Comments on: Pacific Research Institute disputes prominent Wilson Center nano report http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2153 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2153#comment-7805 Christine Peterson Thu, 02 Feb 2006 23:15:47 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2153#comment-7805 The definitions I've seen so far do not accomplish what Steven is asking for. The definitions I’ve seen so far do not accomplish what Steven is asking for.

]]> By: Steven Fowkes http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2153#comment-7802 Steven Fowkes Thu, 02 Feb 2006 19:29:59 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2153#comment-7802 I'd like to know if anybody, including the Pacific Research Institute or the Wilson Center, has offered a regulatory definition of nanotechnology that can realistically discriminate between grandfathered nanotechnologies (like dissolving CoQ10 in lipid to increase assimilation, or using biological enzymes to degrade polutants, or forming nanoparticle colloids of metallic silver particles) and the new nanotechnologies (that, supposedly, should or shouldn't be regulated). I think there may even be a problem distinguishing biological nanotechnologies (a heavily grandfathered field) from nanomachine technologies (a lightly grandfathered field), about which there may be the greatest agreement as to risk, regulated or not. How can one discriminate the regulatory status of, say, attaching of xenobiotic or inorganic compounds to peptides from the regulatory status of attaching peptides to some kind of nanoconstruct. Is there a fundamentally variant risk from receptors made from protein, and receptors (capture agents) made from polymers? Off-site comments are welcome at fowkes1@earthlink.net I’d like to know if anybody, including the Pacific Research Institute or the Wilson Center, has offered a regulatory definition of nanotechnology that can realistically discriminate between grandfathered nanotechnologies (like dissolving CoQ10 in lipid to increase assimilation, or using biological enzymes to degrade polutants, or forming nanoparticle colloids of metallic silver particles) and the new nanotechnologies (that, supposedly, should or shouldn’t be regulated).

I think there may even be a problem distinguishing biological nanotechnologies (a heavily grandfathered field) from nanomachine technologies (a lightly grandfathered field), about which there may be the greatest agreement as to risk, regulated or not. How can one discriminate the regulatory status of, say, attaching of xenobiotic or inorganic compounds to peptides from the regulatory status of attaching peptides to some kind of nanoconstruct.

Is there a fundamentally variant risk from receptors made from protein, and receptors (capture agents) made from polymers?

Off-site comments are welcome at fowkes1@earthlink.net

]]>