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

[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

[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

[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).

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.