Re: terminology abuse (was Re: Nano world off the radar for most people)
- From: "axl4" <axl4@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 17:13:04 -0000
The PR was about a paper in which use and abuse of the term
"nanotechnology"
by diverse groups of people were studied. That paper makes it clear
that NT is
should not be confused with chemistry, and that NT is being classified
in different
categories.
A. Lakhtakia
On Jan 30, 11:50 pm, "Perry E. Metzger" <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm sorry to jump on this particular posting. No offense intended to
the original poster. He merely conveyed someone else's press release,
which only perpetuated something that annoys me, it did not create it.
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,
These days, that sort of phrase is ubiquitous and utterly deceptive.
Given that everything contains molecules, and molecules are "nano
particles", then yes, pretty much everything made of matter on earth
in a meaningless and trivial sense contains "nano particles". However,
does saying that actually convey any information to the reader?
I'm very annoyed at this constant re-labeling of virtually anything
that is either a molecule or a small cluster of molecules as "nano".
"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."
Again, no offense intended to the original poster or the authors of
this press release, but I think that lots of people who should know
better need educating, too. I think if what you're talking about is
something like a compound that you can produce with synthetic organic
chemistry, or a material that you're creating with pretty conventional
bulk processing, the term "nanotechnology" probably is a poor one.
Scientists have, of course, picked up on nanotechnology. The word
proliferates through the literature and is prominent in proposals for
funding.
And there, of course, is the reason that we now hear of
"nanoparticles" in sunscreen when the words "chemicals" or "molecules"
would be more appropriate, and the reason why practically every field
of scientific research has sought to relabel itself
"nanotechnology".
Twenty one years ago, Eric Drexler published a book about how
artificial molecular machines might be built by mankind, and the idea
was pretty breathtaking. Lots of people jumped on the idea that
funding for nanotechnology research would be a good idea, and since
then, funding "nanotechnology" has become so "in" that things like
materials science and synthetic organic chemistry are being broadly
relabeled "nanotechnology" for purposes of getting "nanotechnology"
funding. There is nothing wrong, of course, with funding materials
science and synthetic organic chemistry -- both are very useful fields
of research. There is, however, something wrong with this terminology
abuse.
If terminology is to be meaningful, it has to differentiate one class
of things from another. If absolutely everything is "nanotechnology"
then the term conveys no information to the reader whatsoever -- it
becomes utterly meaningless.
I think it is really cool when people construct new sunscreens, or new
coatings for car windows or pants. I have nothing against such
research and indeed I'm in favor of it. I think it is terrific when
people come up with interesting new ways to produce unusual materials
with bulk processing. However, I think it is a serious and unfortunate
abuse of terminology to call all such things "nanotechnology".
Sure, it is great that people came up with a cheap way to remove
arsenic from water with powdered rust, but relabeling it
"nanoparticles can be used to remove arsenic from water!" in a press
release is just wafting up smog around what could be useful
information instead.
All this "nanosmog" that makes it increasingly difficult to know what
to call the things we used to call "nanotechnology" but which are now
lost in the noise. Perhaps we need a new word and to start from
scratch with a new community around that word -- though sadly I
suspect that lots of people will rapidly start using the new word for
their glass coatings and stain repellers for pants if there is any
money in doing so.
Perry
.
- Prev by Date: Re: [Sci.nanotech] What would be 'green' nanotech?
- Next by Date: New Batteries Using Nanotubes
- Previous by thread: Re: [Sci.nanotech] What would be 'green' nanotech?
- Next by thread: New Batteries Using Nanotubes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
