Nano Safety Worries Scientists More Than Public 167
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."
not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
It cuts both ways.
Re:not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
this is news how? sheeps will be sheeps
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it's just the publicity $. For most of the general public (by which, according to /. custom, I really mean me) nanotechnology is the stuff that keeps Jack Harkness alive and heals Ratchet. Ok, it went a bit wrong in The Empty Child, but The Doctor sorted it out.
Unless you think that it's all product placement, and it's the publicity $ that has made it a beneficial sci-fi staple...
No more independent scientists (Score:2)
Even apart from funding, it is very difficult for someone to acknowledge the downside to the work they are doing. After 5 years in the lab would you like to acknowledge that your developments could be a Bad Idea? Scientists are human too, wel
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
By the same token, couldn't you say that GM seeds have been more far more fully investigated than their conventional cousins?
There have been cases of non-genemod crops having
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)
Given the choice between the random genetic accidents of nature, and the guided decisions
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, we can't know what effect widespread adoption of even benign-seeming enhancements will have on society. It's easy to think that everyone will be smarter, healthier, prettier, and longer-lived, but the reality may make that pretty horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
So you want your children to be healthier than average, of good height, of good looks, and less likely to have cancer?
Now- difficult.
100 years from now- easy.
(I don't think we have 100 years left in us tho-- something very bad is likely to happen before then-- the ability to kill hundreds of millions of people gets cheaper every day too).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd settle for reducing/eliminating genetic causes of stuff like type 1 diabetes, alzheimer's, parkinson's, blindness, and deafness. There's a lot more that are even more damaging, I know, but I'd be going for the 'most bang for the buck', IE go after t
Re: (Score:2)
Those are good thoughts. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see stupidity, tribalism, and free-riding as the most socially costly maladies that could be cured by genetic modifications. Diseases are a distant second, sort of like how terrorism has our attention but in reality is actually a very small
Re: (Score:2)
So we have to work with what we've got. Please note that I pointed out syndromes that can be traced, normally, to a single defective gene - resulting in traceable defective metabolic paths.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Eugenics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What?
Animal cloning is not done to strengthen a breed -- it does nothing to the genome at all.
Animal cloning is used to preserve a bloodline or even to propagate it, but I don't see how you could claim it's done to strengthen a breed -- do you have any examples of this
Re: (Score:2)
Therefore, to strengthen the species.
Re: (Score:2)
People selecting mates based on race, based on appearance, based on income, etc., all should be considered as steps on the slippery slope to eugenics if you follow your logic to its conclusion.
Eugenics is widely derided, for lots of reasons. Mostly because it's viewed as state control o
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Quite sure about that? Studying nuclear physics I often hear people say things along the lines of "well everyone said chernobyl was safe" which is of course complete nonsense. It is very common for people who do not like what scientists say to try to discredit the scientific process based on straw man arguments. Have a look at the global warming debate for a plethora of examples. I think you will fi
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I did mean to put quotes around "most scientists" in each of those sentences - sadly, these hypothetical "most scientists" are heavily discredited in the public eye and I did go on to point out that the real problem was politicians "cherry picking" the uncertainties.
That's also a good example of my point about scientific proof vs. risk analysis - there's more than enough evidence to justify "doing something" about it on a risk an
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:2)
I was looking at solely whether or not GMO food is safe to eat. Some say it isn't, but you can't deny that most scientists working in this area consider GMO food safe for human consumption.
Regardless of how safe something is for most people, there will be some who have a bad reaction to it. This is especially true for biological molecules. Even with non GMO food, people can have allergies or IBS or whatever (e.g. nuts, milk). Since the GMO food is different from regular food, it *must* be labeled, even if the changes are beneficial for most people. To do otherwise is to treat people like lab rats, where you don't care if .001% have a bad reaction and suffer or die.
Re: (Score:2)
Real stuff like preventing the plants from overtaking the unmodified plants that is.
Stuff like cancer is nonsense and scientists dont lose sleep over idiots.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. Back in the 50s you would be hard pressed to find a scientist worrying much about nuclear power, specifically the threat of nuclear waste or a meltdown.
Today you would find that the consensus position amongst scientists is highly skeptical of nuclear power, in particular the nuclear waste iss
Re: (Score:2)
While it might be possible to operate a nuclear power plant safely under an ideal political organization, that is not an achievable situation. As an engineer you have to take all factors into account, including the possible incompetence of human operators and the corruption of inspectors, owners and contractors.
Currently plans for new nuclear power being considered are all based on the discredited ligh
Re: (Score:2)
The point I am making here is that yes, we do know rather more about making nuclear power safe today from an engineering point of view. The problem is that we have not progressed in our ability to establish political controls. Anyone want to trust President George 'Waterboarding' Bush with oversight of new nuclear power?
I don't consider gravity drop control rods as being very fail safe, at best its active fail safe: Something has to move. Pass
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
Well this sounds like a serious problem (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately no handouts or slides were made available with the talk. However, there is some good information on the NIOSH Nanotechnology [cdc.gov] page, and a detailed report on current progress [cdc.gov] [PDF] has been published. Also, if you do some searches for the obvious terms (NIOSH, Nanotechnology, safety, John Howard, etc.) you will find other statem
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
I think that's revisionist history... (Score:2)
I think that's revisionist history.
At a similar point in time (don't forget, we're a long way from real nanotech), the public was similarly clueless and complacent about both of these. It was scientists, like these ones, who first started talking about dangers, and it wasn't until a
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.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
that has been microwaved. Tea made with water boiled in a microwave
tastes worse than freshly kettle boiled water [I was able to
tell quite easily on blind tests, although I didnt go as far as
to do double-blind tests]. If you reboil the kettle
a couple of times it tastes as bad as the microwaved tea [ a known
mistake which effects taste due to deoxygenisation ].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Not exactly a double blind study is it? Sure it was only a 6th grade science fair, but that 6th grade science teacher deserves an F on his/or her teaching skills.
It's also funny the way using "microwaved water" causes the leave and stems of plants to be clipped off, as if by scissors. Its almost as if the teacher told the student that getting a measurable result was more important than getting a correct result. Then again it's 6th grade, who cares how much you screw up the kids brains... Someone wil
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.
Re: (Score:2)
to extend your analogy, we also already know how beneficial it is/can be with the example of all the bacteria in your gut that allow digestion of various things.
as usual, technology is a double-edged blade. the same tech that can get a chemotherapy drug through the blood-brain barrier can also move something less friendly, intentionally or not.
not a whole lot you can do about the intentionally bit as far as scienc
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more worried about the *cutting corners* aspect of it, not so much the technology as the idiots business people.
Re:not surprising Agree! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There was no evidence asbestos was dangerous. There was no evidence diethylstilbestrol (DES) was dangerous. There was no evidence that 'enginered' genes from Monsanto would spread to normal crops. There was no evidence the introduction of rabbits would cause havoc in the habitats of native species.
There is no evidence that nanoparticles from paint can enter human cells and cause harm. Would you paint your house with such paint, or would you like to be absolutely positively sure that such particles are saf
Re: (Score:2)
Opposite is usually true (Score:2)
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)
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.")
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)
Actually, I'm surprised we have not heard anything regarding nano-WMDs in the media yet. Seriously, don't people know that terrorists can make fullerene bombs from the soot of burnt wood [wikipedia.org]? And what do terrorists have abundant access to? Burnt wood!
Coincidence? I think not!
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
And
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.
Re:The public and scientists have different intere (Score:2)
Or did you mean to say "all those ignorant peons whom I am so much superior to" instead of "the public"?
Re: (Score:2)
My post was an implied criticism of the media, not the public. The news media are corrupt and their reports are misleading such that they are useless on average. The public has no reliable sources of information. There are many sources, none can be relied on completely. It's a sad situation, and it's not the public's fault.
It's fairly clear that scientists have different interests than the public though. If you p
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Very good point. The 'public', or average person, can only handle so many risks.
This is fairly easy for something like nuclear power - radiation is pretty much the sole considered risk. They, of course, forget about heavy metal poisoning. Asbestos, smoking? Lung cancer - many will forget about throat cancer, fire,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fully expect to see... (Score:3, Funny)
Nonsensical survey (Score:2, Insightful)
Nanotechnology is still in it's infancy. There are a lot of things we don't know. Ask an average scientist for an opinion about the possibility of unplanned consequences in a relatively immature area of science and he will answer "I don't know". Ask any non-scientist the same question and the average non-scientist will have some sort of opinion, usually based on "If I haven't heard anything bad, it must be OK".
This survey is comparing apples to oranges and trying to draw some infere
Nanobots or nanomaterials? (Score:2)
This is going to expode in the next few years (Score:2)
I'm currently taking a nanophysics module as part of my physics degree, and we have been required to read a UK government report on the development of nanotechnology, and there is plenty in there to worry me even as an unqualified scientist.
Public awareness of nanotechnology is low. 29% of Britons (who, no offense, are likely to be more informed than Americans) have heard of the term and only 19% could offer a definition. Of those who knew what it was, 68% thought it would improve life whilst 4% thought i
MAXIMUM ARMOUR (Score:2)
What, me worry??? (Score:2)
Well, you get the idea.
Strangely. I've come back to this page after some surfing & can't remember what is about ( there is no indication on the page - try it ).
Re: (Score:2)
spelling/80's sitcom nazi (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)