Jennifer Kuzma raises some very interesting points about the problems with assessing risk from the increasing use of nanotechnology. The problem I found with reading this essay is the lack proof that using nanotechnology would be any different than using a hazardous chemical (such as industrial floor cleaner). According to Kuzma, humans have been exposed to these nano-scale particles for a long period of time, so the lack of a solid example of negative impact on human health or environment would then be a powerful statement. This inspired me to research for actual negative effects that nanoparticles have had on humans, and societal perception of this technology.
• Are there any actual examples of nanotechnology adversely affecting health or environment?
• How does the public perceive risks of nanotechnology?
Findings and Discussion:
After searching for some legitimate examples of nanotechnology hazards, it became obvious that the risks from nanoparticle exposure are very real. The Daily Telegraph, a media group based in the United Kingdom, reported on two deaths in Beijing clearly tied to nanotechnology. Seven women were treated at a hospital for respiratory problems over the course of a few months. Scientists determined that a particular paint used at a factory contained nanoparticles that accumulated in the lungs of the ill workers. Even after removal from the hazard, the condition of the women worsened, and eventually two of them died. According to Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor in the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, "This is the first clear case where there is an association between someone breathing in nanoparticles in the workplace and getting seriously ill. People should take this very seriously. The international research community should be galvanised by this.”
My first observation from Dr. Maynard’s comments was an apparent disconnect between people and the “international research community”. Dr. Maynard encourages researchers to act, and society to take the event seriously. The two distinct instructions seem to reflect Snow’s model of two cultures. Dr. Maynard anticipates a knowledge deficit in society by eliminating the role the public should play in assessing this now realized risk. I believe that society should not just "take this event seriously", but should also be galvanized. The outcry and concerns of people and the societal implications of nanotechnology should facilitate future research in this area. The two distinct groups should not be separated, but should approach the serious implications of the deaths together.
The risks to health from nanotechnology has been established by the preceding example from 2009, but the potential for risks appears to have developed much sooner. Respectively, the United States Department of Defense has allocated significant funds for research in this area. According to a report to the United States congress, the Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program was established in 2003, the goal of which is “to discover, control, and exploit unique phenomena of military importance”. A military importance in any scientific breakthrough is suggestive of potential harm.
In an attempt to determine what the public perceives as the risk of nanotechnologies, I searched popular videos and news articles on the subject. As the YouTube video below explains, exciting and wondrous things such as faster computers and live saving nanobots await us in the future. The periodic table of elements has been expanded, and innovation in this technology is unlimited. As the 10 minute video continues, so does the excitement of scientists. Only in the last 90 seconds is the word “risk” even spoken, and it is then followed by comforting words from experts. The scientists whom specialize in this field have motivated reasoning to down-play any serious risk to protect their future careers, and the filter of the media has marginalized any perceived harm that nanotechnology may have by focusing only on the excitement of the wonders to come.
Conclusions:
Referring back to my initial questions, the death of factory workers two years ago raised some logical questions about risks of nano-sized science and provides an example of harmful nanotechnology. The involvement of the Department of Defense by funding research for military applications has implied that serious dangers may accompany innovation. The media has portrayed the field of nanotechnology as an exciting science fiction novel, and the excitement of new technology drowns out the fear of danger to health and environment. The societal implications of nanotechnology are substantial for society, but only the exciting and innovative parts of the field are truly exploited.
This research has undoubtedly raised more questions. These new questions are more difficult to answer, but the research that would follow would clarify more about perceived risk and public response. Will nanotechnology ever pose a serious large-scale threat? Will the public perceive any risk once the excitement of nano-bots and new technology wears off? Moving forward, I believe that future research should not be biased in that that only positive applications of the science are portrayed without any emphasis on risk. It is obvious that the inefficiency to portray the risk of nanotechnology creates a preconceived notion among individuals that nanotechnology could only create positive outcomes.
Works Consulted:
Kuzma, Jennifer. “Nanotechnology: Piecing Together the Puzzle of Risk” Controversies in Science & Technology 2010.
Smith, Rebecca. "Nanoparticles used in Paint could Kill, Research Suggests."Telegraph 19 Aug 2009. Web. 5 Sep 2011. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6016639/ Nanoparticles-used-in-paint-could-kill-research-suggests.html>.
United States. Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development: Report to Congress. 2009. Web. <http://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/dod-report_to_congress_final_1mar10.pdf>.
Nora, Savage. United States. Arlington: , 2010. Web. <http://www.nseresearch.org/2010/ presentations/Day3_Nora_Savage%20NSF%2012-8-10%20FNL.pdf>
Nanotechnology Takes Off. KQED Quest, 2007. Web. 8 Sep 2011. <http://youtu.be/S4CjZ-OkGDs>. <http://youtu.be/S4CjZ-OkGDs>.
No comments:
Post a Comment