Comments on: Nanotech threat to your safety http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html Science Blog from Freelance Science Writer David Bradley Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:41:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html/comment-page-1#comment-119867 David Bradley Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:38:48 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html#comment-119867 The following headline was issued above a press release from PRNewswire and picked up by countless sites, including http://physorg.com/news102008648.html "Consumers Must Be Convinced Risks Outweigh Benefits" PR quickly realised their mistake pulled the press release from their site and switched the words risks and benefits. Physorg.com, which is effectively a scraper site for press releases and doesn't actually edit or add anything to the material it regurgitates as far as I know, is yet to spot the error. I also don't like their name having that "org" in there implies they are somehow affiliated to some kind of phys learned society, which I don't believe they are. The following headline was issued above a press release from PRNewswire and picked up by countless sites, including http://physorg.com/news102008648.html

“Consumers Must Be Convinced Risks Outweigh Benefits”

PR quickly realised their mistake pulled the press release from their site and switched the words risks and benefits. Physorg.com, which is effectively a scraper site for press releases and doesn’t actually edit or add anything to the material it regurgitates as far as I know, is yet to spot the error. I also don’t like their name having that “org” in there implies they are somehow affiliated to some kind of phys learned society, which I don’t believe they are.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html/comment-page-1#comment-96993 David Bradley Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:30:00 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html#comment-96993 Ed, yes, thanks for your comment. There definitely needs to be a debate, and there definitely needs to be a few advocates out there who can stand up to the onslaught of antiscience (as ever), there also needs to be a few in the antiscience lobbies who have read more about nanotechnology than Crichton's Swarm or K Eric Drexler's original thoughts on self-replicating nanobots. Ed, yes, thanks for your comment. There definitely needs to be a debate, and there definitely needs to be a few advocates out there who can stand up to the onslaught of antiscience (as ever), there also needs to be a few in the antiscience lobbies who have read more about nanotechnology than Crichton’s Swarm or K Eric Drexler’s original thoughts on self-replicating nanobots.

]]> By: Ed Yong http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html/comment-page-1#comment-96931 Ed Yong Fri, 27 Apr 2007 23:07:49 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/nanotech-threat-to-your-safety.html#comment-96931 David, I agree with your point, but I do find it reassuring that someone is actually doing something to study how the nanotech debate evolves. I remember attending a science communication conference a while back where after much discussion, the delegates agreed that nanotech must be better communicated to the public to avoid 'another GM'. It was a bit like the scene in Lord of the Rings where the ents after a half-day of debate agree that the hobbits aren't orcs. While assessing the safety of nano is vital, fending off the lobbyists is surely just as important. All the ingredients for a massive backlash (as with GM crops and to a lesser extent, climate change) are already there. We have the terrifying phrases (grey goo instead of frankenstein crops). We have the in-built fear of the 'unnatural' that will cause some people to elevate any studies that find a possible danger to the level of gospel while labelling those find otherwise as industry-paid rubbish. We even have the obligatory Michael Crichton novel-posing-as-thesis. A good PR campaign strikes me as being essential to the 'maturation' of this technology. David, I agree with your point, but I do find it reassuring that someone is actually doing something to study how the nanotech debate evolves. I remember attending a science communication conference a while back where after much discussion, the delegates agreed that nanotech must be better communicated to the public to avoid ‘another GM’. It was a bit like the scene in Lord of the Rings where the ents after a half-day of debate agree that the hobbits aren’t orcs.

While assessing the safety of nano is vital, fending off the lobbyists is surely just as important. All the ingredients for a massive backlash (as with GM crops and to a lesser extent, climate change) are already there. We have the terrifying phrases (grey goo instead of frankenstein crops). We have the in-built fear of the ‘unnatural’ that will cause some people to elevate any studies that find a possible danger to the level of gospel while labelling those find otherwise as industry-paid rubbish. We even have the obligatory Michael Crichton novel-posing-as-thesis.

A good PR campaign strikes me as being essential to the ‘maturation’ of this technology.

]]>