Comments on: Nanotechnology: Activists throw baby out with bathwater

By: Christine Peterson

Christine Peterson — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 23:25:58 +0000

Hi Jaydee — New drugs are usually more expensive than older ones that are out of patent protection; that doesn’t have much to do with whether they use nanotechnology methods or not, I think. Eventually the new drugs’ patents will expire and they will be generic.

I am sorry to hear that Medicare has cover the cost of a drug which is not much better, nano or not. What a weird system.

Foresight is interested in a thorough review of the patent system and possible reforms. It’s time to review Bayh-Dole also. —Christine

By: Jaydee Hanson

Jaydee Hanson — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:22:52 +0000

Christine: I assume that you read the longer version of the document, not just the press release. Since the release another 20 groups have endorsed the principles. Your readers can access the whole document at: http://www.icta.org/doc/Principles%20for%20the%20Oversight%20of%20Nanotechnologies%20and%20Nanomaterials_final.pdf

I would be careful about asserting that medical uses of nanotechnology are “extremely promising” without examining which applications. The medical uses need to be researched even more carefully than the environmental uses. Much of the touted medical advances are at this point still hype. One of the most economically successful, though is a cancer drug, nano-encapsulated taxol, a breast cancer drug. It sells for $4200 a dose. Quite a bit more than the $150 a dose for generic taxol. To be fair, patients experience a little less nausea, but it does not increase their life span. Still, crazy US Medicare law forces Medicare to pay for it. Great nanotechnology for the patent holder, not so good for the rest of us.

By: Phillip Huggan

Phillip Huggan — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:26:04 +0000

I might look into this too, Christine. A recent physorg.com article mentioned a researcher who added tiny particles of Boric acid to engine oil to decrease a car’s oil usage and wear rates. It mentioned two years until environmental testing would be complete. For FDA medical testing I can see there may be obvious ethical dillemnas, but these wouldn’t apply to environmental testing for products that protect uncosted environmental capital.
I’ve taken a cursory look at Canada’s environmental testing agency. If I ever look in depth and find any improvements (hire better testers or streamline certain procedures) I’ll be sure to let Foresight and other NGOs know.

By: Dr. Raj Bawa

Dr. Raj Bawa — Sat, 04 Aug 2007 20:24:58 +0000

Christine presents some excellent points.

I am optimistic that fears about the potential toxic effects of nanomaterials, whether they are silver nanoparticles or CNTs, will eventually give way to intelligent public dialogue based on good science and not hype or misinformation. This will highlight the positive applications and impact of nanotechnology.

By: Cosmic Vortex

Cosmic Vortex — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:12:01 +0000

Well now your seeing that most of the environmentalists are not anti-technology because they genuinely care about the environment, but because of philosophical reasons.

Ive brought up the point on many forums about how nanotech can help fix pollution issues and almost always the response is…”but that just creates MORE of the same problem, which is too much technology”. Now you might consider this just pure ignorance on their part, and its a good argument, but after informing them of the possibilities, they still didnt seem receptive to the idea and just wrote nanotech off as more “unnatural” intervention from man.