Comments on: Nanotechnology prof boggles nano community http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-851563 Thu, 28 May 2009 09:49:47 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-851563 <a href="http://index4.holo-per.ru" rel="nofollow">

]]> By: Nanodot: Nanotechnology News and Discussion » Blog Archive » Nanotechnology for health: 10-year EU-US perspective http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-160560 Nanodot: Nanotechnology News and Discussion » Blog Archive » Nanotechnology for health: 10-year EU-US perspective Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:05 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-160560 [...] A while back I offered to write more about Health and Nanotechnology: Economic, Societal, and Institutional Impact, a report from a conference convened with the cooperation of the U.S. Dept. of State and the European Commission, part of a series called Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology, which has a ten-year time horizon. Here are some additional excerpts. From the Introduction: …participants gathered in Varenna to consider how health-related nanoproducts and applications might impact society and the economy, and how institutions might seek proactively to maximize the benefits of nanotechnology while minimizing risk. [...] [...] A while back I offered to write more about Health and Nanotechnology: Economic, Societal, and Institutional Impact, a report from a conference convened with the cooperation of the U.S. Dept. of State and the European Commission, part of a series called Perspectives on the Future of Science and Technology, which has a ten-year time horizon. Here are some additional excerpts. From the Introduction: …participants gathered in Varenna to consider how health-related nanoproducts and applications might impact society and the economy, and how institutions might seek proactively to maximize the benefits of nanotechnology while minimizing risk. [...]

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-108358 Christine Peterson Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:35:01 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-108358 Martin Smith has sent a new URL for part of this report: http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/GROUP_3_Discussion_060714.pdf However, this is only 7 pages of a 97 page report. If anyone runs across the whole report online, let me know and I'll post the URL. --Christine Martin Smith has sent a new URL for part of this report:
http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/BCSIA_content/documents/GROUP_3_Discussion_060714.pdf

However, this is only 7 pages of a 97 page report. If anyone runs across the whole report online, let me know and I’ll post the URL. –Christine

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-102973 Christine Peterson Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:00:10 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-102973 Super, Martin, greatly appreciated. --CP Super, Martin, greatly appreciated.
–CP

]]> By: Martin G. Smith http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-101808 Martin G. Smith Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:46:43 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-101808 Christine – The link was hacked shortly after I sent it to you. I have received a note from Harvard saying there will be a PDF of the document available in a couple of week. As soon as I get the link, I will pass it on. Christine – The link was hacked shortly after I sent it to you. I have received a note from Harvard saying there will be a PDF of the document available in a couple of week. As soon as I get the link, I will pass it on.

]]> By: Martin G. Smith http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100530 Martin G. Smith Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:04:59 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100530 Christine – I had no trouble with the link when I first accessed it. However there appears to have been some minds with not enough useful things to do at play. I notified Harvard and will advise you when I get an answer. Christine – I had no trouble with the link when I first accessed it. However there appears to have been some minds with not enough useful things to do at play. I notified Harvard and will advise you when I get an answer.

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100517 Christine Peterson Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:33:16 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100517 John -- I imagine you're right. Martin -- That link doesn't work for me. The Harvard one works, but the one on that page, which is supposed to go to the report, doesn't. Thanks to those of you who emailed me in response to this. All of your comments were useful. --CP John — I imagine you’re right.

Martin — That link doesn’t work for me. The Harvard one works, but the one on that page, which is supposed to go to the report, doesn’t.

Thanks to those of you who emailed me in response to this. All of your comments were useful. –CP

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100399 Anonymous Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:23:52 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100399 This reminds me of the situation, post-1945, when physicists and other scientists debated whether or not they had the expertise or duty to comment on the risks posed by nuclear weapons. Similar debates arose over the dangers posed by fallout in the 1950s. As to the argument that scientists should engage the public in these discussions, I am reminded of a comment by Harold Urey: “It is as if a bacteriologist had discovered a dread disease which might lead to a disastrous epidemic. He would not be a ‘politician’ if he asked the city commissioners to take measures to deal with a plague. He would merely be demonstrating common decency and social awareness.” This reminds me of the situation, post-1945, when physicists and other scientists debated whether or not they had the expertise or duty to comment on the risks posed by nuclear weapons. Similar debates arose over the dangers posed by fallout in the 1950s.

As to the argument that scientists should engage the public in these discussions, I am reminded of a comment by Harold Urey:
“It is as if a bacteriologist had discovered a dread disease which might lead to a disastrous epidemic. He would not be a ‘politician’ if he asked the city commissioners to take measures to deal with a plague. He would merely be demonstrating common decency and social awareness.”

]]> By: Martin G. Smith http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100359 Martin G. Smith Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:13:08 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100359 Hi Christine Here is a link to:- Health and Nanotechnology: Economic, Societal, and Institutional Impact [Incomplete Title] http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=STPP&ctype=event_reports&item_id=138 Hi Christine
Here is a link to:- Health and Nanotechnology: Economic, Societal, and Institutional Impact [Incomplete Title]

http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=STPP&ctype=event_reports&item_id=138

]]> By: John Monica http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100006 John Monica Tue, 16 Jan 2007 02:29:15 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2401#comment-100006 I agree they are strong words. I haven't read doc, but surely Prof. Halas is not against nano-related EHS research in and of itself. Perhaps the phrase "by demanding funding specifically earmarked for examining toxicity scenarios" is an unclear reference to those who advocate a linkage between all federal nano-research grants and EHS research. Some have proposed every federal nano-research grant have an EHS research component -- no matter what the underlying project. Thus, a researcher who obtains a grant to study the use of nanotechnology in semiconductor applications (random example) would be required to use a portion of the federal grant to conduct EHS research related to her primary project. As she is involved in federally funded research (unrelated to EHS issues), Dr. Halas' position might make more sense in this light. It would be interesting to hear Dr. Halas' own response on this issue. Thanks -- JCM I agree they are strong words. I haven’t read doc, but surely Prof. Halas is not against nano-related EHS research in and of itself.

Perhaps the phrase “by demanding funding specifically earmarked for examining toxicity scenarios” is an unclear reference to those who advocate a linkage between all federal nano-research grants and EHS research. Some have proposed every federal nano-research grant have an EHS research component — no matter what the underlying project. Thus, a researcher who obtains a grant to study the use of nanotechnology in semiconductor applications (random example) would be required to use a portion of the federal grant to conduct EHS research related to her primary project.

As she is involved in federally funded research (unrelated to EHS issues), Dr. Halas’ position might make more sense in this light. It would be interesting to hear Dr. Halas’ own response on this issue.

Thanks — JCM

]]>