Nanotechnology Research and the Public

[CajunCenturion]

After reading the following

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/04/HNnanotechmove_1.html

I pose the following question:

How much discussion is necessary to inform the general populus about current research and its ethical considerations, while at the same time protecting the proprietary means and processes of the researchers and still afford them reasonable avenues for a fair return on investment?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Grenage]

That article read as if the GM issue is old news, with most families now readily accepting it. As far as I am aware protestors are still burning crops and people are giving it a wide birth in the supermarkets. (Personal Experience I have no statistics here).

I would put this in the same boat as GM food too. Anything which has the potential to spread out of a controlled environment into the big wide world should be talken about with the big wide world.

 

[johnwm]

It's a bit late to worry about GM now. It's already happened. Trying to collect all the GM organisms back up now they're released is a bit like trying to stuff that pretty mushroom cloud back into the original shiny uranium sphere!

________________________________________________________________
If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

'People who live in windowed environments shouldn't cast pointers.'

 

[dkediger]

"Prey" by Michael Crichton was a pretty fast and easy read for a nice awareness about the ethical pitfalls. Granted its adventure fiction, and I have no feel for how possible the technology depicted would be, but it is definitely an accessible work for the masses - a movie version would be even more accessible.

 

[Grenage]

I recall a TV series (only ran for 1 series) called prey. Basically there were 2 types of humans, us and the "new and improved" which resulted minor skirmishes etc.

The same deal?

 

[dkediger]

Crichton's "Prey" was just published last winter, but involves the release of nanotech agents into the wild and their subsequent interactions with humans and even themselves.

 

[Grenage]

Right not the same then. It does sound like an interesting read though so I might just look that one up.

 

[chiph]

Don't expect an 100% accurate picture of nanotechnology -- usual horror rules apply -- creature has omni-knowledge, poor humans do dumb things like walk backwards in a darkened room, etc.

Chip H.


If you want to get the best response to a question, please check out FAQ222-2244 first

 

[MasterRacker]

To get back to the original question, I think the researchers need to make some kind proactive announcements so that the news establishment can then explain things reasonably factually to the general populace. If that doesn't happen then you will get exactly what others have mentioned: the general public's only awareness will be sci-fi horror stories.

How you could actually manage such a PR campaign I don't know, unfortunately.


Jeff
If your mind is too open your brains will fall out...

 

[rosieb]

To directly answer CajunCenturion’s question, a huge amount..

From a UK perspective:

There is a massive amount of cynicism associated with anything connected with “new technologies”. This is fed by:

1. The lack of general education in science.

2, The lack of desire to communicate by the mass media, headlines and sound-bites are all.

3. Lack of trust in the government, & big business; and a feeling that the two are too closely entwined.

4. Recent health / food scares (BSE, foot & mouth).

First, you have to make people understand that this is something relevant to them.

Then, they have to understand the arguments. The debate has to be pitched a level that the general populace can understand.

Finally, they have to trust the pundits provided.

The recent UK GM debate clearly shows that the information currently available is not being comprehensibly disseminated.

Nanotechnology, if it is to avoid the the instinctive "No" vote, has to demonstrate clearly its advantages, AND prove its lack of disadvantages (ie it will not turn the world into "grey goo&quot.


Looks like a long haul to me.

Rosie