Why are some avoiding sunscreens?
Jason Major
TechNyou
Apparently a number of us are concerned enough about the use of nanoparticles in sunscreen that we are actively avoiding the use of sunscreen. The question is why?
An Australian Government study has delved into our knowledge and attitudes to the use of nanoparticles in sunscreens and how it influences our behaviour regarding protecting ourselves from the sun.
Most (60%) of people have actually never heard of the controversy surrounding nanoparticles in sunscreen. But of the 33% that have about 60% have some sort of concern about them and about 13% are a lot less likely to use any sunscreen at all. Nearly one in five would go out of their way to avoid nanoparticle sunscreen.
This is all interesting stuff, but what is driving these perceptions? TechNyou has reported on plenty of research about nanoparticles and their use in sunscreens and although there is some uncertainty and ongoing research the consensus so far is that any risk is small.
To go a bit deeper here are some questions for you:
If you are aware of the controversy surrounding the use of nanoparticles in sunscreen, do you see their use as risky or not and more importantly why or why not?
Given we have a choice of sunscreen – the chemical absorbers of nasty UVs or the nanoparticles blockers of UV – would you actively avoid the nanoparticle sunscreens? Why or why not?
What influenced your perceptions about these nano sunscreens? For example, was it something you read? If so who wrote it and where was it published? Was it someone you spoke to and, if so, who was it; what authority do they have on this topic, why did you believe/trust them?
Media report
Gene therapy restores vision in both eyes
Two doses of gene therapy restore vision to three women who were born nearly blind.
Scientific American: 8 February 2012
Image: Garretttaggs55, Wikimedia Commons
A tweak of a gene could transform our looks in a few generations
The proportion of people with desirable physical traits could rapidly accelerate over a few generations with the aid of a diet that tweaks the activity of particular genes.
The Conversation: 8 February 2012
Opinion: No objection to nano
While biotechnology has met with mixed public reactions, to date nanotechnology seems to invoke much less public concern.
The Scientist: 3 February 2012
Safety in numbers: how three parents can beat genetic diseases
More on the technology and feasibility of the science behind how three parents can circumvent genetic disease – and there are pictures.
The Conversation: 6 February 2012
International study: What should happen to your genomic information?
Would you want to know your likelihood of getting certain diseases? With genome tests, how much information does the public really want to know about themselves? How much informations should clinicians and researchers reveal to the patient or clients? These are relevant question even today, but will become more so as we start to dig deeper into the mysteries of the genome.
Wellcome Trust Blog: 1 February 2012 – The survey
Genomic researchers, used to working with anonymous samples, are facing increasing pressure to share their findings with the volunteers who provided their samples.
There is now an urgent need to understand what the public and professionals want in terms of feedback of genome data. With this in mind, the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute are asking people: what would you want to know?
They are conducting an international study to explore some of the ethical implications of whole genome evaluation, in what they hope will be the largest survey of its kind.
More also at Genomeethics
Who is regulating the release of the GM mosquito?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
A burst of research involving modified mosquitos to control diseases such as malaria and dengue has prompted scrutiny of the research itself and the regulatory oversight attached to it.
For previous news on this research see
Even though the research has been happening in the lab for some time, there are concerns we don’t have sufficient scientific knowledge about potential effects on the environment and human health and the regulatory authorities in the respective countries haven’t the legislation to deal with this novel technology. Others of course dispute this, namely one of the companies involved in the development of a genetically-modified mosquito.
PLOS has dedicated their January 2012 edition to tropical and neglected diseases and sought the opinion of the various players in this area for their views on the science surrounding genetically modified insets and their regulation. The focus is on the US and Europe, but Australia gets a mention and generally we fair pretty well
Issues raised
The main issues were raised by Reeves et al in their article, Scientific Standards and the Regulation of Genetically Modified Insects.
Their key gripes were a lack of transparency in the regulatory system, a lack of data to support their decisions and an over reliance on unpublished data, as suggested by the following:
“The selective use of unpublished or non-peer reviewed evidence to support contentious conclusions has been repeatedly questioned”
“Additionally, the failure of US regulators to publish data (in this case their own data) prior to their inclusion in regulatory documents represents a worrying precedent for the scientific quality and transparency of future environmental impact assessments.”
“However, despite these advantages, the flow of information to the public and scientific domain over the last 9 years has been limited. In fact, it can be argued that dissemination of relevant information is so restricted that it undermines the value of public consultation exercises, as comments will almost by definition be ill-informed and readily dismissed as such.”
For the defence – or, in the red corner…
The defence being the people from Oxitec who is developing genetics-based controls for pest insects. One of these is the GM mosquito modified to control dengue fever, which they have had limited trial releases of in the Caymans and Malaysia.
These guys actually agree that greater transparency in permit applications, reports and the science is in most, if not all, cases a good thing. If for no other reason, one would hope it would help build confidence in the regulatory system. But the Oxitec guys defend this position only so far claiming a right to protect their intellectual property.
The question is can we achieve public accountability and still allow companies to protect their IP? This ain’t my area of expertise, but I would have thought that it was possible.
They also defend the regulators use of unpublished data calling Reeves et al’s assumptions naive. Their following barbs pretty sum up their feelings here:
“Reeves et al. are also on weak ground when they assert that regulators should consider only information published in peer-reviewed journals. This assertion depends on three assumptions: that journal peer-review is a superior guarantee of quality than any other method, that no data from any other source can be of adequate quality to warrant consideration, and that regulators themselves are incapable of adequately assessing the quality and significance of data provided to them. Each of these assumptions is naïve at best.
…Furthermore, journals select papers for publication using criteria that are not fully congruent with the needs of regulators. In particular, it is difficult to publish negative data. Studies showing lack of difference between a transgenic strain and its unmodified wild-type counterpart may be of great interest to regulators but not to journal editors.”
Suffice to say that there is healthy debate. The difference with these opposing groups is that there is no outright rejection of the science or its potential uses simply because it involves GMOs. The debate lies with the regulatory response and how the scientific and regulatory process is communicated to society to ensure adequate oversight.
Oz regulations
One of the problems, of course, is that regulations are not consistent across countries. So how does it work in Australia if a company or research group wants to release genetically modified mosquitos, or any other insect? Who regulates and monitors this and do we have oversight that is robust enough to minimise risk to the environment and human health? Of course, what is an appropriate risk will differ for each person, but the following is how it works in Australia. Whether it is adequate is for you to judge.
For anything to do with a genetically modified organism (GMO) the bucks starts and stops with the Australian Gene Technology Regulator who comes with the Arnie-inspired nickname, The Regulator. He (Joe Smith) gets support and advice from the Australian Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR). The legislation for regulating gene technology is comprised of the Commonwealth Gene Technology Act 2000, the Gene Technology Regulations 2001 and corresponding State and Territory legislation.
Although Australia has yet to release into the environment any genetically modified animal there has been considerable research on using the technology to control pest animals such as the European Carp, mouse, rabbit and fox. None of this left the laboratory.
Process to release GM animals in Australia
The following relates to groups wanting to intentionally release a GMO into the environment. This falls under the criteria called Dealings involving an Intentional Release (DIR).
They can be a limited controlled release (ie small numbers in a limited area usually a field trial), or a commercial release such as what Oxitec want to eventually do with their GM dengue mozzie. Each are treated differently under Australian legislation.
A limited release DIR has a 150 day assessment process where they assess the application, confer with the states and territories and put together a risk management plan. This plan is then made public (online, etc) for comment. The OGTR (Regulator) make any decisions regarding the granting of a licence or if there are any risk management criteria that accompany such a licence based on these consultations and any other relevant scientific literature and reports available.
If the request is for a commercial release then the assessment process is 255 days and there are two rounds of public consultation allowed for assessment of the risk management strategy.
Some context
As pointed out in the last PLOS article by Mumford, billions of mass-reared insects, which are not GM, are released into the wild each week around the world. Many are non-native pest species reared, irradiated, and distributed in sterile insect release programs.
In Australia we have released loads of fertile insects and other organisms such as fungi as biological control agents. Thousands of other similar biological control agents have been released worldwide. The cane toad is the obvious example that went wrong, but today there is years of science done and intense regulatory oversight for any proposed biological control organism, bearing in mind there is no such thing as zero risk.
The Wolbachia example
Wolbachia-infected mosquitos have had a limited trial release in Australia in the hope they will help control dengue fever. For the story on the Wolbacia research see here
Because the Wolbachia-infected mosquito is not a genetically modified organism, the scientists involved in the research and the mosquito’s release report at a conference they struggled to find the appropriate regulatory procedures that applied to their technology to ensure responsible oversight and approval. The risk assessors in that case have called for the regulatory process to be reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for both proponents and regulators.
From Mumford, PLOS: “Although it is not a GM release as neither of the organisms involved have foreign genes inserted, the recent Australian release of Ae. aegypti transformed with Wolbachia (which reduces the capacity of the mosquito to act as a vector of dengue) is an interesting example of the state of regulation in this general area. The authors state “Approval for the release of Aedes aegypti containing Wolbachia was provided by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.”
What’s hapening with nanofoods
An overview of what nanotechnology applications are being researched, tested and in some cases already applied in food technology.
Nanowerk Spotlight: 2 February 2012
The world’s stongest fibre
Stronger than spider silk and kevlar, the toughest polymer yarn of all time has been made by mixing a polymer with sheets of reduced graphene oxide and carbon nanotubes.
RSC Chemisry World: 1 February 2012
Nanotechnology and the fight against cancer
From diagnostics to drug delivery, clinicians want to take selective aim at tumour cells