Anchor Science Favorite RSS Feed:
Nanovip:

Apparently the U.S. is walking “ass-backwards” into nanotechnology, which is totally not surprising. We’re not properly assessing the risks involved with playing God, we’re not telling the public what we’re working on and we’re not even sure why we’re messing with the science. (“We” being the scientists involved.) What’s worse is that, since we basically have no idea what we’re doing, we’re not sure if these tiny little wonders will affect the body any more or less than other, non-nanotechnologically-derived products. That’s what the National Research Council said yesterday, at any rate.
The NRC report is a warning to American scientists and layman alike: “Figure out where you’re working on before you dive head first, all wily nily, into something no one understands yet.”
Just a fun reminder that, yeah, people of all shapes and sizes, of all creeds and backgrounds, can be horribly irresponsible.

Ontario, Calif. –December 9, 2008 Governor Linda Lingle today announced a plan to bring all-electric vehicles and an electric vehicle infrastructure to the island of Maui through a partnership with Phoenix Motorcars by 2009.
"This public-private partnership to bring electric vehicles to our state marks another significant development in the Hawai'i Clean Energy Initiative, as we seek to reduce Hawai'i's dependence on imported oil," Governor Lingle said. "It is also an important part of our Administration's five-point economic action plan, which includes attracting innovative private investments, especially in renewable energy technology. We appreciate the confidence Phoenix Motorcars has in the Hawai'i marketplace and the recognition of our ongoing collaborative efforts to capitalize on Hawai'i's abundant natural renewable energy resources."
Phoenix Motorcars has signed a memorandum of understanding with Maui Electric for a test program using Phoenix Motorcars' electric pick-up trucks in the utility fleet.
"We're very interested in testing electric vehicles from manufacturers like Phoenix Motorcars to use electricity generated by renewable resources during off-peak hours, and to determine whether electric vehicles can efficiently store that power and return it to the grid when there's high demand," said Ed Reinhardt, president of Maui Electric.
"This public-private partnership to bring electric vehicles to our state marks another significant development in the Hawai'i Clean Energy Initiative, as we seek to reduce Hawai'i's dependence on imported oil," Governor Lingle said. "It is also an important part of our Administration's five-point economic action plan, which includes attracting innovative private investments, especially in renewable energy technology. We appreciate the confidence Phoenix Motorcars has in Hawai'i and the recognition of our ongoing collaborative efforts to capitalize on Hawai'i's abundant natural renewable energy resources."
Phoenix Motorcars, an American manufacturer of zero emission, electric vehicles, is collaborating with the state Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT), the County of Maui, Maui Electric Co., AES Solar, and the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Lab to launch electric vehicle, charging and energy storage test programs. Phoenix Motorcars is also collaborating with the Korean Trade Investment Promotion Agency to identify additional technology partners for these Hawai'i-based programs. Phoenix Motorcars' first electric vehicle program is scheduled to launch on Maui during the first quarter of 2009. The company's mission is to deploy electric vehicle and electric vehicle infrastructure solutions for the fleet vehicle market.
"We strongly endorse the mission of the State of Hawai'i, Maui Electric and the County of Maui to reduce Hawai'i's dependence on imported oil," said Dan Elliott, CEO of Phoenix Motorcars. "We are deeply honored to play a role in Hawai'i's Clean Energy Initiative."
"This is exciting progress in Maui County's commitment to developing the use of energy efficient technologies," said Maui County Mayor Charmaine Tavares. I'm pleased to work with a progressive and innovative company such as Phoenix Motorcars. Their work to help the environment is impressive. Phoenix Motorcars' intent to launch on Maui supports our county's focus to combine renewable energy with economic opportunities to create positive economic and educational benefits for our local community."
"Hawai'i is taking a clear leadership position on making electric vehicles a viable option for drivers in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said DBEDT Director Theodore E. Liu. "As we leverage Hawai'i's unique access to sources of renewable energy, we will create a sustainable and cost efficient model for the deployment of electric and other alternative fuel vehicles."
Phoenix Motorcars' arrival in Hawai'i furthers the progress of the Hawai'i Clean Energy Initiative, a partnership formed in January between the State of Hawai'i and the U.S. Department of Energy which seeks to meet the state's energy needs from 70 percent clean energy by 2030. For more information on the Hawai'i Clean Energy Initiative, visit the Governor's web site at: www.hawaii.gov/gov/energy.
About Phoenix MC, Inc. Phoenix Motorcars is an Ontario-Calif.-based manufacturer of all-electric, light-duty trucks and SUVs. The company's mission is to deploy electric vehicle and electric vehicle infrastructure solutions for the fleet vehicle market.
Company Information: Alex Lee Phoenix Motorcars alex@phoenixmotorcars.com 909-987-0815 Bryon Bliss Phoenix Motorcars bryon@phoenixmotorcars.com 909-987-0815

There are more than 700 products on the market today that are touched, worn and used -- ranging from cosmetics to electronics -- that involve nanomaterials. In the next decade a number of products, including food and medical therapies, will also be derived from nanomaterials.
There's not enough funding, leadership and research being conducted to study the health and environmental risks that might come with products made from nanomaterials, according to a report released Wednesday by the National Research Council (NRC).
Nanomaterials are materials made at the nanoscale, or at 100 nanometers or smaller. Nanotechnology is the science of making matter at the atomic or molecular scale.
The NRC said a plan developed by the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) does not show a clear understanding of risks associated with the development and use of nanomaterials and products, nor does the NNI's plan include goals to ensure that nanotechnologies are developed and used as safely as possible, according to the report.
"The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology," said David Eaton, chairman of the NRC committee and professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Nano-Based Consumer Tech
For electronics, nanotechnology is used to increase the capabilities of consumer-technology products, while decreasing weight, power and consumption.
Display technologies for laptops, cell phones, digital cameras and other devices are made of nano-structured polymer films known as "organic light emitting diodes."
Computer hard drives contain giant magnetoresistance heads with nano-thin layers of magnetic materials that enable a huge increase in storage Relevant Products/Services capacity. And researchers are developing memory chips using nanotechnology.
Motorola is working on nano-emissive displays; Intel is working on integrated circuits with nano-sized features; and California Molecular Electronics is working on molecule-sized chips.
Researching the Risks
With the number of products being made at the nanoscale, it means more workers and consumers will be exposed to them -- and there are many uncertainties about the health and environmental effects of those products, including potential toxic properties.
In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates there are 20,000 researchers worldwide working in nanotechnology today.
More research needs to be done on how nanomaterials are absorbed and metabolized by the body, according to the NRC's report. And additional research needs to be conducted on how toxic nanomaterials are at different levels of exposure.
Nanoscale colloidal particles are involved in the transport of materials, toxic organic compounds, viruses and radionuclides in the environment, according to the EPA, and some nanomaterials have been found to cause toxic responses to test organisms.
While more research is needed, the NRC said there also needs to be input from the industries and companies using nanotechnology, environmental and consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders.
Although government agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration, oversee some of the research in nanotechnology, there is no one group or czar that is held responsible. The NRC is hoping to change that.

A 15-member committee of chemists, toxicologists and other experts said it found no adequate statement of clear goals or priorities in the strategy outlined by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, a program set up in 1998 to coordinate government research in nanotechnology.
Already, more than 600 products on the market contain nano-scale components, which are smaller than the width of a human hair. They include sunscreens, cosmetics and fibers that can make fabrics stain-resistant. The Bay Area is a hotbed of nanotech research, embracing both university scientists and private companies.
The government has spent more than $8 billion on nanotech research since 2001, and that sum includes millions for safety studies. But the committee said the National Nanotechnology Initiative has not produced a useful summary of current knowledge on the technology's risks, nor has it set up a cogent schedule for improving that understanding in the next 10 years.
"The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology," said David Eaton, a professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Eaton was the chairman of the National Research Council committee.
Many new nanotech products are in the works because compounds engineered on the nano-scale have surprising and useful properties.
But scientists and consumer groups are concerned that nano-materials might also have unexpected effects on the body and the environment.
They wonder whether extremely fine particles released into the air could damage the lungs. Could drugs that include nano-materials induce allergies, build up in the liver, combine with other molecules to produce toxins or simply inactivate bodily structures such as enzymes and thus cause disease?
Government agencies have produced valuable studies on such questions, and the National Nanotechnology Initiative has done a good job of coordinating the work and preventing duplication, said Martin Philbert, a professor of toxicology at the University of Michigan and vice chair of the National Research Council committee.
But he said the committee found that some government studies defined as safety research did not produce useful conclusions or techniques to protect health and the environment. The program should consider how to address, for example, the need for tools to detect and quantify nano-materials, the committee said.
"It's not always the most exciting science," Philbert said. "But it may be the most necessary science to ensure stability and health of the environment and the public."
The committee report was requested by the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which administers the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
In a written statement, the office said the government agencies participating in the nanotech consortium acknowledge the National Research Council's "substantial and important recommendations for further progress on (safety) research and will give them the careful and thorough analysis they deserve."
The nanotechnology office said the program is already pursuing one of the goals recommended by the National Research Council - broadening the scope of the federal safety strategy by including the perspectives of academics, industry, foreign researchers and others active in the field.
But the nanotechnology office said congressional action would be required to implement other recommendations.
The National Research Council committee said the nanotech safety program suffers from a lack of budgetary authority and other powers that would give it greater influence over the research priorities of agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
The committee also advised the program to consider creating a safety branch separate from the units whose main goal is to stimulate and support the development of nanotechnology products.
A separation of the two functions would remove any impression of conflicts of interest and "ensure that the public health mission receives appropriate priority."
E-mail Bernadette Tansey at btansey@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Ballston Spa sophomore Brandon Fryer is guiding a computer mouse through a virtual human lung during Exploration to Nanotechnology class. He stops to deliver healthy drugs to a deformed cell.
"I'm trying to cure cancer," the shaggy-haired 15-year-old from Malta says, only partly joking.
Down the Northway at Albany High, student Jahseim Dobbs says he wants a nanotech career so he can help provide for his family on Second Avenue. Three mornings a week, the senior leaves school to study biomedical nanotechnology in the University at Albany's College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering.
"I think it's great," the 17-year-old said. "They have a lot of things I've never seen before and a lot of things I want to learn."
Driven by a local economy that increasingly is high-tech, more public schools are launching studies in nanotechnology — the creation, use or manipulation of objects at the nanoscale (nano means one-billionth of something).
The courses could serve as a pipeline for jobs at the Advanced Micro Devices computer-chip factory expected to be built in Malta, and Albany's growing NanoCollege, which already employs more than 2,200 people, administrators say.
Professors at the NanoCollege's Fuller Road complex and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have trained high school educators in the cutting-edge, scientific learning opportunities, and the teachers have integrated the lessons into their high school curriculums.
Last year, Albany High School was the first public school in the nation to offer specialized, on-campus courses in nanoscience and nanotechnology, officials say. In September, Ballston Spa High School introduced a full-year nanotechnology course, and Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake High School started teaching it in existing courses. Both are located short distances from the AMD site.
"It came about because we wanted to address area work force needs," said Diane Irwin, science coordinator at Ballston Spa, which is experimenting with nanotechnology to try to kill cancerous cells while leaving healthy ones alone.
There are 33 students enrolled in two classes. Sophomores, juniors and seniors can take the class as an elective or to meet their third year of science requirement.
Studying molecules and atomic particles is something senior Jason Lefebvre would like a career in. Others, like Alex DeCoste, 16, and Tyler Blake, 17, wanted to learn something new and different.
At Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake, teachers Tom Pittman and Paul Fedoroff collaborated with RPI and General Electric Co. for three years before offering the material in tech and science classes.
"AMD is a real game-breaker," said George Seymour, science coordinator at Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake. "Albany is in the center of the universe in terms of nanotechnology right now."
Albany's "NanoHigh" program is a partnership between the school district and NanoCollege. The high school recently added an Advanced Nanoscience course. It involves research and development.
"You can't have just anyone jump into a clean room," said Albany science teacher Dan McCarthy, whose Nanoscale Engineering and Chemistry class has 13 students.
About 2,500 area middle and high school students will be taken on a tour of the NanoCollege this year, said Robert Geer, the college's vice president for academic affairs.
"There's absolutely going to be opportunities" for local graduates to find jobs, Geer said. Skill levels for the positions will vary, with technicians, or "soldiers," needed as much as doctors, he said. Most positions require at least a two- or four-year college degree, he said.
That's music to the ears of Dobbs, the Albany senior whose favorite class is nanotechnology, and ranks 81st out of 500 students in his class. Dobbs wants to go to college and then study in Tokyo before working in the nanotechnology field.
"I would like to encourage others to go into it," he said. "It's pretty cool, probably the best thing that's happened to me in my life."
Dennis Yusko can be reached at 454-5353 or by e-mail at dyusko@timesunion.com.

The current U.S. plan for the emerging field of nanotechnology lacks vision, fails to assess risk and leaves the industry vulnerable to public mistrust, a report by the National Research Council found.
The report, released on Wednesday, found serious gaps in the government's current plan for determining if there are risks posed by nanomaterials. It called for an effective national plan for identifying and managing potential risks.
"The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology," committee chairman David Eaton, a public health expert at the University of Washington in Seattle, said in a statement.
Nanotechnology, the design and manipulation of materials thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair, has been hailed as a way to make strong, lightweight materials, better cosmetics and even tastier food. But scientists are only starting to look at the impact such tiny objects might have.
Some studies suggest that nano-sized objects may have different effects in the body than larger ones. Currently, more than 600 products involving nanomaterials are already on the market.
Most are health and beauty products, but many researchers are working on ways to use the materials for medical therapies, food additives and electronics.
In its report, the committee said the current U.S. strategy, developed by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, does not provide for adequate research to ensure the safety of workers, consumers and the environment from unexpected and possibly toxic properties of these materials.
Lacking Vision
The committee said the plan lacks "essential elements" including a vision, clear objectives, a comprehensive assessment of the state of the science, and a "road map that describes how research progress will be measured and the estimated resources required to conduct such research."
David Rejeski, director of the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, an advocacy group, said the report echoes calls by industry and congressional leaders for a revamped research plan for nanotechnology.
"The administration's delay has hurt investor and consumer confidence," Rejeski said in a statement.
"It has gambled with public health and safety. It has jeopardized the $14 billion investment governments and private industry have made in this technology and its great promise for significant advances in healthcare, energy and manufacturing."
University of Wisconsin researchers reported in Monday's issue of the journal Nature Nanotechnology that nearly 25 percent of Americans surveyed found nanotechnology to be morally unacceptable, compared to 7 percent of Italians, 18 percent of Belgians and 66 percent of Irish.
They said the more religious a society was, the more likely citizens were to reject nanotechnology as immoral. The group said the report should help guide the administration of President-elect Barack Obama.
The National Research Council is one of the National Academy of Sciences, an independent organization that guides the federal government on medical, scientific and engineering policy.

The National Nanotechnology Centre (Nanotec) has revealed plans to make Thailand the focus of the emerging nanotechnology industry in the Asean region.
The centre's executive director, Sirirurg Songsivilai, said Nanotec had formed a strategy to nurture and support Thailand's emerging nanotechnology industries with the aim of making the country the regional centre. Nanotechnology is technology on an atomic or molecular scale.
The agency is creating a network cluster involving the education and private sectors and researchers, which will focus on developing nanotechnology in three core areas: nanomaterials, nanobiotechnology and nanoelectronics. This will be aimed at supporting local industries, including textiles, food, energy and electronics, as well as emerging industries related to nanotechnology.
"We plan to be a centre of excellence for nanotechnology-related industries in the Asean region in the near future," Sirirurg said. "Meanwhile, we will use nanotechnology to create a knowledge-based society and improve the quality of life for Thai people."
In its first step, covering the next couple of years, Nanotec will support scientists, researchers and developers in the creation of nanotextiles featuring fire-retardant fibres and hygienic fibres, to support the textile industry. It will also develop cosmeceutical products, which are cosmetic or skincare products that incorporate pharmaceutical qualities, for the local cosmeceutical industry, he said.
"We will use nanotechnology to create new industries or add value to existing or emerging industries, to give Thailand added competitiveness. We will also transfer new technology to researchers, industries, and the private and education sectors, in order to create new products for commercial markets," Sirirurg said.
In a future step, Nanotec will use nanotechnology to help in the development of new low-cost solar cells, such as dye-sensitized solar cells. These will aim to support the energy industry or emerging industries. It will also use new technology to develop an innovative medical diagnostic and treatment system involving nanoparticles. In this case, the molecules of certain pharmaceuticals may be used in a new and simple method of delivering drugs or vaccines to medical patients.
"Thai scientists and researchers have the potential to use nanotechnology to develop new products to support various industries. Our human resources are of high quality, with high literacy and skills, and they are capable of boosting Thailand's competitiveness," he said.
Nanotec believes that by 2013, Thailand will have more than 50 nanotechnology companies and more than 300 nanotechnology patents. Revenue generated by nanotechnology products will reach Bt100 billion, Sirirurg said.

It says nanotechnology-based products are hitting the market without being properly assessed for safety - and that's a risk too far.
But there are safety rules for all consumer products, aren't there?
Yes, but because nanomaterials are often made using chemicals like silver and carbon that are considered safe when used on a macro scale, the commission says they are slipping under the regulatory net when used at the nanoscale - without any consideration of the potentially adverse physical or chemical effects their novel nanostructures may have on people, animals, and the environment.
What does the commission want?
The commission is calling for the European Union to extend its regulatory regime for chemicals (REACH) to properly assess nanomaterials and their unique properties.
In the UK, they want the Department of the Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) to develop and undertake tests on products that contain nanomaterials, and develop gadgets that detect, for instance, nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes when they become airborne.
"We have no means of detecting buckyballs or nanotubes in the environment right now," says John Lawton, the RCEP's chairman.
Haven't we been here before?
Yes. But since 2004 when the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering first said that a programme of research was necessary to ensure the safety of nanotech products, the field has moved on in leaps and bounds.
"The rate of nanotechnology innovation now far outstrips our capacity to respond to the risks," says Lawton.
The RCEP thinks the arrival of products in our high streets means it's time to reiterate the need for safety tests - as the earlier call fell on deaf ears in government. It also wants to avoid polarising public opinion, as happened with genetic modification.
How many novel technologies are we talking about?
The number of patents filed on nanomaterials worldwide by 2006 reached 1600 - and that growth has continued exponentially. According to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in Washington, DC, there are at least 600 products on the global market that claim to contain a nanomaterial as a key ingredient, he adds.
What kind of products contain nanomaterials?
Well, the range is broad - and there could be health and environmental problems with any of them. They include sunscreens, cleaning products, anti-odour treatments for clothes, cosmetics, smart plastics, ceramics, self-cleaning glasses, composites, carbon-fibre-based textiles and other products containing nanotubes and buckyballs.
Which ones are causing concern?
All of them, to some extent. But the commission singled out two. "Nanosilver" - a bactericide which slows the formation of odour-forming bugs in clothes like socks, underpants and T-shirts.
The second is a textile comprising spun fibres made from carbon nanotubes that could save the clothing industry a fortune by making clothes that don't need dyes - their thread diameter dictates their colour through refraction effects.
How might these products cause harm?
"Nanosilver is biocidal to a remarkable extent - it's extremely toxic to microorganisms," says Lawton. In fact, it will kill twice the number of bacteria that bleach can.
When flushed into water courses, no-one knows what could happen. It could stop the biochemical reactions that make your local sewage-processing plant work. Or it may damage aquatic life - buckyballs have already been shown to cause brain damage in fish.
There have been reports that the carbon fibres in clothing could produce asbestosis-like lung diseases, and that spilled nanotubes could damage ecosystems.
Why not just ban nanotech products?
The RCEP thinks the advantages to society of nanotechnologies are too great to lose. "On balance there are no grounds for a blanket ban," says Lawton.
Instead, he simply wants a major increase in the amount of testing to assess risk - prioritising the materials that may present the greatest risk to the environment and human health.
"Research gaps need to be addressed urgently, especially given the long lead times involved in developing and putting in place testing arrangements that will inform regulatory and legislative processes," he says

Long ago I lost count on the times I have tried to explain what nanotechnology is to friends and family. Despite the large number of times I have engaged in this fruitless enterprise, the reaction process is striking similar in most cases.
First you get earnest interest—they are your friends and family after all. Then you begin to see the confusion start to set in, which is usually accompanied by what seems to you a very strange question. After trying to answer the question, the confusion has become so great that they have completely lost interest and they are staring off into the ether dreaming of when you are going to shut up.
After listening to Professor Tony Ryan of Sheffield University conduct man-on-the-street interviews for the BBC’s Street Science radio program, I couldn’t help but think about the times I have engaged in the joyless job of describing nanotech.
Against insurmountable odds Professor Ryan sallies forth again and again to meet his enemy…umh I mean public. Unbowed after getting responses from university professors who confess all they know about nanotechnology is “grey goo”, he tries to get his interviewees to grasp some basic concept about nanotechnology.
It’s hard to know if he really succeeds with anyone. But after a lengthy and somewhat complicated explanation to a couple of how nanotechnology is involved in 2-in-1 shampoo, which initially elicits the typical ‘Isn’t that interesting’ response, the man asks something like ‘Wouldn’t it make more sense to use this technology for treating diseases rather than making shampoo?”
If I were Professor Ryan, I would walk away with the feeling that this one question alone made it all worth it.

During the technical session “Nano Food & Agriculture” at the 2nd Bangalore Nano Prof. Dr. Basavaraj Madhusudhan, Kuvempu University commented that Indian farmers are five years away from Nanotechnology revolution. The session was chaired by Dr. Seetharam Annadana, Avesthagen. Dr. M.S. Thakur, Central Food Technological Research Institute and Dr. R. Kalpana Sastry, National Academy of Agricultural Research Management made their presentations. Bangalore Nano 2008 is jointly organised by The Department of IT, BT and Science & Technology, Govt. of Karnataka, JNCASR (Jawaharlal Nehru Center for Advanced Scientific Research) and MM Activ Sci-Tech Communications at the Grand Ashok Hotel, Bangalore.
Prof. Dr. Basavaraj Madhusudhan said, “Nanotechnology promises immense possibilities for agriculture. Nano sensors in plants can detect disease and can provide nano medication. Nanotechnology can reduce agricultural waste and thus pollution. Nano lamination can improve the shelf life of fruits and vegetables. These applications should reach farmers in India in five years.”
Dr. R. Kalpana Sastry said, “There are 44 countries working on Nanotechnology in the food and agriculture field. But most of the activities are in the early stage.”
The various topics that are addressed in the 2nd Bangalore Nano 2008 are - Nano Biotechnology Health & Pharma industry & manufacturing, Nano food & agriculture, Chemicals & Nano materials, ICT & Electronics Energy, Environment & Greentech. A panel discussion will also be held on Nano Vision & Nano Mission. A special program for children "Nano for the Young" is being organized on December 12, 2008. The 2nd Bangalore Nano 2008 features a Poster Session, where-in young Scientists and Researchers are given the opportunity to share their Innovations and Research in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology with the Industry, Research Institutes and Venture Capitalists. About 75 posters from IITs, NITs, Michigan Technological University, CSIR, NCBS, IISc, JNCASR, AIIMS, etc. are presented during the event.
# # #
For more information, Contact:
Rajiv Shankar – Phone: 9880893823, e-mail: rajiv@equatorpr.net
Cerin Pathrose – Phone: 9886722101, e-mail: cerin@equatorpr.net

Nanomaterials are engineered on the scale of a billionth of a meter, perhaps 1/10,000 the width of a human hair. They are turning up in a range of items including consumer products like toothpaste and tennis rackets and industrial products like degreasers or adhesives. But some experts say they may pose health or environmental risks. For example, researchers in Scotland reported this year that carbon nanotubes may pose the same health risks as asbestos.
“Industry wants to run with it,” said Andrew D. Maynard, chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnology at the Woodrow Wilson Institute, who was the chairman of the panel. But he added, “one of the big barriers at the moment is understanding how to use it safely.”
The panel analyzed the risk research strategy of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the program to coordinate federal efforts in nanotechnology research and development. Its report concluded that the initiative’s strategy “does not present a vision, contain a clear set of goals, have a plan of action for how the goals are to be achieved, or describe mechanisms to review and evaluate funded research and assess whether progress has been achieved.”
The panel’s vice chairman, Martin Philbert, a toxicologist at the University of Michigan, said a better risk assessment method was crucial because “right now we have no good way of measuring how much of this material is in the environment and what form it is in without going to herculean efforts and using expensive equipment that is not easily deployed in the field.”
The panel was convened by the research council, the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which oversees the nanotechnology initiative. In a statement, the office said the report’s call for a broader national strategy was “a worthy goal” that the initiative was already pursuing. It said the panel’s recommendations would receive “careful and thorough analysis.”
Dr. Philbert said that assessing the risk of nanomaterials was crucial because the materials would not be accepted if people lacked confidence that they were safe.
The new report also says the nanotech initiative has not adequately considered the views of industries producing nanomaterials, consumer and environmental groups, and the regulatory actions of states, localities and foreign countries. While its reports have been open to public comment, “public comment is not the same as engaging stakeholders in the process,” the panel wrote.
In a statement, an informal coalition of environmental and business organizations praised the report, saying that for three years they had been urging the federal government to do more to assess potential health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.
The coalition, whose members include the Environmental Defense Fund and the American Chemistry Council, said the Environmental Protection Agency should contract with the National Academy to develop and monitor a research strategy.

Climate change is high on the global agenda. While the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland, in December 2008, is an important step towards achieving an international agreement on climate change scheduled for the upcoming Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, policy makers and practitioners alike are increasingly looking for practical solutions.
This report offers three innovative solutions in responding to climate change, namely nanotechnology, ocean energy and forestry. It goes beyond the technological, biological and procedural aspects of these solutions by critically assessing the opportunities and challenges that each type of innovation presents.
This report addresses the question why these innovations - despite their large potential to reduce emissions, ocean energy alone could cover the world's electricity needs - have not yet reached the stage of mass commercialization.
Download report as a .pdf file (2.6 MB) http://www.ias.unu.edu/resource_centre/Innovation%20in%20Responding%20to...

"The field of nanotechnology is undergoing rapid developments on many fronts. Currently, we are making an effort at our institute to use nanotechnology to create ways to diagnose and treat cancer patients," Labhasetwar, who has been working at Lerner for the past two years, said.
"If we can develop a therapy for cancer, which even today is untreatable, then it will be a revolution. I believe, nanobiomedicine can certainly do it. We have to develop nano particles that can treat cancer cells. Nanotechnology is in a transition period. It is still evolving and the future looks exciting. But when the results will be out, it will be nothing sort of a miracle," he added.
Labhasetwar, who was born and brought up in Nagpur, has research interest in transitional nanomedicine. He leads the Cancer NanoMedicine Programme at the laboratory which investigates various nanosystems for drug/gene delivery in cancer therapy, stroke, cardiovascular conditions, and other age-related disorders. Labhasetwar is also experimenting with iron oxide particles to create better images of cancerous tumours. Iron oxide also could be used to deliver drugs to certain tissues in the body, Labhasetwar said.
Asserting that nanotechnology is really the next big thing and not just a hype, Labhasetwar said, "People say there are a lot of risks involved in it. But tell me, which area is risk-free? Take the example of antibiotics we use. Aren't there any side-effects of the drugs? With nanomedicine, I can assure that these things can be avoided and also, it will be less expensive as it has evolved from these drugs and it has already been tested."
Nanotechnology is not new, but the realisation that it can be used to overcome numerous problems is a fairly new idea.
Talking about the progress of nanotechnology in India, he said, "There has been quite a bit of research happening in the country and the government is also investing in it. However, I think, there needs to be a landmark technology and research to really get a breakthrough. It is an exciting field and there's great potential. Yet, it is sad that we are yet to see something that will really astonish the world."
Labhasetwar had earlier worked with the University of Nebraska Medical Centre in the US, where he spent 10 years.

But the results of an experiment, conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School in collaboration with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and published Dec. 7 on the Nature Nanotechnology Web site, do not support this "familiarity hypothesis."
The experiment found that how people react to information about nanotechnology depends on cultural predispositions. Exposed to balanced information, people with pro-commerce values tend to see the benefits of nanotechnology as outweighing any risks. However, people with egalitarian or communitarian values who are predisposed to blame commerce and industry for social inequities and environmental harm tend to see nanotechnology risks as outweighing benefits.
The study also found that people who have pro-commerce cultural values are more likely to know about nanotechnology than others. "Not surprisingly, people who are enthused by technology and believe it can be safe and beneficial tend to learn about new technologies before other people do," said Dan Kahan, Professor at Yale Law School and lead author of the Nature Nanotechnology article. "So while various opinion polls suggest that familiarity with nanotechnology leads people to believe it is safe, they have been confusing cause with effect."
The findings of the experiment highlight the need for any nanotechnology information and risk communication strategy to focus on message framing and to take an informed, multi-audience approach, according to PEN experts.
"The message matters. How information about nanotechnology is presented to the vast majority of the public who still know little about it can either make or break this technology," says David Rejeski, the director of PEN. "Scientists, the government and industry generally take a simplistic, 'just the facts' approach to communicating with the public about a new technology. But this research shows that diverse audiences and groups react to the same information very differently."
Because perfecting the science of nanotechnology risk communication is essential to society's realization of the full benefits of nanotechnology itself, PEN experts believe that every major funding initiative directed at the development of nanotechnology and the study of nanotechnology risks should include a risk-communication component.
"Without investment in understanding how to explain the potential risks, as well as the potential benefits, to the public, significant innovation could be stifled," Rejeski adds.

Fearing the emerging new field of nanotechnology will engender fears like those surrounding genetically modified foods in Europe, companies are pushing government agencies for a more coordinated effort to ensure the tiny nanomaterials are safe and environmentally friendly.
"What we find is that as this technology becomes more popular there are lots of questions in the minds of consumers and consumer advocates about just how safe these materials are," Raymond David, North American manager of toxicology for German chemicals group BASF, said in a telephone interview.
BASF, which already makes sunscreens, construction chemicals and polymers that incorporate nanotechnology, has joined DuPont, the American Chemical Council and other industry groups in support of a newly released National Research Council report calling for improvements in the nation's efforts to ensure the safety of nanotech research.
David said it is imperative the United States works hard to ensure the safety of new materials developed through nanotechnology, which involves the manipulation of materials thousands of times smaller than the width of a human hair.
"It puts a bit of fear in all of us that all of this effort will not be well received or may go the route of genetically modified foods in Europe. We certainly wouldn't want that."
Genetically modified crops are widely grown in many parts of world and now represent the majority of global soybean production. In Europe, however, there has been significant consumer opposition and crop approvals have been stalled.
"It's unfortunate that GM foods haven't been embraced as well as everyone had hoped. That, too, has tremendous promise. We want to make sure we don't make that mistake again," David said.
Nanotechnology holds tremendous promise for new imaging technologies that can improve the diagnosis of disease, new ways of delivering drugs into the body and new ways of making clothing waterproof or stain resistant, David said.
"There is such an open door that we want to explore all of the possibilities of nanotechnology," he said.

But the results of an experiment, conducted by the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School in collaboration with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) and published Dec. 7 on the Nature Nanotechnology Web site, do not support this "familiarity hypothesis."
The experiment found that how people react to information about nanotechnology depends on cultural predispositions. Exposed to balanced information, people with pro-commerce values tend to see the benefits of nanotechnology as outweighing any risks. However, people with egalitarian or communitarian values who are predisposed to blame commerce and industry for social inequities and environmental harm tend to see nanotechnology risks as outweighing benefits.
The study also found that people who have pro-commerce cultural values are more likely to know about nanotechnology than others. "Not surprisingly, people who are enthused by technology and believe it can be safe and beneficial tend to learn about new technologies before other people do," said Dan Kahan, Professor at Yale Law School and lead author of the Nature Nanotechnology article. "So while various opinion polls suggest that familiarity with nanotechnology leads people to believe it is safe, they have been confusing cause with effect."
The findings of the experiment highlight the need for any nanotechnology information and risk communication strategy to focus on message framing and to take an informed, multi-audience approach, according to PEN experts.
"The message matters. How information about nanotechnology is presented to the vast majority of the public who still know little about it can either make or break this technology," says David Rejeski, the director of PEN. "Scientists, the government and industry generally take a simplistic, 'just the facts' approach to communicating with the public about a new technology. But this research shows that diverse audiences and groups react to the same information very differently."
Because perfecting the science of nanotechnology risk communication is essential to society's realization of the full benefits of nanotechnology itself, PEN experts believe that every major funding initiative directed at the development of nanotechnology and the study of nanotechnology risks should include a risk-communication component.
"Without investment in understanding how to explain the potential risks, as well as the potential benefits, to the public, significant innovation could be stifled," Rejeski adds.
The study was conducted as part of a series of public opinion analyses being conducted jointly by the Cultural Cognition Project and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

“Energy is a national security issue, and it is an international security issue of the highest order,” states president-elect’s National Security Advisor, Jim Jones. America’s reliance on foreign oil must cease, and innovation regarding solar energy might lead us in the right direction.
Nanotechnology may be our answer according to Cornell University. Research is being conducted at some of the world’s leading universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, and is supported by the likes of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. Please refer to Mr. Bill Steele’s report: Cornell Chronicle.
Ms. Marlow Epstein of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office in Arlington, VA provided four convincing reasons to implement nanotechnology:
1. Today’s flat rooftop solar panels are a little more than 20% efficient and could be limited to about 30% efficiency. 2. High-energy photons generating multiple electrons with solar cells made of silicon nanocrystals could convert more than 40% of the energy in light into electric power. 3. Reduced manufacturing costs as a result of using a low temperature process similar to printing instead of the high temperature vacuum deposition process typically used to produce conventional cells made with crystalline semiconductor material. 4. Reduced installation costs achieved by producing flexible rolls instead of rigid crystalline panels.
The aforementioned points have validity, and nanotechnology is certainly a hot issue.

Nanoscientists have always had a degree of nervousness about the way that public opinion of their science might unfold.
This unease is underpinned by a set of preconceptions about people's reactions to new technologies in general. Some of these assumptions have now been tested by three studies published in Nature Nanotechnology, which survey public attitudes to the science1,2,3.
All too often, scientists treat the public as an undifferentiated mass. Indeed, sociologist of science Arie Rip, of the University of Twente in The Netherlands, goes so far as to identify widespread 'nanophobia-phobia' among nanotechnology insiders4 — an unreasonable and exaggerated conviction that a scientifically illiterate public with no appreciation of how to balance risks will reject a promising technology at the behest of an irresponsible media.
A more sophisticated analysis must recognize that the public is made up of different people with their own ideologies, through which they filter information about technologies and their risks.
Perhaps the most common of scientists' preconceptions is the idea that fear of technology arises from ignorance, and that public acceptance inevitably grows as people learn more about the technology. Dan Kahan of Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut, and colleagues call this the familiarity hypothesis, and have now shown that it is not true1.
People's views of nanotechnology can become more or less favourable as they learn more, the authors found, depending on their ideological starting point. So-called hierarchical individualists, who like free markets and respect the authority of social elites, find more to approve of in nanotechnology as they grow more familiar with it. Conversely, more information seems to give 'egalitarian communitarians' more to be concerned about. An ocean apart
Another well-worn preconception sees the American public as gung-ho, pro-business technology enthusiasts, whereas Europeans tend to be green-tinged and averse to technology. The results of two public dialogues on nanotechnology held in parallel, one in Santa Barbara, California, and one in Cardiff, UK, throw light on this issue.
Psychologist Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University, and colleagues found surprisingly little difference in outlook between the two groups2. People generally accepted the promise of the technology, and in spite of a lack of knowledge, believed that benefits would outweigh risks.
But there were differences. The UK group made a connection between the potential risks of nanotechnology and perceived past regulatory failures; for example, with genetically modified organisms, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and foot-and-mouth disease. There was also a contrast between more consumerist values in the United States and community-based concerns in the United Kingdom. For example, the UK group worried that the potential medical applications of nanotechnology would benefit only the wealthy.
In light of Kahan's study, it might be tempting to interpret these transatlantic differences as a consequence of differing political outlooks, with hierarchical individualists being more common in the United States, and a broad tendency towards egalitarian communitarian views in the United Kingdom. But there is another obvious difference between these two countries — the role of religion.
The stem-cell debate shows that the American public is not uniformly in favour of all technology, and religious attitudes are clearly important here. Dietram Scheufele, a science-communication expert at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues argue that religion is important for nanotechnology too3. Their US telephone surveys reveal that a high degree of religiosity is strongly correlated with an individual's rejection of the statement "nanotechnology is morally acceptable". At the national level, more people in European countries agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable than in the United States, and the researchers link this with national differences in religiosity. What is this thing called nanotechnology?
But can one assume, as these studies do, that there is a single thing called nanotechnology, to be simply summed up and characterized as morally acceptable or unacceptable? Even among nanoscientists there can be serious differences about what constitutes nanotechnology, and the information available to the public about that field is strongly coloured by the ideologies of its originators, whether they are boosters of nano-business, environmentalists or enthusiasts for human enhancement.
In taking on the familiarity hypothesis, Kahan's team has dealt another blow to the 'deficit model' of science communication: the idea that given the facts (whatever they are), the public will happily support new technologies.
But the nature of the information available to the public is still important, and these studies suggest that scientists might do more to learn how to frame information in a way that enlightens people with diverse values, rather than simply reinforcing their preconceptions.
Richard A. L. Jones is a polymer physicist at the University of Sheffield, UK, and is Senior Strategic Adviser for Nanotechnology for the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Read more at his Soft Machines blog.
* References 1. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, P. and Cohen, G. Nature Nanotech. advance online publication doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.341 (2008). 2. Pidgeon, N., Herr Harthorn, B., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, T. Nature Nanotech. advance online publication doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.362 (2008). 3. Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T., Dalrymple, K. E. and Ho, S. S. Nature Nanotech. advance online publication doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.361 (2008). 4. Rip, A. Science as Culture 15, 349 (2006).

A new Yale study suggests that people’s previously-held cultural and economic views color the opinions they form about nanotechnology. The study found that those who are particularly worried about economic inequality and environmental problems like global warming tend to view nanotechnology as potentially dangerous; those who favor strongly individualistic pro-commerce economic policies on the other hand, tend to view the technology as safe and potentially beneficial.
And while it’s not a great surprise that people with an interest in technology tend to view developments like nanotechnology positively, researchers say it may be a more favorable predisposition to new technology that leads them to become better informed about it, rather than their opinions being the result of greater knowledge.
One thing the study highlights is the need for academics and scientists to tailor their messages to their audiences. This is of course not news to advertisers, but scientists tend to think that cold scientific facts alone should suffice, sometimes ignoring the biases that can impede individuals’ openness to new ideas. This futuristic video seems to be targeting fans of “The Matrix,” who may be the same people who view nanotechnology as a harbinger of future machine-induced apocalypse. Below is a clip from Matthew Nisbet a professor of communications at American University, talking about effective ways to communicate science to the broader public.

Religious people seem to have a more negative view of nanotechnology than others, according to a new study. Researchers from the University of Wisconsin's Department of Life Sciences Communication rated 11 countries in Europe and the US on "religiosity" and then looked at their attitudes on nanotechnology. Professor Dietram Scheufele and his colleagues presented their results in the scientific journal Nature Nanotechnology. (From the BBC News:
They found that countries where religious belief was strong, such as Ireland and Italy, tended to be the least accepting of nanotechnology, whereas those where religion was less significant such as Belgium or the Netherlands were more accepting of the technology.
The US was found to be the most religious country in the survey, and also the least accepting of nanotechnology...
The researchers say it is understandable that there would be a conflict between religious belief and nanotechnology, especially when looking at what they call "nano-bio-info-cogno" (NBIC) technologies, the potential to create life at a nano scale without divine intervention.
"It's not that they're concerned about not understanding the science, more that talking openly about constructing life raises a whole host of moral issues," said Professor Scheufele.