While biotechnology has met with mixed public reactions, to date nanotechnology seems to invoke much less public concern.

Some forms of biotechnology have become notoriously controversial. Genetic modification of crops, for example, altered the food supply in ways some consumers found troublesome, either because of anticipated consequences, a lack of tangible benefit, lack of opportunity to participate in the decision-making, or simply a sense of inherent “unnaturalness.” Stem cell research has raised similar uneasiness, albeit for entirely different reasons, largely moral beliefs that equate it with the destruction of human embryos. So far, though, public perception of nanotechnology does not seem to be headed in the same direction. Sure, there are appeals for regulation and isolated protests, but it doesn’t seem as though there is really as much in the way of concerted will behind them. While some might be waiting for the other shoe to drop—I’ve been told many times that public concerns about nano are bound to emerge “just as soon as people understand what this is all about”—events so far suggest it may be a long wait.

Despite emerging evidence of potential toxicity to human health and the environment from some forms of nanotechnology under some circumstances, not much popular alarm has arisen. Great uncertainty remains over which products and under what circumstances we should be concerned, but of course this hasn’t stopped public reaction in the past. Several potential “triggering events” of the sort we social scientists might have expected would unleash underlying fears have already happened. In 2006, reports emerged of serious respiratory problems among German consumers using a household cleaning product called “Magic Nano,” and evidence published in 2009 indicated severe lung disease and even deaths among a small group of Chinese factory workers exposed to nanoparticles (and many other chemicals, as it turns out). In both cases, the link between nanotechnology and disease is far from clear. “Magic Nano” may not even have contained nanoparticles; the label was apparently chosen in an attempt to hype the product, much like the name “iPod nano.” Clearly, the marketers involved believed the word “nano” is attractive to consumers, rather than a source of concern for them.

To me, as a social scientist who studies risk communication, perception and reality are indeed the same thing, and so the interesting question is why, when uncertainty about risks has certainly not stopped public opinion from turning sour in the past, should nano be getting the benefit of the doubt while so much of bio remains persistently controversial?

The answer may lie in the nature of our technoscientific culture. I recently published a multi-year panel study involving 76 citizens of South Carolina, representing various walks of life, which reinforced the notion that because most Americans like technology, they are generally willing to give nanotechnology a pass, at least for now, even though they don’t know much about it. About two-thirds of the panel held positive views, and the negative minority seemed to draw on negative expectations about technology more generally, rather than specific views about nanotechnology. Panelists’ views changed little over the 32 months of the study. The most common concerns, reasonably enough, centered on unexpected consequences and unanticipated side effects. Indeed, people seemed perfectly aware of the uncertainties surrounding nano-associated risks, but this hardly appeared to induce fear.

To those of us who lived through the early years of the genetically modified (GM) food “wars,” which some tended to attribute to a lack of familiarity alongside low levels of trust, this is pretty interesting. Nano involves many of the same sorts of key actors (major corporations, government regulators, scientists, engineers, and consumer advocacy groups) and, if anything, even greater levels of scientific uncertainty. Yet there’s something quite different about what we call the “climate of public opinion” for nanotechnology as opposed to biotechnology, particularly GM. To be sure, some observers are invoking the so-called precautionary principle (the largely European idea that we should not adopt a technology until the evidence shows it does not cause harm), but even in such cases it usually seems that they are calling for precaution because they think this is generally the right way to manage any new technology, rather than because nanotechnology is particularly worrisome.

So what makes nano so different from bio? Simply put, manipulating DNA simply seems to challenge our underlying cultural ideas about how the world ought to be in ways that manipulating otherwise ordinary materials does not.

For those who want to communicate about risk in a responsible way with the so-called “lay” or non-specialist public, nano represents a novel challenge. Rather than being an “amplified” risk, by which I mean one that the media and other social institutions have tended to highlight, nanotechnology may represent an “attenuated” risk, or one that these institutions have tended to ignore. If people are too fearful of a technology, they may lose out on its potential benefits, yet if too trusting, they may ignore important risks. But few among us really want to be the one yelling “Fire!” in a crowded world. After all, we’re still not even sure there’s a problem. Are we?

Indeed, just last month (January 25), the National Research Council issued a report calling for a coordinated research plan to investigate nanotechnology’s poorly understood risks to both health and environment, lest its beneficial promise for society ultimately go unrealized.

Susanna Priest (susannapriest@yahoo.com) is the author of Nanotechnology and the Public: Risk Perception and Risk Communication (Taylor and Francis, 2012), as well as a November 2011 article in Risk Analysis (Volume 31, Issue 11, pp. 1718-1733) on “Envisioning Emerging Technologies,” which reports on the panel study results as part of a special issue. She also edits the academic journal Science Communication.

Read this article:
Opinion: No Objections to Nano?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSHLqowYqjU

Here is the original post:
Ross Nanotechnology Introduction.flv – Video

Read the original here:
Nanotechnology scientist left US job to fight Maharashtra local polls

DUBLIN–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Research and Markets (http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/8d0af6/smart_materials_an) has announced the addition of the “Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering” report to their offering.

This volume comprises a collection of the papers presented at the 2011 International Conference on Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering (SMNE2011), held on September 17-18th, 2011, in Wuhan, China.

The aim was to provide a platform where researchers, engineers, academics and industrialists from all over the world could present research results and developments in Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering. This makes the work an eminently up-to-date guide to those fields.

This volume collects 160 papers presented at the International Conference on Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering (SMNE2011), held in September 2011, in Wuhan, China. Researchers, engineers, academics, and industry professionals (mostly from China) present their research and development activities in smart materials for biomedical engineering application; nanoscience and technology, nanostructured oxides, interfaces, heterostructures and devices, synthesis and architecture of nanomaterials, toxicology of engineered nanomaterials, nanodevices and nanofabrication, semiconductor nanowires and heterostructures, and nanoscale patterning, assembly, and surface modification.

Others focus on energy and the environment, advanced materials for energy storage systems, photovoltaic materials and devices, and membrane materials and technologies for emerging applications; functional materials and applications for molecular and organic electronics; bio/soft materials for therapeutics and tissue engineering; optical bio-imaging and microscopy; crystal growth and technology; and other areas.

For more information visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/8d0af6/smart_materials_an

Here is the original post:
Research and Markets: Smart Materials and Nanotechnology in Engineering: An Eminently up-to-Date Guide

See the original post:
ResearchMoz: Nanotech Enabled Drug Delivery Therapeutics Market Will be $136 Billion by the Year 2021: Nanotechnology …

Continue reading here:
Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery: Global Markets,

A new company formed around Michigan State University
nanotechnology promises to move speedy detection of deadly
pathogens and toxins from the laboratory directly to the field.

Food contamination and other biohazards present a growing
public health concern, but laboratory analysis consumes
precious time. The company, nanoRETE, will develop and
commercialize an inexpensive test for handheld biosensors to
detect a broad range of threats such as E. coli,
Salmonella,
anthrax and tuberculosis.

A significant leap forward in detection and diagnostic
technology, it utilizes novel nanoparticles
with magnetic, polymeric and electrical properties developed by
Evangelyn Alocilja, MSU professor of biosystems and
agricultural engineering and chief scientific officer of
nanoRETE.

“Our unique preparation, extraction and detection protocol
enables the entire process to be conducted in the field,
without significant training,” Alocilja said. “Results are
generated in about an hour from receipt of sample to final
readout, quickly identifying contaminants so that proper and
prompt actions can be taken.”

The mobile technology comes at only a fraction of the cost of
the closest currently available competing technology, company
officials said.

“Although the technology originates from research for
biodefense applications, its potential reaches far beyond the
initial scope,” said Fred Beyerlein, CEO of nanoRETE. “Our
X-MARK platform-based technology has the ability to detect
multiple pathogens or toxins at one time, in a rapid,
point-of-use, cost-effective manner. Imagine the potential
applications for food growers, packagers or sellers.
Contaminated food or water could be quickly identified,
isolated and resolved before reaching the ultimate consumer -
you or me.”

nanoRETE is backed by Michigan Accelerator Fund I, a Grand
Rapids, Mich., investment partnership focused on Michigan-based
early stage life science and technology companies.

View post:
Nanotechnology firm to develop test for handheld biosensors to detect deadly pathogens

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUMH9abCd7w

Visit link:
First Review: Nokia HumanForm Nanotechnology – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMzKF_LqGk

The rest is here:
2of3 – The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schon – Nanotechnology. – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltLd7L_piEE

See the rest here:
Nanotechnology for a Better Future.Part 1 – Mr. J.Akilavasan – SSP2011 – IFSlk – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwWIb-5tCu0

Visit link:
3of3 – The Dark Secret of Hendrik Schon – Nanotechnology – Video

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xcm8zPgf-I

View post:
euronews science – Nanotechnology to combat diabetes – Video

Here is the original post:
Research and Markets: Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery: Global Markets – Nanotech Drug Delivery Will Be 15% of Global …

Visit link:
Millions Needed To Ensure Nanotechnology Safety

Read more here:
Nanotechnology Safety Strategies Need Improvement

Originally posted here:
Research and Markets: Nanotechnology in Drug Delivery 2011-2021 Report – Drug Delivery Set to Be One of Highest …

See the article here:
Nanotechnology: Will it kill us all?

Excerpt from:
Scientists Urge More Study of Nanotechnology Risks

Link:
Research and Markets: Functional Proteomics and Nanotechnology-Based Microarrays 2012 Out Now

More:
U.S. experts urge more study of nanotechnology threat