained a good deal of intention (R2 = 0.64). There was also a strong link between a sum of beliefs about the risks and benefits of the new product and attitude (r = 0.79).

Hart, 2007
In the 2007 survey, adults were asked a series of questions to ascertain their opinions on nanotechnology use in the specific application of food and food-related products. A solid majority (61%) feel that the food supply has become less safe in recent years, with 22% feeling that it has become much less safe in the past five years. One in three adults (29%) feels that the food supply has become safer and 6% feel that it is unchanged in the past five years. If the public is to use food storage products or foods that have been enhanced with nanotechnology, it wants more information about the health risks and benefits associated with nanotechnology in these products. Thirteen percent (13%) of adults say that they would not use food storage products enhanced with nanotechnology and 73% would need more information about nanotechnology used in food storage products before they would use them. Similarly, one in three adults (29%) would not purchase food enhanced with nanotechnology and another 62% need more information to do so. Adults who initially are more aware of nanotechnology are considerably more likely to report that they would use both food storage products and foods enhanced with nanotechnology. Adults who have heard a lot about nanotechnology are nearly three times more likely than adults who have heard nothing, to say that they would use food storage products enhanced with nanotechnology (31% compared with 11%), and are two and a half times more likely to use foods enhanced with nanotechnology (15% compared with 6%).

PUBLIC PREFERENCES AND PERCEPTIONS

Eurobarometer 55.2, 2001
The opinion poll involved over 16,000 people throughout Europe and was carried out in the fifteen Member States of the EU between 10 May and 15 June 2001. They found m any Europeans feel that they grasp topical issues such as "mad cow disease" (76.6%) or the greenhouse effect (72.9%), while some technologies remain very obscure to the public (this is true of nanotechnologies, for instance). Genetically modified food and the Internet come in second place (59.3% and 58.0% respectively), while, finally, three types of technique are less frequently understood: medicines developed from genetic engineering (43.5%), fuel cells (32.7%), and – in clear last place - nanotechnologies (13.8%).

Bainbridge, 2002
Data from October 2001 involved 3909 respondents to an Internet survey questionnaire provide the first insights into public perceptions of nanotechnology. The respondents mentally connect nanotechnology with the space program, nuclear power, and cloning research, but rate it more favorably. In contrast, they do not associate nanotechnology with pseudoscience, despite its imaginative exploitation by science fiction writers.

In response to the first statement asserting that ‘human beings will benefit greatly from nanotechnology,’ fully 57.5% of the 3909 respondents agreed. In contrast, only 9.0% agreed with Bill Joy’s assertion that nanotechnology is ‘threatening to make humans an endangered species.’

Clearly, people who are in favor of nanotechnology also tend to support the space program, nuclear power, and research on cloning. Although opposition to nanotechnology is rare, it correlates with opposition to the three other technologies.

The chief finding of this initial, exploratory study is that science-attentive members of the general public are very enthusiastic about nanotechnology, and a rather large number of ideas about its benefits have already entered popular culture. Over the coming years, social scientists in a variety of fields should employ a diversity of research methods and analytical theories to chart and understand the growing significance of nanotechnology for modern civilization.

Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004
This study used a national random-digit dialed survey data set (N=1536) in spring 2004. More than 80% of survey respondents indicated that they had heard ‘‘little’’ or ‘‘nothing’’ about nanotechnology. For the entire sample, a sizeable percentage (38%) thought risks and benefits would be about equal, and slightly more (40%) predicted that nanotechnology would produce more benefits than risks, while only half that many (22%) said risks would outweigh the benefits. Half (50%) of the high knowledge respondents predicted greater benefits while just 34% of the low knowledge respondents make the same forecast.

Like knowledge, a simple but powerful relationship exists between respondents’ view of science and their predictions of benefits versus risks of nanotechnology. Apparently, respondents to
some degree use their views of science in general as a ‘‘heuristic’’ to construct their perceptions of risks and benefits of nanotechnology. About the same percentages of respondents who expect balanced benefits and risks, or largely benefits, believe science equally solves and creates problems (41%) and largely overcomes problems (47%). Respondents who perceive that science largely creates problems (11%) also predict that risks will be greater.

Unlike answers about benefits, there was no consensus as to which risk is perceived to be the most important one to avoid. The plurality opinion is that ‘‘losing personal privacy’’ is the most important to avoid (31.9%). Although the scenario of self-replicating nano-organisms (‘‘grey goo’’) was identified by the smallest percentage of respondents as the most important risk to avoid, another way to view this result is to be surprised that as many as 12% picked it as the highest risk even though many highly respected scientists consider it an improbable outcome.

Very few Americans report being angry about nanotechnology, and a solid minority reports feeling worried. Indeed, about four out of every five respondents claim not to be worried at all. Conversely, about 70% said they are very or somewhat hopeful about nanotechnology.

Less knowledge about nanotechnology is associated with far less hopefulness than more knowledge. Almost 27% of low knowledge respondents reported not feeling hopeful about nanotechnology, but just half that percentage (13%) of high knowledge respondents said they feel that way. Conversely, while just 27% of low knowledge respondents claim to be very hopeful, 44% of high knowledge respondents say the same thing.

A majority of Americans reports low trust in business leaders within the nanotechnology industry to protect them from potential risks. Slightly more than 60% of respondents said they had ‘‘not much trust’’ in business leaders’ ability or willingness to minimize risks to humans. Although a sizeable percentage claimed to have ‘‘some’’ or ‘‘a lot’’ of trust (40%), fewer than 5% of the sample said they had ‘‘a lot’’ of trust. The amount of trust respondents have is not significantly related to knowledge about nanotechnology, but it is strongly associated with perceptions of specific potential risks and benefits. Less trust also results in more respondents claiming that risks will outweigh benefits.

According to the data in, Prey has a counter-intuitive effect on perceptions of risks versus benefits. A whopping 63% predicted that benefits of nanotechnology would exceed the risk if they were exposed to Prey, compared to just 38% is they weren’t exposed to it.3 Likewise, just
13% thought risks would surpass the benefits if they were exposed to Prey, while 23% said this if they weren’t. Even though the descriptive data made it appear that Prey did not influence trust, the regression analysis indicates that exposure to the novel significantly correlates with less trust. Those exposed to Prey are less trusting of business leaders.

BMRB Social Research, 2004
Questions were placed on BMRB’s face-to-face omnibus survey from 8-14th January 2004. The questions were asked of a representative sample of 1005 adults aged 15 or over in Great Britain. All interviews were conducted in-home.

The omnibus survey results showed that three in ten respondents said they had heard of nanotechnology (29%). Awareness was higher among men (40%) than women (19%). Awareness was slightly lower for older respondents, falling from around a third for those aged under 55, to a fifth (20%) of those aged 65 or over. There was also a clear pattern by social grade, with awareness peaking at 42% for ABs (upper socio-economic classification) and falling to 16% of Des (lowest socio-economic classification).

When asked what they thought nanotechnology was in the omnibus survey, a third said they did not know – often saying that they had “just heard of it”, but didn’t know what it was. This reduces the proportion who had heard of nanotechnology, and were able to give some definition (however accurate) to one in five (19%). This accentuates the difference by gender – women were more likely than men to say they did not know what nanotechnology was meaning that, in total, 30% of men and only 10% of women had some idea of what nanotechnology might be.
The youngest and oldest respondents were most likely to say they did not know what nanotechnology was. This means that those aged 35-54 were most likely to be able to give some definition of nanotechnology (around a quarter).

The most common definitions of nanotechnology centered on miniaturization, or technology on a very small scale. In total 46% of those who had heard of nanotechnology gave an answer in this vein (14% of all respondents). Another frequent approach to defining nanotechnology relied on a particular application such as computing, electronics, or medicine. This type of answer was given by 30% of those who had heard of nanotechnology (9% of all respondents). The majority (two thirds) felt that nanotechnology would make things better in the future, with very few saying it would make things worse. Consistent with the tendency to define nanotechnology by its applications, 13% said it would depend on what it was used for.

Cobb, 2005
This survey of public attitudes about nanotechnology was a random digit-
dialed survey of adults eighteen years or older in the continental United States between late March and early April of 2004 (N = 1,536). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of ten experimental conditions: an oversampled control group (N = 330) or one of nine unique framing conditions about the risks or benefits of nanotechnology (N = 134, each). Respondents in all conditions, even the control group, heard a brief, objective description about nanotechnology. Next, respondents in each of the nine framing conditions heard a distinct way of framing nanotechnology. In six of the experimental conditions, respondents listened to one-sided frames. Three of the one-sided frames were “pro” and three were “anti” nanotechnology. The remaining three conditions are two-sided frames that pit each of the preceding “pro” frames against their equivalent antinanotechnology frames. Substantive questions about nanotechnology were then asked immediately following the frames.

One-sided frames are consistently effective, but only when they identify specific risks or benefits about nanotechnology. Neither frame that promoted a particular version of the merits of science alone—conservative humanism or cornucopian—was influential. All four additional one-sided frames, however, created different perceptions about the balance between risks and benefits. Both frames including health risks and multiple kinds of risks about nanotechnology increased the percentages believing that risks will exceed or be equal to benefits. Similarly, both cornucopian frames that included specific benefits about nanotechnology resulted in more people expecting the benefits to surpass the risks. Interestingly, risk frames never resulted in a plurality of respondents believing that the risks of nanotechnology would be more likely than its benefits. Instead, respondents in the risk frames conditions were simply more skeptical about potential benefits. Conversely, framing nanotechnology as beneficial resulted in an actual majority of respondents in the health benefits condition saying that benefits would prevail, and a solid plurality in the multiple benefits condition saying the same thing. As expected, opinion change was less likely to occur when respondents were in one of the two-sided framing conditions. Respondents’ perceptions about nanotechnology were significantly different in just one of these three two-sided framing conditions. In this one case, perceptions of risks unexpectedly increased when respondents heard both the conservative humanist and cornucopian frames. This appears to be a statistical anomaly because neither of these particular frames was associated with significant opinion change when they were one sided. Overall, then, the general pattern of results for two-sided frames is consistent with the claim that framing effects tend to occur because respondents are exposed to just one side of a debate.

Special Eurobarometer 224, 2005
Over 32,000 interviews were conducted face-to-face in people’s homes in their national language in early 2005. The countries surveyed include the twenty-five Member States. Nanotechnologies receives by far the lowest rate of interest among the suggested items, with a mere 8% mentioning interest in developments of this field. As for “Genetics” we can note that the higher the education level, the more interest is perceived as well. This is also the case for “Nanotechnologies” where the highly educated show clearly more interest than those with a lower level of education. Finally, we can say that ‘nanotechnologies’, although remaining at the lowest rate among all the proposed items, has seen its score more than double since 2001 (from 4% to 9%), and is perhaps slowly becoming a wider theme of interest for Europeans.

Gaskell, Ten Eyck, Jackson & Veltri, 2005
The article drew from the Eurobarometer survey. Fieldwork was conducted in September and October 2002 (N=15,000). The US survey is a random probability telephone survey with fieldwork conducted between December 2002 and February 2003 (N=850). This survey also examined media coverage. While interesting, it is not relevant to this research project.

Asked whether nanotechnology will improve our way of life, 50 percent of the US sample said “yes” and 35 percent say “don’t know.” The European figures are almost the mirror image, 29 percent saying “yes” and 53 percent saying “don’t know.” People in the US are also more optimistic than Europeans about eight more familiar technologies. Overall, while more Europeans are likely to suspend judgment about nanotechnology and opt for a “wait and see” position, people in the US are more likely to take an optimistic stance on this, as yet, unknown technology.

Einsiedel, 2005
Interviews were conducted by telephone during a three-week period in January 2005. Fieldwork was carried out by a commercial research firm. A sample size of 1200 randomly selected adults was used in the US and a random sample of 2000 was used in Canada.

Awareness of NT was gauged on three dimensions: whether respondents were familiar with, had been exposed to, and had discussed the technology. US respondents were more likely to indicate familiarity, with a significant minority – four in ten – saying they were somewhat or very familiar. Among Canadians, about a third had the same view. About four in ten in both countries said they had had exposure from reading, seeing or hearing something about the subject. Only a quarter in both countries said they had discussed the subject with anyone.

Given the limited awareness and familiarity, there are indications that publics in both countries are giving the technology the benefit of the doubt, with at least half suggesting they see moderate risks but substantial benefits. The cautiousness Canadians have for this technology is reflected in their judgment about its moral acceptability, with almost the same numbers saying they find NT morally acceptable as those maintaining it was morally questionable. Canadians are less optimistic than Americans about the economic benefits they project for this technology, with close to six in ten expecting modest or no significant benefits. Only about half of U.S. respondents share this view. As for expectations of major benefits, four in ten U.S. respondents (42%) and slightly over a third of Canadians (36%) expected “major benefits” to flow from this technology. The remainder of the study examined confidence in oversight and trust in regulators.

Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005
In the fall of 2004, we conducted a representative national telephone survey with a sample size of N=706. The cooperation rate (based on standard definitions developed by the American Association for Public Opinion Research) was 43% (AAPOR definition CR-1).

Fifety-five (sic) percentage of all respondents who indicated that they were aware of the issue of nanotechnology expressed overall support for nanotech, compared to only 28% of the unaware group. This is compared to 52% support and 48% opposition in the total sample. Similarly, 49% of the aware respondents supported more increased financial support for nanotech research, compared to 22% of the unaware group. In the total sample, the breakdown was 42% in favor of increased funding and 58% opposed to increased funding. About 35% of frequent readers of science news in newspapers for example, indicated that the benefits of nanotechnology outweighed the risks. Among respondents who do not read science news frequently, only 25% thought that the benefits outweighed the risks.

Their findings confirm previous research that suggests that people form opinions and attitudes even in the absence of relevant scientific or policy-related information. In fact, our data show that cognitive shortcuts or heuristics – often provided by mass media – are currently a key factor in influencing how the public thinks about nanotechnology and about its risks and benefits, and in determining the level of support among the public for further funding for research in this area.

Sheetz, Vidal, Pearson & Lozano, 2005
A multiple-choice questionnaire was distributed to 978 students and staff (over
18 years old and not related to science and engineering fields) within the University of Texas Pan American (UTPA). The results were grouped into three categories: (1) those who had never heard of nanotechnology; (2) those who had heard of nanotechnology but did not know what it was or could not define it correctly; and (3) those who knew about nanotechnology. The percentage of respondents who knew what nanotechnology was 17%. The percentage of people who had at least heard about nanotechnology was 45%. When respondents were asked if they would like to know more about nanotechnology,
76% said ‘yes’. Even in a community with only 17% awareness, there was interest in the science. Respondents were asked about possible nanotechnology application(s) they might support. People are more inclined to support health issues: 79% supported better ways to diagnose and cure diseases; 59% support cheap and renewable sources of energy; 37% would like to see the development of super-tiny electronics.

They uncovered findings associated with sources of information and trust. The dominant source of information was the mass media, such as television, movies, and magazines (61%) and that ‘scientists and engineers can be trusted to make decisions in the best interest of the general public (80%).

Lee, Scheufele & Lewenstein, 2005.
This study utilized a national survey data set collected in fall 2004. It found, only science media use had a direct influence on general support for nanotechnology and the effects of formal education on general support for nanotechnology were largely mediated by science media use. The effect of level of religiosity was mediated by affective variables, such as trust in scientists and negative emotion toward nanotechnology. With respect to the main effects of cognitive and affective factors, we found significant positive links between knowledge about science in general and trust in scientists and general support for nanotechnology. Negative emotion toward nanotechnology was negatively related to general support for nanotechnology, even after all other controls were entered in the model (see Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004). With regard to the explanatory power of trust, however, trust in scientists seems to be a better predictor of general support for nanotechnology than science knowledge in our models. Knowledge about nanotechnology and negative emotion toward nanotechnology had a significant interaction effect on general support for nanotechnology as the criterion variable. In line with previous research on public perceptions of risk about emerging technologies, females showed a higher level of risk perceptions
Similar to the OLS model for general support for nanotechnology, the influences of religiosity were largely mediated by other affective variables in the model. Also, consistent with previous research, science media use had a negative and robust effect on perception of risks versus benefits. Knowledge about science in general and trust in scientists showed a negative relationship with risks-versus-benefits perceptions, whereas negative emotion was positively related. However, the relationships for affective variables were particularly interesting: (1) individuals who showed higher levels of trust in scientists were likely to perceive more benefits than risks, and (2) individuals who showed higher levels of negative emotion toward nanotechnology were likely to perceive more risks than benefits. While there was a main effect between negative emotion toward nanotechnology and perception of risks versus benefits of nanotechnology, the interaction between negative emotion toward nanotechnology and knowledge about nanotechnology was also significant. This suggests that knowledge about nanotechnology had a significantly stronger effect on risks-versus-benefits perceptions if individuals also had low levels of negative emotion toward nanotechnology

Macoubrie, 2006
Participants (N = 152) self-assigned themselves randomly to the experimental conditions, without knowledge of doing so, by choosing group meeting times that fit their schedule. A professional firm conducted recruitment in the selected sites of St. Paul MN, San Diego CA, and Raleigh-Durham NC. A comparison shows that as in the national survey sample (N = 1536 (Cobb and Macoubrie, 2004)), 95 percent of the present study’s participants had heard almost nothing or a little about nanotechnology. As well, less than 1 percent of the study participants had read Prey or Swarm (science fiction novels featuring nanotechnology predators that might lead to a negative view of nanotechnology), again as with the national sample.

These results may be useful in risk communication about nanotechnology. At this emergent phase of nanotechnology development, creating better ways to predict those risks and protect against them might go far in restoring public trust of government and the US medical industry. “Selling” nanotechnology without knowledge of long-term risks does not seem likely to counter concerns grounded in past experience, and does seem likely to repeat the error of the genetically modified foods industry, pressing ahead while ignoring public concerns. The majority of respondents in this study were at once concerned about known areas of risk, still clearly interested in the benefits (to be explicated separately and discussed in detail elsewhere), excited about the potential of nanotechnology, but concerned about its employment and other social effects, concerned that over-regulation could negate the potential, and concerned that if other countries are developing nanotechnology, the United States should not fall behind. They scorned “trivial” applications (such as cosmetics and wrinkle-free fabrics), and wished to encourage important applications such as in water quality, medical uses to reduce human suffering, and applications that would alleviate distress in developing countries. Yet it seems unlikely that either “education” or image campaigns can easily mitigate a strong lack of trust, linked in the public mind to decades of past failures to consider downstream risks.

Scheufele, Corley, Dunwoody, Shih, Hillback & Guston, 2006
The first data source was a general population telephone survey of 1,015 US adults; the second data source was a mail survey of 363 nanotechnology scientists and engineers. The fieldwork was conducted from May to July 2007 for the public opinion survey, and from May to June 2007 for the scientist survey.

A comparison between two recent national surveys among nanoscientists and the general public in the US shows that, in general, nanoscientists are more optimistic than the public about the potential benefits of nanotechnology. However, for some issues related to the environmental and long-term health impacts of nanotechnology, nanoscientists were significantly more concerned than the public.

The relatively low levels of attention that health and environmental risks of nanotechnology have received in mass media, therefore, provide industry and university scientists working in this area with a unique opportunity to take a leadership role in engaging the public in a meaningful dialogue about nanotechnology. In fact our research shows that industry and university scientists are among the handful of groups the public trusts the most for information about nanotechnology — much more than governmental bodies, regulatory agencies and news media. Nanotechnology may, therefore, be one of the first emerging technologies where academia and business have the ability to reach out directly to a public who trusts the information they provide. Ironically, nanotechnology may also be the first emerging technology for which scientists may have to explain to that public why they should be more rather than less concerned about some potential risks.

Fujita, 2006
This survey undertaken in late 2004 involved 1011 in the Tokyo area. The population was well educated but not technological professionals. 44% indicated an interest in science and technology and 50% perceived nanotechnology would improve their lives. 55.2% claimed they had heard about nanotechnology frequently or from time to time. 85.6% hoped nanotechnology would contribute to the developments in medicine and health care, 30% felt it would have a positive impact on the Japanese economy, and 80.4% hopes it would help alleviate environmental problems. 71% claimed they learned about nanotechnology on TV news and programs and 58% from newspapers. In general, 88% saw positive benefits while 54.5% indicated some concerns. Among them 60% were concerned about safety, 79% were concerned about unexpected outcomes, and 49% were concerned about morality.

Lee & Scheufele, 2006
Using national telephone survey during fall 2004 data (N=706 w a 40% cooperation rate), we examine the pathways between different types of media use and attitudes toward nanotechnology, particularly potential mediating roles of nanotechnology knowledge and deference toward scientific authority. People relying on newspapers and the Internet for science information report higher levels of nanotechnology knowledge, while respondents using science TV showed higher levels of deference toward scientific authority.

We found that Web science use was indirectly related to public attitudes toward nanotechnology through knowledge about nanotechnology. However, the direct relationship between Web science use and attitudes toward nanotechnology was not statistically significant, indicating complete mediation.

We found that television science use is associated with public attitudes toward nanotechnology through deference toward scientific authority, whereas the influences of newspaper science use are at least partly mediated by nanotechnology knowledge. It should be noted that despite the concern over sensational journalistic practices, newspaper science use positively affects people's science knowledge. In contrast, television science use was not significantly linked to nanotechnology knowledge. At this point, mass media coverage of nanotechnology is minimal, and, therefore, people seem to rely upon alternative media (i.e., the Internet), through which they can actively search for additional and in-depth information regarding nanotechnology.

Priest, 2006
A January 2005 telephone survey of 1200 people in the U.S. and 2000 Canadians provides a snapshot of current North American opinion regarding nanotechnology at this crucial early point in its emergence from the laboratory to the arena of public discourse and public understanding.

Unsurprisingly, familiarity remains low, with 57% of those in the U.S. and 64% of Canadians indicating they are ‘‘not at all familiar’’ or ‘‘not very familiar’’ with nanotechnology.

Data from the 2005 U.S.–Canada telephone survey on which the analysis being reported here is based indicate 46% of respondents in the U.S. and 39% in Canada think nanotechnology ‘‘will improve our quality of life in the next twenty years,’’ 13% in each country think it will ‘‘have no effect,’’ and 6% in the U.S. and 5% in Canada think it will ‘‘make things worse.’’ Fully 35% of those in the U.S. and 43% of Canadians do not know or declined to answer. However, of those who reported they were ‘‘very’’ or ‘‘somewhat’’ familiar with nanotechnology – about 38% of the respondents for both countries combined, higher than the 29% reported in the earlier UK Royal Society study who had ‘‘heard of’’ nanotech – 64% answered that it ‘‘will improve our quality of life.’’ Among the 6% who say they are ‘‘very’’ familiar, this rises to 76%.

Of 600 people in the U.S. who were asked whether or not ‘‘nanotechnology research has been considerate of my interests, values and beliefs,’’ 49% said ‘‘yes’’ and 38% said ‘‘no.’’ Of 1000 people in Canada asked the same question, 48% said ‘‘yes’’ and 43% said ‘‘no.’’ Among ‘‘true believers’’ in both countries combined, 70% said ‘‘yes’’ and only 21% said ‘‘no.’’ At the other extreme, among ‘‘ethical populists’’ only 25% said ‘‘yes’’ but 66% said ‘‘no.’’ Overall, only 50% of respondents in the two countries combined answered ‘‘yes’’ to this question, with a clear pattern of variation among the ‘‘publics’’.

Hart, 2006
The study surveyed a general population (N = 1-14) early fall 2006 and major component of the survey involved data collection on familiarity and approval ratings for government agencies.

Public awareness of nanotechnology is increasing, as the proportion of Americans who say they have heard a lot or some about nanotechnology has nearly doubled from 16% in 2004 to 30% today. One in ten Americans say that they have heard a lot about nanotechnology, and 20% say they have heard some. However, fully 69% recall hearing just a little or nothing about nanotechnology. Indeed, a large segment of the public, 42%, has heard nothing at all about nanotechnology.

When asked for their unaided evaluation of the trade-offs between the risks and benefits of nanotechnology, more than one-third (35%) of the public believes that the risks will outweigh benefits, 15% think the benefits will outweigh risks, and 7% say that the risks and benefits will be about equal. However, a large segment of the public has no initial impression of nanotechnology, with 43% indicating they are not sure.

Individuals who have heard more about nanotechnology are more likely to think that the benefits will outweigh the risks. As familiarity with nanotechnology decreases, concern about risks increasingly takes priority over the potential benefits. Of those who have heard a lot about nanotechnology, 46% feel that benefits will outweigh risks and 37% feel risks will outweigh benefits. Of those who have heard some about nanotechnology, 32% feel that benefits will outweigh risks and 42% believe risks will outweigh benefits. For those who have heard just a little, 13% feel that benefits will outweigh risks and 52% feel risks will outweigh benefits. For those who have heard nothing at all about nanotechnology, only one-quarter (26%) are willing to make a judgment about the trade-offs between risks and benefits—2% feel benefits will outweigh risks, 20% believe risks will outweigh benefits, 4% believe risks and benefits will be equal, and a large majority (73%) are not sure.

Hart, 2007
This study surveys a general population (N=1014) early fall 2007 and major component of the survey involved data collection on familiarity and approval ratings for government agencies.

Three-quarters (76%) of adults who heard nothing at all about nanotechnology reported they were not sure about the risks-versus-benefits tradeoff and another 17% in this group reported that risks and benefits will be about equal. Only 7% of adults who are completely unaware of nanotechnology assess whether the risks would outweigh benefits or vice versa

A majority of the public is too uncertain about nanotechnology to make any judgment about its risks and benefits. Without having been provided any information about nanotechnology, respondents were asked to assess the trade-offs between the risks and benefits of nanotechnology.

About half (51%) of adults had no opinion either way, indicating that they are not sure about the risks-versus-benefits tradeoff. Another 25% report that they think the risks and benefits will be about equal, 18% say that benefits will outweigh risks, and 6% say risks will outweigh benefits. In comparing these results with the 2006 poll, there is a slight increase in the proportion of adults who think that benefits will outweigh risks, increasing from 15% in 2006 to 18% today. The proportion of adults who say that risks will outweigh benefits remains about the same, with 7% saying the risks will outweigh the benefits in 2006 and 6% saying that today.

A strong relationship exists between awareness of nanotechnology and the opinion that benefits will outweigh risks. More than half (51%) of adults who have heard a lot about nanotechnology believe that the benefits will outweigh the risks, as compared with 42% of those who have heard some, 17% of those who heard just a little, and 3% of those who heard nothing at all. Not surprisingly, as awareness decreases, so does willingness to make a judgment at all about the risks-versus-benefits tradeoff of nanotechnology.

COMPARING 2007 RESULTS TO 2006 RESULTS

The proportion of adults who have heard a lot or some about nanotechnology actually decreased slightly in the past year, from 30% in 2006 to 27% today. Only 6% say they have heard a lot about nanotechnology, one in five (21%) has heard some, 29% have heard just a little, and two in five (42%) adults have heard nothing at all about it. Men, especially those under age 50, as well as individuals with more education and higher incomes are more likely to have heard at least something about nanotechnology. In fact, 39% of adults with a college education and 40% of those with household incomes exceeding $75,000 report hearing some or a lot about nanotechnology. These relatively high levels of awareness among those with more education and higher incomes are very similar to the 2006 poll findings. Those who have heard anything at all about the technology were asked specifically where they heard about it. The most frequently cited sources include: news programs and the newspaper; television, with the Discovery Channel and science channels frequently referenced; magazines, journals, and scientific publications; the Internet; and friends or family.

EXPERIMENT

Adults were read the following information about nanotechnology, and then asked again to decide whether the benefits of nanotechnology will outweigh the risks, the risks will outweigh the benefits, or the risks and benefits will be about equal. Upon being read this information, 30% of adults report that the benefits will outweigh the risks, a 12-point increase from their initial impression, 22% say the risks will outweigh the benefits, a 16-point increase, and 37% say the risks and benefits will be about equal, a 12-point increase. One in 10 (11%) remains unsure.

Burri & Bellucci, 2007
The Swiss focus groups on nanotechnology took place in September 2006. They had the form of a so-called publifocus, which is an instrument developed by the Swiss Centre for Technology Assessment (TASwiss) to facilitate public discussion of emerging technologies. The Swiss focus groups on nanotechnology showed that citizens today, at least in the Swiss context, are neither reluctant toward nanotechnology nor highly enthusiastic facing the potential environmental and health risks the emerging technologies might imply.
Nevertheless, citizens hope for economic payoffs through the creation of jobs in the nano industry, and are optimistic in regard to the benefits nanotechnology might bring to innovations in medical treatment, environmental activities, and daily life in the future.

Nerlich, Clarke & Ulph, 2007
This study involved responding to a hypothetical health treatment scenario and a Likert scale preference method with classroom setting samples of undergraduate students (N=434) in late 2005 and early 2006 in England. Overall then, the young people in this study seemed less excited, and less bothered, by the advent of nanotechnology — at least in this field of application — than we thought they might be. There was, however, a gender difference, not so much in relation to the forms of treatment, nano versus traditional, but in the overall excitement for novel treatment demonstrated by male participants rather than female participants. This tallies with research into gender differences in public attitudes to science and technology in general and nanotechnology in particular.

Siegrist, Keller, Kastenhol, Frey & Wiek, 2007
Inexpert (N = 375) and expert (N = 46) perceptions of twenty (20) different nanotechnology applications and three non-nanotechnology applications were examined via survey under taken in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Participants were asked to rank hazards from asbestos to skiing using ten five-point scales using modified Sandman’s dichotomies (add source) including voluntariness, control, trust, etc.

Analyses of aggregated data suggested that perceived dreadfulness of applications and trust in governmental agencies are important factors in determining perceived risks. Similar results were observed for experts and laypeople, but the latter perceived greater risks than the former.
Analyses of individual data showed that trust, perceived benefits, and general attitudes toward technology influenced the perceived risk of laypeople. In the expert sample, confidence in governmental agencies was an important predictor of risks associated with nanotechnology applications. Results suggest that public concerns about nanotechnology would diminish if measures were taken to enhance laypeople’s trust in governmental agencies.

Even though we observed substantial mean differences for the various applications, the ratings were highly correlated. In other words, some people assess all nanotechnology applications positively, whereas others assess nanotechnology in a generally negative way. Therefore, we could examine the question of why different persons perceive nanotechnology differently.
Experts and laypeople differ in their perception of risks associated with nanotechnology hazards. The public perceives higher levels of risk than experts, and experts have more trust in governmental agencies to protect people’s health from nanotechnology risks than the public does.

Kahan, Slovic, Braman, Gastl & Cohen, 2007
This study involves a panel of on-line survey respondents assembled by Knowledge Networks (N=1850) in late 2006. A full 81% of our subjects reported having heard either “nothing at all” (53%) or “just a little” (28%) about nanotechnology prior to being surveyed. Only 5% reported having heard “a lot.” Nevertheless, we also found that after being supplied with a minimal and nonjudgmental description of what nanotechnology is, the vast majority of
Americans are willing to offer an opinion about its relative risks and benefits.
Eighty-nine percent had a position one way or the other. Interestingly, although divided, Americans, on the whole, seem relatively pro-nanotechnology.
A majority, 53%, indicated that they believed nanotechnology’s benefits would either “slightly” or “strongly” outweigh its risks. Thirty-six percent indicated that they believed that nanotechnology’s risks would either “slightly” or “strongly” outweigh its benefits. There is clearly a white male effect in assessment of nanotechnology risks. Men and whites were significantly more disposed to see benefits as outweighing risks than were women and African-Americans, respectively. White males were the most disposed to see benefits as outweighing risks. The most striking differences were based on subjects’ levels of (reported) knowledge. “Low knowledge” subjects—those who indicated they had heard either “nothing at all” or “just a little”—were considerably more disposed to see risks as outweighing benefits than were either “moderate knowledge” or “high knowledge” subjects, whose respective positive views of nanotechnology benefits did not differ significantly. Interestingly, they discovered information doesn’t mater. The respective mean evaluations of nanotechnology risks of the information treatment group and the no-information group were statistically insignificant. The overall percentages of subjects in the information group who took the position either that benefits would outweigh risks or that risks would outweigh benefits were quite comparable to those in the no-information condition. By far the largest influence on affect was prior knowledge. The more subjects reported having heard about nanotechnology before being surveyed, the more positive their affective appraisal of it. Accordingly, if learning about nanotechnology does dispose persons to a more positive view, one might well have expected a sample so dominated by persons without substantial prior knowledge to shift toward a more positive view upon exposure to information. One might suppose that as members of the public learn more about nanotechnology their assessments of its risk and benefits should converge.
Their results suggest that exactly the opposite is likely to happen. Individuals who hold values that predispose them to credit claims of environmental risk generally tend to become alarmed, whereas those who hold values that predispose them to dismiss claims of environmental risk generally tend to be become reassured, as they are exposed to balanced information about nanotechnology’s risks and benefits.

Hart, 2008
In late summer 2008, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., conducted a nationwide survey among 1,003 adults about awareness of and attitudes toward both nanotechnology and synthetic biology. Two focus groups were also conducted in Baltimore. The large majority of Americans have little or no awareness of nanotechnology: less than one in four (24%) adults have heard some or a lot about it, including just 7% who have heard a lot, while three in four adults have heard just a little or nothing about it. Nearly half (49%) of adults say that they have heard nothing at all about it. This represents a slight decline in awareness since last year
(27% said they had heard a lot or some in 2007) and the year before (30% said they had heard a lot or some in 2006). There is a positive association between awareness of nanotechnology and the belief that the benefits of nanotechnology will outweigh the risks.

When those who express at least a minimal awareness of nanotechnology are asked where they heard about it, television is the top-tier source. They also mention the Internet, magazines and journals, and news programs and newspapers. Interestingly, adults with the highest level of awareness are most likely to cite magazines and journals as their information sources, while less-informed individuals are most likely to say that they heard about nanotechnology via television.

Nearly half of adults are too unsure about nanotechnology to make an initial assessment on the tradeoffs between risks and benefits. Of those who are willing to make a judgment, by three to one they think that benefits will outweigh risks (20%) as opposed to thinking risks will outweigh benefits (7%). The plurality, however, believe that risks and benefits will be about equal (25%). When asked to weigh the risks and benefits of nanotechnology in the absence of any definition or information about it, 48% of adults simply do not express an opinion. One in four believes that the risks and benefits will be about equal, 20% think that the benefits will outweigh the risks, and just 6% believe that the risks will outweigh the benefits. A comparison of the public’s initial, unaided impression of nanotechnology over the past three years reveals a slight trend toward a more positive assessment. In 2006, 15% of adults said that the benefits will outweigh the risks, and that proportion increased to 18% last year. There has been no shift in the proportion of adults who believe risks will outweigh benefits.

There is a strong association between awareness of nanotechnology and respondents’ initial impression that the benefits will outweigh the risks. Those who have heard more about nanotechnology are more likely to think that the benefits will outweigh the risks. Nearly half (49%) of those who have heard a lot about nanotechnology believe that the benefits will outweigh the risks, and the proportion who have this opinion decreases to 41% among those who have heard some about nanotechnology, 24% among those who have heard just a little, and just 8% among those who have not heard anything at all about it. (Men, college graduates, and higher-income individuals report the highest levels of awareness of nanotechnology, and they are the groups most likely to think that benefits will outweigh risks.) A lack of awareness does not translate into greater skepticism of nanotechnology though. Rather, two-thirds (65%) of adults who have not heard anything about the technology do not make a judgment on the risk benefit tradeoff.

Smiley Smith, Hosgood, Michelson & Stowe, 2008
A national random digit dialing telephone survey (N = 1014) was conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., in the United States to assess knowledge of nanotechnology and perception of risk in August 2006. In the study population, 44.3% of men and 55.7% of women reported knowing just a little or nothing at all about nanotechnology. Men were 2.3 (95% CI: 1.72, 3.01) times
more likely than women to have heard a lot or some about nanotechnology. Age was also an interesting component, with younger respondents being significantly more likely to have heard a lot or some about nanotechnology.

This study is the first to our knowledge to develop a significant model of nanotechnology risk perception change. In particular, those who shifted to a perception that benefits outweighed risks were likely to be male, more highly educated, and Republican. Alternatively, those who shifted to a perception that risks outweighed benefits were likely to be female, less highly educated, and affiliated with the Democratic Party

Kahan, Slovic, Braman, Gastil, Cohen & Kysar, 2008
The study involved a sample of approximately 1,600 American adults and was conducted over a period of several weeks between June and August 2007. The subjects were drawn from a nationally representative panel recruited by Knowledge Networks and participated in experiments using Knowledge Network’s on-line testing facilities. The study occurred in two stages. The first stage (N-800) evaluated how exposure to balanced arguments unattributed to identifiable advocates would influence subjects’ perceptions of nanotechnology risks and benefits. The second (N=800) evaluated how exposure to the same arguments would influence participants’ perceptions when the arguments were attributed to advocates recognized as holding one or another set of cultural values. The information presented to the samples involved a no-argument and argument categories. No-argument condition involved a brief description of nanotechnology. The argument condition involved two subsets with one advocating suspension of development pending further health and safety research and another defending continued development also with further research. The second stage sample had argument randomly assigned to advocates from different cultural worldviews. The results revealed that cultural polarization interacts strongly with the relationship between subjects’ cultural worldviews and the perceived worldviews of those advocating one position or another on nanotechnology. While interesting, the findings are not relevant to this analysis.

As in the previous study, we found that the vast majority of the subjects (92%) had heard “little” or “nothing” about nanotechnology before the study. Overall, subjects exposed to argumentative information did not form risk perceptions significantly different from those of individuals not exposed to such arguments. However, as in the previous study, we found that various groups exposed to information became polarized relative to groups not exposed to information. They observed polarization along race, a fear of environmental risks in general, and prior knowledge about nanotechnology. “High-knowledge” subjects (those who claimed they knew either a “moderate amount” or “a lot” about nanotechnology before the study) had less concern about risk than did “low-knowledge” subjects (those who claimed than that they knew “nothing” or “only a little”) in both conditions. But the size of the differential was significantly larger in the argument condition.

Hamlett & Cobb, 2008
Citizen Technology Forums (CTF) in six cities in the United States throughout March 2008 (N=74). Citizens became informed about human enhancement technologies and they generated written reports about their concerns and recommendations regarding the development trajectory of these technologies.

All six sites, for example, expressed significant concern about (1) how to effectively regulate these new technologies and (2) they strongly endorsed programs intended to keep the public informed about human enhancement technology developments, including more deliberative panels and enhanced high school and K-12 education. On the issue of regulation, some sites advocated creating a new regulatory agency charged with managing these technologies, while others supported strengthening the Federal Drug Administration.

Pre-deliberation, for example, 82% of panelists were at least somewhat certain the benefits of enhancing human capabilities would exceed the risks; post-deliberation, however, the percentage was reduced to 66%. Likewise, deliberations increased emotional worry about affording enhancements. Before deliberation 63% were at least somewhat worried that the average family would not be able to afford enhancements; after deliberation, that percentage increased to 76%. Similarly, before deliberating, 48% of participants were at least somewhat worried that their own family would not be able to afford enhancements; after deliberating, that percentage jumped to 60%.

Kahan, Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen, 2008
This is the second of Kahan’s cultural worldviews studies and confirmed earlier findings. The sample consisted of 1,850 subjects demographically weighted to reflect national representativeness and the data was collected in late 2006. . The subjects were administered an on-line survey-experiment that consisted of approximately 50 questions.

Within the no-information treatment, we found a correlation between familiarity with nanotechnology and perceptions of its risks and benefits. The vast majority of these subjects—over 80%—had heard either “a little” or “nothing at all” about nanotechnology before the study. Among the relatively small group of subjects familiar with nanotechnology—the ones who said they had previously heard either “some” or “a lot” about it—81% said they believed that the risks would outweigh the benefits, and only 17% that the benefits would out-weigh the risks. Among the much larger group who were relatively unfamiliar—those who said they had heard either “little” or “nothing” about nanotechnology—47% said that the benefits would outweigh the risks, and 40% that the risks would outweigh the benefits (Table 1).

Our results show that exposure to even a small amount of balanced in-formation about nanotechnology can result in polarization of this sort. Because individuals in the real world are much more likely to select information in a biased fashion that matches their cultural and political dispositions, one might anticipate even more extreme polarization outside the lab. Nanotechnology, on this view, could go the route of nuclear power and other controversial technologies, becoming a focal point of culturally infused political conflict.

Pigeon, Harthorn, Bryabt & Rogers-Hayden, 2008
This research involved four parallel workshops during 2007 in the USA and UK involving 12-15 people in each. One of the workshops in each country focused on energy and the other on human health and enhancement. It was supplement by a series of science cafes. They concluded benefit rather than risk continued to frame nanotech risk perception, applications means more than theory, and finally nanotechnologies so far do not appear to elicit beliefs about physical risk as such; rather, they stimulate discussion of social conditions.

Consistent with academic analysis of public discourses about new technology, and other qualitative studies of nanotechnologies in both countries, the issue of trust, and the potential activities of institutions such as government, regulatory agencies and corporations were discussed as a source of risk.

Scheufele, Corley, Shih, Dalrymple & Ho, 2009
The U.S. survey data was collected between 15 February and ended on 27 June
2007, using a dual frame method of national random digit dial and listed household phone survey. N = 1,015, with a response rate of 30%. The Eurobarometer public opinion surveys use a multistage national probability sampling technique, the Eurobarometer 64.3 provided opinion data collected from 29 countries through face-to-face interviews of 29,193 Europeans aged 15 and above. The fieldwork was conducted between 5 November and 7 December 2005.

Religious beliefs may be part of the value systems people use when they make sense of science and technology more broadly. Based on country-level data, we see a negative relationship between levels of religiosity and beliefs that nanotechnology is morally acceptable. The proportion of respondents who disagreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable was highest in the United
States (24.9%) and lowest in Italy (7.3%). The percentages for respondents who agreed was highest in Belgium (82.4%) and lowest in Ireland (33.5%). The majority of respondents who saw nanotechnology as morally acceptable also supported nanotechnology under existing or tighter regulations. The authors claimed a robust relationship between levels of religiosity and public support for nanotechnology across all countries.

Corley & Scheufele, 2009
This study re-examines the 2004 and 2007 knowledge gap. The survey involved using a dual frame method of national random digit dial and listed household phone survey. N was 1,015 with a 30% response rate. They found while respondents with at least a college degree have experienced an overall increase in nanotechnology knowledge between 2004 and 2007, respondents with less than a high school degree have experienced a decrease in nanotechnology knowledge levels over the same time period. We also show that exposure to the internet significantly improves the knowledge level for those with the lowest levels of education while there is a lower positive impact of internet exposure on those with higher levels of formal education.

Our analyses showed that those respondents with at least a college degree displayed an increase in knowledge levels between 2004 and 2007 while respondents with education levels of less than a high school diploma had a significant decrease in nanotechnology knowledge levels between 2004 and 2007. These clear discrepancies in levels of factual knowledge about nanotechnology among U.S. respondents with the highest and lowest levels of formal education have both positive and negative implications. On the one hand, the significant learning that occurred for highly educated respondent in our data will hopefully attenuate concerns about static levels of awareness and knowledge about nanotechnology, at least for this subset of the population. On the other hand, however, our data suggest that efforts to increase public understanding about nanotechnology have not helped the group that might need it the most: those with the lowest levels of formal education. Among this group, nanotechnology knowledge levels have in fact decreased over time, suggesting that we have not done a good job of educating this segment of the public about an issue that may be increasingly difficult to understand for lay audiences, given fuzzy regulatory scenarios, inconclusive reports about risks, and limited coverage in mainstream media.

Our data results showed that internet exposure was significantly related to knowledge levels about nanotechnology over time, especially for those with low formal education levels. Exposure to television and newspapers was not significantly related to knowledge level. Respondents with higher levels of formal education displayed similar trends in knowledge levels between 2004 and 2007 regardless of whether they had low or high levels of internet exposure. At the moment, we are not just seeing existing gaps between citizens based on their educational attainment, but our data also illustrate widening gaps between the already information-rich and the information-poor. Closing these gaps is not an option; it is a necessity.

NANOPARTICLES IN H1N1 SWINE FLU VIRUS VACCINE????

2009-09-16T11:37:00.010-05:00

The article that has been associated with the claim on nanoparticles in the H1N1 Swine Flu vaccine can be tracked to F. William Engdahl at Global Research. He claimed on September 14: “Vaccines which have been approved by government authorities for vaccination against the alleged H1N1 Influenza A Swine Flu have been found to contain nano particles. Vaccine makers have been experimenting with nanoparticles as a way to “turbo charge” vaccines for several years. Now it has come out that the vaccines approved for use in Germany and other European countries contain nanoparticles in a form that reportedly attacks healthy cells and can be deadly.”

FIRST, Engdahl's claim alleges this vaccine may have been approved for use in Europe. Its role, if any, in America is very unclear.

SECOND, the vast bulk of the reportage claiming that nanoparticles are in the new vaccine is directly traceable to this single individual. Engdahl is a well-known fear monger and author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. If you want to learn more about him visit his website.

THIRD, his evidence is drawn from the EPFL publication that describes research rather than production. Bioengineering researchers from the EPFL in Lausanne, Switzerland, have developed and patented a nanoparticle that can deliver vaccines more effectively, presumably with fewer side effects, and at a fraction of the cost of current vaccine technologies. This research is reported in a recent issue of Nature Biotechnology.

It is important to note that many research teams are engaged in research of this type. For example, researchers at Oregon State believe lecithin nanoparticles have wide potential applications and possibly a good safety profile. Their findings were just published in the Journal of Controlled Release in work supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. In addition, some companies have made claims associated with hypothetical applications of nanoparticles. According to a presentation by BioSante Pharma at the recent Immunotherapeutics & Vaccine Summit, the presenter claimed BioSante’s vaccine adjuvant, BioVant™, increased the protective effect of vaccines for multiple flu strains, including a potential new vaccine against H1N1 (swine flu). Allegedly, BioVant involves calcium nanoparticles.

As to the vaccine, even FOX News reported: "They’re pushing it as fast as they can, but they still have to meet good manufacturing standards," said Dr. Peter Gross, senior vice president and chief medical officer at Hackensack University Medical Center. "It will be tested to make sure it’s safe and contains the proper amounts of protective antibodies," said Gross, who tested flu vaccines for 20 years for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

S.NET IN SEATTLE (SLEEPLESS?)

2009-09-14T11:27:00.011-05:00

CENTER FOR WORKPLACE DEVELOPMENT

Last weekend (September 8-11) the folks at the Center for Workplace Development at the University of Washington held a one-day graduate student nano-ethics program. I spoke on uncertainty and how it is used strategically by NGOs and toxicologists to secure memberships, funds, and prestige at the expense of regulation. I believe all the presentations on that day were recorded and will be posted somewhere. I have copies of my powerpoint at our NIRT site at NCSU. You can download it.

THEN CAME S.NET

S.net is a new organization or not. Its mission while well written seems to open opportunities for international cooperation especially between Europe and the United State (who dominate the organization) to engage in scholarship on the philosophy and ethics of emerging technologies (read as nanotechnology at this time). Whether we need another organization seems unclear to me. Personally, I belong to AAAS, 4S, ACS, MRS.... and am loathe to join another. Of course as you are aware I am not a philosophy professor though I am an amateur ethicist. Though I probably won't participate actively in this group, they have every right to exist but I am not sure what they are going to offer the debate over nanotechnology.

So S.net [Society for the Study of Nanoscience and Emerging Technologies](which doesn't seem to have a dedicated web presence yet) got a $50,000 grant from the NSF to piggyback their first conference at the same site at the U Washington CWD project. There were three days of papers and some plenary presentations. I attended some. The papers were mixed as they always tend to be though the event showcases two schools more than any others: UCSB and ASU (both current CNS (Centers for Nanotechnology in Society) sites with both directors on the operating board of S.net. Hopefully, S.net will be more than a showcase for these two schools since they already have extensive press machines funded in part by the NSF. We will see. There is a call for papers for the second conference to be held in Germany (see Nanotech Now.

Presentations by Mowery, Vogt, Kysar, and Baird were accessible and informative. Mine was adequate as well. You should check out the CWD site at U Washington for more.

I am at the NISE.net meeting for three days before getting back to Raleigh on Friday.

IS NANOTECHNOLOGY NEWSWORTHY?

2009-08-24T13:03:00.003-05:00

Is nanoscience newsworthy? Why would the media fail to cover a study (Song et al previous post) whose findings allege deaths from exposure to nanoparticles? Is this about the media per se, the subject matter per se, or those responsible for posting information about nanoscience and nanotechnology. The National Nanotechnology Amendments Act of 2009 is working its way out of the Senate commerce Committee. The Snowe/Kerry version may go head to head with Hutchinson's. In the end we will need appropriations as well as authorizations and that may necessitate some public support. That prospect may be a pipedream.

Recently some of the NanoNews feeds stopped. Julia moved on. UCSB stopped sending its news updates. Meridian stopped as well. We decided that while NanoWerk, Nanovip, NanotechNews, Topix Nanotechnology News, AtoZ Nanotechnology, Nanotechnology.com, NanoTechWire.com, and the Nano Science and Technology Institute are compiling information, the public was once again on the short end of the stick. While there are professional journals, when the public learns about nanoscience and nanotechnology it is after a lot of work searching for the information or the result of some negative reporting.

We are going to continue to report summaries of important news reports on this blog interspersed with other commentaries. Check here regularly and you can read Nano News Summaries: Breakthrough Newsworthy and Honorable Mentions. Two graduate students from NCSU and PCOST (with funding from the NSF) will be compiling this material and Berube will edit.

Berube is preparing a report and will be presenting at the 4S meeting this semester that tries to explain why the public with knowledge about nanotechnology hasn’t increased appreciably from 2004 to 2007, I began positing rationales: inadequate research designs, reporting tails (2004 and 2007 as tails to a normal frequency distribution), and thresholding (we’ve reached the population with interest), this phenomenon is intriguing. he would have liked to complete a metanalysis but getting my hands on all the research data has become problematic for many reasons, so he will do a metanalysis and will report here.

Is it important for the public to attend to information on nanoscience?
Is anyone really making an effort to get the public involved? Or is all this talk about public engagement simply “smoke and mirrors”?
Is the public wholly indifferent to what is happening in nanoscience?

So we tracked what has been going on with media coverage of the Song article on Chinese women exposed to nanoparticles. The purpose was to gathering evidence to demonstrate amplification of the news versus the replication of news on the internet. We tracked message dissemination via Google search at intervals of 24, 48 and 96 hours after the original Song article was published. What was found was that a great many hits found by Google for the search [“Chinese women” nanoparticles] yielded repetitive results. The majority of hits found by Google were replications of a singular article originally published by Rueters’ Tan Ee Lyn, causing the author to be omitted from future searches for comparison [omit: “Tan Ee Lyn”]. Hardly any other mentions were found (although Nano-hype was in the top 10 hits). The actually frequencies are as follows:

First 24 hours (0-24) after the original publishing – 177 results (only 23 results not attributable directly or indirectly to Tan Ee Lyn and Reuters)
Second 24 hours (25-48) after the original publishing – 612 (narrowed down to 30 non-Reuters results)
Following 48 hours (48-96) after the original publishing – 8 results

SIMPLY PUT the media doesn't seem to want to cover nanoscience issues, even when we are talking about exposure to nanoparticles that may have resulted in two deaths and a handful of hospitalizations. I will leave deeper analysis for later but there are many reasons:
not American or Western women.
not men.
not newsworthy.....

TIME TO RE-EXAMINE how the nano-community is reaching out to the public. The perception studies are problematic and seem to suggest we have thresholded out. The recent experience with the Song et al study on Chinese women validates media disinterest even when the subject is controversial. MAYBE NANO has moved into its adolescent phase where we are no longer impressed by the latest sports equipment and promises of great things to come. MAYBE the hyperbole has run its course. Thanks to Meghnna Tallapragada for tracking this event.

NANOPARTICLES RESPONSIBLE FOR DEATHS OF TWO CHINESE WOMEN???

2009-08-18T12:40:00.007-05:00

The provocative title was selected as a teaser for a study reported on August 19, 2009 in a European journal. The article can be found the European Respiratory Journal. Vol. 34, pp. 559-567. The study is clinical and examine 7 female Chinese workers diagnoses with lung damage. Two of the women died. They worked in a facility spraying a polyacrylic paste onto a polystyrene substrate. The work area had rudimentary exhaust ventilation which had broken down and (presumably) had gone unrepaired. ~30 nm diameter particles were found in fluid surrounding the lungs of the patients. Similar sized nanoparticles in the polyacrylic paste and the ventilation system were discovered. The authors claim the damage and deaths were attributed to nanoparticles. I will leave the technical examination of the study to others.

First of all this is an important set of findings. Despite weaknesses in design the results are potentially explosive especially if they are amplified by some public advocacy groups and the media.

As a former journalist I would advise a journalist covering this set of findings to ask the following four questions.

2 women are dead allegedly from inhaling nanoparticles. What assurances are there that a situation like this cannot happen here?
As globalization accelerates and supply lines cross continents, what assurances can be given that finished products will be sold involving assembly and fabrication such as that which occurred in China?
Even if efforts are taken to protect worker safety, here and abroad, how effective are hoods and masks in effectively reducing exposure to nanoparticles? How do we know they will be effective?
Given the uncertainties associated with nanoparticles and their control and toxicity, why should we proceed with nanoparticle production when there are reasonably available substitutes? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to consider moratoria or a much slower pace of development?

As an argumentation specialist, there are two major issues (loci) here. The only way to frame the issue out of the hands of ultra-precautionists is to address both of them.

The case for worker safety in the NanoWorkplace and
The case for enforcement of regulations involves global trade involving nanoparticles.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 070109

2009-07-02T12:15:00.011-05:00

More.

We have one breakthrough and twelve (12) noteworthy articles and report and a pile of honorable mentions. This is the last post for a week until I can catch up on a stack of reports.

BREAKTHROUGH

U of Georgia researchers have developed a successful way to grow molecular wire brushes that conduct electrical charges, a first step in developing biological fuel cells that could power pacemakers, cochlear implants and prosthetic limbs.
See EurekaAlert, June 19, 2009 and Chemical Science, June 5, 2009.

NEWSWORTHY

1. EARLY DETECTION OF BLINDNESS.
Researchers from the U Kentucky claim to be able to detect abnormal blood vessels in the living eyes of mice by attaching anti-CCR3 antibodies to tiny semiconductor nanocrystals called "quantum dots" and injecting these into the mice. Early detection may improve treatment regimens.
See Nanowerk, June 15, 2009 and Nature, June 14, 2009.

2. DRUG DELIVERY
Cornell and Shenzhen U researchers claim to have developed a technique that could one day be used to deliver vaccines, drugs or genetic material to treat cancer and blood and immunological disorders. The research involved nanocapsules containing a small-interfering RNA.
See Cornell Chronicle, June 25, 2009 and Gene Therapy Online, June 25, 2009.

3. REACH HAVING CLASSIFICATION ISSUES
Confusion over classification of nanomaterials under the Reach chemicals legislation has led to two groups of companies using different criteria to submit data on carbon nanotubes to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Currently there is so much uncertainty about dealing with nanomaterials under the Reach regulations (which came into force in 2008) that different groups of companies are forming separate data-gathering bodies, called substance information exchange forums (SIEFs), to deal with carbon nanotubes (CNTs).
See Chemistry World, June 16, 2009.

4. EPA ISSUES NANO RULE
U.S. EPA issued a final rule for carbon nanotubes under the Toxic Substances and Control Act, subjecting them to a "new-use" regulation that gives the agency greater authority. Makers of certain carbon nanotubes, as well as those of 21 other chemicals, now must notify EPA at least 90 days before starting manufacturing. The rule takes effect Aug. 24.
See EENewsNet, June 24, 2009.

5. NANO TERM ADDED VALUE OR NOT
A researcher at the National Institute for Consumer Research in Norway claims companies may be less inclined to highlight nanomaterials in their products. While his sample is small, he searched a website run by a major international cosmetics company, using keywords like 'nanotechnology' and 'nano', to estimate how many products contain nanotechnology. His search turned up 29 products in 2007, but when he repeated the same exercise recently, there were zero hits. This, he said, suggests that companies may now view 'nano' as a negative label rather than an added value. Another interpretation could be these products were never marketed or their composition changed to reflect any negative association OR companies have decided to simply move on, add nano-ingredients, and fail to inform consumers. Interesting theses.
See EurActiv, June 15, 2009

6. MAKING SILVER NON-CYTOTOXIC.
Researchers at the U of Trieste described the development of a novel non-cytotoxic nanocomposite hydrogel material based on natural polysaccharides and silver nanoparticles for antimicrobial applications.
See Nanowerk, June 29, 2009 and Biomacromolecules, April 30, 2009.

7. NANO-ALUMINUM AND AGGLOMERATION.
San Diego researchers found that the aluminum particles quickly clustered and stuck together. They also found that the surface charge of the particles affected their movement through soil.
See Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2009

8. CNTS COULD HURT PLANTS.
U Lancester researchers have shown that carbon nanotubes can pierce plant root cells, providing a rapid route for other pollutants to infiltrate the cellular structure of plants.
See Chemistry World, June 10, 2009

9. BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS.
Washington U research claim photoacoustic imaging with a carbon single-walled nanotube (SWNT) contrast agent could provide a non-invasive alternative to sentinel lymph-node biopsy.
See NanotechWeb, June 16, 2009 and Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2009.

10. NANO AND LUNG CANCER (IN VITRO).
Researchers at the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences in Beijing reported several types of PAMAMs (ployamidoamine dendrimers) killed human lung cells in the lab.
See Nanowerk, June 11, 2009 and Journal of Molecular Cell Biology, June 11, 2009.

11. ANOTHER NANO-ASBESTOS CLAIM (SORT OF).
The Investor Environmental Health Network (IEHN) outlines disturbing parallels between asbestos and nanotechnology in order to illustrate the eight needed steps that the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) should take to improve disclosures made to investors.
See Nanowerk, June 15, 2009.

12. NANOPARTICLE UPTAKE IN MARINE ECOSYSTEMS.
Researchers at the U of South Carolina observed that clams and biofilms accumulating the most nanoparticles by mass. This could be a serious problem if the same thing happened in the natural environment because biofilms are used as food sources for several different kinds of detritivores, some of which are prey for larger arthropods and small fish.
See NanoTechWeb, June 24, 2009 and Nature Nanotechnology, June 21, 2009.

HONORABLE MENTION

NEW SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA
Researchers from the U Wisconsin found that the public tends to focus on the benefits — rather than potential environmental and health risks — when making decisions about nanotechnology regulation, whereas scientists mainly focus on potential risks and economic values.
See Press Release, June 19, 2009 and the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, June 19, 2009.

LIKELY NANO-SCAM IN AFRICA
An alleged nano product marketed in Uganda looks like a piece of glass and costs between Shs 500,000- 1,000,000. The glass claims to make sick people get nutrients from its use. One pours water and drinks. It is also claimed that carrying it in one’s pocket makes them healthier.
See Sunday Monitor, June 28, 2009

NEW MAGAZINE
India has published a new monthly magazine in nanotechnology called NANO DIGEST. If anyone has a PDF version, let me know or send it along.
See IndiaPRWire, June 15, 2009

STAR TREK TRANSPORTERS????
Stanford researchers pass nanoparticles through rock. With video (at least for now).
See ABC, June 28, 2009.

PAKISTAN AND NANOSCIENCE
Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission (HEC) will spend US$196.7 million — 30 per cent more than last year — on scientific projects and scholarships in public-sector universities. Much of this money will be used to upgrade science libraries and laboratories and establish centers of excellence for nanotechnology, endocrinology, virology and bioinformatics.
See Science and Development Network, June 29, 2009.

MORE SOLAR
A team of researchers from U Florida and Savannah River National Laboratory are studying how nanostructured coatings mimic structures found in nature that increase the usefulness of solar energy.
See Nanowerk, June 25, 2009.

WAR ON SLEEPING SICKNESS
Researchers at the Institute of Primate Research (IPR) in Nairobi and counterparts from the EU are using nanoscience principles to develop more effective ways of diagnosing and treating trypanosomiasis disease in humans, which is also known as nagana in livestock. Experts have said they may develop a more effective kit for detecting sleeping sickness and medication against the condition in the next three years.
See Daily Nation, July 1, 2009.

RUSSIA AND JAPAN CONNECTION
RUSNANO and the Japanese Ministery of Economy, Trade and Industry, have agreed to establish a workgroup for cooperation in the field of nanotechnology. The decision was made at a meeting during a visit to Japan by a delegation of RUSNANO. The initiative for the agreement was issued by the Japanese.
See RUSNANO, June 17, 2009.

EU AND MALAYSIA CONNECTION
The European Union has called on Malaysian Research and Technological Development (RTD) institutions to fully utilize the EU New Framework Programme 7, aimed at boosting innovation and research capacity. This would build on the five projects already underway. Climate change including technology transfer, carbon capture and storage, bio fuels and renewable energy, nanotechnology and ICT were highlighted as priority areas for EU-Malaysia cooperation.
See Bernama, June 10, 2009.

ANOTHER ROADMAP – PHILIPPINES.
The Philippines revealed a 10-year strategy to create a commercially viable industry using nanotechnology.
See Inquirer.net, June 17, 2009.

HONG KONG AND NANO-INDUSTRY.
Hong Kong’s Innovation and Technology Fund established in 1999 with an allocation of 5 billion HK dollars (645.79 million U.S. dollars has supported about 1,400 projects with a total investment of about 4 billion HK dollars (516.63 million U.S. dollars), biotech and nanotech account for more than 12 percent of the funding. Projects that have been supported include those in nanomaterials, nanoelectronics, green nanotech, nanotech for textile and apparel applications, and nanotech for medical and healthcare applications.
See Xinhuanet, June 22, 2009.

BAYER BUILDING NANOTUBE PLANT IN GERMANY
Bayer MaterialScience has begun construction of a new facility for the production of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) in Chempark Leverkusen, Germany. The new plant will have a capacity of 200 tons/year. The company will invest about 22 million euros in the planning, development and construction of the plant.
See Nanoforum, June 10, 2009.

NANO AND SURFBOARDS.
Entropy Surfboards and Bayer MaterialScience (BMS) have teamed up to deliver a new line of custom-made surfboards that incorporate carbon nanotubes from BMS.
See Nanoforum, May 22, 2009.

NANOCRYSTALLINE CELULOSE AND THE FORESTRY INDUSTRY
Nanocrystalline cellulose, or NCC for short, has yet to make an impact on the marketplace, but in a few years companies could find commercial uses in goods as diverse as lipstick to SUVs because of properties such as strength and toughness, biodegradability and ability to “tune” colors without dye.
See Edmonton Journal, June 24, 2009.

Going for Lasik surgery soon. Might be due to reading all these nano-articles.

Yikes.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 052509

2009-07-01T13:26:00.006-05:00

I must remark how impressed the Meridian coverage of nano has been.

NEWSWORTHY

1. CANCER CELLS: DETECT, TRACK AND KILL

Researchers at the U of Arkansas demonstrated that it is possible not only to monitor and detect nanomaterials moving through the circulation, but also to detect single cancer cells tagged with carbon nanotubes. This study was in vivo and in real time and helped explain how these nanoparticles travel through a living system.

See Biooptics World, May 22, 2009.

2. SMELLING LUNG CANCER

Researchers in Haifa and another team at U. Bari have experimented with the use of nanotechnology sensors to detect the presence of cancer by "smelling" air molecules in the breath of patients with and chronic obstructive pulmonary (COPD).

See Associated Content, May 25, 2009.

3. DRUG ABSORPTION ADVANCE.

U South Australia researchers are reporting a potential solution to a problem that limits the human body’s ability to absorb and use medications for heart disease, Type-2 diabetes, cancer and other conditions. It is a “nano-hybrid microcapsule” that enables the stomach to absorb more of these so-called “poorly soluble” medicines

See Nanowerk, May 27, 2009 and Molecular Pharmaceutics, June 1, 2009.

4. NANORUST TEST IN MEXICO.

Researchers at Rice U Rice University researchers announced that the first field tests of "nanorust," the university's revolutionary, low-cost technology for removing arsenic from drinking water, will begin later this year in Guanajuato.

See Eureka Alert, May 27, 2009

5. MORE EFFICIENT FUEL CELL CATALYST

Researchers at Washington U have developed a technique for a bimetallic fuel cell catalyst that is efficient, robust and two-to-five times more effective than commercial catalysts.

See Press Release, May 14, 2009

6. MERCURY SENSOR

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology researchers have used a breakthrough nanotechnology to create a pioneering sensor that can precisely measure one of the world’s most poisonous substances, mercury.

See Press Release, May 27, 2009 and Physical Chemistry and Chemical Physics, 2009

7. ZINC OXIDE AND BRAIN DAMAGE IN MICE.

Researchers from Shanghai U reported zinc oxide nanoparticles can damage or kill stem cells in the brains of mice. Their findings may suggest that further precautions should be taken to protect people working with nanomaterials.

See NatureAsia, May 11, 2009 and Nanotechnology, 2009.

8. IMPLANTABLE DEVICE FOR CONTINUOUS CANCER MONITORING.

Researchers at MIT have designed implants using magnetic nanoparticles that could be implanted at the time of biopsy, could also be tailored to monitor chemotherapy agents, allowing doctors to determine whether cancer drugs are reaching the tumors. They can also be designed to measure pH (acidity) or oxygen levels, which reveal tumor metabolism and how it is responding to therapy.

See MIT News, May 12, 2009 and Biosensors and Bioelectronics, April 15, 2009.

HONORARY MENTION

ARAB PROPOSAL TO DISCUSS NANOTECHNOLOGY

The proposal for establishing an Arab Council on Nanotechnology (ACON) was

presented by Al-Quds University’s Mukhles Sowwan while discussing about

‘Nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing: manufacturing: Towards balanced plans for responsible worldwide use.’

See Meridian Institute, May 20, 2009.

UN FORUM TO ADDRESS NANOTECHNOLOGY

A UN global chemicals forum on safe and sustainable chemicals management agreed to address four emerging policy issues in the sector: nanotech, e-waste, chemicals in everyday products and lead in paint

See EuroActiv, May 29, 2009.

IOM LAUNCHES ENPRA.

The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) is pleased to announce the launch of ENPRA (Engineered NanoParticle Risk Assessment) - a major new European Framework 7 project to develop and implement a novel integrated approach for engineered nanoparticle (ENP) risk assessment.

See IOM World, May 2009.

ASPIRIN SUBSTITUTE

Researchers from Banaras Hindu U are reporting discovery of a potential new alternative to aspirin, ReoPro, and other anti-platelet agents used widely to prevent blood clots in coronary artery disease, heart attack and stroke.

See Nanowerk, May 27, 2009 and ACS Nano, June 23, 2009

AEROSOL ANTIBIOTICS.

Researchers at Washington U demonstrated the effectiveness of antibiotics

by allowing the medicine to be put into an aerosol form in mice.

See Forbes, May 15, 2009.

MODELING TO PREDICT CONTAMINATION

Researcher at Duke U with colleagues at UCLA found a way to estimate the quantity of titanium oxides in the environment by combining science and engineering knowledge with business and economic modeling.

See Press Release, May 20, 2009.

PATENT LANDSCAPE REPORT

The UK Intellectual Property Office has compiled a nanotechnology patent landscape for the UK.

See Nanowerk, May 12, 2009 and GlobalWatch Online.

GATES AWARD

Researchers at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research in Cape Town (CSIR), won a grant from the Gates Foundation for a proposal to use cutting-edge “nanotechnology” to save the lives of tuberculosis patients who forget to take their pills.

See The Times, May 24, 2009.

CUBA AND SOUTH AFRICA AGREEMENT

South Africa and Cuba have agreed to work together in the field of technology. the focus would be on biotechnology, climate change, renewable energy technologies and nanotechnology.

See News 24, May 19, 2009.

BULGARIA AND IBM AGREEMENT

Bulgaria and IBM signed an agreement for a $35billion research center to develop nanotechnologies as part of Bulgaria's drive to boost competitiveness.

See The Guardian, May 22, 2009.

More coming. The holiday weekend is almost upon us, but the nanoworld doesn't stop for anyone, so it seems. I am going to take a few day to vet the new FOE-Australia report on silver.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 053009

2009-07-01T09:35:00.012-05:00

Things let up a bit though a lot of this seems interesting. It's been difficult since we lost postings from Julia Moore from WWI-PEW and the UCSB folks who forwarded listings.

Good news has been that both Nanowerk and NanotechWeb have been doing a great job covering the nano-frontier.

The new PCAST - Co-Chair, John Holdren, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy AND Co-Chair, Eric Lander, Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard U.

• Rosina Bierbaum, Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan.
• Christine Cassel, President of the American Board of Internal Medicine.
• Christopher Chyba, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton U.
• S. James Gates Jr., Professor of Physics,
• Shirley Ann Jackson is the President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
• Richard Levin, President of Yale U. and economist.
• Chad Mirkin, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern U.
• Mario Molina, Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of California.
• Ernest J. Moniz, Professor of Physics and Engineering Systems, MIT
• Craig Mundie, Chief Research and Strategy Officer at Microsoft Corporation.
• William Press, Professor of Computer Sciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
• Maxine Savitz, retired general manager of Technology Partnerships at Honeywell, Inc.
• Eric Schmidt, Chairman and CEO of Google Inc.
• Daniel Schrag, Professor of Geology, Harvard University.
• David E. Shaw, Cief scientist of D. E. Shaw Research, LLC.
• Harold Varmus, President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.
• Ahmed Zewail, Professor of Chemistry and Physics at Caltech.

NEWSWORTHY

1. NANO SPENDING ADJUSTMENT
According to Cientific, governments will be spending nearly $10 billion on nanotechnology research in 2009, but despite this huge figure government spending has begun to slow down. Spending will only grow by 9.3% from 2008-2012 compared with the 130% increase witnessed from 2004-2008. Countries are now emphasizing the importance of application-driven research in this emerging field.
See NanoTech Wire, May 1, 2009.

2. PORTABLE X-RAY.
Researchers from the Advanced Defect-Characterization Research Group, the
Research Institute of Instrumentation Frontier of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), In cooperation with Dialight Japan Co., Ltd. and Life Technology Research Institute, Inc., has developed practical portable X-ray sources with a cold-cathode electron source using carbon nanostructures.
See Nanowerk, April 24, 2009.

3. DIABETES ALERT
Chinese researchers from Nankai U in Tianjin have developed polymer nanoparticles that can release insulin in response to changes in glucose concentration, creating a potential treatment for diabetes.
See Chemistry World, May 7, 2009.

4. STD ALERT
Researchers at the California NanoSystems Institute (CNSI) at UCLA and the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA have now designed a unique method for inducing immunity to chlamydia infection. The findings could accelerate progress toward the development of a vaccine against Chlamydia trachomatis infections. Their study described the use of a novel vaccine platform that utilizes an engineered nanoparticle delivery system.
See Eureka Alert, April 29, 2009 and PLoS ONE, April 30 ,2009.

5. NIOSH UPDATES ON WORKPLACE SAFETY.
The document, Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology, reiterates the agency's recommendation that employers take measures to control occupational exposure in the manufacture and industrial use of engineered nanomaterials.
See Risk and Insurance, May 4, 2009 and NIOSH

6. NEW VACCINES
Liquidia Technologies presented data at the National Foundation of Infectious Disease (NFID) Annual Meeting which supports new insight into a technology that could provide more safe and effective vaccines for a wide variety of diseases. Results of the study show that the desired immune response elicited by a vaccine can be enhanced up to 10-fold when the vaccine protein is linked to nano-particles of a particular size and shape.
See Press Release, April 28 2009.

7. MORE CANCER AND GOLD.
Researchers at MIT claim to have developed tiny gold particles that can home in on tumors, and then, by absorbing energy from near-infrared light and emitting it as heat, destroy tumors with minimal side effects.
See MIT News, May 4, 2009.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

AUSSIES PUSH FOR NANO LABELING.
The Minister for Science and Medical Research for the NSW Government will push for national mandatory labeling of nano-sized particles used in workplaces and improved testing facilities to assess the safety of new nanomaterials.
See Sydney Morning News, May 5, 2009.

STAPH INFECTIONS TARGETED
Researchers at Yeshiva U have combined their revolutionary new drug-delivery system involving biocompatible nanoparticles with a powerful antimicrobial agent to treat potentially deadly drug-resistant staph infections in mice.
See Press Release and April 30, 2009 and Journal of Investigative Dermatology, April 23, 2009.

INTEL AND SAUDIS SIGN AGREEMENT
Intel and King Abdul-Aziz City of Science and Technology (KACST), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signed a collaborative research agreement to establish CENA, a world-class Center of Excellence in Nano-manufacturing Applications.
See AMEInfo, April 27, 2009.

USING NANO TO COMBAT DRUG RESISTANCE.
Researchers at Northeastern U combine two different anticancer agents in one nanoscale construct, providing a one-two punch that can prove lethal to such resistant cells. The nanoemulsion entraps both paclitaxel and curcumin.
See NCI News, April 2009 and Molecular Pharmaceutics, March 11, 2009.

NANO AND BLADDER REGENERATION
Brown U researcher are using nanotechnology is in regenerative medicine, particularly by creating nanometer pores and associated nanometer surface features to improve bladder tissue growth while inhibiting bladder calcium stone formation, which is a common disease affecting 5.2% of adults in the US with a high rate of recurrence.
See NanotechWeb, April 23, 2009.

EU STUDENT OUTREACH
NANOYOU will design and undertake a communication and outreach program in nanotechnology (NT) aimed at European youth. The project will reach 11-18 year olds through school programs to take place in at least 20 EU Member States and Associated States. Additional programs aimed at young adults aged 19-25 will be offered in science centers.
See ZSI Release, June 9, 2009

Enjoy. More on the way.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 041509

2009-06-29T14:15:00.008-05:00

This took some time. A lot happened in April. There were three notable breakthroughs, nine (9) noteworthy news stories, and quite a few honorable mentions. My students convinced me to work harder on my hyperlinks. We read every article that comes across our desks and aggressively search out everything we can find.

Tell your friends and let me know which format you prefer.

BREAKTHROUGH – NANOSCALE RINGS

Researchers at Cal Tech and Berkeley report a direct catalytic route for making nanoscale rings with potential applications in drug delivery and organic photovoltaic devices.

See C&EN, April 20, 2009 and J Am Chem Soc,

BREAKTHROUGH – NANOPARTICLE THIN FILMS

Researchers at MIT have used capillary condensation to functionalize inorganic nanoparticle coatings that could be used to make transparent thin films for applications like imaging devices and memory storage. The technique also bypasses the need for toxic, co-solvents during processing.

See NanotechWeb, April 24, 2009.

BREAKTHROUGHS – DNA SEQUENCING

Researchers at Oxford and Oxford Nanopore Technologies demonstrated that the four standard DNA nucleotides—adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine can be distinguished from one another reliably by the amount of current they each block as they flow through a nanopore. Taking DNA apart one nucleotide at a time, directing the nucleotides sequentially into a nanopore, and detecting them with an electrical current meter may seem an unlikely DNA-sequencing concept, but it is closer than ever to being a reality.

See C&EN, March 9, 2009 and Nature Nanotechnology, DOI: 10.1038/nnano.2009.12.

NEWSWORTHY

1. AUSTRALIAN TRADE UNION DEMAND NANO-REGISTRY

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is calling for a mandatory national register of who is importing, manufacturing, supplying and selling nanomaterials.

See Sydney Morning News, April 13, 2009.

2. PRINTABLE ELECTRONICS

Researchers from ETH Zurich report a new technique that uses flame spray synthesis in combination with a simple in-situ functionalization step to synthesize graphene coated copper nanoparticles which are air-stable and can be easily handled at ambient conditions.

See Nanowerk, April 24, 2009.

3. FLEXIBLE BATTERIES USING VIRUSES

Researchers at MIT use viruses to build both the positively and negatively charged ends of a battery, the cathode and anode. The virus was coaxed into binding with iron phosphate and then carbon nanotubes to create a highly conductive material. While the prototype battery is currently the size of a coin, the scientists believe it can be scaled and be used to create flexible batteries that can take the shape of their container, which is perfect for mobile or small devices.

See BBC News, April 2, 2009.

4A. SOLAR CELLS USING DIATOMS

Researchers at OSU and Portland State U have created a new way to make "dye-sensitized" solar cells using diatoms, in which photons bounce around like they were in a pinball machine, striking these dyes and producing electricity. This technology may be slightly more expensive than some existing approaches to make dye-sensitized solar cells, but can potentially triple the electrical output.

See Science Daily, April 9, 2009.

4B. SOLAR ADVANCES USING RESIDUE

Researcher from Northeastern U and NIST discovered, serendipitously, that a residue of a process used to build arrays of titania nanotubes-a residue that wasn't even noticed before this-plays an important role in improving the performance of the nanotubes in solar cells that produce hydrogen gas from water. By controlling the deposition of potassium on the surface of the nanotubes, engineers can achieve significant energy savings in a promising new alternate energy system.

See AtoZ Nano, April 24, 2009.

5. GAS STORAGE

Researchers at the Ural Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences report using molecular dynamics to model the behavior of a lock and fill nanocapsule. The closed-cage design could offer a safe and effective way of storing gases such as methane under normal conditions.

See NanotechWeb, March 17, 2009.

6. OIL FROM ALGAE

Researchers from Ames and Iowa State U. reportedly developed "nanofarming" technology that safely harvests oil from the algae so the pond-based "crop" can keep on producing.

See AtoZ Nano, April 24, 2009.

7. NANO-AVIATION

Researchers from Canada’s FP Innovations have unveiled plans for a factory that will use nanotechnology to extract cellulose from wood and use it to form composite materials for airplanes.

See Blog Wired, April 24, 2009

8. LISTERIA SENSOR

Researchers from Purdue and IIT are reporting development of a new biosensor for use in a faster, more sensitive test for detecting the deadliest strain of Listeria food poisoning bacteria.

See Nanowerk, April 22, 2009

and

Analytical Chemsitry, March 24, 2009.

9. SILVER WORKING GROUP

The Silver Institute and the Silver Research Consortium announced the formation of the Silver Nanotechnology Working Group (SNWG). The SNWG is an industry effort intended to foster the collection of data on silver nanotechnology in order to advance the science and public understanding of the beneficial uses of silver nanoparticles in a wide-range of consumer and industrial products

See AtoZ Nano, April 24, 2009.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

EU “NO DATA, NO MARKET”

The European Parliament's environment committee this week adopted a report by Swedish Green MEP Carl Schlyter which calls for tighter controls on nanotechnology, including the application of the 'no data, no market' principle contained in the REACH Directive. The own-initiative, non-binding report calls for products containing nanotechnology which are already on the market to be withdrawn until safety assessments can be made.

See EuroActiv, April 2, 2009.

EU FUNDS PPPs FOR GREEN REVOLUTION 2

€1.2 billion will be earmarked for R&D as part of the Factories for the Future programme; €1 billion will be dedicated to researching energy efficient buildings; and the much-vaunted Green Car Initiative is worth a total of €5 billion. The first calls for research projects linked to these PPPs are expected in July 2009, with the Commission keen to see the first projects underway in spring 2010.

See EuChemMS Brussels News Update, May 2009.

RUSSIA INVESTING IN CANADIAN NANO

According to Canwest News Service, a state-owned Russian venture capital fund is poised to pump millions of dollars into Canada's fledgling nanotechnology industry. The fund is RUSNANO and is one of the largest technology capital funds on the planet.

See Canwest News, April 13, 2009.

CLINICAL STUDY ANNOUNCED

NanoBio Corp. announced today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the company’s Investigational New Drug (IND) application for the Phase 1 clinical study of NB-1008, a seasonal influenza vaccine administered via a nasal dropper.

See Nanowerk, April 24, 2009.

CANCER AND GOLD NANORODS

Researcher at U Missouri announced a systematic investigation on the design and development of targeted gold nanorods. A recent result of this work has been the design of a novel peptide-based nanovector for carrying drug payloads to cancer sites.

See Nanowerk, April 15, 2009 and Nano Letters, April 7, 2009

MELANOMA RESEARCH USING GOLD NANOSPHERES.

UC Santa Cruz, Berkeley, and the Houston MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston reported using hollow gold nanospheres to enhance the cell-killing effects of photothermal ablation. The researchers equipped the nanospheres with a protein fragment that targets melanoma cells while avoiding healthy skin cells. When exposed to near-infrared light, which penetrates deeply through the skin, the nanospheres heat up and destroy the cancer cells.

See NanotechWeb. April 24, 2009.

DRUG DELIVERY RESEARCH

Researchers at Brown U have come up with a means for delivering the cancer-fighting drug cisplatin directly to tumor cells in breast-cancer patients. The researchers created a dumbbell-like twin nanoparticle by attaching a gold nanoparticle to an iron-oxide nanoparticle.

See NanotechWeb. April 24, 2009. and J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131 4216.

A Purdue team reported similar findings combining gold nanorods with magnetic iron-oxide particles.

See NanotechWeb. April 24, 2009 and Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 48 2759.

BREAST CANCER BIOMARKERS

Researchers at Duke U have demonstrated multiplexed detection of breast cancer biomarkers using structures dubbed "molecular sentinel" (MS) nanoprobes.

See NanotechWeb, May 19, 2009.and Nanotechnology. February 11, 2009.

ORTHOPEDICS AND DENTISTRY DRUG DELIVERY

Titanium dioxide nanotubes might be incorporated into orthopaedic or dental implants to deliver drugs in a local area over a period of several weeks. So say researchers at the universities of California, San Francisco, and Pennsylvania State who have shown that the nanotubes can release albumin, a large protein molecule, as well as sirolimus and paclitaxel, common small molecule drugs.

See NanotechWeb, April 3, 2009.

NANOGENERATORS

Researchers at Georgia Tech and U Wisconsin-Madison announced an advance in nanogenerators. Nanoscale generators can turn ambient mechanical energy--vibrations, fluid flow, and even biological movement—into a power source. Now researchers have combined a nanogenerator with a solar cell to create an integrated mechanical- and solar-energy-harvesting device.

See Technology Review, April 9, 2009.

NCSU BATTERY RESEARCH

Researchers from North Carolina State University are using an industrially viable electrospinning technique and subsequent carbonization processes to fabricate porous carbon nanofibres (PCNFs). These prepared PCNFs can provide fast lithium charge/discharge kinetics.

See NanotechWeb, April 24, 2009 and Nanotechnology.

CHEMICAL SENSORS

Imperial College researchers announced developments in metallic nanostructure sensing involving a device that could be tailored to detect different chemicals by decorating the nanostructure surface with specific 'molecular traps' that bind the chosen target molecules. Once bound, the target molecules would change the colors that the device absorbs and scatters, alerting the sensor to their presence.

See Science Daily, April 13, 2009.

NO MORE PAINFUL INJECTIONS

The end of deep, painful vaccine injections is in sight. One of the first widespread applications of nanotechnology in medicine could be a painless, needle-free vaccine "nanopatch" being developed by Australian scientists.

See Sydney Morning News, April 23, 2009

NEW BOOK ON COMMUNICATION AND NANO

The book, entitled Nanotechnology, Risk and Communication (published by Palgrave Macmillan 2009) analyses the way the traditional media has covered the early development of nanotechnology. It also uses that coverage to contribute to the debate about the effectiveness of scientists and journalists in communicating science-related stories to the wider public. The book is co-authored by Stuart Allan of Bournemouth University.

See AtoZ Nano, April 23, 2009.

INDIAN NANO DEGREE

Maitreyi College, Delhi University, will be offering a full-time postgraduate diploma in nanotechnology from this academic year.

See The Times of India, April 6, 2009.

I am struggling to keep up.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 033109

2009-06-29T14:04:00.013-05:00

SORRY for the delay but I have been all over the place. Went to DC for a SRA meeting on Regulatory Impact Analysis and to Chicago for a meeting of the International Food Information Council Foundation Trustees meeting. I spoke (officially) in Chicago.

The nano-frontier is still pretty wild and I hope to run out some data we recently compiled on experts and their understanding of nanoparticles very soon. Some of the findings were leaked at the IFIC meeting and you can find that at our web site (pcost.org).

As for March 2009, we have nine (9) notable and a smattering of honorable mentions.

1. TOXICITY TESTING QUANDARY
U. Minnesota and U. British Columbia researchers reported if all existing nanomaterials were to be tested for toxicity, it would cost U.S. industries between $249 million and $1.18 billion, but the testing could take as long as 53 years at current levels of investment. Does this mean we need a bigger investment in toxicity testing or find new ways to test nanomaterials or both? (See ES&T DOI 10.1021/es802388s)

2. NEW WAY TO TEST FOR INHALATION
Scientists at the University of Bern and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich designed a sealed glove box system where nanoparticles are simultaneously made in aerosol form and then deposited onto lung tissue cells.

3. GREEN NANOMATERIALS
Researchers are creating green nanomaterials, with an eye toward their hazards as well as cleanup potentials and pitfalls. (See ES&T, 43:5, 2009, 1247-1249)

4A. CANCER GENE THERAPY
Cancer Research UK scientists have for the first time developed a treatment that transports 'tumor busting' genes selectively to cancer cells (mice study).

4B. MORE CANCER GENE THERAPY
U London School of Pharmacy reports a way to switch off cancer-causing genes and trigger cell death. It is based on nanotubes used to deliver small interfering RNA (siRNA) directly into the tumor mass, which it is hoped will have a significant impact in the battle against lung cancer.

5. PESTICIDE APPLICATIONS
Cornell U researchers how found a way to apply pesticides by encapsulating them in biodegradable nanofibers, which keeps then intact until needed and minimizes loss to drift or being washed away from the plants they are intended to protect.

6. GATES FOUNDATION AND NSF
The Gates Foundation money will be used to bring in researchers from around the world, particularly developing countries. The new program is called BREAD, Basic Research to Enable Agricultural Development. NSF Program Director Deborah Delmer said it will cast a wide net for new ideas and approaches to common problems like poor soil quality, crops that spoil during storage and plant strains that wilt in today's heat — and may fare even worse as climate change raises the planet's temperature.

7. FDA – TEXAS CONSORTIUM ANNOUNCED
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced the creation of a nanotechnology initiative in collaboration with the eight Texas academic institutions that make up the Houston-based Alliance for NanoHealth. (These include Rice U, the U of Texas, and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.)

8. EU COSMETICS REGULATIONS ON THE HORIZON
Parliament approved an update of EU legislation on cosmetics when it votes on a first-reading agreement thrashed out between EP and Council representatives. The basic aim of the new regulation is to remove legal uncertainties and inconsistencies, while increasing the safety of cosmetics. Parliament's amendments add further improvements, especially regarding the claims companies make for their products and the safety of nanomaterials used in cosmetics.

9. SUNSCREENS ALLEGATIONS
U Toledo researchers found nano-titanium dioxide used in personal care products reduced biological roles of bacteria after less than an hour of exposure. Utah State U and U Utah researchers found beneficial soil bacteria cannot tolerate silver, copper oxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles. Both presented at ACS meeting in Salt Lake City.

HONORABLE MENTION

PAPER FOR ELECTRONIC DEVICES
Kyoto University researchers made transparent paper from nanosized cellulose fibers (renewable) as alternative to glass and polymers in electronic devices. Findings were presented at the Salt Lake ACS meeting.

EU NANOFOOD CONCERNS
In a legislative report dealing with an update of the EU rules on novel foods, the European Parliament calls on the Commission to interdict the placing on the market of food derived from cloned animals and their descendants. MEPs also want food being produced by nanotechnology processes to undergo a specific risk assessment before being approved for use and be labeled.

SAUDIS NEW NANO COMPANY
Saudis open the Saudi Nanotechnology Company. According to chairman Prince Bader Bin Saud said the firm would provide the Kingdom with a means of keeping pace with worldwide developments in nanotechnology, rather than it having to rely on foreign research.

HYPE ALERT
Check the Mental Floss website, for How to Destroy Civilization with Nanotechnology" directed by Ransom Riggs. WIRED Science reports: Several teams of social scientists are hard at work, trying to answer that question, and movies like this could turn their world upside down. Nice rhetoric but hardly.

TUNNELING NANOTUBES
Glowing infectious proteins called prions move through a network of mouse brain cells linked by tunneling nanotubes. Experiments are revealing that the tiny threads ferry both beneficial and harmful cargo between cells.

CHINA’S NANO-SPEAKERS
Tsinghua U. used a slim film of see-through plastic to transform almost any surface into an auditorium. It is made from nanocarbon tubes which, when heated, make the air around them vibrate, producing the sound.

NANOLUB
NanoLub has produced a nanotechnology-based (tungsten disulfide)lubricant which can enhance compression efficiency and a reduction of over 5% in fuel consumption of the vehicles.

BERUBE IS BACK

2009-06-10T13:47:00.004-05:00

I am back from a period of writing a set of grant proposals for the NIH Challenge and another NSF NUE proposal, working on many articles and a new book, and moving to a new place in Raleigh. I will continue my posts very soon. Thanks for your interest. My book Nanohype will be released in Japanese soon.

I will be in DC on June 21-23 for a Society for Risk Analysis meeting on Risk and in Chicago on June 23-24 for a meeting of the International Food Information Council. In addition, the data from our expert Delphi survey on nanoparticles and toxicology is being comprised and the final round of the Delphi is due next week. We should have much to report in the fall.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 031909

2009-03-17T16:00:00.005-05:00

There were over seven notable events and many honorable mentions.

1. NANO BIOFUELS – QuantumSphere, Inc. today announced that it was awarded a research grant from the California Energy Commission to develop a process using nanocatalysts to convert biomass into biofuels (see http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9404.php).

2. EFSA NANOFOOD REPORT – The European Food Safety Authority has concluded its assessment of the potential risks of nanotechnologies for food and feed, stating that a cautious, case-by-case approach is needed as many uncertainties remain over its safe use (see http://www.foodnavigator.com/Legislation/EFSA-publishes-final-nano-risk-opinion).

3. JAPANESE GUIDELINES – The Japanese Ministry of the Environment released guidelines on March 10, 2009, with the intent of reducing the risk of environmental harm from nanomaterials (see http://www.merid.org/NDN/more.php?id=1770).

4. RUSSIA TAKES ACTION ON NANOSAFETY – The Russian agency for Health and Consumer Rights and the Russian Corporation for Nanotechnologies signed an agreement to provide mutual systematic, scientific and technical support in validation and confirmation of nanoproducts safety, implementation of nanotechnologies and creation of nanotechnological production (see http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=10072).

5. NANO – ENERGY (FOUR reports).

a. EMISSIONS BASED ENERGY – Very interesting piece on turning emissions of Co2 into using carbon nanotubes. U. Messina team describes the process in length (see http://ec.europa.eu/research/research-eu/57/article_5727_en.html).

b. NANO METHANE - A Penn State team wants to use captures CO2 to produce methane. The process involves used arrays of nitrogen-doped titania nanotubes (see http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=10144).

c. NANO SOLAR – Researchers at Canada's National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) and the University of Alberta have engineered an approach that is leading to improved performance of plastic solar cells (hybrid organic solar cells) (see http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=10100).

d. NANO-ETHANOL – A Iowa State University researchers are working to produce clean, renewable energy by developing a new, low-emissions burner and a new catalyst for ethanol production using carbon based nanoparticles (see http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9568.php).

6. IMPACT OF TOXICITY TESTING – Interesting article on the costs of toxicity testing for regulation. “for the United States that costs for testing existing nanoparticles ranges from $249 million for optimistic assumptions about nanoparticle hazards (i.e., they are primarily safe and mainly require simpler screening assays) to $1.18 billion for a more comprehensive precautionary approach” (see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es802388s).

7. FDA INITIATIVE IN NANOMEDICINE – The FDA announced the creation of a nanotechnology initiative in collaboration with the eight Texas academic institutions that make up the Houston-based Alliance for NanoHealth. The FDA's announcement describes the initiative's goal as "to help speed development of safe and effective medical products.” This is something worth watching (see http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/23103/).

HONORABLE MENTIONS

• AFRICA-JAPAN EFFORT – South Africa and Japan discussing cooperation on biosciences, energy, climate change, space science, astronomy and nanotechnology (see http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200902231286.html).

• OECD VISION PAPER – The Business and Industry Advisory Committee's Expert Group on Nanotechnology recently issued a "vision paper" with the above title, with the goal of identifying "strategic priorities from the perspective of the OECD Business Community (see http://www.biac.org/statements/nanotech/FIN09-01_Nanotechnology_Vision_Paper.pdf).

• LIFE CYCLE STUDY – Ohio State researchers completed a study on the life cycle energetic implications of carbon nanofiber reinforced polymer nanocomposite materials (see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802101x).

• NANO RAINMAKING – Researchers at the London Centre for Nanotechnology (LCN) at UCL have discovered a novel one dimensional ice chain structure built from pentagons that may prove to be a step toward the development of new materials which can be used to seed clouds and cause rain (see http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9536.php).

• NANO AIDS TREATMENT? – Hungary’s Power of the Dream Ventures, Inc. announced its DermaVir Patch, a nanomedicine grounded treatment for HIV/AIDS. "Proof of concept" for the immunological and antiviral activities of Genetic Immunity's product was demonstrated in infected macaques, some of them with advanced stages of AIDS (see http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0477678.htm).

• INDIA SEES A WAY OUT OF THE RECESSION WITH NANO – An interesting spin on the new technology (see http://www.sakaaltimes.com/2009/03/11115048/NANOTECH-A-BIG-WAY-TO-BEAT-RE.html

• PLANT UPTAKE – Clemson team reporting on research studying the uptake of nanoparticles by rice plants (see http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=9516.php).

• NANO-PLUMBING – Duke U. engineers demonstrate carbon buckyballs may be able to keep the nation's water pipes clear in the same way clot-busting drugs prevent arteries from clogging up (see http://www.physorg.com/news155457592.html).

• AIRPLANE SAFETY – MIT team argues nanocarbon tubes stitched together to produce aerospace materials could make airplane skins and other products some 10 times stronger at a nominal increase in cost (see http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=32334).

• GREEN NANO – Interesting ES&T article on the promises of green nanotechnology (see http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es900021v).

• REGULATION DISSERTATION – Hansen’s (from DTU) dissertation is available for download. I have been watching Steffan’s work for some time now. He is a bright young mind in the nano SEIN field. (see http://www.nanolawreport.com/Steffen%20Foss%20Hansen%20PhD%20Thesis%20web-version.pdf).

• BIOMASS TO PRODUCE CARBONTUBE – Japanese team developed a new method for producing ultra-lightweight hollow carbon fine particles from lignin (see http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9480.php).

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 030109

2009-03-05T09:40:00.006-05:00

Week of March 1, 2009

There were 7 major events and many honorable mentions.

1. FOOD STORAGE MATERIAL SILVER NANOPARTICLES INTERFERES WITH DNA – teams from Taijin and Jiaotong Universities found that silver nanomaterials can directly interact with genomes. Reported in online edition of Nanotechnology (02/02/09) (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0957-4484/20/8/085102).

2. NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE AMENDMENTS (H.R. 554) PASSES THE HOUSE (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-02/poen-sdh021109.php).

3. NANO REGULATION BROUHAHA IN EUROPE - The European Parliament currently is drafting a report on regulatory aspects of nanomaterials (http://www.bioworld.com/servlet/com.accumedia.web.Dispatcher?next=bioWorldHeadlines_article&forceid=50024) AND the European Commission's independent Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) publishes its opinion on the most recent developments in the risk assessment of nanomaterials (http://www.flex-news-food.com/pages/22145/Additive/European-Commission/ecs-scientific-committee-adopts-opinion-assessing-risks-nanotechnology.html).

4. EPA TO ENFORCE PREMANUFACTURE REVIEWS FOR CARBON NANOTUBES (http://www.merid.org/NDN/more.php?id=1728).

5. TA-SWISS NANOFOOD STUDY released with recommendation on regulation and transparency (http://www.ta-swiss.ch/a/nano_nafo/MedienmitteilungNanoLebensmittel_e.pdf).

6. FP7 FramingNano REPORT released. The report gives an insight on the international debate on risks and concerns related to nanotechnologies (EHS issues and ELSI), and provides an ample overview of the different regulatory approaches proposed or already developed to deal with these issues (http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=7432).

7. TOP TEN REASONS FOR USING NANOTECH IN FOOD (http://dsc.discovery.com/technology/tech-10/top-10-nanotechnology-food.html).

HONORABLE MENTIONS

• Drug delivery – team designed polymeric nanoparticles for cancer drug delivery. –J. Am. Chem Soc. DOI;10.1021/ja807416t AND Applied Pharma Research s.a. ("APR") announces the acquisition of a new platform technology consisting of a patented nanocoating process for the preparation of new patent protected biotechnology products for the treatment of several critical diseases in multiple therapeutic areas (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/139668.php) AND Researchers at North Carolina State University have successfully modified a common plant virus to deliver drugs only to specific cells inside the human body, without affecting surrounding tissue (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090212125139.htm).

• Important Nano and Developing Countries report – Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development Report – with Nano-Dialogues in Zimbabwe in new book NANOTECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR CLEAN WATER (ISBN-13: 978-0-8155-1578-4).

• Current-carrying capacity of the nanotubes enhanced by U. Illinois team (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209110644.htm).

• Ohio State University team traces typical life cycle of polymer nanocomposite (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es802101x).

• Researchers at Stanford University have made several new PEGylated surfactants capable of suspending nanomaterials in aqueous solution (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ja809086q?prevSearch=[author%3A+hongjie+dai]&searchHistoryKey=).

• New Zealand team used nanoparticles to coat paper to produce magnetic, electrically conductive or optically active specialist paper products (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0902/S00038.htm).

• Texas A&M team researching PADLOC is what they have already named the futuristic kit – Pathogen Detection Lab-On-a-Chip (http://www.physorg.com/news154628642.html).

• Tel Aviv University team developed a nano-sized laboratory, complete with a microscopic workbench, to measure water quality in real time. Their “lab on a chip” is a breakthrough in the effort to keep water safe from pollution and bioterrorist threats (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217125732.htm).

Nano Song with Puppets

2009-03-02T16:40:00.002-05:00

I am working on my next blog of current events in nano when I came across this: The NanoSong with puppets.

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ 020509

2009-02-05T12:39:00.005-05:00

Week on February 1, 2009.

Been on the road at ILSI-NA inTucson and a ski trip to Utah.

There were six major events and some minors ones.

1. THE “A” WORD (ASBESTOS)

The 2020 Science Blog hosted by Andrew Maynard addresses the high aspect ration of nanoparticles (HARN) reviewing the recently released DEFRA Report. Andrew adds we are funding the wrong research and this failure and specifically to HARN issue “could cost some sectors of the nanotechnology industry dearly if clear information and safe working guidelines aren’t forthcoming soon.” This post is a fairly good review of what has been said and reported to date. Go to http://2020science.org/2009/01/23/asbestos-like-nanomaterials-should-we-be-concerned/. The Report on Project CB0406 was dated August 13, 2008 (http://www.safenano.org/Uploads/HARN.pdf). Andrew does a good job of examining HARN and the fiber paradigm.

2. REGULATION ON TWO FRONTS

Switzerland’s Centre for Technology Assessment (TA-Swiss) has called for the existing legislation on foods and chemicals to be adapted to meet the demands of nanotechnology. See http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/content/view/print/233888. This is another food and nano report. You can read the abstract at http://www.ta-swiss.ch/e/them_nano_nafo.html. AND we are anticipating the release of regulations on industrial use of engineered nanoparticles in Canada (http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9060.php).

3. SELF DISINFECTING FILM

Developed by ETH Zurich and being produced by Perlen Converting AG Company this film has anticipated uses at hotspots for germ transmission in hospital facilities. See http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8997.php.

4. DEMRON PATENT

This is presumably the world’s first and only protective material for all types of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents. Demron is an advanced radiopaque nanopolymeric compound fused between layers of fabric and manufactured into lightweight nuclear radiation blocking garments including full-body suits, vests, blankets and medical X-ray vests and aprons. Pretty cool. http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9042.php

5. NANOTUBE, BONE GROWTH, AND STEM CELLS

UC San Diego team plans to work with orthopedic colleagues to bring discovery to clinical application.
http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=9099.php

6. WORKFORCE PREPARATION

NanoTecNexus (NTN) is launching the first program of-its-kind this February -- unveiling a new NTN Chapter University program at UC San Diego’s NanoEngineering department arming students with the leadership skills, industry readiness, and career path knowledge needed for careers in nanotechnology. It will be interesting to see how this works and its effectiveness. Hopefully, someone will collect assessment data. See http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/01/prweb1911084.htm.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

NANOAFRICA 09 – 3RD International Conference in Pretoria where South Africa progress was noted by Technology Minister Mangena.
http://www.buanews.gov.za/news/09/09012911451001

CATALYTIC CONVERTER - Mazda Motor Corporation is launch nanocatalyst technology in automotive catalytic converters. It will be introduced in the new Mazda3 (known as the Mazda Axela in Japan), which will go on sale across the globe later this year
http://www.miningweekly.com/article.php?a_id=150859

REPORT FROM THE NANODESK - Joint WMHT Educational Telecommunications ("WMHT") and the U Albany College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering ("CNSE") TV venture.
http://www.wmht.org/index.php?s=3

ORAL ANTICANCER DRUG DELIVERY - A team from Johns Hopkins reported on a unique composition of nanoparticles that readily incorporated water-insoluble drugs and were capable of delivering those drugs into the bloodstream after oral administration.
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=9462

AURIMUNE - Aurimune is entering its second human trials. Aurimune involved solid-gold nanoparticle coated with a tumor-weakening agent. Because blood vessels around cancerous tumors are leaky, Aurimune nanoparticles can slip out of the vessels near a tumor and cluster around it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR.

ARSENIC - The Idaho National Laboratory and Water Technology Group Inc., (WTG) Harvard, Mass. signed a licensing agreement that provides exclusive
rights to commercialize the Nano-Composite Arsenic Sorbent (N-CAS) that will improve the ability to remove arsenic from contaminated water supplies.
http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=9673

SEPARATING THE HYPE AND THE BUZZ IN THE NEWS 011809

2009-01-20T18:48:00.002-05:00

Week of January 18, 2009

There were six major events and some minor ones. I hope you enjoy the new direction the blog is taking.

1. THE NNI AMENDMENTS

This week, the House Science and Technology Committee introduced H.R. 554, National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009. It is much too early to see what effect this resolution will have since there are many more hoops. The community is watching whether there will be an increase in funding for EHS research and some others are waiting to see if a societal guru is part of the package. Selecting someone for that short list will be nearly impossible though watching some of my colleagues jockeying for position could be highly entertaining.

2. EPA’S VOLUNTARY SCHEME SHORTCOMINGS

Another set of big stories related to the poor track record for the EPA’s voluntary reporting scheme. The interim report does not bode well for the voluntary systems staving off harder regulatory options. Richard Denison goes a step further claiming the EPA “squandered precious time” with the voluntary scheme. See his blog entry for more - http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2009/01/12/62/.
While I wouldn’t go as far as Richard, there seems to be a mixed bag of success and shortcomings associated with the scheme though the successes are harder to discern than the shortcomings.

3. SMEAR CAMPAIGN ON NANOPARTICLE SUNSCREENS

This article was anticipated. What happens when an NGO, like FOE Australia, spreads misinformation about the risks of nanoparticle infused sunscreens in a country with the highest sun exposure melanoma rates in the world? Well, people stop using it and the melanoma rates increase claiming health and lives along the way. There is little evidence this has happened but apprehension was voiced by New South Wales Cancer Council this could be happening. You will definitely hear more about this since I have folks trying to determine how to generate data on this effect. If you want to read the article, it is archived at the Sydney Morning Herald and ran on January 11. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/smear-campaign-against-suncream-is-risking-lives/2009/01/10/1231004355070.html).

4. SILVER NANOPARTICLES AND DEFORMITIES

I am going to try to learn more about this reported conclusion for the National University of Singapore team led by chemist Suresh Valiyaveetil. This involved some human cell and zebra fish research and was reported at a Cochin conference in Kerala, India. This was reported on January 9. For more information, check ExpressBuzz (http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/default.aspx).

5. NANOENGINEERED CAPSULES TO PROTECT ACTIVE PEPTIDES FOR DELVIERY TO ANTIGEN PRESENTING CELLS

Here was a small story with a potentially large impact. This report comes from a Melbourne team headed by Frank Caruso. Caruso claims these capsules might be highly effective in stimulating immune responses. This could represent a significant development in vaccine research and we should keep tabs on this work. This was reported by Nanowerk on January 13 (http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=8863.php).

6. REMOVING LEAD FROM BLOOD

A Korean team led by Won Seok Han and Jong Hwa Jung reported this finding. Magnetic nanoparticles can presumably eliminate up to 96% from the bloodstream and this does not involve the chelation method and would work more like dialysis. The results were reported in Angewandte Chemie. This was reported in AtoZ Nano on January 15. (http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=9430).

HONORABLE MENTIONS

GREEN CONCRETE in NanoWerk (http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=8868.php).

NANOTUBE SUPERBATTERIES in Technology Review (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21938/?a=f).

BIODEGRADABLE PLASTICS in Tahnhnien News (http://www.thanhniennews.com/print.php?catid=4&newsid=45235).

PEN REPORT ON NANO AND VITAMINS. See a Hard Pill to Swallow at the WWI site. See http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen17/.

2009 STATE OF NANO

2009-01-15T14:47:00.019-05:00

I know I have been hardly focused on my blog these days. The new job at NCSU and the new grant has been keeping me very busy. I apologize. However, I have been given full release from all teaching duties at NCSU by a great dean and department chairman. I am writing some books, speaking at conferences, and working on my grant as well as writing some new proposals.

As you are aware, I have a small staff of graduate students and we have been working on a NIRT as well as some other projects. When I came to NCSU the goal was for me to create a project (soon to become a center) associated with the Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST). This is well on its way and I have met with architects who are designing our suite of offices in a building on NCSU's Centennial Campus. More on this later (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/pcost/index.html).

One of these projects are Citizen's Guides to Nanotechnology (CGN).

What are CGNs?

CGNs are written in a registry (term used in journalism to describe writing styles usually designed hierarchically against different types of audiences) appropriate for public consumption. CGNs do not cover the subject material exhaustively. Instead, they expose the reader to a sense of the subject material. In addition, they are electronic and will be edited. Hence, the first posted edition is 1.0 and we expect many subsequent posted editions.

Where are CGNs?

http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/citizenguidetonano/publications.html

Why CGNs?

There are many reasons. First and foremost has been the dismal failure on the part of the social science and societal researchers to provide a true clearinghouse for the general public. At best, we get a spattering of offerings and extensive digital libraries of technical papers and reports. Second we have a tendency on the part of media to exaggerate findings and concerns to increase viewership and readership. This often leads to fear appeals of all sorts. (I have a major piece on fear and nanoscience forthcoming). Third, my graduate students needed to learn how to communicate to a broad collection of audiences beyond the traditional academic ones that dominate their publishing outlets. As a scholar in public sphere discussions, I was drawn to move them toward learning to speak in a public registry. Finally, we have generated one of the most complete libraries of nanoscience and nanotechnology materials we feel exists. It includes nearly every government report and nearly every publication in the popular literature on nanoscience and nanotechnology. This file is huge and occupies six shelves, four file drawers, and a multi-gig digital library as well. Every article we felt was important and many that were not that appeared on the WWW was printed as a pdf into our electronic library so nothing has been lost. In addition, one of my students is converting hard copy to digital copy and we are posting our library on a university website so all researchers involved in our program can access the material (more on this later).

The first issue is on Nano and Cosmetics and was driven by the work I did for my recent articles in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research in December 2008. [ “Rhetorical gamesmanship in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10. December 2008, 23-37. DOI 10.1007/s11051-008-9362-7 and “Reply from David Berube, NCSU,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 10. December 2008, 265-266. DOI 10.1007/s11051-008-9442-8.]

The second and third issue are being prepared. We have one on food products and another on food production. Others as you can see from our website (above) are in preparation.

So what is up with the blog?

I decided the best thing I can do is write about the state of nano on a weekly basis. Each week as we archive the week's articles in our virtual library, I will take notes and report what is happening and why what is reported as happening might be important. Unlike all other sites, we will not simply link you to article you can read on your own, we will digest the material and try to explain why it is or is not important, highlighting hyperbole and questioning focus.

Hope you enjoy the new direction for the blog. And expect weekly blogs (nothing like a promise to get me back to the keyboard).

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP HITS ITS MARKS

2008-09-05T10:29:00.006-05:00

Press release 2.0
September 5, 2008

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP HITS ITS MARKS

On August 28-29, 2008, the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHASS), the Department of Communication, and the Public Communication of Science and Technology Project (PCOST) hosted a workshop on “Communicating Health and Safety Risks on Emerging Technologies in the 21st Century” at the McKimmon Center on the North Carolina State University campus in Raleigh. The workshop was a deliverable associated with a $1.4M NSF grant on “Intuitive Nano-toxicology.”

David Berube, professor in Communication is the principle investigator for the grant and a national expert in the social science of nanoscience. He co-hosted the event with the PCOST Assistant Director Christopher L. Cummings, and four graduate students in the Communication MS program and the Communication Rhetoric and Digital Media doctoral program at NCSU: Katie Hayes, Jason Kalin, Kelly Martin, and Dan Sutko.

The workshop was webcasted and many participants presented from remote locations. The electronic and digital nature of the workshop was one of its features. Overall, the technical elements of the workshop were a great success with presentations delivered from off-base locations in Knoxville, Los Vegas, New Haven, Philadelphia, and Bethlehem, PA. Questions were asked via emails. A technical report on the conference can be read at http://nanohype.blogspot.com/.

The keynote speech was delivered by Lennart Sjöberg from the Center for Risk Research and the Stockholm School of Economics. The closing address was given by William Kinsella, professor in Communication and a member of the Science and Technology Studies (STS) program at NCSU. Both addresses and those of the other participants were highly praised.
Two presentations from Dan Kahan, professor of Law at Yale University and Dietram Scheufele, professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin involved data never before shared to any audience. In addition, there were some outstanding toxicological reports given by professors Vicki Colvin from Rice University, Tara Sabo-Attwood from the University of South Carolina, and James Bonner from NCSU. A full set of the Power Points are up and they will be followed by streaming videos of the presentations at - http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Deliverables.html.

The next step in the grant deliverables involves a series of Delphi studies that will be co-designed by Professors Berube and Scheufele with input from the other members and the grant team. The survey will be administered by the co-principle team from the University of South Carolina under the direction of Professor Robert Oldendick at the Institute for Public Affairs and Policy.

For more information –
Contact D. Berube (dmberube@ncsu.edu)

TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE WORKSHOP

2008-08-29T09:11:00.002-05:00

This workshop was hobbled by (1) the transfer in which the value of the grant demanded less funds to support a conference, hence we transitions to a workshop, (2) the proliferation of meetings and conferences has made it very difficult to get people together especially the world of nano and risk communication [it is a very small population], and (3) the economy led to many universities cutting back on support for travel funds.

This led me to take more seriously remarks made by Dawn Bonnell (U Penn) earlier this year at a meeting on nano-bio held in Ispra, Italy. It is time to use the technology at our hands to enable remote participation - webcasting and web-conferencing. Thanks to a strong tech team at NCSU we took a stab at this.

The results have been archived at our site and we webcasted the entire workshop on August 28-29, 2008.

We did learn a few things:

1. Rent a facility and pay the technicians.
2. Mike all speakers for archives.
3. Nail the live speakers to a spot on the floor so head insets are easier.
4. Record on studio quality tapes and have two tape decks esp. if you plan to archive the materials so they can be downloaded and streamed.
6. Connections need to be rehearsed with technical staffs at both locations. There are a variety of ways to do this including desktop systems such as Skype Meeting and iChat. However, the quality of free meeting software is mixed.
7. Power points needs to be designed to accommodate the video of the speaker (one quadrant needs to be designed without text or photo). Re-design templates so they are more appropriate for webcasted presentations with insets. Print and business of the slides can be problematic as well. Speakers need not to point at their PowerPoints with a laser pointer or a finger or even a fist because that doesn’t translate given how the broadcast has been planned.
8. Inset videos of the speakers needs to be fed from the remote site correctly. If the remove site fails to send the correct feeds
9. The primary issues are receptivity by the PC at the other end. Most webcast professionals can broadcast at high speeds but the Internet itself can be problematic. There are delays and glitches that impact receptivity.
10. In terms of streaming videotaped lectures there are many different software packages and we have not examined all of them though Final Cut with compressor seems to be effective.
11. It might be useful if we could tell the audience when they are on.

A summary and an updated version of this will appear in our annual report and maybe a publication.

DAY 1 of WORKSHOP completed - summaries posted below.

2008-08-28T17:57:00.009-05:00

SUMMARY OF SPEAKERS AND THEIR PRESENTATIONS.

It is important to note that we will be streaming all the presentations and you will be able to download them from our web site - http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.html.

This was a webcasted workshop. We had people speaking from our site on the campus of NCSU in Raleigh and we had people giving presentations from all over the USA (from Las Vegas, Nevada to New Haven, Connecticut. We had some minor problems but, by and large, it worked and we will post here (soon) a summary of the technical challenges so others can learn from our efforts.

WHAT FOLLOWS is a summary of the presentations.

WORKSHOP

DAY 1

LENNART SJOBERG from Stockholm School of Economics opened the session.
He studies public risk perception of technology (nuclear waste, food, genetically modified food, and nanotechnology). He discussed the roles novelty and dread play in risk variances between expert and public risk determinations. He claims dread trumps novelty in explaining variance. Dread is viewed emotively. Dread involves severity of consequences rather than the emotional items. Generally, dread is related with interfering with nature. He claims social trust = authoritative trust has little relationship with risk determination by publics (0.3 or less). He claims epistemic trust = trust in science is much more relevant. He discussed risk sensitivity – what makes some people more risk sensitive than others and antagonism as a variable. He adds new risks may bring about new aspects that require new variables. He discussed risk targets – people defer to general risk rather than individual risk is assessing rankings. He covered probability neglect and noted affect trumps data on social trust. He warned the instruction in many surveys complicated findings since affect data of dread are affected by whether one internalizes or externalizes dread. He noted substantive experts had similar structure of risk perception as the public which was different from the original work on general experts. These concepts make it important for us to check material on variance assoc. with public and expert risks when examined personally. He added ratings between gender/sexes minimal. He validated effect on social interaction and validation on risk rankings.

SUSANNA PRIEST from UNLV spoke from Las Vegas using video conferencing software.

She claims attitudes toward stem cells are a function primarily in the belief associated with the moral status of the embryo – an ethical risk. She argues risks are not the same and questions: What kind of risks? Do they think narrowly of harm? are very important. She adds we need work on justice issues and distributional variables.

ROB GOBLE from Clark University appeared live.

The bulk of his presentation was associated with importance of contextualization. He challenged us to find a way of defining a hazard when there is so much uncertainty. [We expect more work soon on horizon mapping - Scheufele and I are developing hypotheses in this area]. He added a discussion of banding = recharacterization or reframing the problem as a possible route.

DAN KAHAN from Yale appeared electronically.

His presentation was on public reactions and what risk communicators can do. He discussion the cultural cognition hypothesis and noted biased assimilation/cultural polarization leads the public to attend in a biased ways. He covered cultural credibility heuristics – (trust experts) – generally, the expert individuals will trust are experts individuals perceive share cultural worldview. He covered framing whereby the same general information with a different lead in a newspaper article framing the salience of a specific application impacts perception (framing by lead). He discussed snap intuitive judgment of risk sensitives populations versus risk skepticals and noted the divide widens as they seek out the views. He then connected this finding to some advocacy groups (NGOs) who arouse views by exposure to information to reinforce their predispositions toward nanotechnology resulting in deep-seated resentment such as occurred with nuclear power. He claimed we can manage and counter-act polarization and create an environment open-minded to the best information. He wants a deliberative environment and noted PEN/CCP will release full results of the framing experiments discussed above.

BREAK

DIETRAM SCHEUFELE from the University of Wisconsin appeared live.

He referenced dependent perceptions and discussed framing effects which are extremely strong for ambiguous stimulants. He noted optimistic framing effects w/o understanding the technology. He discussed perceptual filters that shape interpretations (processing) such things as culture, religious beliefs, moral schema. He added a review of the PEW MEDIA study out about 2 weeks ago. One category, the Net-newsers, suggest a shift from traditional news sources on digital media. He speculated on the implications for attenuation and amplification data sets associated with traditionalists. He noted we need to narrow communication gaps in science between population rather than continuing to preach to the choir. He responded to the “marketing of science” indictment. Ethics of marketing science and technology is something that needs to be further investigated.

JOHN STONE from Michigan State appeared live and lively.

He presented a review of his NIRT and addressed how information needed to be pulled-up to policy makers as well as pushed-out to publics. He is using the extension service as a way to move local knowledge up the stream. This project is a good contact for the last phase of the NIRT when we complete focus groups on food and nanotechnology.

MARTIN CLAUBERG from Tennessee appeared via Skype Meeting software.

He discussed a meta-analysis of research on risk. This was an EC Project and everyone is encouraged to check the final report. He discussed a lot of data and the slides/power points will appear on our site and you should go there in a week or so to read them. He noted uncertainty is generated by multiple views by different representatives.

VICKI COLVIN from Rice was live and presented here rather than Friday morning so she could get back to Texas ahead of the hurricane. She covered the unique properties of nanoparticles - magnetic, chemical and optics and called for proactive risk research is associated with horizon scanning. This may involve risk forecasting much like what is used a meteorology.

DAY TWO REPORT FORTHCOMING as well as a technical review of the webcasting experiment.

WORKSHOP THIS THURS. & FRI.

2008-08-26T17:29:00.008-05:00

Just got back from a Gordon Conference in Montana on Science and Technology Policy. Learned a lot about synthetic biology and neurotechnology. As you know, we are not allowed to write about what happened, but I can see some articles on the horizon.

This is not a teaser though.

The purpose of this post is that you can eavesdrop on our workshop since we are webcasting all of it.

This is the address: http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Berube%20Webcast/berubefull.html

The press release follows:

Press Release: 14 August 2008

NIRT – INTUITIVE TOXICOLOGY
AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

NCSU Workshop on
Communicating Health and Safety Risks on
Emerging Technologies in the 21st Century
McKimmon Center, North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC August 28-29, 2008

This NSF supported workshop is designed to review some findings and develop the ground plan to complete the award (NIRT: Intuitive Toxicology and Public Engagement) in an efficient and productive manner. After the workshop, the presentations will be reexamined to help define variables needed in the first round of quantitative research funded under the grant (a set of modified Delphi rounds involving expert and inexpert samples).

“The primary objectives of this workshop are to isolate the key variables and to produce appropriate instruments with which we can assess public perceptions of the risks of applied nanosciences. The workshop should also provide us with a clearer picture of the predictions of experts, based on the most recent research, of how the public perceives risks and how different modes of communication affect those perceptions.”

We have designed the workshop with presentations in Raleigh at NCSU McKimmon Center and others from remote locations via the web. We are webcasting the entire workshop and we are streaming selected portions from our website as deliverables. Below is the schedule of speakers. Some titles remain in flux but this seems to be the team with whom we will work.

Our web site is: http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.htmlWorkshop Schedule

“Communicating Health and Safety Risks on
Emerging Technologies in the 21st Century”
McKimmon Center, North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC August 28-29, 2008

Transportation will be provided to and from the Clarion Hotel (2 miles away).

Day One, Thursday, August 28, 2008.
Introduction and welcome – David Berube, NCSU (13:00-13:10).

Risks and Publics.
Keynote Speaker — Lennart Sjöberg, Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden (13:15-14:00).
Panel (14:05 -16:00) –
(WebConf) Susanna Priest, UNLV, TBA.
Rob Goble, Clark U., “Uncertainty and risk communication concerning merging technologies: Describing uncertainties is not the only challenge.”
Dan Kahan, Yale Law School, TBA.

Researching How Toxicology is Communicated to Publics.
Speaker – Dietram A. Scheufele, U Wisconsin (16:15-17:00).
Panel (17:05 -19:00) –
John Stone, Michigan State U., Public perceptions of agrifood nanotechnologies: Using Extension to assess and link stakeholder knowledge with public policies.”
Martin Clauberg, U. Tennessee, “A review of risk perception methodologies and empirical studies focused on risks from chemicals released from consumer products/articles.”
Jennifer Kuzma, U Minn, “At taxonomy of risks and communication challenges.”

Day Two, Friday, August 29, 2008.

Morning food and coffee (09:00)
Nano-toxicology and Risk.
Speaker – Vicki Colvin, Rice University (09:30-10:15).
Panel (10:20-12:20) –
Tara Sabo-Attwood, Dept of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, U. South Carolina, TBA
James Bonner, Dept of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology, NCSU, TBA.
Mark Weisner, Dept of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Pratt School of Engineering, Duke U., TBA

Lunch break – provided by workshop.

Risk Engagement and the Public.
Speaker – Pat Gehrke, U. South Carolina (13:20-14:15).
Panel (14:20-16:35) –
(WebConf) Kenneth Foster, Dept of Bioengineering, U. Penn., “Risk assessment and risk communication for electromagnetic fields: A WHO perspective”.
Roy Schwartzman, Dept of Communication, UNC – Greensboro, Nanotoxicartography: Rhetorically mapping public engagement with nanotechnology’s promises and perils.”
(WebConf) Sharon Friedman & Brenda Egolf, Lehigh U., “Coverage of Nanotechnology’s Potential Health and Environmental Risks in the US and UK Media.”
Kevin Elliott and Travis Reider, Dept. of Philosophy, USC, “Philosophical Debates about Policy Making and Public Perceptions of Risk: Roles for Empirical Research."

Challenges in Emerging Technologies.
Speaker – William Kinsella, Dept of Communication, Science and Technology Studies, North Carolina State U., TBA (16:40-17:15).

If you have any questions, please contact us: Katie Hayes krhayes@ncsu.edu (Workshop Admin. Asst.), Christopher Cummings
christopherlcummings@hotmail.com (Grant Admin. Asst.), or David Berube dmberube@ncsu.edu (Grant PI).

Some NEW work

2008-08-13T10:56:00.004-05:00

Sorry for dropping off like this but I was working on a 100 plus page White Paper on RISK COMMUNICATION. It will be surfacing soon.

In addition, I thought you might want to visit our web pages not that they are up. One is associated wit the NIRT grant (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/nirt/Home.html) and the other with the project I am working on at NCSU (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/pcost/index.html) .

In addition, we did a report on ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND NANOTECHNOLOGY. It was designed for the thousands of high school students who are interscholastic debaters. Next year, they are debating US policy toward alternative energy. It can be found and downloaded for free at: (http://communication.chass.ncsu.edu/pcost/Nanotechnology%20and%20Alternative%20Energy.pdf)

Finally, I wrote a book review for PUoS and am recommending the following two books, esp. the first one.

Gardner, Dan, Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear (London: Virgin Books, 2008) 355pp. ISBN 978-1-905264-15-5 £17.99 (hardback).

Briscoe, Simon & Hugh Aldersley-Williams, Panicology: What Are You Afraid Of? Two Statisticians Explain What's Worth Worrying About (and What's Not) in the 21st Century (London: Viking Penguin, 2008). 304 pp. ISBN 978-0-670-91701-3 £18.98 (hardback).

Berube at Nanobio EC-US Task Force on Biotechnology Meeting

2008-06-11T08:12:00.003-05:00

Just got back from Lake Maggione 60 km north of Milan where I had the opportunity to speak on nanobiotechnology from a societal perspective. In summary, my discussion kicked off the list of speakers. I addressed non-nanomedicine applications of nanobiotechnology as instructed by the hosts. My presentation examined nanobio applications in terms of environmental remediation, agricultural production, and human enhancement. In general, I argued that the issues associated with nanobiotechnology would lead to religious warrants in arguments on playing god, unnaturalness, and dehumanization. Dietram Scheufele and I are planning to write an extensive piece for Nature Nano or another source discussing the role of religion and belief in arguments associated with emerging and converging technologies, esp. nanoscience and synthetic biology driven. I will post summaries of the presentations in the following blog. I am still decoding my notes. NONETHELESS, I think the readership will enjoy knowing that societal concerns dominating all the follow-up discussion after day 1, in the hallways, and continued through day 2.

ESPECIALLY TASTY FRUIT

2008-06-04T03:21:00.002-05:00

I had anticipated releasing this work later this year. However, in a public discussion on June 3^rd at a Joint EC-US Task Force on Biotechnology Research (Nanobiotechnology) in Ispra, Italy, I was asked how to avoid public backlash against nanobiotechnology products. I presented earlier that day on the role religion will play in arguments over nanobio products.

Low hanging fruit refers to applications that can come to market within a reasonable time frame with high marketability.

Contagion theory holds that a collapse in one component of an industry ripples throughout the industry infecting others with the collateral public relations damage.

If we invert contagion, we get a coat-tails phenomenon. If a highly positive application occurs in one component of an industry, the positive public relations ripple throughout the industry. This theory was explicated in a recent article written for Jim Baker’s (editor) new Wiley series, Nanomedicine. The claims made were two-fold: first, the public will generally embrace applications in nanomedicine due to intense necrophobia (fear of death) and positively received product entries in the nanomedicine market will ease entrants of product lines from other nanotechnology industry segments. Put simply, public apprehension might be ameliorated as non-nanomedicine products ride on the coat-tails of nanomedicine products.

Associated with this concept is the conversion of consumers into allies in times of trouble. The anchor heuristic has been well documented. In general, the first experience with a set anchors public sentiment positively or negatively depending on the valence of the experience. A negative anchor is more difficult to convert into a positive anchor than the reverse. As such, a positive anchor is optimal. A positive anchor related to experience with a popular product will be the starting point a member of the public will use in examining subsequent experiences.

Illustration: A product (say a treatment for metastatic breast cancer) is introduced by company X. Public response is predictably positive given the mortality and morbidity of this type of breast cancer. In addition, current treatment regimens (chemotherapy and radiotherapy) are particularly problematic. A negative event occurs (say a study linking nanotubes to pancreatic cancer) subsequent to the entry of the nanomedicine product. The reaction from the public should be test the nanotube research against the positive experience with the breast cancer treatment.

This relationship is hardly perfect. For example, the interval between the entry of the product with the positive valence (positive anchor) and the stipulated negative findings from the hypothetical study will affect the power of the anchor and how significant the anchoring phenomenon will have in comparative evaluation. There are more codicils under development for a forthcoming formal publication including a discussion of the ethics of this proposal.

My argument – it behooves the powers that be to fund the development of some “especially tasty fruits” to generate a positive anchor for the field of applied nanoscience/nanotechnology. Expect a more detailed follow-up.

REPETITION AND PROOF (CALGARY COMPUTER SIMULATION)

2008-05-28T13:52:00.005-05:00

If you repeat something often enough, it seems to come true. Nothing works better than repetition to convert speculation into conclusion.

NANOPARTICLES may be highly problematic for dozens of reasons. WE DO NOT claim otherwise. We examine below how findings from the Calgary study published online by Nature Nanotechnology (online 18 May 2008; doi:10.1038/nnano.2998.130) are being discussed by the media, in this situation – the web media.

"How buckyballs hurt cells." This headline appeared regularly during the last few days and was drawn from some of the findings of the Calgary study (above). It is based on a computer simulation which demonstrated the translocation of fullerenes presumably through cell linings. Allegedly, aggregates of fullerenes dissolve in the membrane and enter the lipid membrane composing the cell wall. Subsequently, they may enter the cell at which point they remain as separate entities or re-aggregate. The previous sentences constitute an important supposition given that some of the speculation that appeared on web sites attempts to evaluate the implications of this work by suggesting intra-cellular damage.

Having read this study it is important to separate the authors’ conclusions from the rhetoric that is already seeping into the general communication channels. The following conclusions are based on what the quantitative data from the computer simulation shows and not claims made by the authors in either the introduction or discussion.

Both monomer and aggregate fullerenes can diffuse into the membrane lipid bi-layer, although they do so at different rates.
Monomer fullerene has little effect on the physical or structural properties of the lipid bilayer.
Aggregate fullerenes tend to dissociate once in the lipophilic region of the lipid bilayer and can induce membrane stretching, thickening, lipid protrusion, and bilayer bending.
The aforementioned membrane distortions can lead to membrane stretching causing reduced cell diffusion and potential over-activation of stretch-mediated membrane protein channels. These effects are no different then adding cholesterols, small alcohols, or small lipids to the membrane.
Aggregate fullerenes do not cause bilayer rupture, micellization, or pore formation that might cause the cell to lyse.

Now let's examine what the article does not say.

There is NO simulation as to the propensity or rate of flow of the monomer or aggregate fullerenes through the membrane into the cell interior.
There is NO chemical data or analysis as to how the fullerenes might exhibit toxicity or cell damage either in the cell or in the membrane interior.
There are NO data directly linking the movement of fullerenes in cell membranes to other selective body barriers (such as the blood-brain barrier).

In the recent study by Wong-Ekkabut (2008) they use a computer chemical modeling simulation to assess the impacts of both single and aggregate fullerenes on cell plasma membranes. It is important to note that these are not in vivo or in vitro experiments, but models based on chemical understandings of the nature of fullerenes and phospholipids bilayers (cell membrane molecules).

Modeling as mode of inquiry shares a long tradition in various fields of science. In a world that offers infinite possible variables, it allows researchers to simplify these complicated interactions into workable processes for which outcomes can be easily observed. These simulated outcomes can then be compared to observed “real-world” phenomena and the resulting comparison allows for an assessment of the strength and validity of the model. If the model is a good approximation of observations then the model becomes a useful tool for prediction. If the model fails, variables must be added, removed, or modified.

As media articles tout the innovative use of the WestGrid computer modeling that modeled the interaction between carbon-60 molecules and cell membranes, the Society of Toxicology still holds that “mathematical and computer models based on the predicted relationship must be validated by tests in animals and humans” because these methods provide limited information that apply “to a very specific test situation and may not fully anticipate the results in a complicated organism (such as humans).”

In the case of the Wong-Ekkabut et al. (2008) study, researchers were investigating the activity of a complex substance, carbon, with multiple characteristics that have to be taken into account when determining toxicity. The computer model demonstrated predictions about the translocation of fullerene clusters through a model lipid membrane but to more accurately demonstrate this possibility and/or probability, the computer model would have to factor in the characteristics of the carbon into the analysis. Other particle properties that are necessary for model prediction include: particle surface area; redox activity; composition/contamination; solubility; durability; particle count; particle size distribution; defect density; length of CNT affecting inhalation, transport, filtering and toxicity; charge; degree of agglomeration and environmentally relevant characterization.

All of these characteristics are important for toxicology studies because toxicology is complex. All chemicals may cause harm, depending on the dose of the exposure. Even some of the most common chemicals in our environment (like silica), exist in our food or water without toxic effects and yet under certain conditions they can be toxic. So, as Esdaile points out, how can we expect a computer model to predict complex outcomes of the interaction of chemicals with biological systems with all the associated problems of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion?

Computer prediction modeling is accepted for toxicological endpoints that are based on already well-understood mechanisms (such as skin sensitization). However when the endpoint is more complex, as is the case with nanoscience interaction, toxicities cannot be satisfactorily predicted (Simon-Hettich et al., 2006).

Other types of alternative modeling, such as artificial models of human skin (which replace any in vivo test for skin irritation), have been validated by The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). However, computer models are further away from validation. Although they are used extensively by industry as screening tools to predict drug toxicity, only one software tool, Lazar, is currently being validated by ECVAM for regulatory use. The lazar (lazy-structure-activity relationship) program is under validation regarding predictions of the rodent cancer bioassay. It is hard to determine though, whether or not the WestGrid software used in the fullerene computer simulation study has undergone any kind of validation from a toxicological organization and on what criteria researchers made their selection.

If there are no current observations with which to assess modeling validity, then the strength of the model is nothing more than a value judgment. There is a dearth of observational data in studies of the toxicology of nanoparticles and therefore, the conclusions drawn from modeling studies must be taken tentatively prior to epidemiological data becoming available to confirm their validity.

Media coverage of this topic has so far only appeared in a series of online scientific news sources including ScienceDaily, DailyTech.com, Eurekalert, Nanowerk, Genopharm, and NanoVIP.com. The University of Calgary also reported the story on its website. As of yet, the story has not appeared in more mainstream news outlets, although it is likely that it will due to the attention received by the carbon nanotube-asbestos metaphor. There is no wonderfully terrifying attention grabbing metaphor to use as a rhetorical device in this particular instance, but as more general publics begin to become more interested in nanotechnology such devices won’t be necessary. The very word “nano” will be enough to grab people’s attention. Since this story is riding on the coattails of the story comparing some carbon nanotubes to asbestos, it is likely that we will experience that effect. The problem here is that once again, “nano” is being associated with “danger”. If the word “nano” continues to be used in this way, then a new area of scientific study with potentially incredible benefits to humanity will be retarded by public fear inspired by media outlets interested in only the most shocking stories guaranteed to attract viewers and sell advertising.

Interestingly, of the seven news sources listed, only one, DailyTech.com, has yet to produce original content. Each other news outlet simply copied the information verbatim from the University of Calgary website. While it is understandable that the purpose of any news outlet, online or otherwise, is to inform the public, this parroting does raise a red flag. This is not a productive discourse of the issue; it is one source controlling the information. Granted, DailyTech.com is to some degree a repackaging of the information using different wording. Such repackaging is important, however, for in the use or omission of data a type of media discourse is enacted in which the most important concepts comet to the fore. This process is not perfect by any means as we have seen time and again in other important issues covered by the media, but it is certainly better than the parroting we see here.

When other news outlets such as the New York Times and the Washington Post pick up this topic, they may reword the story and thus push the discourse forward. However, their list of sources for the study only includes the first run of the information in these online science news outlets. This means that the University of Calgary news release people control the discussion here and we only get one reading of the data. Unfortunately, this means that the asbestos metaphor will continue to live on because it is cited in the story that has been repeated ad nauseum. The negative perception of nano could very well become a cumulative effect of news media stories citing their own laundry lists of shock stories.

Our hope then must turn to the bloggers (read: us), and there is hope. Not only are we doing our very best to bring you alternate readings of dubious content, but there are others as well. The good folks at Gizmodo, an online technology blog, submitted an entry entitled “Study kicks nanotechnology right in the buckyballs”. At least they called the absolute validity of a computer simulation into question as well. They too perpetuate the theme that we should be wary of a technology that we do not understand, which is a good and well worn point, but they introduce dissonance and make people think and that is a very good thing.

Finally, the web articles we examined suggested translocation but then added some speculation which transfers risk profiles from other nanoparticles and other studies to inflate the potential significance of the findings from this one. For example, most add the line “Fullerenes have been shown to cause brain damage in fish and inhaling carbon nanotubes results in lung damage similar to that caused by asbestos.” The first reference is to the Evan Oberdörster study on juvenile largemouth bass that was repeatedly refuted after its publication. The second refers to the Poland study we discussed in a previous posting: May 21. Neither of these studies support sthe brain damage in fish nor the inhalation conclusions made in the articles covering the Calgary findings. Other online review unabashedly reference studies that fullerenes “can cross the blood-brain barrier and alter cell functions.” The blood-brain barrier studies which are often repeated involved rats and need to be replicated. This is primarily G. Oberdörster’s work. There is some evidence suggesting some chemicals may cross the blood-brain barrier and this phenomenon has become an important research agenda among those researchers in nano-ceuticals. While the claim that some particles might cross the blood-brain barrier has been supported, it has not been claimed for all particles including those used in the Calgary study (thought this remains the subject of some conjecture).

ON ASBESTOS AND NANOTUBES

2008-05-21T11:54:00.005-05:00

Science is objective. Using methodologies that are beyond reproach due to verification, science is clad under a mantle of facts and data. Or is it just “Emperor’s Clothes”?

Science and technology are rhetorical phenomena comparable to political and public address. It’s simply a matter of degree.

When a scientific research article is written, the authors select from the available means of persuasion to craft their language and their claims. Often, they speak to many audiences other than their peers, and when speaking to the media and the public nothing speaks more loudly than strong imagery and rhetorical tropes.

We recently observed just such an occasion. The team from the PCOST (Public Communication of Science and Technology) Project at NCSU put their heads together and is offering this preliminary assessment of the debate “On Asbestos and Nanotubes.” Their collective heads are: Christopher Cummings, Grant Gardner, Kelly Norris, Nick Temple and yours truly—and what a team of doctoral students!

In the Poland et al. (2008) study the researchers are attempting to test whether long straight multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) induce similar early symptoms of mesothelioma to those caused by asbestos fibers. In examining any research study it is important to separate what the quantitative data is actually showing from the authors conjecture or discussion of implications. That is not to say interpreting and expounding scientific data is intrinsically fallacious, but the differences in validity of these assertions must be made clear. For the Poland study, readers must also temper their consideration of the power of the results by noting the relatively small sample size. The following is a brief discussion of interpretive pit-falls to be wary of prior to examining reports of this study.

Although the article relates carbon nanotube (CNT) exposure risks to airborne asbestos, the researchers make no claims as to how easily carbon nanotubes (CNTs) become airborne. In fact, most CNT-manufactured products are likely safe, as they are embedded in structures. The largest concern for airborne particulate CNTs would be in factories manufacturing these products. For the sake of argument if we were to ignore this assumption, if individuals were to be exposed to particulate CNTs, it is unknown how easily they can become lodged in lung tissue. Additionally, uncertainty surrounds how readily they would migrate to the mesothelium. The Poland study bypasses these questions by installing CNTs directly into tissue to examine their effect. It is important to note that the study tissue was not lung mesothelium, but closely-related abdominal peritoneum. In addition, another question is whether CNTs can remain anchored in the tissue and in a concentration significant enough in dosage to cause mesotheliomas. What the study can claim is that asbestos and CNT particles that are long and fibrous tend to induce pre-mesothelioma symptoms when directly injected into mesolthelial tissue layers. For more detail on the science, see the ICON Backgrounder at http://icon.rice.edu/resources.cfm?doc_id=12299.

A word that to most connotes deadly carcinomas and mesothelioma, asbestos can hardly enter a headline without raising concern in readers. However, the media inevitably have to make the comparison between multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) the highlight of their stories since this is how the experimental studies were designed. In addition, the media simply gets giddy when offered such a tantalizing headline.

One of the main purposes of the recent studies published in the Journal of Toxicological Sciences (Takagi et al., 1008) and Nature Nanotechnology (Poland et al., 1008) was to determine if mesothelial exposure (in mice) to the needle-like fibre shape of MWCNTs results in pathogenic behavior. The other main purpose, even more heavily marketed by researchers, was to determine if the pathogenic behavior of the MWCNTs was similar to asbestos fibres. This effort to compare the two is interesting since recommendations from the findings would be the same regardless of the comparison. If anything, by releasing the findings, demonstrating how the two are similar and then having to later make distinctions about how they are different only confuses the issue.

News regarding this study did not come from many sources the day it was released. A survey of world, national, and local print news sources revealed only thirteen highly redundant articles. In fact, four of these were the exact same articles simply reprinted in different Associated Press outlets. Other news outlets reporting this story included The New York Times, The Washington Post, and U.S. Newswire. Local reports were less common, including only a story by The Virginian Pilot out of Norfolk, VA and extremely brief three line blurb in Birmingham Evening Mail. Only one strictly web based news source, vnunet.com, ran the story.

The lack of stories may account for some of the redundancy found in the articles. However, this redundancy does set up a frame that may very likely be followed as more articles appear. One would expect the Associated Press to copy the same story to their various outlets. Since many large news outlets rely on the AP to break stories to them, rewrites of that material is also to be expected. As local news sources begin to pick the story up, they too will likely rely on the details from the original stories to guide their work. This is the way the news works.

As we have seen, however, the rhetoric of the original stories is confusing. The media have picked up on the metaphor of linking MWCNTs to asbestos. Considering that asbestos is something of a devil term in the rhetoric of industrial circles, such a metaphor has the power to be extremely powerful in the minds of a public still dealing with the aftermath its cancerous effects. The original study being cited is the one which originates the metaphor since the effects were so similar, but it is the media which carries this metaphor out and enacts its power.

To support this metaphor and discuss it, the media tend to be quoting the same two or three people. Andrew Maynard’s sound bite in which he says “This is a wakeup call for nanotechnology in general and carbon nanotubes in particular” is frequently used. One of the authors of the Poland study, Donaldson, is also frequently quoted as saying “It’s a good news story, not a bad one. It shows that carbon nanotubes and their products could be made to be safe.” Vicki Colvin was also quoted several times as saying that the benefits of nanotechnology are too powerful to ignore, but that this study emphasizes the importance of knowing how to handle it. These were the primary experts put into conversation with one another in the media and as such will logically lead the discussion of this issue as it progresses. It will be interesting to see how the public picks up the issue and what they do with it. The media has touted the metaphor of asbestos but at the same time has attempted to frame the issue as a cautionary tale in which science is on top of the issue now before it becomes a problem as opposed to when scientists dropped the ball on asbestos. However, the memory of asbestos may be too powerful to allow for public trust in anything linked to it, even if the link is primarily a metaphorical one.

Researchers say (even in their abstracts) that they are calling for further research and great caution so that long-term harm is to be avoided. However, the likely public reaction is do away with carbon nanotubes in products all-together in spite of any future research, even research touting positive findings (something we might want to test).

Also, by focusing attention on the similarities between carbon nanotubes and asbestos, less attention is paid to other interesting findings from the studies. For instance, the fact that short, tangled MWCNTs did not cause inflammation in mesothelial tissue, therefore did not suggest pathogenic behavior was not mentioned in most media articles.

Though most articles reporting the studies acknowledge that the greatest danger of exposure is to the workers involved in production of items containing carbon nanotubes and that researchers agree that there is no need to restrict the use of carbon nanotubes in products, by pushing the correlation between asbestos and MWCNTs the lay audience will certainly consider carbon nanotubes a public hazard. Even in the case of workers involved in manufacturing the particles, the articles report that precautions have already been put into place requiring workers to wear respirators. Towards the end of media articles, reporters point out that the study did not look at how likely and/or easily carbon nanotubes become airborne or whether they become lodged in the lungs if inhaled. But this consideration of dosage and exposure is now irrelevant to the public that is concerned with consequences and implications only.

As risk researchers Jenkins-Smith & Silva point out “members of the public appear to be more willing to believe risk increasing signals than risk-decreasing signals” —and pairing nanotubes with asbestos in the headline of a study or media article is definitely a “risk increasing” signal.

The articles continue to perplex as they state that on the one hand, there is minimal risk to consumers in handling products made of carbon nanotubes because the fibres are so embedded, but on the other hand, nanotubes should be subject to the same rules and regulations as asbestos.

Also puzzling, professors say they are “not alarmed” about the results of the studies but still insist products should be better labeled. They back this suggestion with the concern that, like asbestos, the nanotubes could be released later (i.e. construction workers or mechanics inhaling asbestos from concrete or automobile brake pads).

Here again, the language is confusing to the public because at the same time the articles tell people not to distress they also insist on the possibility that nanotubes are asbestos with a “coat of a different color.”

As a rhetorical strategy, telling people they are safe while at the same time making reference to a similar substance that lessened trust in industry and the government, only makes sense if the purpose is to actually heighten concerns and monger fear.

Slovic (1986) warns that merely mentioning possible adverse consequences to the public can make them appear more frightening. Therefore, the rhetorical force of mentioning the consequences of direct exposure to MWCNT while also establishing a direct association to a negatively explosive word like asbestos is enormous.

Because researchers are aware of the reactions the word asbestos triggers in the public, the actual motivation behind comparing the two substances, must be to first, attract the attention of the media and second, to position themselves as rescuers/saviors devoted to the public’s interest (unlike industries who are trying to sneak the hazardous materials into consumer products regardless of health or environmental risks).

Most often the media look for hot button issues while deconstructing academic research findings, in the case of the MWCNTs studies, the experiments were rhetorically designed so that the hot button issue was at the forefront, ensuring a lot of attention at the expense of some of the intricate findings and opportunity for a critical public.

The problem with this rhetorical approach is that the adverse reactions it could instill in the public could be more problematic than the media attention it draws.

Berube with New Pubs

2008-05-02T12:51:00.006-05:00

You can get yours hands on the Intuitive Tox article since the Spring book is now out.

Nanotechnology and Society by Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin, Springer, 1st edition, June 2008, ISBN - 10: 1404062087.

The article examining risk profile shifts and the FOE report on sunscreens is also avialable from On Line Access at the Journal of Nanoparticle Research. "Rhetorical gamesmanships in the nano debates over sunscreens and nanoparticles," Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 2008. DOI: 10.1007/S11051-008-9362-7.

The article I co-authored with Paul Borm is also out in Nano Today. Me and Paul Borm. "A nanotale of opportunities, uncertainties, and risks, Nano Today, 3:1-2, Feb-Apr 2008, 56-59.

I will be reviewing some new publications soon. Right now, I am working on my new book and a set of articles on "fear".

Review of Nanodays

2008-04-10T12:43:00.003-05:00

The Nanodays event held in Washington, DC was impressive. The informal education people are doing a remarkable job and need to be applauded. I had the opportunity to visit with friends from the Museum of Science in Boston and new friends at the Museum of Life and Science in Durham. Two days later I participated in the NanoDays project in Durham at the Museum and expect to have a long and productive relationship with them in the years ahead or as long as I stay st NCSU.

That evening (04/02/08) I went over to the Woodrow Wilson Center to watch the roll-out of the Fred Friendly seminars documentary and the review is in the next post. Generally, this is a start. It could have been better but it was a welcomed beginning though I still maintain we need a true documentary and soon.

To learn more about the day, go to http://www.astc.org/blog/2008/04/03/nanodays-in-washington-dc/. I thought there was no reason to be redundant.

Review of "Powers of the Small"

2008-04-10T12:38:00.004-05:00

REVIEW OF THE POWER OF SMALL (http://powerofsmall.org/)

I watched every minute of these.

Overall, these three pieces do not qualify as documentaries in the popular understanding of the term. It has generally a mediocre production value. One of its primary drawbacks is the implicit assumption that the audience understands what nanotechnology is. The moderator, John Hockenberry, is correct these are hypothetical and that is not what we need at this point in time.

First, the Fred Friendly seminar model is a good one for talking heads in a panel format. I am challenging whether it was appropriate for what needed to be done.

Second, it is not a documentary in the tradition of Flaherty or Grierson’s “creative treatment of actuality”; it is an orchestrated interview (a seminar) in the mode of Sunday morning news shows. Put simply, it is not aesthetically sufficient given to low level of perception and understanding associated with all things nano. The excitement of what is “nano” is missing from this set of interviews.

Hypothetical applications have dominated the debate on applied nanoscience for far too long. What we need to do is introduce the technology and not focus on applications. This is a “horse before the cart” problem. A case can be made to do both simultaneously but these three pieces do not fit the bill. I speak in public a lot and the questions remain rudimentary and about the technology per se. Focusing on applications this early in the game reminds me of the claims about virtual reality a few decades ago.

WATCHING ME, WATCHING YOU.

The opening scenario about an Alzheimer patient and a tracking device and its impact on privacy is reasonably interesting but to the audience without an understanding of nanoscience and nanotechnology it hardly scratches the surface of current applications. In addition, there is little distinction about how nanoscience will sufficiently increase the privacy concerns given microchips are already available. Nano is a piece of technology with a lot of functionality. As George Whitesides comments, nanoscience only makes it smaller. The impact on personal safety from predators was a clear example of irrelevancies introduced into the discussion. The discussion of data leakage was interesting but irrelevant. The terrorism attack on a rail line scenario bespeaks the CCTV trend in Europe link analysis notwithstanding. The National ID on steroids does not need nanoscience to be an invasion of individual privacy. While computation might be faster, this does not resolve the underlying ethical foundation upon which these concerns are constructed. I especially liked the remark: “Nanotechnology: Killer of Marriages.”

FOREVER YOUNG

Living to 150? Museum exhibits about medicine, communication, energy, health & safety…? There is a discussion of insurance, privacy, and the interface with biotechnology.

What follows is a discussion on sensor technology and quantities of information. This module seems more relevant than the one reviewed above since the digital doctor is not unlikely.

There is some indication developments in nanoscience supported sensing technology might expose us to a lot more false positive diagnoses due to the excessive data but the interview degenerates into a discussion on medical ethics far from nanoscience. Iatrogenic issues presumably aggravated by nanoscience are mentioned but totally undeveloped without a single illustration. Then the discussion reverts to pilots with sensors that might detect alcohol and whether this level of monitoring is justified.

Next we get Oscar and Parkinson’s treatment. We learn that technology may already exist. Oops! Where’s the nano?

Then we move to genetic switches that affect aging. We don’t need nano to engage in genetic engineering. Most of the panel seems fine with death. That’s good. Peter Singer does raise the important issues of the rich-poor gap when it comes to technological applications. Singer sees an ethical dilemma that might be helped by nanoscience. “Shouldn’t we just do it and face those problems?” asked Michael Roukes. This is an interesting question that deserved to be much better vetted. I was glad to hear him move back to this remark.

Eventually, the team got to intergenerational conflict and that does not get vetted as well.

Life prolongation may be advanced substantially by nanotechnology, but there was very little here linking the two beyond pure speculation.

CLEAN, GREEN AND UNSEEN

Sunnyville, USA. Welcome to a fictional city council and let’s play counterfactual. One of the problems with this model is resolved in earlier work of mine that criticizes the utility of counterfactuals as arguments and I may attach some of this at a later date.

Finally, we get a discussion about the real technology. We begin with solar panel technology. Jeff Grossman, Dan Kammen, and Clayton Teague actually offered a clear description of the technology and its relationship to nanoscience. Then we return to counterfactuals.

Richard Denison & Andrew Maynard bring us back to Earth when they begin to discuss shortcomings in regulations. What follows is a scenario involving Admiral Chicken and sensing technology to protect consumers from exposure to salmonella. Andrew Maynard keeps the discussion real by drawing the discussion back to nano-engineering. The discussion moves toward health-safety. Teague returns to present regulatory responses but is challenged again and again by Denison. Maynard actually attempts to explain encapsulation of favors using nanoscience and its potential relevance to a recipe for fried chicken. Teague adds use of encapsulation in chocolates.

The final scenario deals with a company dumping toxic wastes. Dan Kammen indicated some life cycle concerns when nanoparticles are released into an environment which is a lot more troubling than when nanoparticles are embedded in a polymer matrix. Kulinowski take zero valent ion to rust admitting we need to know a lot more. She admits nanorust might be problematic with Maynard and Denison in agreement. I did enjoy watching Kulinowski jumps to push nanomagnets under research at Rice. Hmmm?

Next the discussion moves to sunscreens and cosmetics. I have written enough on sunscreens in the next issues of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research. Kulinowski and Maynard offer guarded remarks. Kulinowski adds the industry is guarding research.

The debate on cosmetics is still ongoing and rightly so.

There is an animated discussion on labeling making this video of the three worth watching.

We still need a documentary that exposes the technology written and produced in a registry that is appropriate for public consumption.

Back again in the proverbial saddle

2008-04-02T08:11:00.006-05:00

Sorry for the long delay in posting but I was moving into my new digs. My office is now in Winston 102 on the campus of North Carolina State University in Raleigh. I signed my condo lease through May 2009. I have been writing quite a bit (picture at right [Berube at 1]).
“Intuitive Toxicology: The Public Perception of Nanoscience,” Nanoethics: Emerging Debates, Allhoff, F. & Lin, P., eds., London: Springer, 2008, x-x.

“Future of Nano,” Nano-Predictions: Big Thinkers on the Smallest Technology, Burgess, S. & Lin, P., eds., NY: Wiley 2008, x-x.

“Stakeholder Participation in Nanotechnology Policy Debates” Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society, Bennett, D. ed. London: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis), 2008, x-x.

“Nanoscience, Water and Society: Public Engagement at and below the Surface," Nanotechnology Applications: Solutions for Improving Water Quality, Diallo, M., Duncan, J., Savage, N, Street, A., and Sustich, R., eds , NY: William Andrew Publishing, 2008, x-x.

"Public Acceptance of Nanomedicine: A Personal Perspective", Nanomedicine, J. Baker, ed., NY: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews, 2008, x-x. In addition, I finished four grant proposals (S&S and a DRU) and two that were CEIN full proposals. We wait now to learn if we are invited for reverse site visits on the CEINs. It's a competitive field so we will have to hope for the best. I am in DC right now. Will be attending the 3PM program in the Rayburn Building to see what our museum friend are up to and at 5:30 I will get to the Woodrow Wilson Center for the roll out of the "Nanotechnology: The Power of Small" documentary. I will fly back to Raleigh tomorrow morning and will teach my grad. seminar in RISK COMMUNICATION at 3PM and will head to the Durham Museum of Life and Science for a forum on Nanotechnology and Alternative Energy. We are getting the NIRT together now that it was transferred to NCSU with U. South Carolina as a subaward. We are planning the opening workshop on August 7-8 in Raleigh. It will be advertised next week. I am finalizing the invitations and schedule over the weekend. "No rest for the wicked." Finally, I am fielding a lot of requests for conferences after the article I wrote for the recent issue of the Journal of Nanoparticle Research on risk profile shifts in the debate over nanoparticles in sunscreens. DOI 10.1007/s11051-008-9362-7. To date all the reviews were positive.

On EHS Nano and Water - A DRAFT

2008-01-05T14:35:00.000-05:00

I am working on a WATER project right now and am sharing an early draft of the EHS section. Comments are always welcomed.

By the way, I have my office at NCSU now and will be posting regularly. I start teaching a graduate seminar in RISK next Thursday.

POST

We begin with the EHS footprint. This involves examining multiple exposure modalities associated with applied nanoscience and water.

First, we have the consequences of the waste streams generated when producing nanoparticles and using nanoparticles and its effects on potable surface water and in some cases groundwater. These could occur profoundly in the production and disposal ends of the nanoparticle life cycle.

Producing nanoparticles involves the use of chemicals which need disposal and result in quantities of product which either fail to meet product requirements or are the product of cleaning vessels and chambers associated with production. While some significant recycling does occur, there are some disposal issues.

There is very little research undergoing examining the effects of disposal and incineration of these waste stream products. Recent research undertaken by UCSB under a grant from ICON involved remarks indicating that some of these materials are turned over in a subcontract to a waste disposal firm. At a pollution prevention meeting in Washington in 2007 a representative from the waste disposal industry underlined the fact that the disposal and recycling industries have received little or no guidance from regulators.

Nanoparticles have been described as free or bound in a matrix. Presumably free nanoparticles as would occur during packing might be especially problematic for workers while those bound in a matrix such as carbon nanotubes in automobile runners would be less problematic. Nevertheless, there remain some end life cycle challenges when nanoparticles bound in matrices are disposed or recycled. Until there is a body of reliable data we may discover nanoparticles in soil samples as well as surface and groundwater. Our experience with leaking underground storage tanks should provide us a lesson when it comes to disposal of nanoparticles.

Second, we have the consequences of nanoparticles leaching down into groundwater resources from applications to remediate heavily polluted sites and topical applications in the agriculture and forestry industries which can runoff and drain into surface water and freshwater aquifers.

Nanoscale metals can render some chemicals inert and kill some microorganisms. Some research has demonstrated their capacity under certain circumstances to remove some salts and metals as well as decompose some organic pollutants. For example a cyclodextrin polymer has been shown to remove a range of contaminants, including benzene, polyaromatic hydropcarbons, fluorines, nitrogen-containing contaminants, acetone, pesticides, explosives and many others. It could be used for in situ groundwater treatment or for cleaning oil and organic chemical spills.[1]

In addition, research has considered the use of titanium, zinc, and silver to degrade volatile organic compounds. Titanium oxides react to ultraviolet light. “When water comes in contact with titanium oxide and is exposed to light, the chemical breaks down bacterial cell membranes, killing bacteria like the ubiquitous E col.”[2] A titanium dioxide granular media called Adsorbia™GTO™ was field tested in Bangladesh and is marketed by Dow to remove arsenic from water from its combined oxidative and adsorptive properties.[3]

Sulfate reducing bacteria can produce heavy metal particulates. Using bacterial metal-binding proteins a team from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and UC Berkeley believe they can clean up heavy metal particulates like zinc sulfide.[4]

In 2007, a new group calling themselves AE Water Treatment™ is using iron nanoparticles and lanthanum chloride to develop new approaches to water treatment and ground water remediation.[5] Adedge Technologies also offers AD33, a nanostructured iron oxide media for the removal of arsenic as well as lead, zinc, chromium, copper, and other heavy metals.[6]

It seems the use of nanoscale zero valent iron (NZVI) can be injected into contaminated water sources for remediation and has been shown to degrade pesticides including DDT and lindane.[7] PARS Environmental manufactures zero-valent iron used for in-situ remediation of microbial and organic contamination in groundwater.[8] The list of common environmental contaminants NZVI could address includes chlorinated methanes, chlorinated benzenes, pesticides, organic dyes, thrihalomethanes, PCBs, arsenic, nitrate, and heavy metals such as mercury, nickel, and silver.[9]

Direct applications of agricultural products involving nanoparticles have been touted to reduce pesticide and water use, improve plant and animal breeding, and create nano-bioindustrial products.[10] The speculation is legion. “Think of a pesticide that would release its pest-killing properties only when it has been igested by the targeted insect and a nanoparticle that could be ingested by chickens and turkeys to remove a common poultry bacterium called campylobacter that causes about 1 million US residents to get sick each year.”[11] In reality, companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF are developing pesticides enclosed in nanocapsules or made of nanoparticles according to a joint OECD-Allianz Group report.[12] The same Allianz Report adds: “With funding from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Clemson University researchers are feeding bioactive polystyrene nanoparticles that bind with bacteria to chickens as an alternative to chemical antibiotics in industrial chicken production” and “One of the USA’s biggest farmed fish companies, Clear Spring Trout, is adding nanoparticle vaccines to trout ponds, where they are taken up by fish.”[13]

For example, a team from Iowa State claim they can use the pores of mesoporous silica nanoparticles to deliver a chemical trigger for gene expression in tobacco plants.[14] Monsanto claims this breakthrough result could find applications in plant biotechnology and might even be used to improve crops in the future.[15]

Applications include smart sensors and smart delivery systems which could help the industry combat viruses and other crop pathogens and increase the efficiency of pesticides and herbicides, allowing lower doses to be used.[16] For example, Syngenta already uses nanoemulsions in one of its pesticide products Primo MAXX^®. Called smart delivery system, this approach has attracted major players including LG, BASF, Honeywell, Bayer, Mitsubishi, and Dupont.[17]

Bioindustrial applications, sometimes called particle farming, have been demonstrated by a team at the University of Texas-Austin. For example, alfalfa plants grown in gold rich soil absorb gold nanoparticles through their roots and accumulate these in their tissues. The particles are mechanically separated following harvest.[18]

Since nanomaterials are more biological active than larger versions of the same chemical, the potential for inflammatory and pro-oxidant effects as well as anti-oxidant effects under some conditions they represent a class of materials about which there are many unknowns. How they interact with other nanomaterials and with organic material in the environment must be better understood. Some research has begun. For example, a Canadian research team led by Denis O’Carroll is using experimental conditions that parallel actual field conditions. According to O’Carroll, “there is considerable interest in pumping nanomaterials into the ground where they can flow with groundwater to a contaminated region and convert hazardous chemicals into benign products like ethane and butane.”[19] He expects findings within the next five years. Unfortunately, not enough of this type is research is underway leading the Meridian Institute to warn that “even though nanomaterials with certain coatings may be safe under laboratory conditions, it may be necessary to test these compounds under environmental conditions.”

Third, we have the consequences of nanoparticles from products such as washing machines, as well as industrial applications in agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture that find their way into the water treatment systems. In addition we may have residues of nanoparticles used in the water treatment process itself that could reach consumers.

Let’s begin with the tale of the Samsung Silver Care Health System referring to a suite of Samsung products including air conditioning and refrigerators. What got Samsung into hot water was the heart of the patented Silver Nano Health System technology of Samsung, an electrolysis unit in the washing machine. Silver ions are extracted from a silver plate and delivered during the washing process into the washing water. The silver ions act as an anti-bacterial and work in cooler water so the washer uses less energy. Samsung claims the silver ions will quickly bind to organic matter and become inactive in waste. The water treatment industry was so convinced claiming current treatment being able to remove only 50 to 90 percent of the silver. Silver could affect bacteria used in the waste treatment process. If not, the rest would remain in sludge which is commonly placed on farm land or in landfills. In addition, there is some concern bacteria may develop resistance to silver as well as antibiotics as has been suggested in birds and salmonella.

In America, two groups the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and Tri-TAC a waste treatment group from California wrote to the EPA concerned about this use of silver. In the end, the EPA demanded the INSERT.

In Europe, The German association for the protection of the environment and nature (BUND) alerted consumers on the presence of silver nanoparticles in these washing machines. BUND claimed the silver nano-particles contained in the machine were not tested. They claimed bioassays would have found nano-size silver can deleteriously affect liver and sex cells and the development of nerve cells. They warned Samsung and Media Markt were marketing the new washing machine as particularly health-friendly and for people with allergies and pregnant women.

An article in Eurip.com added that the use of considerable quantities of silver ions would remain in the waste water and make its way into the soil. As highly effective biocides, they could kill bacteria, which are used in biological purification plants, and so disturb waste water purification. In addition, the particles would contribute to the silver load of the sewage sludge, which was no more suitable for the agricultural fertilization afterwards.

Samsung’s response: "…the silver ions only function with the washing machines and are inactive as soon as they arrive in the waste water…. We speak here of only max. 0.05 grams silver per year arriving additionally in the waste water.”

It is unclear whether the silver ions are intentionally engineered nanoparticles with any special properties that might trigger concerns noted above. The washer releases silver ions involving the electro-shaving of two silver plates and no one outside Samsung has any idea what this means. Most experts agree silver ions are not silver nanoparticles for the purposes of assessing its risk profile and Samsung got itself into this controversy by misjudging the marketing value of the nano moniker.

Silver ions are used in brooms, food storage containers, drywall and point for surfaces to reduce mold, curtain coatings in hospitals, wound treatments, and coating for some surgical tools. LG Electronics and Daewoo are selling silver-lines refrigerators and vacuum cleaners. And the sports companies, including Adidas, Polartec, Brooks Sports, ARC Outdoors, have and are ready to mount silver particles as a disinfectant for clothing. Even a Yoga company, Plank, is selling silver particles as a disinfectant in their Cor soap. Some of it will get into water supplies and before we pass on its use, we might want to develop a research database which will allow regulatory agencies to determine how to effectively screen or regulate it.

The same could be said about the agriculture, forestry, and aquaculture industries who are becoming intrigued with applied nanoscience and its capabilities to reduce production expenses, add value, and maximize profitability.

INSERT

Indeed, when it comes to cleaning and filtering water the traditional way, “we’ve gotten as far as we can go on the larger scale,” says EPA’s Richard Sustitch.[20] “It’s not black and white” says Mamadou Diallo from Cal Tech’s Molecular Environmental Technology program. “No one wants to drink nanoparticles with their water.”[21] The perceived risks are especially problematic for this industry. As was somewhat evident from the Samsung washer issue, the water industry is typically conservative and risk adverse. Since most water companies are publicly owned, they aren’t allowed to make a profit. And if something went wrong, the water company could be held responsible for a public health crisis says Sustich.[22]

INSERT

Fourth, we have the consequences from nanoparticles used as anti-fouling coatings for water traversing vessels and offshore structures including FPSOs (floating production storage and offloading tanks), submerged and insulated pipelines, heat exchangers in desalination or power plants, oceanographic sensors, and swimming pools. Over time, the coatings degrade and are released into freshwater, saltwater, and recreational systems.

Algae and mussels foul submerged structures of all sorts. Algae is nearly everywhere we find water including community pools. Mussels are observable on wharf pilings and on the hulls of vessels. Fouling can be costly. For example, ships with fouled hulls require 40 percent more fossil fuel to travel at the same speed as unfouled vessels.[23]

Currently, organotin compounds are used as biocides for vessels and structures, but they have a formidable toxicity profile and may been banned by the EU in the near future. In addition, the current silicone-base treatment has drawbacks not the least of which is the fragile nature of the coating.

This has opened opportunities for companies like BASF to develop alternative coatings. According to BASF’s Harald Keller, “The nanostructuring of the surface alters the wetting properties and is intended to signal that the site is not suitable for the organisms to settle.” One of the more promising developments involves the use of alumina/titania coatings for salt water vessels to reduce corrosion. The electrodeposition of silanes on roughened titanium is also receiving some notice. Anticipated alternative from polymer blends that segregate to produce a mosaic surface to the use of nanoparticles that moderate surface rugosity.[24] A silicone-based fouling release coating using silicone and nanotubes developed by the University of Mons-Hainaut and Nanocyl promises to be stronger, more robust, and easier to apply.

The EU research project “AMBIO” is investigating how to prevent the buildup of organisms on surfaces under marine conditions, for example on ships' hulls. Scientists from BASF are collaborating on this project with 30 partners from business and science from 14 countries.[25] The EC covered paints of this sort under the Biocidal Products Directive EC 98/8/CE.

There are some much more intimate applications worth considering as well. Pools, both private and commercial, are a huge market. The National Swimming Pool and Spa Institute reports the market consists of approximately eight million pools and four million existing spas and hot tubs worldwide, with an additional 360,000 pools and approximately 260,000 spas and hot tubs being installed on a yearly basis.[26] Loncto et al report nanoscale lanthanum oxycarbonate particles can be used to stop algae buildup in swimming pools by binding with phosphates.[27] For example, Altair Nanotechnologies, a leader in nanotechnology, nanomaterials and material science reported safety and effectiveness of its NanoCheck™ swimming pool algae prevention compound has been validated in independent testing. Altair claims its nano-structured compound works in conventional pool filtration systems is highly insoluble in water and is not a biocide.[28]

These coatings tend to last for one to two years. When they are applied and after they degrade and are reapplied, there will be some incidental or collateral release into the immediate environment. As they degrade, the release would occur while the coating is submerged. Until we have some better idea how the nanoparticle impregnated coatings interact with the freshwater or seawater environments when they are released, we might want to temper the comparative claims being made by the industry and others. While there are some good reasons to believe the nano-alternative might be preferred to both current anti-biofouling compounds as well as the ancillary costs of biofouling, there remain many unknowns.

REFERENCES

[1] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 26.

[2] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[3] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 31.

[4] Microbes at work cleaning up the environment. (2007). June 14. www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-06/dlnl-maw061407.php. Accessed June 19, 2007.

[5] American Elements combines nanoparticles, rare earths, and bulk chemical capabilities in launch of new AE Water Treatment Group. (2007). June 13. www.americanelememtns.com\news_6_13_07.htm. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[6] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 31.

[7] Zhang, W. (2003). Nanoscale iron particles for environmental remediation: An overview. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 5: 323-332.

[8] Meridian Institute. (2007). Workshop on Nanotechnology Water & Development. 15. http://www.merid.org/nano/waterworkshop/assets/WorkshopSummary.pdf. Accessed August 7.

[9] Meridian Institute. (2006). Overview and Comparison of Convention Water Nano-Based Treatment Technologies. October 11-12. 28.

[10] Analysis of early stage agrifood nanotechnology research and development. (2006). The A to Z of Nanotechnology. March 30. http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=2044. Accessed March 30, 2006.

[11] Rizzuto, P. (2006). Report says questions need to be addressed on use of nanotechnology in food, livestock. Daily Environment. September 7. Email communication.

[12] Allianz Group. (2005). Opportunities and risks of nanotechnologies. June 13. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/19/37770473.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2007. 17.

[13] Allianz Group. (2005). Opportunities and risks of nanotechnologies. June 13. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/19/37770473.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2007. 17-18.

[14] Dume, B. (2007). Porous nanoparticles deliver chemicals into plants. Nanotechweb. May 15. http://nanotechweb.org/particles/news/6/5/14?alert=1. Accessed May 22, 2007.

[15] Porous nanoparticles deliver chemicals into plants. (2007). http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=11594. Accessed November 12, 2007.

[16] Joseph, T. & Morrison, M. (2006). Nanoforum Report: Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food. May. http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/nanotechnology%20in%20agriculture%20and%20food.pdf?08122006200524. Accessed November 11, 2007. 5.

[17] Joseph, T. & Morrison, M. (2006). Nanoforum Report: Nanotechnology in Agriculture and Food. May. http://www.nanoforum.org/dateien/temp/nanotechnology%20in%20agriculture%20and%20food.pdf?08122006200524. Accessed November 11, 2007. 5.

[18] Kalagher, L. (2002). Alfalfa plants harvest gold nanoparticles. Nanotechweb. August 16. http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/9690. Accessed November 11, 2007.

[19] New lab tackles tainted groundwater with nanotechnology. (2006). Lab Canada. June 28. http://www.labcanada.com/issues/PrinterFriendly.asp?story_id=&id=57675&RType=&PC=&issue=06282006. Accessed November 29, 2007.

[20] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[21] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[22] Cosier, S. (2006). Big problems, little solutions. Scienceline. September 22. http://scienceline.org/2006/09/22/env-cosier-nanotech/. Accessed August 7, 2007.

[23] Biocide-free antifouling coatings thanks to nanostructured surfaces. (2005). Nano-Tsunami. August 18. http://www.voyle.net/Nano%20Coatings/Coatings%202005-0011.htm. Accessed October 26, 2007.

[24] Nanotechnology cleans up fouling. (2006). Nanotechweb. November 5. http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/indepth/31723. Accessed November 11, 2007.

[25] Biocide-free antifouling coatings thanks to nanostructured surfaces. (2005). Nano-Tsunami. August 18. http://www.voyle.net/Nano%20Coatings/Coatings%202005-0011.htm. Accessed October 26, 2007.

[26] National Swimming Pool and Spa Institute. (2002). Altair Nanotechnologies Files Patent on NanoCheck Algae Preventer for Prevention of Algae in Swimming Pools. Business Wire. December 16. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_Dec_16/ai_95454540. Accessed November 11, 2007.

[27] Loncto, J., Walker M., and Foster, L. (2007). Nanotechnology in the water industry. Nanotechnology Law & Business. June, 157-159. 159.

[28] NanoCheck Algae Prevention From Altair. (2004). The A to Z of Nanotechnology. March 11. http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleID=663. Accessed November 11, 2007.

New Nanoproducts

2007-12-18T12:01:00.000-05:00

I'll be writing a lot more but I had to share some of the new products of nano. The web pages are great and one of the reasons I subscribe to AZoNano (http://server1.streamsend.com/streamsend/signup.php?cd=37721&ld=31).

There is Solar RX sunblock (http://www.keys-soap.com/solarrx.html), Greenyarn has a cloth beauty mask (has a Jim Carrey feel to it),(http://www.greenyarn.com/beauty.htm), and a mosquito repellent spray from J Internatl City in Korea (http://feeljune.en.ec21.com/GC01140798/CA01088554/Mosquito_Repellent_Spray.html).

Daewoo has a nano-enhanced refrigerator (http://www.daewoo-electronics.de/eu/products/cool_ref_glos.asp) (competition to that Samsung line).

Check out the Yamaha Waverunner (http://www.yamaha-motor.com/waverunner/nanoxcel.aspx) and Teak Guard Marine Products as well (http://www.teak-guard.com/products.htm).

In Raleigh and Utah

2007-12-10T10:27:00.000-05:00

My blog will rise again now that I have a home address in Raleigh and have located to North Carolina State University. I am coordinating a project tentatively called Public Communication of Science and Technology (PCOST). We have 17 members from 5 universities and we are dedicated to completing social science research on science communication.

For what it is worth, I have been writing quite a bit, received a large grant which I had to transfer to NCSU, and attended a few meetings like the Grantees Award meeting in December. After the NCA in Chicago, moving, heading to DC for 4 days of a Grantees meeting, I am skiing in Park City. So far, I have been to the Canyons and today it is off to Solitude.

Expect to hear more from me on the nanofront very soon.

RE: Nanotechnology Report of the US FDA, Jule 25, 2007 - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED

2007-08-14T11:53:00.001-05:00

Nanotechnology: A Report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Nanotechnology Task Force, July 25, 2007, http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/taskforce/report2007.pdf.

If you are following the debate over nanoproducts, you simply must read this report. Even if you do not agree with the conclusion, this is an important document.

The report admits "products might change repeatedly as size enter into or varies within the nanoscale range." At the same time concluding "the agency's authorities are generally comprehensive" though admitting "for products not subject to premarket authorization requirements...oversight capacity is less c0mprehensive." I have been working on a new piece that looks at the two approaches to protecting safety: standards versus screening. There was a seminal article on this subject in the Virginia Law Review by Peter Huber in 1983 entitled The Old-New Division in Risk Regulation and it might be worth re-examining as we get deeper into reforms appropriate for dietary supplements, cosmetics, and food ingredients. I hope to have a draft of this piece which I am presenting at NanoTX (http://www.nanotx.biz) in October out soon.

I have a few closing concerns relating to this report.

On pp. 5-6 the call on the task force included a consideration of "appropriate vehicles for communicating with the public about the use of nanoscale materials in FDA-regulated products" was completed poorly.

RE Health & SAfety Executive NanoAlert Service - RECOMMENDED

2007-08-14T11:35:00.000-05:00

Health & Safety Laboratory, Health & Safety Executive NanoAlert Service, Issue 1, December 2006. http://www.hse.gov.uk/horizons/nanotech/nanoalert001.pdf.

The only negative thing to say about this report is that its ignores the toxicological impacts on the environment. It is about two issues: measurement, characterization, and control of exposure and potential toxic effects of nanoparticles in humans (p. 2). You might want to check the criteria for screening the search results (p. 3 and Appendix 5.2).

Regarding measurement, exposure and control, the reports selected 285 papers and categorizes them (p. 4). I was surprised and found the 11 papers on control techniques reported in the environmental waste industry worth a follow-up. The report has no qualms about stating "the instruments monitoring mass, number or surface area concentration are not capable of measuing in real-time the level of engineered nanoparticles and discriminating them from by-product aerosol entering the workplace from outside" (p. 13). I also liked the how the bibliography was presented under separate categories (pp. 18-20) adding to the value of the report as a guide for research. As this field is very challenging to me, I appreciate the effort taken to present the material usefully.

Regarding health effects, the report focuses on human effect of engineered nanoparticles. Most of the data comes from in vivo animal studies but that is to be expected. Once again, as expected, there remains too little data on translocation of nanoparticles which is not an indictment of the report just an indictment of research to date. Thanks for the bibliography (pp. 32-37).

This project should be encouraged and I am waiting for the next issue.

RE: NanoFrontiers - A Newsletter - RECOMMENDED IN PART

2007-08-14T10:55:00.000-05:00

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).

RE: Nanotechnology: The Future in Coming Sooner Than You Think - RECOMMENDED

2007-08-14T10:30:00.001-05:00

Nanotechnology: The Future is Coming Sooner Than You Think. A Joint Economic Committee Study, U.S. Congress. Prepared by Joseph Kennedy, chief economist. March 2007. http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/110/nanotechnology_03-22-07.pdf.

I am recommending this short piece because we are considering including it in a reading packet given to over 2500 undergraduate students who are involved with our NUE at U. South Carolina.

It is one of the few pieces that covers the breadth of the nanodebate and is well footnoted. It takes you through the defining process and the develops in microscopy. It uses the four systems organization schema to historicize the narrative. AND it does not shy away from some of the more radical or speculative materials. We plan to use the piece as a way to generate discussion and it does this very well. You will not agree with everything found in this piece but that is fine. I know that was not the author's intent.

On p. 7, in a paragraph following the bullets, you find a critically important discussion of the peculiarities of academic disciplines and how they may not act effectively to maximize the potential of applied nanoscience. In an academic setting like mine, I can attest to these issues and find them at many other universities in the USA.

The policy discussion is introduced on p. 7 and I applaud the author for mentioning "possible long-term existential threats to mankind" (though I would have said humankind) because this is the rhetoric to which the public is exposed. Given sufficient time, I would like to do a true content analysis of rhetoric associated with the "dark side" of nanoscience. I am fairly confident that we would find that the rhetoric falls into these categories.

human risks associated with toxicological properties of nanoparticles;
societal risks associated with advanced molecular manufacturing (i.e., dehumanization, post-humanism, etc);
other societal risks (legal, privacy, etc.); and
risks to the environment.

While 4 could be a subset of 3, it behooves us to separate it because of all the negative issues associated with applied nanoscience, it is amazing how little has been written on soil and water. I remain perplexed why that is so and hope the new Center for the Health and Safety of Nanoparticles will turn this around.

On p. 18, there is a wonderful rhetorical counterfactual. "Had the development of the World Wide Web waited for a full understanding of its socio-economic effects it would probably not exist today." An interesting supposition and worth teasing out.

Congrats to Mr. Kennedy. This piece will join a handful of others in my must read reading list for an introduction to nanoscience and nanotechnology.

Berube on NANOMEDICINE and the PUBLIC

2007-07-17T13:03:00.000-05:00

Here's the draft of a brief opinion piece I have been writing. All input is appreciated.

THE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF NANOMEDICINE: A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE

David M. Berube

This opinion piece is drawn from some work under consideration by the Public Communication on Science and Technology (PCOST) Project at North Carolina State University with which I am associated. It suggests lines of future research based upon observations from a review of the academic literature in the fields of applied nanoscience and risk studies.

It’s a blessing as well as a curse. Applied nanoscience or nanotechnology brings great opportunities, but at the same time it scares the bejebus out of some people. Exactly how and why many people are apprehensive about nanotechnology remain difficult to discern at this time. Given the inherent ambiguity of the word “nanotechnology” with its nearly infinite applications and the weaknesses of deliberative polling methodologies, any claim made regarding public attitudes about nanotechnology should be critically, if not skeptically, evaluated. Nevertheless, this hasn’t stopped some critics from speaking on the public’s behalf and voicing powerful concerns about precaution and uncertainty.

The question surfaces whether patient consumers (read as the public) will be reluctant to embrace nanomedicine. As argued below, there seems little likelihood the field of medicine will have as much difficulty as other non-health commercial industries. One of the reasons has to be the rigorous process drugs and devices undergo before they are marketed. While some may criticize the FDA for their failures in this area, comparative to other potential applications, FDA regulation is reasonably acceptable. When something slips through, there are always the lawyers. Companies in the drugs and devices world understand the potential liability issues associated with the products they market and generally act prudently. The public will embrace nanomedicine due to the sense of ease drawn from the regulatory purview of the FDA and potential litigation against those who market unsafe medical products. Below I argue there is an additional motivator: the fear of death.

My second argument detailed below is this: there is some likelihood that advances in the field of nanomedicine and the diagnosis and treatment of disease will ease the way for other non-health-related commercial applications. A variation of the psychological concept of transference will be at work here.

First, we examine the biases associated with medical developments and their introduction into commerce. The feeling is generally called necrophobia and it is the fear of death and dead things. Fear of death is a dense concept and includes fear of the dying process, of the dead, of being destroyed, for significant others, of the unknown, of conscious death, for body after death, and of premature death. While excessive fear of death may be socio-pathological, some fear of death is a survival mechanism for the species. It ranks first of all the phobias and is shared in some sense by almost everyone. This fear instigates care and caution. For most of us, it animates our efforts to avoid unnecessary and excessively risky activities.

There is some evidence this fear may be intrinsic to our species, but more easily defended is the concept that we are taught to fear death. Most religions separate life and afterlife into distinct categories and the transition from one to the other is mystical, if not traumatic. We see death portrayed by the media as sad and grief-laden, and some of us experience epiphanies following a disturbing death - often by someone very close to us.

Fear of death is an important variable in health care delivery.[1] There is even some evidence fear and denial of death among medical professionals and the public is the basis of the belief that prolongation of life is the predominant goal of medicine.[2]

The introduction of a new technology, exotic or familiar, which serves to prolong life taps into our fear of death and dying. Sating this apprehension makes the adoption of this technology, including nanomedicine, more likely against the same technology associated with some less essential application, like stronger automobile bumpers and better performing baseball bats.

Second, consider a troubling phenomenon often associated with the generation of polling data on preferences toward applications of nanotechnology. More respondents opine about nanotechnology than can define it.

This is not wholly surprising. We know from perception studies that populations wishing to provide positive feedback to a survey will offer opinions they feel are likely to be anticipated by the survey question. This produces a range of false positive and negative results depending on the survey question and general subject of the survey itself.

Moreover, when respondents become befuddled with a question, instead of admitting ignorance they draw from a set of sensibilities they feel are related to the subject of the question, a form of reasoning by analogy. Some have suggested that when asked about nanotechnology respondents will equate it with biotechnology and transfer their feelings about biotechnology to nanotechnology. Others suggest they transfer sensibilities about health and safety issues. Still others suggest environmental risks as a source for the transference.[3]

This form of transference is fundamental in lists of important heuristics in perception. These phenomena are derivative of research on representativeness and set theory, as well as the availability and anchoring biases. When making decisions, individuals over-rely on generalizing from classes, availability of instances and scenarios, and adjustment from an anchor.[4]

Focalism is another name for this effect, and it is loosely related to the fallacy of composition in logic. Some might want to call it simply a hasty generalization.

Another phenomenon called contagion has been part of the debate over nanotechnology for some time. Those of us who carefully watch public pronouncements about the risks associated with nanotechnology have noticed a rhetorical device surfacing aside demands for more research about the health and safety implications of nanotechnologies. Speakers and commentators have added a powerfully negative scenario. They claim the effect of a single serious health and safety event might be sufficient to produce a contagion effect. This effect assumes the entire gamut of businesses and industries engaged in nanotechnology applications will wither with attendant economic losses to a spate of stakeholders.

This phenomenon is incredibly dense and complex, whereby in some instances it is noticeable while in others it is not. In addition, there are some examples testing the power of the contagion effect. For example, contagion phenomena occurred neither with the release of Kleinman’s Magic Nano (which was responsible for over a hundred reported cases of respiratory distress in Europe last year) nor with the Samsung SilverCare product line allegedly related to waste treatment difficulties this year. However, both of these examples did not receive substantial media attention, hence they were not amplified. While the Johnson & Johnson Tylenol tampering case from 1982 is cited as a counter-example, the blame in this instance was not the business but a miscreant. Recently, the food and personal care industries seem to have weathered gales of their own: salmonella tainted fresh spinach, E. coli-tainted green onions, melamine-tainted pet foods and fish feed, and ethyl glycol (an anti-freeze ingredient) tainted toothpastes in 2006 and 2007 as well, though in these instances blame was equally unclear and dissipated across long supply lines.

Generally contagion refers to the spillover of the effects of shocks from one or more firms to other firms. Most studies of contagion limit their analysis to how shock affects firms in the same industry, or "intra-industry" contagion. Most of the studies on contagion attempt to differentiate between a "pure" contagion effect and a signaling or information-based contagion effect. An example of a pure contagion effect would be the negative effects of a bank failure spilling over to other banks regardless of the cause of the bank failure. An example of a signaling contagion effect would be if a bank failure is caused by problems whose revelation is correlated across banks, and the correlated banks are impacted negatively.

Evidence supporting intra-industry contagion is fairly common and comes from studies of the credit default market[5] and other financial institutions. Evidence supporting inter- or extra-industry contagion is mostly limited to the financial industry as well. For example, studies on banks and life insurance companies[6] demonstrate some cross-industry cascade phenomena. Evidence crossing industries as diverse as cosmetics and food production is nearly impossible to find, but nanotechnology may be the exception. While a contagion event across a diverse industry might be difficult to prove, it is clearly not impossible. Indeed, in terms of a newly emerging industry with unclear boundaries such as nanotechnology, it might be plausible.

We have already learned the deficit theory of science literacy is fallacious. Providing more information about science to a subject does not equate to a more positive feeling toward a scientific artifact, like nanotechnology per se. Noteworthy to some, a recent study suggested that more information actually reduces positive responses (see Kahan).[7] However, there is an equally strong case that information can affect feelings, especially when mediated.[8] While Kahan et al’s finding remains very consistent with the observation that merely mentioning risk of a phenomenon will increase apprehensions by raising its saliency may be true; on some level mediated information can attenuate some of the power of the effect.

One of the hypotheses we have been studying involves a variation on the anchoring bias. The first feeling one develops about a phenomenon or artifact tends to anchor subsequent assessments. A negative experience or anchor is very difficult to erase or reduce. A positive anchor is difficult to degrade, though less so. Essentially, there is a bias toward the negative. We argue when the public has a feeling which is not based on understanding but drawn from an analogue feeling (such as: nanotechnology is like biotechnology so how I feel about biotechnology is much like how I should feel about nanotechnology), we might be able to rehabilitate the antecedent. For the example mentioned above, if the public develops a positive feeling about nanotechnology, it might help rehabilitate a less than positive feeling about biotechnology. By extension, we sense that a positive experience with nanotechnology in the present will affect feelings about nanotechnology in the future as well.

While this hypothesis needs to be tested, we anticipate that some of the first authentic applications of nanotechnology will make this case. Many, if not most, of current product releases have involved the use of nanoparticles in coatings, e.g., paint, and as reinforcement when associated with another media, e.g., carbon composites. We expect nanomedicine will be perceived as actual nanotechnology and may be willing to go as far as suggesting nanomedicine products will be perceived as archetypal for nanotechnology based on public expectations of major and breakthrough technological development in the field of medicine in general.

Nanomedicine may help anchor public sentiment positively. This should have some positive effects on feelings toward the subsequent introduction of products in nanomedicine (intra-industry contagion). Given the public positive response to exotic health technologies, the positive public feelings for nanomedicine may transfer to subsequent applications of nanotechnology in health and even outside of health (inter-industry contagion). If the public embraces applicatiosn in nanomedicine, follow-up applications in the food industry may be positively affected as well.

In final extension, if respondents to surveys about nanotechnology opine without an understanding of what nanotechnology and draw the warrant for their opinion from an analogue, then a positive feeling toward nanomedicine might help to rehabilitate the feelings toward the relevant analogue, such as biotechnology or environmental health and safety in general.

While this needs to be studied, there is some anecdotal evidence this point of view is plausible. Global warming concerns are rehabilitating our feelings toward nuclear fission power generation[9], and advances in bioengineering less expensive pharmaceuticals may be rehabilitating our feelings toward genetically modified foods. Opposition to "introducing genetically modified foods into the US food supply" has declined from 58 percent in 2001 to 47 percent today, an 11-point decrease.[10] On the other hand, the public’s attitudes toward genetically modified foods seem to be inversely related with the evolutionary ladder hence efforts to genetically modify animals might exacerbate negative attitudes toward genetically modified crops.[11]

In conclusion, we predict nanomedicine products will be welcomed by the public as a stay against the fear of death and we find some solace in this prognostication based on public responses toward biomedicine, especially recent opinion shifts toward stem cell research.[12] Furthermore, we envision a positive feeling toward nanomedicine products will make later introductions of nanomedicine products even more welcomed by the public. Finally, we hypothesize a positive feeling towards nanomedicine products may carry over to nanoproduct lines from other industries, and a positive feeling toward nanomedicine products may rehabilitate past held beliefs toward analogical products and other related phenomena.

[1] See. Seravalli EP. (1988). The dying patient, the physician, and the fear of death. New England Journal of Medicine. 319:1728-1730.
[2] Meier, D. E., R. S. Morrison, and C. K. Cassel. Improving Palliative Care. (1997). Annals of Internal Medicine. 127:225-230.
[3] See Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. L. (2007). Affect, values, and nanotechnology risk perceptions: An experimental investigation. Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Affect and Values. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. http://www.nanotechproject.org/108/survey-finds-emotional-reactions-to-nanotechnology. (accessed March 7, 2007).
[4] See Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. (1974) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. September. 184: 1124-1131.
[5] Zhang, G. (1995). Intra-Industry Credit Contagion: Evidence from the Credit Default Swap Market and the Stock Market. EFMA 2004 Basel Meetings Paper. March 1. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=492682.
[6] Brewer, E. and W. E. Jackson. (2002). "Inter-Industry Contagion and the Competitive Effects of Financial Distress Announcements: Evidence from Commercial Banks and Life Insurance Companies." December. FRB of Chicago Working Paper No. 2002-23. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=367180 or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.367180. (accessed July 13, 2007).
[7] See Kahan et al. Op. cit.
[8] See Pidgeon, N., R. E. Kasperson, and P. Slovic, eds. (2003). The Social Amplification of Risk, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP.
[9] See W. Sweet. (2006). Kicking the Carbon Habit – Global Warming and the Case for Renewable and Nuclear Energy. NY: Columbia UP.
[10] Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (1994). Americans' Opinions About Genetically Modified Foods Remain Divided, But Majority Want A Strong Regulatory System: New Focus Groups and Poll Echo Earlier Findings; Public Still Uncomfortable with Shift from Plants to Animals. November 24. http://pewagbiotech.org/newsroom/releases/112404.php3.
[11] Ibid.
[12] See M. Wooley and S. Probst. (2005). Public Attitudes and Perceptions About Health-Related Research. Journal of the American Medical Association. 294:1380-1384.

Berube is back and writing.

2007-07-10T14:08:00.000-05:00

I am back from holiday and from my trip to Paris. I am writing a piece on fear of death and implications for nanomedicine and another piece (as you are well aware) on silver.

A colleague of mine heard about my silver article and shared with me the advert included to the right and it shocked everyone in the office.

I have every intention of getting the silver article out in a month and will need to include the product from the right.

Berube is on the road

2007-06-23T12:50:00.000-05:00

I was in Paris the week of the 24th at NanoToxicity Conference in Sofitel-Bercy presenting more material relating to intuitive nano-toxicology. It went well. Obivously colleagues have been waiting for someone in social science to advocate restraint on public engagement until we know more.

The week of the 1st I am off to Daytona for my birthday and the visit family and to finish the chapters my agent needs for my new book. I will be back updating what's been reported out of the nanoworld and there is a lot of new material out there.

HEADS UP - Public Understanding by Marketing Associations

2007-06-20T10:34:00.000-05:00

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT – PUBLIC RELATIONS
David M. Berube

When writing Nano-Hype, I crafted the following sentences in the second to the last chapter.

SEIN (the study of the societal and ethical implications of nanotechnology) may simply be perception management by legislators, regulators, and civil servants to distance themselves from culpability should anything disastrous ensue. This cynical, even skeptical view, in our minds (researchers) is a healthy one. What reservations we express along the way might release critics from apologizing later. The distance between advocacy and critical studies is not sufficiently great to preclude co-option. The scenario of government using experts to serve as public relations spokespersons is not that unlikely.

This concern is beginning to come to light. While my colleagues and I were apprehensive about being spokespersons for government initiatives which we found problematic on many levels, we did not anticipate recent announcements claiming to increase public understanding of nanotechnology through commercial marketing ventures.

For me, it started with a flyer about a 12 page piece entitled NANOTECHNOLOGY: A BRAVE NEW WORLD. It was scheduled to appear in the October 1^st issue of the New York Times. Initially, I contacted journalists there to determine what role they would play in the project. Rereading the flyer and contacts in the business world informed me the “report” had advertising rates associated with it. Next there was another flyer but this time it referred to a similar supplement (14 pages) was going to appear in The Times on June 28. MediaPlanet had a similar supplement on July 5, 2006 (http://www.nano.org.uk/newsletter/times/Nano2.htm).

The Times supplement comes from Media Planet (http://www.mediaplanet.fi/) and its collaborators are MANCEF (Micro and nanotechnology Commercialization Education Foundation, http://www.mancef.org/about.htm), the Institute of Nanotechnology (a Scottish group, http://www.nano.org.uk/), and the NIA (Nanotechnology Industries Association, http://www.nanotechia.co.uk/). MediaPlanet offers advertisement and advertorial rates.

The New York Times supplement comes from PurpleGold Media (http://www.purplegoldmedia.com/) in collaboration with MANCEF, the Institute of Nanotechnology, The Nanotech Company (http://www.nanotechnology.com/) [I guess you wondered who got that domain!], the Nano Science and Technology Institute (http://www.nsti.org/), and NanoBioNexus (http://www.nanobionexus.org/).

MANCEF, the Institute of Nanotechnology (I spoke at one of their meetings), and the Nano Science and Technology Institute have been the subject of a study I have been working on and it is tentatively entitled “The Business of Nano” and described the incredibly expensive national and international trade fairs, some with perfunctory presentations that are marketing programs. While there have been some worthwhile information exchanges taking place, more and more of these fairs are marketing ventures. And that’s OK unless they purport to be something else altogether.

What sent me over the top was a May 15, 2007, press release from NanoBioNexus (http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=4673). The title of the press release is “NanoBioNexus Collaborate with Purplegold Media to Increase Public’s Understanding of Nanotechnology.” NBN claims it is devoted to “reliably communicate the potential benefits of this technology to the wider world” and further adds Purplegold “shares a comparable mission.”

STOP THE PRESSES.

Here’s some information to consider. There is little evidence the public can discern promotional materials from objectively researched materials. Indeed, advertisers and marketers generally use this reservation to their advantage as they depict fictional messages as realistic in print and in other media.

We also know that framing is important in unbundling media messages of all sorts and when nanotechnology is framed against “potential benefits” and not risks or other social concerns we may be hyping the technology rather than increasing understanding. In addition, if the public is fed positive messages about nanotechnology without a working frame to decode contrary messages, such as toxicological information, you will increase dissonance and can provoke a backlash that is both counterproductive and contrary to your alleged goals.

Media functions off advertising revenue and that is not being debated here. Rather we need to consider whether it serves the community or the public to allow the marketing firms of the world to hijack the public engagement agenda. While the fault lies with ourselves for not being sufficiently aggressive, let’s hope we can move ahead and quickly. Products are on the market and marketing associations are pushing these wares into the public sphere.

HEADS UP! We cannot leave the mission of increasing the public understanding of nanotechnology to marketing firms and trade associations.

I hope to have a draft of “The Business of Nano” completed soon.

EPA Pollution Prevention Conference - September 2007

2007-06-14T08:45:00.000-05:00

I have been working on the steering committee for an EPA conference on pollution prevention - September 25-26, 2007 in Roslyn, VA (across the Key Bridge from Georgetown).

And here's another Maui picture from a place called the Blow Hole.

See link below for more information on the conference - http://www.epa.gov/oppt/nano/nano-confinfo.htm.

Berube back in June.

2007-06-07T09:24:00.000-05:00

Back from my holiday and frivolity. Maui was absolutely wonderful.

I will be reviewing more material and adding some more of my diatribe.

Berube in Maui

2007-04-30T18:19:00.000-05:00

I am taking a few weeks off to spend with family and to snorkel in Maui. As the governor of California would say in closing, "I'll be back."

RE: Proceedings from the Nanotechnology and Security Workshop - RECOMMENDED IN PART

2007-04-30T16:38:00.000-05:00

Mark Morrison, Proceedings from the Nanotechnology and Security Workshop, http://www.nanoforum.org/nf06~modul~showmore~folder~99999~scid~452~.html?action=longview_publication&, February 23, 2007.

There is so little on this subject this report rose to the top. It deals with a workshop in Roma involving a unit of DG Research and APRE (Agenzia per la Promozione della Ricera Europea).

It focuses on sensor technologies calling for "better access to existing materials and improved networking and integration of expertise and knowledge amongst EU organization" and the involvement of "social scientists in the design of new project to assure that potential ethics issues are taken into consideration from the outset" (p. 4).

Two sessions occurred and were reported.

The first was on technology. Arvind from Edinburgh discussed speckling computing or smart dust. Chaniotakis from Crete discussed biosensors. Cowburn from Imperial College discussing laser surface authentication which could potentially give each material a signature, or fingerprint, that is stored in a database" (p. 8) to track goods.

The second section addressed societal implications. Altmann from Dortmund warned US military funding is "4 to 10 times the rest of the world" and was "one quarter to one third of the annual USNNI budget" (p. 9). He presumably covered much of the same material that is in his book from small sensors to new biochemical weapons. Morrison incorrectly identifies Altmann as the only person with a book in the field. I offer Daniel Ratner and Mark Ratner as another Nanotechnology and Homeland Security New Weapons for New Wars (Prentice Hall 2003). Next Bruce from the Church of Scotland argues technology shapes society. Again I direct the reader to Neil Postman's Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (Vintage, 1993). The last presentation was van den Hoven from Delft who discussed RFID tagging. "RFID tags are now being implanted in people and could be used to monitor individuals' movements and transmit personal data" (p. 10). Issues range from ubiquity to issues of proportionality and public perceptions of risk and carries the warning "that the applications of technologies for a specific purpose could have entirely different outcomes" (p. 13).

This a recommendation associated with "the need to discriminate between measured security and perceived security" (p. 13) which probably deserved more ink.

The material from Cowburn and van den Hoven are worth a read and they are very brief.

RE: Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: A Review of Government's (UK) Progress on its Policy Commitments - RECOMMENDED

2007-04-29T10:30:00.000-05:00

Council for Science and Technology(UK) , Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: A Review of Government's Progress on its Policy Commitments, London: CST, http://www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/news/Files/nano_review.pdf, March 2007.

This is a relatively quick and interesting read and offers many comments, both the USA and EU should take seriously about some of their own efforts in the field.

This report is the two-year review to the government's response to the 2004 Royal Society report.

The report concludes the UK may be falling behind in engaging this field, most nanotechnologies pose no new health and safety risks, the Defra voluntary reporting scheme is promising but must secure high industry participation to be successful and an insufficient amount of funds has been committed to EHS concerns.

On a meta-level, the report complains the UK functions "primarily a responsive mode of funding to fill the knowledge gaps" (p. 7) when it should use a "strategic research spending" program (p. 7).

In terms of toxicity, it calls for "short-term toxicity protocols" (p. 8) for nanomaterials "currently on the market and being used by industry" (p. 8). It noted "the risk of exposure to researchers or workers to be extremely low" (p. 31).

While supporting Defra's voluntary scheme it noted alternatives, "including a compulsory reporting scheme" (p. 9) should be considered especially since Defra's first quarter report records only two organizations have submitted data" (p. 27).

Finally it called for "more in depth dialogue processes" (p. 9) with the public.

Some specific items worth nothing include:

a call for more information on whether fixed nanomaterial may be free at some stage from wear and degrade during the life cycle (p. 11),
a concern for mislabeling products nano despite them not involving nanotechnologies (p. 12) and warned it could lead to a contagion effect across the industry though it admits the Magic Nano example "has had little effect of Germany's high investment, both public and private, into the development of nanotechnologies" (p. 12),
a call for some power to commission funding by the National Research Coordination Group (p. 15),
a call for instruments "to routinely monitor workplace exposure to free manufactured nanomaterials" (p. 15),
a call for "a minimum of a £5-6 million a year over the next 10 years to research the toxicology and health and environmental effects of nanomaterials" (p. 16) and that without adequate funding "our ability to engage in future international dialogue risks being compromised" (p. 17) and warned in "toxicology our understanding is little better than it was two years ago" (p. 23),
a call for the "[d]evelopment of methodologies for life cycle assessments" (p. 17) including a "government initiative to adapt LCA methodologies to products containing nanomaterials" (p. 20),
a conclusion that "the evidence that we have received does not suggest that there is serious reason to believe that nanotechnologies will cause global or irreversible effects that would justify the case for extreme actions such as a moratorium" (p. 18),
a call for government "to encourage industry to reduce or remove nanomaterials from waste streams" (p. 25) and applauds government for working "with industry to cause it to refrain any release for remediation until there is sufficient evidence that the benefits outweigh any adverse effects" (p. 25), and
a warning that public engagement "has been criticized for not having a major impact on policy" (p. 35) and recommended "industry to be significantly more involved in the public engagement process" (p. 35).

RE: (Australian) Options for a National Nanotechnology Strategy - RECOMMENDED

2007-04-29T10:25:00.000-05:00

National Nanotechnology Strategy Taskforce (Australia), Options for a National Nanotechnology Strategy: Report to Minister Industry, Tourism and Resources, http://www.industry.gov.au/content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectID=3E811562-B36F-F920-886795079F355734, June 2006.

While I do not think there is much new here, this report provides a glimpse into not only what Australia is confronting with nanotechnology (many of the same problems the EU and the USA are dealing with) but also offers a portrait of how other advanced nations are coming to terms with the supposedly nanotechnology revolution and its effects on national identity and economic competitiveness. I enjoyed reading this.

It begins with the assumption nano made "be as significant as the impact of electricity or the microchip" (p. 4). I am not so sure but I do like hyperbole. The report notes "Australian nanoscience talent... is relatively thinly spread" (p. 4). While observing "Australia is keen to participate in the nano-world" (p. 6), the report has a few recommendations:

the establishment of a dedicated office with a Federal Department (p. 6) and a general improvement in industrial awareness (p. 10) as part of a coordinated national strategy (p. 46),
new facilities complementing the characterization and fabrication facilities already identified by the NCRIS (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure) roadmap may be needed (p. 7) with greater consolidation of research capability maybe through one or more national centres of excellence (p. 8) modeled on the Australian Stem Cell Centre (p. 21),
specific funds should be made available to support Australian involvement in international HSE (health, safety and environment) studies (p. 7) as well as international co-operation in HSE (p. 7), esp. regarding chemical explosions, accidental spillages, and end-of-life-cycle issues (p. 26) and free radical formation (p. 27),
a national nanometrology program is recommended (p. 11) noting it as "a prerequisite for documenting standards and regulations" (p. 37) as well as a "cost-effective and robust ambient air monitoring systems for nanotubes, nanopowders, and quantum dots" (p. 27), and
a public awareness campaign like Biotechnology Australia's Public Awareness Program needs to be instituted (p. 7).

In addition, the report suggested "capture of rapid uptake technologies in areas of Australian scientific and/or industrial strength-- such as photonics, opto-electronics, biomedical, quantum -based technologies, as well as materials" (p. 20).

It also recommends "Green chemistry metrics need to be incorporated into nanotechnologies at the source" (p. 28).

It denies that a moratorium is needed (responding to FOE Australia's rhetoric) (pp. 29 & 32) though it suggests that industry "limit the use of engineered nanoparticles in environmental applications such as soil remediation" (p. 30) until cost-benefit research is done.

It notes "most Australians are interested in, feel positive towards, developments in science and technology" (p. 34) but "awareness of nanotechnology is low but increasing" and consumers are still forming their views" (p. 35).

The report added (p. 37) that "the Victorian Government is currently developing a communication program as part of its own state-based nanotechnology strategy" and I will follow-up on this.

The report also realized that "Australia will need 125,000 nanotechnology workers by 2015 in order a maintain a 1 percent share of the emerging industry" (p. 39) and recommended visa reform.

Finally, there is a nice inventory of facilities on pp. 42-46.

RE: NANOFRONTIERS: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology - RECOMMENDED IN PART

2007-04-29T10:08:00.000-05:00

Karen F. Schmidt, NANOFRONTIERS: Visions for the Future of Nanotechnology, PEN 6, Washington, DC: Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, http://www.nanotechproject.org/114, March 2007.

Karen is a friend of mine and this is easily readable and she is reporting on an event so she was limited by what transpired. She is reporting on a NanoFrontiers workshop that transpired on February 9 and 10, 2006. The report and the workshop was crafted around the metaphor of a tool.

On p. 11, there is a call for probes to measure characteristics of nanoparticles that might be particularly problematic, such as surface reactivity. This is hardly a new call but it is unclear how well it has been heard by the funding agencies. Two pages lager, it is repeated when addressing EHS issues. On p. 14, the call for a "cadre of well-trained people to operate our tools" is mentioned though no solutions are forthcoming from this meeting.

The reports gets interesting on p. 15. There is a brief discussion of databases and nanoinformatics (nice word). The group recommends drawing "blueprints for the proverbial Nano Library." This included interconnecting databases and hopefully this would be international. On p. 18, there is a mention of Nano Library planning workshops and if anyone is listening, invite me.

There is a discussion beginning on p. 19 about three-dimensional nanostructures and a call to "move toward working in three dimensions" (p. 21). There is a brief mention of stochastic engineering which is defined as "designing nanosystems to function in spite of relatively high level of defects" (p. 22) which would seem necessary to produce these complex and adaptable 3-D structures.

Half of the way through the document, we get to CRITICAL APPLICATIONS. These are the same areas I spoke about in Zurich last year so I have to agree on the three selections though I would have chose a different ordering.

It starts with energy called a "gun to the head" issue referencing much of the same rhetoric used by Smalley and covers promises including "room-temperature supercondictivity" to "super-efficient wires"and even anticipates "artificial life forms that resembee simple bacteriaand then employ these creatures to produce fuel for human life" (p. 26) which sounds a bit like slavery to me. Of course, energy is a geo-political issue that does not follow demand-supply curves so I wouldn't bank on this, yet.

Next we get nanomedicine (a much better bet given necrophobia. There is nothing new here that cannot be gleaned from many of the nano-press services from Meridian Nano and Development News to Julia's service with the Woodrow Wilson Center. I was a bit how glibly the discussion on brain implants was presented without address the rich-poor gap and post-humanist concerns except for some left-handed referencing to a few paragraphs. I was also less than satisfied with the discussion on personalized medicine which while highly desirable would substantially reduce the pharmaceutical industry's profitability in the short-term at least since they would be less able to peddle cures that work on some people some of the time but are prescribed for almost everyone. The assumption that a doctor "might prescribe a cocktail" of say "10 percent of drug A, 50 percent of drug B, and 4o percent of drug C" (p. 34) seems to exaggerate a doctor's capacity.

Clean water seems a sure bet. From desalination to industrial and community based water purification to point of use technologies. Whether CNTs, iron, silver, magnesium oxide (p. 38), there is much promise here assuming we can get the technologies to the poor. I am less pleased with some of the assumptions behind pollution prevention and will have more to say about this in a later post. In terms of remediation, the field is flush with a lot of promises and no one has been able to resolve the end of the life cycle of nanomaterial byproducts.

Interesting group of interviewees and well written but a little weak on detail in some areas. On the other hand, it is slick and visually intriguing. I recommend the sections on the Nano-Library (pp. 15-18) and on Nanomedicine (pp. 29-36).