Nano Safety Worries Scientists More Than Public

Nanotech Coward writes "The unknown human health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology are a bigger worry for scientists than for the public, according to a new report in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. The new report was based on a national telephone survey of American households and a sampling of 363 leading U.S. nanotechnology scientists and engineers. It reveals that those with the most insight into a technology with enormous potential — and that is already emerging in hundreds of products — are unsure what health and environmental problems might be posed by the technology."

Comments

not surprising

[leomekenkamp]

Well informed scientist see more possible causes for harm than the non-informed general public. This hardly comes as a surprise to me.

Re:not surprising

[morgan_greywolf]

Well informed scientist see more possible causes for harm than the non-informed general public. This hardly comes as a surprise to me. Not always. Many times it's the other way around. Take, for example, genetically modified food. Most scientists working in this area see no harmful effects from GM food, yet many in the general public think GM food is going to kill them, cause cancer, or other such nonsense. Or human cloning. Many people in the general public are absolutely terrified of human cloning, yet I'd bet most scientists see no problem with this from a biotech standpoint, except for a few ethical considerations.

It cuts both ways.

Re:not surprising

[iangoldby]

What is more usual is for the public to vastly over-estimate the risks. This often occurs when scientists cannot say with 100% certainty that a certain thing is safe, and is largely a result of the public's generally poor understanding of risk and probability.

It could be said that the public's opposition to nuclear power, GM crops, etc, is largely an irrational reaction to the impossibility of scientists and policy-makers giving cast-iron guarantees that accidents can never and will never happen (not a view I necessarily agree with).

The issue with nanotechnology is that so far there has been almost no public discussion of the risks, which is probably why Joe Public is currently pretty much unaware of the issues at all.

Re:not surprising

[kebes]

Disclosure: I do research in the (overly-broad) field of "nanotechnology."

I went to a talk recently discussing the safety issues surrounding nanotechnology (health effects of nanoparticles, in particular). Several possible problems were identified, and there is vigorous ongoing research to determine the full health and environmental implications of this technology.

In short, I get the impression that scientists are trying to "get it right this time." That is, we are all keenly aware that numerous scientific breakthroughs had unintended health side-effects (e.g. the originally unknown effects of radiation, carcinogens, etc.). So the scientific community is determined to identify the safety concerns as quickly as possible, before these technologies become widespread. This is, obviously, a good thing. Though possibly overly-cautious, this strategy should minimize the risk of public health concerns and evironmental damage.

In any case, as you said it's hardly surprising that the people most intimately familiar with the technology are best able to predict its problems/shortcomings. Also worth noting is that the scientists working with these technologies/materials have a vested self-interest in identifying health problems, since they are the ones being exposed to these materials.

Re:not surprising

[jandrese]

I'm sure the public will be able to grossy overestimate the risk once a movie comes out where people die from breathing nanoparticles or something.

The craziest thing is that with the average Joe the most common concern I've heard about nanotech is fear of the "grey goo" scenario, which in my mind is probably the least likely way we're going to destroy all life as we know it. The practical considerations of that scenario are enormous and we'd be lucky to get within 5 orders of magnitude of having to even worry about it.

The bigger concern in my book is the stuff that acts like asbestos in your lungs and gives you cancer or just makes a mess of cell walls.

Re:not surprising

[Feyr]

so uninformed public overreact/dont overreact to a piece of technology based on just how much dollar is out there instilling or not instilling fear in them (ie, greenpeace).

this is news how? sheeps will be sheeps

Re:not surprising

[SatanicPuppy]

If people really cared that much about GM food, it'd have to be, you know, labeled. Thanks to the GM lobby, most people have already been eating GM foods for years. I have a problem with GM foods, but it's more about the problem with the modified plants cross-pollenating with unmodified plants, and corrupting unmodified seed lines, as well as the crappy business policies of companies like Monsanto.

I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it. Animal cloning is done to strengthen the breed, technically, so either we're advocating some kind of eugenics, which is just inherently a bad idea, or we're catering to people's mistaken desire to have a genetic duplicate of a dead person, which is also a pretty bad idea.

Re:not surprising

[foobsr]

Where I live, it has to be labelled:

The EU recognises the consumers' right to information and labelling as a tool for making an informed choice. Since 1997 Community legislation has made labelling of GM food mandatory for:
* products that consist of GMO or contain GMO;
* products derived from GMO but no longer containing GMO if there is still DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification present;
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

However, I am not so sure whether Joe Sixpack cares.

CC.

Re:not surprising

[Ajehals]

My prime concern with GM foods is the copyright / patent element, although this extends beyond GM foods into conventionally modified varieties as well. The fact that in many areas it is now a requirement that the crops grown come from licensed seed types and those types are owned by the suppliers not the grower may cause fairly large problems down the road.

The main issues I see (other than the ones you already pointed out) are the fact that 'heritage' varieties are being lost, simply because the new GM replacements have better guarantee's as to the end product, biodiversity is reduced which in turn makes large scale crop failures more likely (i.e. there is a single point of failure as all the plants are genetically similar, a single biological or environmental threat could destroy an entire crop). I would also suspect that monetizing this seed IP could well lead to higher seed prices (you get a higher yield after all) which may be an issue for smaller farmers, especially subsistence farmers.

AFAIK The health elements of GM seeds have not been fully investigated, nor will they be (no one investigated the health implications of new varieties created conventionally after all) so the potential for problems exists (the BSE crisis in the UK was caused in some degree by modern and more cost effective farming practices after all).

The biggest problem however is not with GM itself but the fact that it it now impossible to have a discussion about any remotely controversial scientific topic without it becoming a contest of marketing efforts, both sides (and there generally are only two that are heard) making false claims or overstating risks or benefits and most importantly trying to turn complex issues into soundbytes.

Re:not surprising

[jandrese]

Your mother is not alone. I've seen experiments online where people put water in the microwave to warm it up, cool it back down, and then grow plants with it and they say the plants perform poorly with the microwaved water, saying that the oven basically poisons the water and we shouldn't use it.

Ah, here it is: Microwaved Water and Plants. I would like to see someone replicate this in the lab, thus far nobody has been able to reproduce her result.

Re:not surprising

[itsdapead]

Most scientists working in this area see no harmful effects from GM food, yet many in the general public think GM food is going to kill them, cause cancer, or other such nonsense.

Problem is, most members of the general public (at least here in the UK) remember the little debacle a few years back when

1. most scientists working in the area saw no danger in feeding animals on the bovine equivalent of Soylent Green
2. Whups, the cows are getting BSE, but most scientists saw no danger of it passing to humans
3. Ah, perhaps there was some danger of it passing to humans after all, but despite CJD having a long, indeterminate incubation period and there not being any test for it, most scientists see no danger of a mass epidemic of horrible lingering deaths (fingers crossed...)

Consequently, the general public can be forgiven for suspecting that "most scientists" get altogether too much funding from Big Agrobusiness to have an impartial view on the matter. This is rather unfair to "most scientists" and probably more due to politicians not understanding the difference between conclusive scientific proof and risk/benefit analysis (when the only benefit is to the coffers of Big Agrobusiness; the starving third world can't afford GM seed and the overfed first world has no particular need for more efficient agriculture).

Re:not surprising

[fmobus]

I'd risk there is some effect on the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the water after a microwave-heating/cooling cycle. It should also be compared with boiling water the normal way and them cooling it.

Re:not surprising

[inviolet]

I don't have any particular opinion about human cloning, except for the fact that I don't see any actual point in it. Animal cloning is done to strengthen the breed, technically, so either we're advocating some kind of eugenics, which is just inherently a bad idea, or we're catering to people's mistaken desire to have a genetic duplicate of a dead person, which is also a pretty bad idea.

Eugenics is inherently bad?

If eugenics is defined as "improving humans through genetic selection or modification", that seems to me to be inherently good.

It only goes bad when the sought improvements are not rational -- such as, for example, attempts to make us all Christians, or blonde, or obedient.

Consider all the rational improvements that could be made through genetic improvements: we could increase tendencies to be smart, scientific, responsible, just, good-natured, conscientious, or whatever other characteristics are found to have genetic inputs.

Or were you just being sloppy with your words when you said 'inherently'? IMO you should've said 'historically'.

Re:not surprising

[CustomDesigned]

Most scientists working in this area see no harmful effects from GM food, yet many in the general public think GM food is going to kill them, cause cancer, or other such nonsense. Or human cloning. Many people in the general public are absolutely terrified of human cloning, yet I'd bet most scientists see no problem with this from a biotech standpoint, except for a few ethical considerations.

That is a straw man. The issues with GM have to do with labelling (so you know you're not getting what the term "tomato" usually stands for, whether or not you like the alleged improvements) and stuff escaping and destroying ecosystems.

We already have a problem with BT corn escaping and contaminating crops of small/poor farmers. Surprise, surprise, the pollen gets blown into other fields. Fortunately, most people aren't highly allergic to the toxin, but then Monsanto might come along and sue them to take away their livelihood (I'm only aware of an actual example with GM canola, but its going to happen). There's nothing like having to beg giant faceless corporations for permission to plant your subsistence crops. And you thought proprietary computer software was bad...

Labelling of GMO food is important because our understanding of nutrition is always incomplete. Tang was cutting edge for the Apollo mission, but is a nutritional joke comparable to Koolaid now. The "improvements" to GMO food are worth trying, but *only* if there is a way for consumers with bad reactions to avoid them. A conventional example is MSG. Most people don't have a problem with it, it has been used for centuries, it improves the flavor of food. But I personally know several people for whom MSG triggers severe migraine headaches. They *really* need to know which packages have MSG without having to guess about cowardly disguises like "natural flavor". We carefully label "may contain traces of peanuts" because peanut allergy can be life threatening. But a severe migraine puts the sufferer out of commission for a day - a big hit to productivity.

When less informed people hear about problems they don't fully understand, they often don't describe them accurately or even recognizably, allowing those willfully ignoring the problems to attack straw men.

Re:not surprising

[SatanicPuppy]

Consider all the rational improvements that could be made through genetic improvements: we could increase tendencies to be smart, scientific, responsible, just, good-natured, conscientious, or whatever other characteristics are found to have genetic inputs.

And we could increase the tendencies to be dumb, obedient, hard working, and short-lived, thereby making us into the people that governments and corporations would dream us to be.

Do you really want to start going down that road? I don't like companies messing casually with plant genomes...Do you really want to jack some patented gene sequences into your kids? If they breed is it going to violate someone's copyright?

Re:not surprising

[JeffSchwab]

GMO-related concerns aren't "nonsense." You might want to do a little research on that topic before you go spouting off about it. For starters, watch this documentary: http://www.thefutureoffood.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8XrioF4CE Then, read this (enjoyable) book: http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php Beyond the immediate (human lifespan) health concerns, there are patent nightmares aplenty. GMO plants are treated as IP. Seed from the GMO plants contaminates traditional farms, the farmers are sued by large companies like Monsanto, and the farmers are forced to destroy any saved seed as part of the eventual settlement. As a result, we're losing biodiversity at a shit-your-pants rate. If a slate-wiper disease strikes zea mays, we've got a real problem. The health concerns are real. It's not that eating some GMO canola oil will kill you; it's that almost all of our food is derived from the same few plants, and "minor" changes to the plants can have major effects on us. Further, we have the insane situation in the U.S. that GMO foods don't even have to be labeled as such. Most of us are stuck either paying through the nose for pseudo-organic and heirloom foods, or else eating... whatever the corporations feed us.

That's understandable

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty easy for scientists to kill the public. Nano stuff seems a bit tougher to kill.

A phone survey regarding the dangers of nanotech?

[pgillan]

How come I never get cool questions like this?

nano safety

[morgan_greywolf]

For maximum nano safety, just specify the -B, -N, and -t options.

Oh, wait, you were talking about something else!

Re:A phone survey regarding the dangers of nanotec

[LingNoi]

...Because you would hold up the call operator for 40 minutes discussing the benefits of which OS the nanobots should run centred around some kind of car analogy?

Duh.

[SatanicPuppy]

Scientists are more worried about a lot of things than the general public. This is not because scientists are worriers, but because the general public is hopelessly ignorant about a lot of things.

I see all this crap about how bad reporters are at science reporting...This is mainly from people who never have to watch their work be dumbed down over the course of days to the point where joe six pack can get some glimmer of meaning from it. Trying to convey anything scientific to the masses is extremely difficult.

The truth of it is, the public, by and large, just doesn't care. They don't want to know. They don't want to make the effort. And if you succeed in enlightening them as to the dangers, then it's all too likely they'll panic and refuse to use anything even close to it, as was the case with nuclear energy.

Re:Ok,

[mdielmann]

So they are all worried about grey goo? It's probably much simpler than that. It's already known that small particles can cause lung problems up to and including cancer (from asbestos). Small particles can also cause problems for other parts of our body, such as skin irritation from fibreglass. Indications are that shape, size, and chemical composition are all factors in the toxicity of small particles. Until these risks are tested against and quantified, any responsible scientist would be concerned. No need for future possibilities like self-replication to make them dangerous.

For the same reasons nano works so well for drugs

[stox]

Nano formulated drugs can get into places that were impossible before. For this same reason, other nano formulated materials may present a severe danger. For example, I wouldn't want particles from the paint on my house to end up crossing the blood brain barrier.

The public and scientists have different interests

[Kohath]

"The public" worries about what the media tells them to worry about. Did you know everyone's children are going to die from Chinese toys with lead in them? The public does.

Scientists worry about science-related things they think are interesting. Hence, asteroids hitting Earth and nanotech are worried about.

This should surprise no one.

Social scientists are probably worried about the disconnect between the publics' and scientists' thinking though.

Then you should RTFA

[mangu]

Well informed scientist see more possible causes for harm than the non-informed general public. This hardly comes as a surprise to me.

If you had taken time to read the article instead of rushing to get the first post, you would know that what's causing surprise is not that scientists see possible causes for harm, but that "The new findings are in stark contrast to controversies sparked by the advent of technologies of the past such as nuclear power and genetically modified foods, which scientists perceived as having lower risks than did the public".

Re:Ok,

[kebes]

So they are all worried about grey goo? No, not at all. The "grey goo" scenario (where self-replicating nano-robots consume all available resources and turn all materials into a giant amorphous glob of nanomachines) is not taken seriously both because it is unlikely to be plausible (with respect to things like complexity of design and thermodynamics of matter conversion and pattern replication); and because our current research in nanotechnology is too primitive compared to the molecular nanotechnology that would be required for that scenario to even be remotely possible.

No, the current concerns with nanotechnology are much more mundane: things like nanoparticles causing health concerns by passing into people's bodies and accumulating in organs. There is already some research suggesting that (some) nanoparticles can actually absorb into tissues or even pass through cell membranes. One of the reasons that nanoparticles might be great for biological applications is that they can be made to be at a size-scale that many biological processes ignore. The lack of an immune response is great in some ways, but it also means that the body may not be able to deal with possible negative side-effects.

Other possible health, safety, and environmental concerns are just variants of what we're already worried about: carcinogens, flammability, toxicity, accumulation in the environment, etc. Associated with all this is coming up with the right procedures for filtering out dangerous materials, disposing of them safely, and so on. All these conventional concerns must be reconsidered when dealing with nanomaterials, since their behavior is different and sometimes non-intuitive.

(Disclosure: I do research in "nanotechnology.")

Oh, I'm Worried...

[Eli Gottlieb]

After all, and I quote, "It was us who scorched the sky."

Re:A phone survey regarding the dangers of nanotec

[irtza]

What? Are you mad? There's no reason for discussion. The answer is obvious. The nanobot OS would be a monolithic unix derivative stripped down to the bare essentials with all drivers statically linked - like a custom Linux or BSD build. Tiny nanobots are like a Mini. You need something that will fit the form factor. You would need something like a a href=http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/>Ford F150 to run Windows. Windows Doesn't even enter the nanobot market....

more seriously though, if we built nanobots, and each nanobot ran its own version of an OS, could we count this in marketshare research?... wait, what were we talking about again? Oh yes, fear. Let O'Reilly do a piece on nanotech and terrorism and the numbers will do a 180 and the public calling for a ban on research.

I fully expect to see...

[Bullfish]

Some guy (or woman) being nabbed at the 2026 Olympics for use of performance enhancing nanobots...

Nonsensical survey

[joeyblades]

This survey is bunk!

Nanotechnology is still in it's infancy. There are a lot of things we don't know. Ask an average scientist for an opinion about the possibility of unplanned consequences in a relatively immature area of science and he will answer "I don't know". Ask any non-scientist the same question and the average non-scientist will have some sort of opinion, usually based on "If I haven't heard anything bad, it must be OK".

This survey is comparing apples to oranges and trying to draw some inference from essentially a non-committal response from the scientific community.

"Scientists aren't saying there are problems," says the study's lead author Dietram Scheufele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication and journalism. "They're saying, 'we don't know. The research hasn't been done.'"

Leave it to the uninformed media to read doom and gloom into something so mundane...