The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

The fast-growing realm of nanotechnology research already has put products on store shelves. Soon the research may influence how cars operate or doctors treat diseases. But as scientists race to develop the field, researchers who study its risks are playing catch-up. They say they will have neither the time nor the money to assess many new materials before they reach consumers. Are such fears justified? Meanwhile, state and federal authorities are pouring billions of dollars into universities for the research. Universities, eager to see their research transformed into useful (and potentially lucrative) products, are filing for patents and creating companies to capitalize on their nanotechnology inventions. Are universities wise to seek out such opportunities? Or are they merely buying into the hype?
Read background articles on nanotechnology and nano-business.

Wow! you guys have really, really interesting topics. The participation on this one is deafening....

I remember when the FDA drug its feet on approving Thalidomide for the treatment of migrane headaches. That proved to be a correct decision after it was found to cause birth defects when used by pregnant women.

Recently, Thalidomide has been resurrected for its quality of vascular agenesis in the treatment of cancer in trials for it effectiveness in slowing tumor growth and spread.

Nanotechnology should be looked at cautiously, and I am sure that this is being or has been done. Humans are prone to mistakes, and at some point we have to have a certain amount of trust.

I think that development of new products over which the FDA has jurisdiction is being managed properly. Of course, this is just my opinion.

At least the developers of this technology are not having the same trouble with a government agency that was encountered with the patenting of semi-conductor devices.

John Garner states:

"Humans are prone to mistakes, and at some point we have to have a certain amount of trust. "

However, on the ?Men are from Earth? thread he had this to say:

?I am well aware, sir, that you will never get to the end of that road [starting with the identification of gender differences and ending with the Taliban]. Others, however, have. To me, just having an address on that road even close to its beginning is intolerable enough to make me change my residence.?

So we have to have a certain amount of trust, except when studying gender differences.

Letting loose a nano-plague on the planet: acceptable risk.
Studying gender differences: intolerable, neo-fascist line of inquiry.

Or is nanotechnology perhaps not a threat to your personal politics?

Don?t come crying to me that science has been politicized. You?re doing a fine job.

The bottom line is that science people have trust in other science people, after that, all bets are off.

It's as Werner VonBraun was rumored to have said, ...the bombs go up, the bombs come down. I know not where they land, that is not my department.

But seriously, nanotechnology makes mostly devices that are smaller than the dust particles that you are inhaling at this moment.

Have you considered wearing a respirator mask that can filter out such objects?

Maybe you should if you are paranoid about nanotechnology.

If you want something real to worry about then ponder this question...

Have you had your home checked for Radon lately?

Motes of peril, hopes for profit?