DCHAS-L Archives, Oct 14, 2010 - Nanotechnology 2.0: The next ten years of nano risk research

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

Previous by Date

Subject: Re: Science Education & Safety

Date: Oct 13, 2010 20:47 UTC

Author: Jay A. Young <chemsafety**At_Symbol_Here**VERIZON.NET>

Next by Date

Subject: WHO/IPCS Dermal exposure document out for public comment

Date: Oct 14, 2010 15:12 UTC

Author: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>

From: List Moderator <ecgrants**At_Symbol_Here**UVM.EDU>

Subject: Nanotechnology 2.0: The next ten years of nano risk research

Date: Oct 14, 2010 11:09 UTC

Reply-To: DCHAS-L Discussion List <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**LIST.UVM.EDU>

Message-ID: <legacy-2010-20101014@ilpi.com>

In-Reply-To:

Comments: To: SAFETY

2020 Science

Nanotechnology 2.0: The next ten years of nano risk research

Sometime in the past couple of weeks =E2=80=93 I=E2=80=99m not entirely sure when as accounts are conflicting =E2=80=93 the World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) posted a draft of a new report examining the long-term impacts and research directions of nanotechnology. The "Nano2=E2=80=B3 study was supported by the National Science Foundation under the direction of Mike Roco, and included input from an impressive array of nano-experts from round the world.

What resulted was a 13 chapter behemoth of a report on the current state and next ten years of nanotechnology worldwide.

Having just started to look through the report (I was traveling when it was posted =E2=80=A6 I think) I can=E2=80=99t really comment on it=E2=80=99s overall relevance and authority. But if the chapter dealing with environment, health and safety (EHS) issues is anything to go by, this is a report to take seriously=E2=80=A6

The EHS chapter (chapter 4) is authored by twelve recognized experts in the field of nano-risks, and presents a comprehensive perspective on near-term research challenges and opportunities. The chapter is far from perfect =E2=80=93 as you would expect, it reflects the perspectives and interests of the authors =E2=80=93 but then most reports of this type do. It also contains some rather jangling statements. For instance on the first page the definition of "the environmental, health and safety (EHS) of nanomaterials=" seems to miss out environmental impact beyond "animal health=". And a rather outmoded focus on educating the public on page 25, where the authors state

"A key issue therefore is for academia, industry and government is to find appropriate mechanisms to reach consensus, and effectively communicate and educate the public on the beneficial implications of nanotechnology, the potential for risk, and what is being done to ensure safe implementation of the technology.="

~~Mmm, not quite what they are teaching in engagement 101 these days!~~

Read more: http://2020science.org/2010/10/13/nanotechnology-2-0-the-next-ten-years- of-nano-risk-research/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email& utm_campaign=Feed%3A+2020Science+%282020+Science%29#ixzz12KXySCJm

The content of this page reflects the personal opinion(s) of the author(s) only, not the American Chemical Society, ILPI, Safety Emporium, or any other party. Use of any information on this page is at the reader's own risk. Unauthorized reproduction of these materials is prohibited. Send questions/comments about the archive to secretary**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org.
The maintenance and hosting of the DCHAS-L archive is provided through the generous support of Safety Emporium.

Interactive Learning Paradigms, Incorporated

DCHAS-L Discussion List Archive

Previous by Date

Next by Date