skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Richard Jones at Soft Machines has been writing lately about new and promising developments in the British nanotechnology community. His post on Friday was particularly interesting, focusing not on the science of nanotechnology, but on the challenges we face in deciding how, when or if to apply it. It appears that the technical challenges of nanotech might be the easy part. In reference to All Talk? Nanotechnology and public engagement:
On the one hand, there was the view that Science itself provides clear answers to policy questions; for example, given the correct information the need for GM food to feed the world’s population and nuclear energy to power it would become obvious. As for policy, we have a representative democracy to ensure that the people’s views are represented; it is politicians, not opinion polls, who ought to decide these issues, and public engagement is really just a question of the print and broadcast media informing people. On the other hand, we heard that the direct action and controversy-stoking of the social movements are the only way that opposing views can properly be heard, and that irrationality is a legitimate tool in the face of the entrenched hegemony of technoscience.
Perhaps it's natural that such potentially revolutionary technologies like nanotech end up dividing people into almost cartoonishly stark camps -- natural but depressing. My own sense is that there is a general inability in the scientific community to communicate the possibilities of nanotechnology in terms that make sense to regular people. That leads to misunderstandings and frustration on both sides and makes compromise very difficult.
Jones links to an interesting post by policy maker David Bott who also attended the same meeting as Jones and proposes the only real way out of the communication impasse that cutting-edge science often finds itself in:
If you are a scientist, I think there is real value in taking the time to explain what you do, and why you do it, to those who are not scientists, but only if you listen to what they say in return.
Christine Peterson at Nanodot makes a good point about unrealistic expectations in nanotechnology by bringing up a 2000 prediction that full clinical application of "fleets of microscopic robots" would be underway by 2003. The funny thing about predictions is that though they're often wrong about means, they can sometimes be surprisingly accurate about ends. The purpose of fleets of circulatory robots is the medical treatment of cancer, heart disease and other serious illnesses. The lack of advanced nanorobotics isn't stopping researchers from using nanotech to attack those diseases in different ways.PhysOrg.com has an article on how attaching polymeric nanoparticles to red blood cells turns the body's own blood into an ideal delivery system for medicine. This is a brilliant example of how synergising with the body's natural systems can allow us to elegantly do things that we're not yet capable of any other way. There's nothing wrong with working towards a vision of nanorobotics, but it's important to be able to appreciate the danger of getting fixated on a hypothetical "ideal" technology and missing simpler and sometimes better solutions.
One of the unexpected benefits of nanotechnology is that it is making us appreciate the amazing sophistication of naturally evolved materials. You may not have thought much of it the last time your arm was in a cast, but bone is one of the most remarkable materials in nature, combining strength and resilience with a range of biological functions.Bone is the scaffold of most life on earth and the secret to its success lies at the nanoscale. Nanowerk has a fascinating article on the molecular properties of bone and how they use hierarchies of flexible and strong components to build up a material that's able to absorb huge amounts of stress without failure.
In biology, universality generates robustness, while diversity enables optimality. Materials like bone, being a nano-composite of strong but brittle and soft but ductile materials, illustrate this unification of components with disparate properties within a hierarchical structure.
Nature's toolbox begins with nanotechnology. By slowly unraveling the molecular structures of natural materials like bones, researchers are learning principals that can be applied to human-made materials in order to make them stronger, lighter and more efficient.
What can't carbon nanotubes do? Now scientists at the University of California at Berkeley have been able to use them to inject quantum dots into living cells. With a diameter of just one nanometer, you're not likely to see a carbon nanotube injector at your local clinic anytime soon, but they do seem poised to play a key role in cell biology research and gene delivery. Yet another example of nanotech as enabling technology paving the way for further advances to come.
Nanodot links to a very interesting paper: Nanotechnology Policy: An Analysis of Transnational Governance Issues Facing the United States and China. One of the most significant issues raised was about the general level of understanding of nanotechnology:...publics throughout the world remain largely in the dark about nanotechnology. A major study, funded by the NSF and conducted in 2004 by Michael Cobb and Jane Macoubrie at North Carolina State University (NCSU), found that 80 percent to 85 percent of the American public has heard “little” or “nothing” about nanotechnology.47 Similarly, a nationally representative, August 2006 poll of over 1,000 adults, commissioned by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies and conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, found similar results, with about 70 percent of the public reporting that they have heard little to nothing at all about nanotechnology. These findings are consistent with similar polls that have been commissioned in Europe and Canada, and it is possible that these trends associated with low levels of public of understanding of nanotechnology would also occur in China as well.
The paper goes on to point out that a lack of understanding of what nanotechnology actually is can lead quickly to a consumer backlash -- a backlash that nanotechnology can't afford as it's making it's first tentative steps into commercialization.How do we avoid this?... coordinated nanotechnology education and engagement programs will be needed, supported by both government and industry. These efforts will have to be structured to reach a wide range of consumers, many of which may have little to no scientific or technical training. Establishing such a widespread public engagement campaign will require the use of both traditional media outlets—such as print, radio, television, and film—alongside more non-traditional media outlets—such as the Internet, weblogs, games, and podcasts—to capture the attention of a diverse range of individuals in various age, gender, and socioeconomic categories.
Which is very much the mandate of Nanotech BC -- to build an inclusive nanotechnology community that addresses the needs of researchers, businesses and consumers. We have a collection of papers about a wide range of nanotechnology topics and hold events throughout the year. Stay tuned for more opportunities to get involved with one of the technologies that will shape our future.
In elementary school most of us had a class called Science. Later on that was broken up into physics, chemistry and biology -- and generally science has been broken up ever since.Nanotechnology poses a challenge to those traditional clear-cut divisions. At the nanometer scale physics, chemistry and biology are inescapably intertwined -- resulting in developments that are difficult to classify.Case in point: Nanowerk has a great article on "green" nanotechnology; using plants to fabricate inorganic nanomaterials. Nanotechnology is vividly demonstrating how the divisions we use to organize science are not necessarily natural divisions at all, but artifacts of our own thinking.
Not only is Mother Nature inventive, she's had a very long time to add to her tool box. A case in point is the humble gecko -- able to scamper up walls and hang upside-down on ceilings thanks to the tiny fibers on its feet.Now nanotechnology is about to let us do the same thing by using carbon nanotubes to develop tape based on the same principle that makes a gecko's feet sticky -- but with four times the adhesive power. Ars Technica and PHYSORG.com report on the cutting edge of stickiness.Better tape might seem prosaic, but it will be advances like gecko-tape that bring nanotechnology into the mainstream by providing large jumps in effectiveness in materials with huge numbers of uses.
