Nano Safety Worries Scientists More Than Public

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."

Re:not surprising

[iangoldby]

What is more usual is for the public to vastly over-estimate the risks. This often occurs when scientists cannot say with 100% certainty that a certain thing is safe, and is largely a result of the public's generally poor understanding of risk and probability.

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 I necessarily agree with).

The issue with nanotechnology is that so far there has been almost no public discussion of the risks, which is probably why Joe Public is currently pretty much unaware of the issues at all.

Re:Ok,

[mdielmann]

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 self-replication to make them dangerous.

The public and scientists have different interests

[Kohath]

"The public" worries about what the media tells them to worry about. Did you know everyone's children are going to die from Chinese toys with lead in them? The public does.

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.

Re:not surprising

[kebes]

Disclosure: I do research in the (overly-broad) field of "nanotechnology."

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.

Re:not surprising

[Feyr]

so uninformed public overreact/dont overreact to a piece of technology based on just how much dollar is out there instilling or not instilling fear in them (ie, greenpeace).

this is news how? sheeps will be sheeps

Oh, I'm Worried...

[Eli Gottlieb]

After all, and I quote, "It was us who scorched the sky."

Re:not surprising

[jandrese]

Your mother is not alone. I've seen experiments online where people put water in the microwave to warm it up, cool it back down, and then grow plants with it and they say the plants perform poorly with the microwaved water, saying that the oven basically poisons the water and we shouldn't use it.

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

[inviolet]

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.

Eugenics is inherently bad?

If eugenics is defined as "improving humans through genetic selection or modification", that seems to me to be inherently good.

It only goes bad when the sought improvements are not rational -- such as, for example, attempts to make us all Christians, or blonde, or obedient.

Consider all the rational improvements that could be made through genetic improvements: we could increase tendencies to be smart, scientific, responsible, just, good-natured, conscientious, or whatever other characteristics are found to have genetic inputs.

Or were you just being sloppy with your words when you said 'inherently'? IMO you should've said 'historically'.

Re:not surprising

[JeffSchwab]

GMO-related concerns aren't "nonsense." You might want to do a little research on that topic before you go spouting off about it. For starters, watch this documentary: http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ [thefutureoffood.com] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8XrioF4CE [youtube.com] Then, read this (enjoyable) book: http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php [michaelpollan.com] Beyond the immediate (human lifespan) health concerns, there are patent nightmares aplenty. GMO plants are treated as IP. Seed from the GMO plants contaminates traditional farms, the farmers are sued by large companies like Monsanto, and the farmers are forced to destroy any saved seed as part of the eventual settlement. As a result, we're losing biodiversity at a shit-your-pants rate. If a slate-wiper disease strikes zea mays, we've got a real problem. The health concerns are real. It's not that eating some GMO canola oil will kill you; it's that almost all of our food is derived from the same few plants, and "minor" changes to the plants can have major effects on us. Further, we have the insane situation in the U.S. that GMO foods don't even have to be labeled as such. Most of us are stuck either paying through the nose for pseudo-organic and heirloom foods, or else eating... whatever the corporations feed us.