Nano world off the radar for most people
- From: "axl4" <axl4@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 04:00:19 -0000
Nano world off the radar for most people
http://www.live.psu.edu/story/21850
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
University Park, Pa. -- Sunscreens contain nano particles, carbon and
titania nanotubes show promise and nano structures are the rage in
engineering schools. While the proliferation of nano research may
signal a mini revolution, outside the realms of business and science,
this insurgency may be no more than a whisper, according to an
international team of researchers.
"In the last 15 years we have continuously been exposed to a variety
of emerging technologies -- biotechnology, information science and
technology, cognitive science and now nanotechnology," says Akhlesh
Lakhtakia, the Charles Godfrey Binder professor of engineering science
and mechanics at Penn State. "Education is the key to understanding
these areas."
However, when it comes to nanotechnology, Lakhtakia and his colleagues
found that people in most segments of the economy are not paying much
attention. Or, if they are aware of the field, the reactions and
actions are overly enthusiastic, uninformed or alarmist.
Lakhtakia, working with Debashish Munshi, associate professor of
management communications, along with Priya Kurian, senior lecturer in
political science and public policy, University of Waikato, New
Zealand, and Robert V. Bartlett, the Gund professor of liberal arts at
the University of Vermont, looked at how technologists/scientists,
business and industry leaders, government agencies, social science
researchers, fiction writers, political activists, science journalists
and writers, and the general public view nanotechnology.
Scientists have, of course, picked up on nanotechnology. The word
proliferates through the literature and is prominent in proposals for
funding. In an article in the international journal Futures, published
by Elsevier, researchers note that "entrepreneurial technoscientists
have learned to align their research efforts with the latest terms in
vogue." However, it is not always clear what that nanotechnology
means.
"Carbon nanotubes, quantum dots, sculptured thin films, single-
electron transistors, nanofluidic sensors and biomimetic substances
are all examples of evolutionary nanotechnology," says Lakhtakia.
"None has yet had any significant presence in the marketplace and
these developments will not be real for many years."
Currently, normal incremental changes bring sizes down to 100
nanometers -- and, therefore, qualify research as nanoscience.
However, simply making particles smaller for cosmetics or reinforcing
plastics with carbon nanofibers is not breakthrough science, although
these advances are turning out to be lucrative.
Business leaders view nanotechnology with cautious optimism. Most
investment aims to improve existing products by creating smaller
components or smaller products with less interest in new materials or
products. Investors are wary of a nanotechnology boom turning into a
dot.com-like bust.
Government and quasi-official organizations find nanotechnology
important. The United States established an Interagency Working Group
on Nanotechnology in 1996 and in 2000 the National Nanotechnology
Initiative began coordinating efforts in nanotechnology. The National
Science Foundation conducted a workshop on the societal impacts of
nanotechnology in 2000 and concluded that, while there were
technological and economic benefits to come, the societal impacts down
the road were unknown. They recommended including social scientists in
the NNI.
Among social scientists, little work on nanotechnology exists. While
some have begun to study the area, there is little published. Reports
from government agencies, scientists and business interests form the
basis of the little that does exist. Some social scientists find
nanotechnology interesting and beneficial, but others equate nanotech
with areas they found frightening such as genetic engineering or
cloning. Currently no nanotechnology law exists and legal experts
believe that current law is sufficient to handle future needs with
modification.
Fiction writers have covered nanotechnology, both good and bad, for a
long time. Novels like Crichton's "Prey" emphasize the negatives of
nanotechnology, while others expand on the possibilities. These
writers reflect the hopes and fears of the scientific community and
feed the nascent research of the social scientists.
A Canadian activist group produced a series of reports on the social
implications of nanotechnology and urges caution in using
nanotechnology. Greenpeace called for a moratorium on nanotechnology
due to potential nanoparticle toxicity. Many anti-nanotechnology
activists predict the creation of destructive, uncontrollable life
forms from nanotechnology. However, some activists realize the
potential good and suggest caution as the best approach to
development.
Science writers and journalists report the scientific research as it
comes into the literature. They also cover the reports evaluating
nanotechnology, such as the Canadian reports on social implications.
Science writers have not yet produced broad evaluations of the field,
but have begun to evaluate the business aspects in the cautionary
context of a dot.com bust.
"The paucity of debate and critical analysis on the implications of
nanotechnology in the popular media is reflected in the general lack
of public awareness of the implications of nanotechnology," according
to the researchers.
The researchers find the general public only vaguely aware of
nanotechnology. The public sees nanotechnology as having some
benefits, but is concerned with how business and industry develop the
field. In the U.S., the idea of science as a neutral endeavor creates
a view of nanotechnology as good, providing untold opportunities.
However, the majority is unaware of exactly what nanotechnology is and
of the potential problems in its development.
"Schools must find a way to interweave science, engineering, liberal
arts, literature and history so that emerging fields like
nanotechnology, biotechnology and cognitive science can be understood
and evaluated by the general public," Lakhtakia of Penn State says.
"Lifelong learning is also necessary to keep up with the changes as
they come along."
Contact
Andrea Messer
aem1@xxxxxxx
http://live.psu.edu
814-865-9481
Contact
Vicki Fong
vfong@xxxxxxx
http://live.psu.edu
814-865-9481
.
- Follow-Ups:
- terminology abuse (was Re: Nano world off the radar for most people)
- From: Perry E. Metzger
- terminology abuse (was Re: Nano world off the radar for most people)
- Prev by Date: British Breakthrough Highlights Nanotechnology Policy Gap
- Next by Date: terminology abuse (was Re: Nano world off the radar for most people)
- Previous by thread: British Breakthrough Highlights Nanotechnology Policy Gap
- Next by thread: terminology abuse (was Re: Nano world off the radar for most people)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
