Fears nanotechnology rules not tough enough
ABC radio interview: Fears nanotechnology rules not tough enough
Egg Makes Sure That Sperm Don't Get Too Old
Science Daily: Egg Makes Sure That Sperm Don’t Get Too Old
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325132448.htm
Solid catalyst simplifies turning algae into biodiesel
Sci American: Solid catalyst simplifies turning algae into biodiesel
Nanoparticles target brain to fight drug addiction
Science Daily: Nanoparticles target brain to fight drug addiction
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090324101747.htm
Nanoparticles In Cosmetics/personal Care Products May Have Adverse Environmental Effects
Science Daily: Nanoparticles In Cosmetics/personal Care Products May Have Adverse Environmental Effects
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090326162747.htm
Nanotechnology: how dangerous is a word?
Reading some recent commentary and media articles following a Science Meets Parliament event in Australia, one could be forgiven for thinking that nanotechnology is a single entity being unleashed unsuspectingly into the population to wreak havoc on our health and well being.
As a science communicator I can understand the need to attract and entice a reader, but the media and web sites I am referring to are not fiction novels; they report on the real world and using the term nanotechnology without the proper context or framing, as I suggest occurs in these instances, can only make it more difficult for society to make to an informed choice about how we use these technologies.
Check out the following passages from media and web sites: I have underlined the suspect lines.
From www.asbestos.com news link
Global Mesothelioma Concern Continues Through Nanotechology
Due to the possible health hazards associated with nanotechnology, the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) is currently asking for safety regulations surrounding nanomaterials in order to protect workers.
The concern over nanotechnology stems from its resemblance to asbestos, a naturally occurring mineral. Previous studies have indicated that nanoparticles share similar characteristics to asbestos fibers, which have been proven to cause pleural mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
While some studies have shown that only nano-particles of a particular long, thin shape have the potential to cause harm, the risk associated with nanotechnology deserves further research. (This is the only sentence that attempts to add some context, though I would suggest it is still misleading.)
‘‘From our point of view, there are growing concerns about the health and safety impacts of nanotech,” Mr Mullins said. “Not only do nano-particles share some characteristics with asbestos, but there’s also lessons to learn from the tragedy that occurred with asbestos… (I know the Mr Mullins in this story has a good knowledge of the science, so the criticism here lies with the reporting)
And this headline on a media release from ACTU web site
ACTU Seminar – Nanotechnology: The Next Asbestos?
Friday, 6 February 2009
Each article suggests that either nanotechnology as an entity or any nano-particle (without really describing what a nanoparticle is or how they can be used) is responsible for the impending harm to human health.
Nanotechnology is a platform technology that involves a range of technologies in the fields of biology, physics, chemistry, and any –ology you care to name. A nano-particle is any element or compound at the nano-scale (usually described as less than 100 nanometres though this doesn’t apply in every situation). Nature is full of natural nano-particles, but it is acknowledged by all that it is the engineered nano-particles that are of concern and then only some of them, and then only in certain applications.
For example, it is certain types of carbon nanotubes that can clump together to form asbestos-like fibres. They have been found to cause asbestos-like disease symptoms in mice, but it yet to be determined if the same applies to humans. This is a serious risk that needs to be investigated, but to say “nanoparticles share similar characteristics to asbestos fibers, which have been proven to cause pleural mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases” is misleading and along with the misuse of the term nanotechnology in general, only hinders any attempt to have a constructive and informed debate about these technologies.
I can equate it to the many conversations I have with the public who think biotechnology is only human cloning and mutated or GM frankenfood crops.
It is especially important at this early stage when the public’s awareness and knowledge about nanotechnologies is low that we are all careful about how we communicate nanotechnologies – or any emerging and controversial technology, if we want society to be an active and informed participant in guiding the direction these technologies will take. Having said this, the debate still needs to be open and honest and account for the social and scientific aspects of the debate.
The status of the science regarding carbon nanotubes and their potential link to mesothelioma is discussed rather well in Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science Blog
More information about what nanotechnology is and where the potential applications are can be found at the GNTIS web site
2020 Science – http://2020science.org/
Jason Major
manager, GNTIS
Nanotube Tech Transforms CO2 Into Fuel
Nanotube Tech Transforms CO2 Into Fuel
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/23/carbon-dioxide-fuel.html
GM wheat coming
China is apparently investing millions to develop transgenic wheat, CSIRO has applied to Australia’s Office of the Gene Technology Regulator for the limited and controlled release of up to 16 genetically modified wheat varieties. Grain characteristics altered include carbohydrate and protein composition that can infleunce baking qualities and nutritional characteristics, such as glycemic index and metabolic health.
Victoria’s Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has already conducted trials of drought tolerant transgenic wheat.
Theoretically then it is only a matter of time before some form of GM wheat hits the market.
If I was to guess the public’s response to this by reading the Blogs and mainstream media, my money would be on complete rejection of any such GM wheat product.
But if I was to make that call based on conversations with the general public and workshops I conduct with students, teachers and community groups (Rotary and Probus clubs, and the University of the Third Age – U3A), I think that many of those transgenic wheats would be accepted, some without hesitation, others with trepidation, but on the whole accepted.
What I find with these workshops, where I merely facilitate a discussion on people’s thoughts about a number of different GM crops, is that people, without thinking, judge each crop individually based on the merits or otherwise of the crop. And these judgements will change depending on those potential merits or risks.
Throughout the discussion people might swing from acceptance to non-acceptance, or visa versa, or range anywhere within the middle. I have yet to see a blanket acceptance or non-acceptance of GM crops. Yes some people have concerns about GM crops, but nearly all are basing their judgement on how acceptable they find the potential risks. For example, the crops Bt cotton and Vitamin A (beta-carotene) fortified rice have tended to produce a spread of people ranging from completely acceptable to about the middle, with the occasional person nudging the unacceptable end. But when the drought-tolerant transgenic cereal crops are presented nearly all find the application in this instance completely acceptable. Suddenly any potential risk becomes acceptable as Australia’s prolonged drought and the threats from climate change drive their opinion this way. That is, there may be concerns, but in this situation any risks become acceptable.
So, will transgenic wheat successfully run the public gauntlet? My guess is that a lot will depend on the transgenic characteristics of the wheat. Drought tolerance will most likely have a greater chance than say herbicide tolerance. I am unsure how wheat with a “better” nutritional profile will go. I would be interested to know from anyone reading this what would or would not be acceptable and why.
A recent article from Scientific American discusses the risk to the world’s wheat crops from a new fungus. Scientists are concerned this fungus could decimate crops before a resistant strain could be bred. Is transgenic technology to prevent such a scenario acceptable here?
David Tribe’s blog (GMO Pundit) also presents some news and opinion items about GM wheat.
Plus the GNTIS web site has fact sheets on GM, risks, benefits, myths and the science behind it – www.gntis.edu.au
Jason Major
Manager, GNTIS
GNTIS off and running
OK this is the first blog entry for the Gene and NanoTechnology Information Service – hereby referred to simply as the GNTIS.I really do need a snappier name.
Postings on this blog will attempt to discuss or raise issues relevant to gene and nanotechnologies.My hope is that it will help facilitate debate on these technologies and their applications.Science is arguably morally neutral.It is how that technology is applied that causes problems for some.So, I shall be bringing to you stuff that is triggering debate and concern in the community and getting you to help discuss why that is. The GNTIS would like to think that society can and should actively engage in guiding the direction of science.This is one platform where you can make a start.
The first real entry explores the looming inevitability of GM wheat being commercialised and whether such a product can be acceptable to the public.My experience suggests that it will depend on the transgenic characteristic rather than whether the wheat is GM or not.
Jason Major
Manager
GNTIS