Comments on: Nanotechnology hazard symbol misleading

By: Lindy Newlove-Eriksson

Lindy Newlove-Eriksson — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:13:40 +0000

I understand that some of you are not pleased with the process but as someone just now reading about it from a less involved perspective I would like to say that despite imperfections I think the contest and the idea and the enthusiasm and debate it has generated and raised regarding an obviously controversial conceptual symbol is fantastic, fascinating and important!

By: Advertising

Advertising — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 06:25:09 +0000

As long as this is used universally, it will eventually become synonymous with what its intended purpose is. I think the general public simply sees this as “something on the atomic level and danger” together.
I agree it is not the best, but if it is to be used, there you are.

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 23:03:47 +0000

Above I wrote: “The judges should have caught the problem I pointed out.” One of the judges, Gregor Wolbring, emailed me to point out: “I assume you are aware that the Nanohazard judges were not voting among each others on the symbols but that they each as individuals gave x numbers to ETC. So your blasting the judges in the way you did was also unfair.”

He later clarified: “you were criticizing the jury for not having seen and acted on the characteristic in the hazard symbol you felt was a flaw. However if you would have asked Hope as to how the Jury worked you would have found have out that each juror could put forward 3 choices from all sent in designs to ETC headquarter who then were taken the the World Forum for voting. However no Juror saw the choices of the other jurors so we could not acted in the way you suggested we should have acted.”

Additional clarification: “yes but I never saw what the other Jurors choose I was only responsible for what I forwarded to ETC. There was no way that Jurors could judge what the other Jurors sent to ETC

“But you were attacking all Jurors
but the system was not set up in the way you assumed.
No Juror has known what the other Jurors put forward.”

Gregor and I have, in a friendly fashion, agreed to disagree on this. I still feel that (1) the judges should have caught the problem, and (2) the process itself was flawed. Fortunately, Gregor has his own blog, so he can clarify his position without needing further help from me! –Christine

By: Mark Wolfe

Mark Wolfe — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 10:20:04 +0000

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:07:12 +0000

Hi Hope — We certainly support the public getting involved; as you know, Foresight has been working on that goal since 1986.

Regarding the hazard warning symbol contest, the flawed result — one of three winners was seriously misleading — indicates that the process set up by ETC Group was flawed.

The judges should have caught the problem I pointed out. Then the attendees could have selected from a more accurate set of choices.

It doesn’t matter if a design is unique and very high quality if it is also misleading.

–Christine

By: Hope Shand

Hope Shand — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 03:24:47 +0000

Christine – I don’t think you understand how the international competition to design a nano-hazard warning symbol was set up. Go here to read all about it: http://www.etcgroup.org/nanohazard

ETC Group did not select the winner of the competition. We sponsored the competition, and we received a remarkable 483 entries from 24 countries. An independent panel of judges chose 16 finalists, and those finalists were taken to the World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya, where attendees had the opportunity to vote for their favorite.

The panel of judges that chose the 16 finalists:
Dr. Vyvyan Howard, Founding editor of the Journal of Nanotoxicology.
Dr. Gregor Wolbring, Affilliated scholar Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University, USA.
Chee Yoke Ling, Legal Advisor, Third World Network.
Claire Pentecost, Artist, Writer, Associate Professor and Chair of the Photography Department at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago
Rory O Neill, Editor of Hazards (trade union workplace safety magazine).
Dr. Alexis Vlandas, Nanotechnology spokesperson for International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility.

It sounds like you don’t think the winning entries best represent a nano-hazard warning symbol – but they are the ones that received the most votes in Nairobi. If you look at the gallery of entries we received (you can see the gallery here: http://www.etcgroup.org/gallery2/v/nanohazard/ ) you’ll find an amazing selection of unique and in many cases, very high quality, graphic designs. It’s about time the public got involved in some aspect of nanotech! – Hope Shand, for ETC Group

By: Martin G. Smith

Martin G. Smith — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:55:08 +0000

Christine – I could not agree with you comments more. There is no need to ‘Officially’ instill fear. When people look at a symbol they immediately think it is some kind of Offficial Notification of something rather than to Warn of a potential hazard.
Symbols are meant , I suggest, to inform, not incite.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 15:44:55 +0000

I don’t get it. Is this a respected group? Their staff and board seems to be loaded with intellectual lightweights for the most part. Few have any formal background or significant acccomplishments in any field of science. Do they really play a credible role in these matters?

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:14:02 +0000

That’s a shame. Some of the ones that they didn’t use look cool, at least.

Here’s a question, on which scale do atomic reactions occur?