Slashdot Log In
Nano Safety Worries Scientists More Than Public
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon Nov 26, 2007 10:00 AM
from the what-aren't-they-telling-us dept.
from the what-aren't-they-telling-us dept.
Nanotech Coward writes "The unknown human health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology are a bigger worry for scientists than for the public, according to a new report in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. The new report was based on a national telephone survey of American households and a sampling of 363 leading U.S. nanotechnology scientists and engineers. It reveals that those with the most insight into a technology with enormous potential — and that is already emerging in hundreds of products — are unsure what health and environmental problems might be posed by the technology."
Related Stories
Submission: Nano safety worries scientists more than public by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
It cuts both ways.
Parent
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
this is news how? sheeps will be sheeps
Parent
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it. Animal cloning is done to strengthen the breed, technically, so either we're advocating some kind of eugenics, which is just inherently a bad idea, or we're catering to people's mistaken desire to have a genetic duplicate of a dead person, which is also a pretty bad idea.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The EU recognises the consumers' right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:
* products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
* products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present;
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm [europa.eu]
However, I am not s
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Informative)
The main issues I see (other than the ones you already pointed out) are the fact that 'heritage' varieties are being lost, simply because the new GM replacements have better guarantee's as to the end product, biodiversity is reduced which in turn makes large scale crop failures more likely (i.e. there is a single point of failure as all the plants are genetically similar, a single biological or environmental threat could destroy an entire crop). I would also suspect that monetizing this seed IP could well lead to higher seed prices (you get a higher yield after all) which may be an issue for smaller farmers, especially subsistence farmers.
AFAIK The health elements of GM seeds have not been fully investigated, nor will they be (no one investigated the health implications of new varieties created conventionally after all) so the potential for problems exists (the BSE crisis in the UK was caused in some degree by modern and more cost effective farming practices after all).
The biggest problem however is not with GM itself but the fact that it it now impossible to have a discussion about any remotely controversial scientific topic without it becoming a contest of marketing efforts, both sides (and there generally are only two that are heard) making false claims or overstating risks or benefits and most importantly trying to turn complex issues into soundbytes.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Eugenics is inherently bad?
If eugenics is defined as "improving humans through genetic selection or modification", that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And we could increase the tendencies to be dumb, obedient, hard working, and short-lived, thereby making us into the people that governments and corporations would dream us to be.
Do you really want to start going down that road? I don't like companies mes
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is, most members of the general public (at least here in the UK) remember the little debacle a few years back when
Consequently, the general public can be forgiven for suspecting that "most scientists" get altogether too much funding from Big Agrobusiness to have an impartial view on the matter. This is rather unfair to "most scientists" and probably more due to politicians not understanding the difference between conclusive scientific proof and risk/benefit analysis (when the only benefit is to the coffers of Big Agrobusiness; the starving third world can't afford GM seed and the overfed first world has no particular need for more efficient agriculture).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most scientists working in this area see no harmful effects from GM food, yet many in the general public think GM food is going to kill them, cause cancer, or other such nonsense. Or human cloning. Many people in the general public are absolutely terrified of human cloning, yet I'd bet most scientists see no problem with this from a biotech standpoint, except for a few ethical considerations.
That is a straw man. The issues with GM have to do with labelling (so you know you're not getting what the term "tomato" usually stands for, whether or not you like the alleged improvements) and stuff escaping and destroying ecosystems.
We already have a problem with BT corn escaping and contaminating crops of small/poor farmers. Surprise, surprise, the pollen gets blown into other fields. Fortunately, most people aren't highly allergic to the toxin, but then Monsanto might come along and sue them to
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It could be said that the public's opposition to nuclear power, GM crops, etc, is largely an irrational reaction to the impossibility of scientists and policy-makers giving cast-iron guarantees that accidents can never and will never happen (not a view
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes, but is this not because there has been no significant issue with nanotech yet? I mean, we all know about radioactivity since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. On the other hand, people were afraid to get on the first trains, because they thought their internal organs would be mashed up because of the 'enormous' speeds.
Add to this the more apathic 'politicians know what is best for us' mentality there seems to be nowadays; it would come as no surprise that something has to go wrong first before the general pub
Re: (Score:2)
Asbestos' danger stems from the fact that its fibers are so small that they get into the lungs unhindered where they wreak their havoc. Even if it's natural, it's still nanotech in a way.
Re: (Score:2)
You are absolutely right; I had not thought of that one. Asbestos off course stems form an era when the word nanotech was (probably) not yet thought up, so most of the general public (and even probably here on /.) would not connect the two (saving my face here :-).
So all it takes now is for the media to connect asbestos and nanotech; that might convince politicians to disregard brib^H^H^H^H campaign contributions to make sure the proper safeguards will be incorporated in laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with nuclear power isn't that its without risk. Rather, that our containment capabilities mitigate those risks to the point that the benefits far outweigh the probability of an accident. This is different that GM and possibly nanotech. We're not turning radiation out into our landfills and waterways. With GM we're consuming it. And since so much of what happens in our bodies happens over time its easy to see no issue within say a yea
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I went to a talk recently discussing the safety issues surrounding nanotechnology (health effects of nanoparticles, in particular). Several possible problems were identified, and there is vigorous ongoing research to determine the full health and environmental implications of this technology.
In short, I get the impression that scientists are trying to "get it right this time." That is, we are all keenly aware that numerous scientific breakthroughs had unintended health side-effects (e.g. the originally unknown effects of radiation, carcinogens, etc.). So the scientific community is determined to identify the safety concerns as quickly as possible, before these technologies become widespread. This is, obviously, a good thing. Though possibly overly-cautious, this strategy should minimize the risk of public health concerns and evironmental damage.
In any case, as you said it's hardly surprising that the people most intimately familiar with the technology are best able to predict its problems/shortcomings. Also worth noting is that the scientists working with these technologies/materials have a vested self-interest in identifying health problems, since they are the ones being exposed to these materials.
Parent
Then you should RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
If you had taken time to read the article instead of rushing to get the first post, you would know that what's causing surprise is not that scientists see possible causes for harm, but that "The new findings are in stark contrast to controversies sparked by the advent of technologies of the past such as nuclear power and genetically modified foods, which scientists perceived
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
The craziest thing is that with the average Joe the most common concern I've heard about nanotech is fear of the "grey goo" scenario, which in my mind is probably the least likely way we're going to destroy all life as we know it. The practical considerations of that scenario are enormous and we'd be lucky to get within 5 orders of magnitude of having to even worry about it.
The bigger concern in my book is the stuff that acts like asbestos in your lungs and gives you cancer or just makes a mess of cell walls.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of which... If you noticed the slashdot tags, there appears to be two types of nanobots. A British and an American
Re: (Score:2)
(Giggigty giggity, of course)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, here it is: Microwaved Water and Plants [execonn.com]. I would like to see someone replicate this in the lab, thus far nobody has been able to reproduce her result.
Re:not surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for technology, but stuff you can't see that can get inside you and do serious damage without your knowledge and companies being questionable guardians of the public good, I don't see how companies should not be strictly observed by everyone, period.
That's understandable (Score:5, Funny)
A phone survey regarding the dangers of nanotech? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A phone survey regarding the dangers of nanotec (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
more seriously though, if
Ok, (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So they are all worried about grey goo?
It's probably much simpler than that. It's already known that small particles can cause lung problems up to and including cancer (from asbestos). Small particles can also cause problems for other parts of our body, such as skin irritation from fibreglass. Indications are that shape, size, and chemical composition are all factors in the toxicity of small particles. Until these risks are tested against and quantified, any responsible scientist would be concerned. No need for future possibilities like se
Re:Ok, (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the current concerns with nanotechnology are much more mundane: things like nanoparticles causing health concerns by passing into people's bodies and accumulating in organs. There is already some research suggesting that (some) nanoparticles can actually absorb into tissues or even pass through cell membranes. One of the reasons that nanoparticles might be great for biological applications is that they can be made to be at a size-scale that many biological processes ignore. The lack of an immune response is great in some ways, but it also means that the body may not be able to deal with possible negative side-effects.
Other possible health, safety, and environmental concerns are just variants of what we're already worried about: carcinogens, flammability, toxicity, accumulation in the environment, etc. Associated with all this is coming up with the right procedures for filtering out dangerous materials, disposing of them safely, and so on. All these conventional concerns must be reconsidered when dealing with nanomaterials, since their behavior is different and sometimes non-intuitive.
(Disclosure: I do research in "nanotechnology.")
Parent
Wrong color (Score:2)
Some of you might have heard of this Oxygen Catastrophe [wikipedia.org]. Sad times for our planet, indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Smart scientists are worried about nanoparticles getting stuck places they shouldn't and doing bad things there. Like causing cancer. Or killing fish. Or accumulating in fish and killing people who eat fish. Or getting into peoples' brains and causing... brain problem stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
nano safety (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, wait, you were talking about something else!
Re: (Score:2)
it is the unknown unknowns that scare me (Score:2, Funny)
Duh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see all this crap about how bad reporters are at science reporting...This is mainly from people who never have to watch their work be dumbed down over the course of days to the point where joe six pack can get some glimmer of meaning from it. Trying to convey anything scientific to the masses is extremely difficult.
The truth of it is, the public, by and large, just doesn't care. They don't want to know. They don't want to make the effort. And if you succeed in enlightening them as to the dangers, then it's all too likely they'll panic and refuse to use anything even close to it, as was the case with nuclear energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Most people don't have a real rational sense of danger and risk...People in Montana terrified of terrorists, even though you're more likely to die of a lightning strike. Far better to have a giant coal-fired power plant spewing mercury and radiation into your neighborhood than have a relatively clean nuke plant doing less damage for more energy. Yadda ya
For the same reasons nano works so well for drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
The public and scientists have different interests (Score:4, Interesting)
Scientists worry about science-related things they think are interesting. Hence, asteroids hitting Earth and nanotech are worried about.
This should surprise no one.
Social scientists are probably worried about the disconnect between the publics' and scientists' thinking though.
Why predict? We're almost there! (Score:2)
In most other cases, however, we learn from our own mistakes, through trial and error. If something goes wrong with a car, scientists will see this and hopefully perfect it in the next version.
Same goes with nano technol
Oh, I'm Worried... (Score:3, Interesting)
For Good Reason (Score:2)
One, the public becomes concerned with a public health issue when it affects them directly or more commonly when the threat of HOW the issue affects them is conve
Re: (Score:2)
Also, nanotechnology is a buzzword. It is not a single material, and as such there really aren't any properties that are consistent among all the many things that are considered nanotechnology. With these new materials as with *any* material, rigorous testing is the key to safety. Period. That includes determining levels of acute as well as chronic toxicity, and delivery mechanisms of the material to key organ systems within the body.
What we have here is failure to communicate. There is always fear of
I fully expect to see... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
spelling/80's sitcom nazi (Score:2)