Archive for the ‘public perceptions’ Category

Nanotechnology and the US mega science project: BAM (Brain Activity Map) and more

Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013

The Brain Activity Map (BAM) project received budgetary approval as of this morning, Apr. 2, 2013 (I first mentioned BAM in my Mar. 4, 2013 posting when approval seemed imminent). From the news item, Obama Announces Huge Brain-Mapping Project, written by Stephanie Pappas for Yahoo News (Note: Links have been removed),

 President Barack Obama announced a new research initiative this morning (April 2) to map the human brain, a project that will launch with $100 million in funding in 2014.

The Brain Activity Map (BAM) project, as it is called, has been in the planning stages for some time. In the June 2012 issue of the journal Neuron, six scientists outlined broad proposals for developing non-invasive sensors and methods to experiment on single cells in neural networks. This February, President Obama made a vague reference to the project in his State of the Union address, mentioning that it could “unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s.”

In March, the project’s visionaries outlined their final goals in the journal Science. They call for an extended effort, lasting several years, to develop tools for monitoring up to a million neurons at a time. The end goal is to understand how brain networks function.

“It could enable neuroscience to really get to the nitty-gritty of brain circuits, which is the piece that’s been missing from the puzzle,” Rafael Yuste, the co-director of the Kavli Institute for Brain Circuits at Columbia University, who is part of the group spearheading the project, told LiveScience in March. “The reason it’s been missing is because we haven’t had the techniques, the tools.” [Inside the Brain: A Journey Through Time]

Not all neuroscientists support the project, however, with some arguing that it lacks clear goals and may cannibalize funds for other brain research.

….

I believe the $100M mentioned for 2014 would one installment in a series totaling up to $1B or more. In any event, it seems like a timely moment to comment on the communications campaign that has been waged on behalf of the BAM. It reminds me a little of the campaign for graphene, which was waged in the build up to the decision as to which two projects (in a field of six semi-finalists, then narrowed to a field of four finalists) should receive a FET (European Union’s Future and Emerging Technology) 1 billion euro research prize each. It seemed to me even a year or so before the decision that graphene’s win was a foregone conclusion but the organizers left nothing to chance and were relentless in their pursuit of attention and media coverage in the buildup to the final decision.

The most recent salvo in the BAM campaign was an attempt to link it with nanotechnology. A shrewd move given that the US has spent well over $1B since the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) was first approved in 2000. Linking the two projects means the NNI can lend a little authority to the new project (subtext: we’ve supported a mega-project before and that was successful) while the new project BAM can imbue the ageing NNI with some excitement.

Here’s more about nanotechnology and BAM from a Mar. 27, 2013 Spotlight article by Michael Berger on Nanowerk,

A comprehensive understanding of the brain remains an elusive, distant frontier. To arrive at a general theory of brain function would be an historic event, comparable to inferring quantum theory from huge sets of complex spectra and inferring evolutionary theory from vast biological field work. You might have heard about the proposed Brain Activity Map – a project that, like the Human Genome Project, will tap the hive mind of experts to make headway in the understanding of the field. Engineers and nanotechnologists will be needed to help build ever smaller devices for measuring the activity of individual neurons and, later, to control how those neurons function. Computer scientists will be called upon to develop methods for storing and analyzing the vast quantities of imaging and physiological data, and for creating virtual models for studying brain function. Neuroscientists will provide critical biological expertise to guide the research and interpret the results.

Berger goes on to highlight some of the ways nanotechnology-enabled devices could contribute to the effort. He draws heavily on a study published Mar. 20, 2013 online in ACS (American Chemical Society)Nano. Shockingly, the article is open access. Given that this is the first time I’ve come across an open access article in any of the American Chemical Society’s journals, I suspect that there was payment of some kind involved to make this information freely available. (The practice of allowing researchers to pay more in order to guarantee open access to their research in journals that also have articles behind paywalls seems to be in the process of becoming more common.)

Here’s a citation and a link to the article about nanotechnology and BAM,

Nanotools for Neuroscience and Brain Activity Mapping by A. Paul Alivisatos, Anne M. Andrews, Edward S. Boyden, Miyoung Chun, George M. Church, Karl Deisseroth, John P. Donoghue, Scott E. Fraser, Jennifer Lippincott-Schwartz, Loren L. Looger, Sotiris Masmanidis, Paul L. McEuen, Arto V. Nurmikko, Hongkun Park, Darcy S. Peterka, Clay Reid, Michael L. Roukes, Axel Scherer, Mark Schnitzer, Terrence J. Sejnowski, Kenneth L. Shepard, Doris Tsao, Gina Turrigiano, Paul S. Weiss, Chris Xu, Rafael Yuste, and Xiaowei Zhuang. ACS Nano, 2013, 7 (3), pp 1850–1866 DOI: 10.1021/nn4012847 Publication Date (Web): March 20, 2013
Copyright © 2013 American Chemical Society

As these things go, it’s a readable article for people without a neuroscience education provided they don’t mind feeling a little confused from time to time. From Nanotools for Neuroscience and Brain Activity Mapping (Note: Footnotes and links removed),

The Brain Activity Mapping (BAM) Project (…) has three goals in terms of building tools for neuroscience capable of (…) measuring the activity of large sets of neurons in complex brain circuits, (…) computationally analyzing and modeling these brain circuits, and (…) testing these models by manipulating the activities of chosen sets of neurons in these brain circuits.

As described below, many different approaches can, and likely will, be taken to achieve these goals as neural circuits of increasing size and complexity are studied and probed.

The BAM project will focus both on dynamic voltage activity and on chemical neurotransmission. With an estimated 85 billion neurons, 100 trillion synapses, and 100 chemical neurotransmitters in the human brain,(…) this is a daunting task. Thus, the BAM project will start with model organisms, neural circuits (vide infra), and small subsets of specific neural circuits in humans.

Among the approaches that show promise for the required dynamic, parallel measurements are optical and electro-optical methods that can be used to sense neural cell activity such as Ca2+,(7) voltage,(…) and (already some) neurotransmitters;(…) electrophysiological approaches that sense voltages and some electrochemically active neurotransmitters;(…) next-generation photonics-based probes with multifunctional capabilities;(18) synthetic biology approaches for recording histories of function;(…) and nanoelectronic measurements of voltage and local brain chemistry.(…) We anticipate that tools developed will also be applied to glia and more broadly to nanoscale and microscale monitoring of metabolic processes.

Entirely new tools will ultimately be required both to study neurons and neural circuits with minimal perturbation and to study the human brain. These tools might include “smart”, active nanoscale devices embedded within the brain that report on neural circuit activity wirelessly and/or entirely new modalities of remote sensing of neural circuit dynamics from outside the body. Remarkable advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology thus have key roles to play in transduction, reporting, power, and communications.

One of the ultimate goals of the BAM project is that the knowledge acquired and tools developed will prove useful in the intervention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases of the brain, including depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, schizophrenia, and others. We note that tens of thousands of patients have already been treated with invasive (i.e., through the skull) treatments. [emphases mine] While we hope to reduce the need for such measures, greatly improved and more robust interfaces to the brain would impact effectiveness and longevity where such treatments remain necessary.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, there was this Mar. 29, 2013 news item on Nanowerk,

Some human cells forget to empty their trash bins, and when the garbage piles up, it can lead to Parkinson’s disease and other genetic and age-related disorders. Scientists don’t yet understand why this happens, and Rice University engineering researcher Laura Segatori is hoping to change that, thanks to a prestigious five-year CAREER Award from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Segatori, Rice’s T.N. Law Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering and assistant professor of bioengineering and of biochemistry and cell biology, will use her CAREER grant to create a toolkit for probing the workings of the cellular processes that lead to accumulation of waste material and development of diseases, such as Parkinson’s and lysosomal storage disorders. Each tool in the kit will be a nanoparticle — a speck of matter about the size of a virus — with a specific shape, size and charge.  [emphases mine] By tailoring each of these properties, Segatori’s team will create a series of specialized probes that can undercover the workings of a cellular process called autophagy.

“Eventually, once we understand how to design a nanoparticle to activate autophagy, we will use it as a tool to learn more about the autophagic process itself because there are still many question marks in biology regarding how this pathway works,” Segatori said. “It’s not completely clear how it is regulated. It seems that excessive autophagy may activate cell death, but it’s not yet clear. In short, we are looking for more than therapeutic applications. We are also hoping to use these nanoparticles as tools to study the basic science of autophagy.”

There is no direct reference to BAM but there are some intriguing correspondences.

Finally, there is no mention of nanotechnology in this radio broadcast/podcast and transcript but it does provide more information about BAM (for many folks this was first time they’d heard about the project) and the hopes and concerns this project raises while linking it to the Human Genome Project. From the Mar. 31, 2013 posting of a transcript and radio (Kera News; a National Public Radio station) podcast titled, Somewhere Over the Rainbow: The Journey to Map the Human Brain,

During the State of the Union, President Obama said the nation is about to embark on an ambitious project: to examine the human brain and create a road map to the trillions of connections that make it work.

“Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy — every dollar,” the president said. “Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s.”

Details of the project have slowly been leaking out: $3 billion, 10 years of research and hundreds of scientists. The National Institutes of Health is calling it the Brain Activity Map.

Obama isn’t the first to tout the benefits of a huge government science project. But can these projects really deliver? And what is mapping the human brain really going to get us?

Whether one wants to call it a public relations campaign or a marketing campaign is irrelevant. Science does not take place in an environment where data and projects are considered dispassionately. Enormous amounts of money are spent to sway public opinion and policymakers’ decisions.

ETA Ap. 3, 2013: Here are more stories about BAM and the announcement:

BRAIN Initiative Launched to Unlock Mysteries of Human Mind

Obama’s BRAIN Only 1/13 The Size Of Europe’s

BRAIN Initiative Builds on Efforts of Leading Neuroscientists and Nanotechnologists

Mar. 20, 2013 live webcast about synthetic biology and nanotechnology poll

Tuesday, March 19th, 2013

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has an event which you can attend in person if you’re in Washington, DC or can attend from elsewhere via a webcast. Here’s why you might want to attend,

Beginning in 2006, the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Peter D. Hart Research Associates have conducted periodic national telephone surveys to gauge the public awareness of and attitudes towards synthetic biology and nanotechnology.

In our latest survey, conducted in January 2013, three-fourths of respondents say they have heard little or nothing about synthetic biology, a level consistent with that measured in 2010. While initial impressions about the science are largely undefined, these feelings do not necessarily become more positive as respondents learn more. The public has mixed reactions to specific synthetic biology applications, and almost one-third of respondents favor a ban “on synthetic biology research until we better understand its implications and risks,” while 61 percent think the science should move forward.

The survey also found that, despite outreach efforts, 68 percent of respondents have heard little or nothing about nanotechnology, which indicates no change in awareness since 2009.

Please join us Wednesday,March 20, 2013, at noon to discuss the complete results from the latest poll.

Here are the specifics,

What:

Results of the 2013 national public opinion poll on synthetic biology and nanotechnology

When:

Wednesday, March 20, 2013, Noon– 1:30 PM (Light lunch available at 11:30 am) [The times listed are EDT, for those of us on the West Coast of North America,  the webcast starts at 9 am]

 Who:

David Rejeski, Director, Science and Technology Innovation Program

Abigail Davenport, Senior Vice President, Peter D. Hart Research Associates

 Where:

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars,
5th Floor Conference Room,
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC

RSVPs and miscellaneous,

A light lunch will be served beginning at 11:30 am.

You must register to attend the event. To RSVP, please visit:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/rsvp?eid=26431&pid=116

This event will be Webcast LIVE at

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/awareness-and-impressions-synthetic-biology-results-the-2013-poll

There is no RSVP required to view the webcast.

For directions, please visit: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/directions

Media planning to cover the event should contact Aaron Lovell at (202) 691-4320 or at aaron.lovell@wilsoncenter.org

To learn more about the Synthetic Biology Project, please visit: http://www.synbioproject.org

Tweet your nano

Thursday, January 24th, 2013

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison have published a study titled, “Tweeting nano: how public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments,”  which analyses, for the first time, nanotechnology discourse on Twitter social media. From the Life Sciences Communication University of Wisconsin-Madison research webpage,

The study, “Tweeting nano: how public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments,” mapped social media traffic about nanotechnology, finding that Twitter traffic expressing opinion about nanotechnology is more likely to originate from states with a federally-funded National Nanotechnology Initiative center or network than states without such centers.

Runge [Kristin K. Runge, doctoral student] and her co-authors used computational linguistic software to analyze a census of all English-language nanotechnology-related tweets expressing opinion posted on Twitter over one calendar year. In addition to mapping tweets by state, the team coded sentiment along two axes: certain vs. uncertain, and optimistic-neutral-pessimistic. They found 55% of nanotechnology-related opinions expressed certainty, 41% expressed pessimistic outlooks and 32% expressed neutral outlooks.

In addition to shedding light on how social media is used in communicating about an emerging technology, this study is believed to be the first published study to use a census of social media messages rather than a sample.

“We likely wouldn’t have captured these results if we had to rely on a sample rather than a complete census,” said Runge. “That would have been unfortunate, because the distinct geographic origins of the tweets and the tendency toward certainty in opinion expression will be useful in helping us understand how key online influencers are shaping the conversation around nanotechnology.”

It’s not obvious from this notice or the title of the study but it is stated clearly in the study that the focus is the world of US nano, not the English language world of nano. After reading the study (very quickly), I can say it’s interesting and, hopefully, will stimulate more work about public opinion that takes social media into account. (I’d love to know how they limited their study to US tweets only and how they determined the region that spawned the tweet. )

The one thing which puzzles me is they don’t mention retweets (RTs) specifically. Did they consider only original tweets? If not, did they take into account the possibility that someone might RT an item that does not reflect their own opinion? I occasionally RT something that doesn’t reflect my opinion when there isn’t sufficient space to include comment indicating otherwise because I want to promote discussion and that doesn’t necessarily take place on Twitter or in Twitter’s public space. This leads to another question, did the researchers include direct messages in their study? Unfortunately, there’s no mention in the two sections  (Discussion and Implications for future research) of the conclusion.

For those who would like to see the research for themselves (Note: The article is behind a paywall),

Tweeting nano: how public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments by Kristin K. Runge, Sara K. Yeo, Michael Cacciatore, Dietram A. Scheufele, Dominique Brossard, Michael Xenos, Ashley Anderson, Doo-hun Choi, Jiyoun Kim, Nan Li, Xuan Liang, Maria Stubbings, and Leona Yi-Fan Su. Journal of Nanoparticle Research; An Interdisciplinary Forum for Nanoscale Science and Technology© Springer 10.1007/s11051-012-1381-8. Published online Jan. 4, 2013

It’s no surprise to see Dietram Scheufele and Dominique Brossard who are both located the University of Wisconsin-Madison and publish steadily on the topic of nanotechnology and public opinion listed as authors.

Analysis of German language media coverage of nanotechnology

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Austria’s NanoTrust project published, in October 2012, a dossier tittled: Nanotechnology in the media; On the reporting in representative daily newspapers in Austria, Germany and Switzerland which has been highlighted in a Jan. 21, 2013 Nanowerk Spotlight article (Note: Footnotes have been removed),

The media can have a significant influence on the public image of science and technology, in the specific case nanotechnology. This is true in particular if only a small percentage of the population only comes directly into contact with such fields of research. Mass media reporting serves to increase awareness of selected topics, informs about current debates involving a wide variety of actors who need to be heard and thus also prepares a basis for future social debates. The population is introduced to central aspects of technical applications, which also include the opportunities and risks associated with the new technologies.

A media analysis has been conducted of selected quality newspapers within the framework of the “NanoPol” project [cooperation between the Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis (ITAS) at the Karlsruhe Institute for Technology (KIT), the Institute for Technology Assessment (ITA) at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (OeAW), TA-Swiss in Berne and the Programme for Science Research of the University of Basel], which analyses the nanotechnology policies of Austria, Germany and Switzerland.

Quality newspapers are characterised by their target group, comprising persons who have a specific interest in national events and information and who are of significance as multipliers for opinion formation amongst the national public. At the same time, mass media as an ongoing observer in the public can contribute to determining the significance of the topic for the public discussion. For each country, two print media were investigated, the investigation period extending over ten years (2000-2009):

– Der Standard and Die Presse (A);

– Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and die Süddeutsche Zeitung (D);

– Neue Züricher Zeitung and der Tagesanzeiger (CH).

The media analysis covered almost 2000 articles produced between 2000 and 2009,

Roughly 44 % of all articles were accounted for by the two German print media, while Switzerland and Austria had a share of 29 % and 27 % respectively, with in each case one national newspaper having published significantly more articles with nanotechnology topics. At the beginning of the investigation period, the frequency of articles still varied considerably in the different countries, but converged towards the end of the period.

The reports on nanotechnology are overwhelmingly (88 %) to be found in fact-focused report formats such as news reports or background coverage, while a small percentage of the contributions are drawn up in the form of interviews, comments and essays.

There’s a bit of a surprise (to me) concerning popular topics in that medical applications don’t place first in terms of interest,

Topics related to basic research, which for instance include toxicology and risk research, constituted an in part clear majority in all three countries. Applications in the field of information and communication technology, extending from data media to sensors, were the second most frequently referred to topic. Medical applications, from diagnostics to specific therapies, occupied third place in all three countries, although relatively speaking there were somewhat more reports about medical topics in Austria than in the other two countries.  [emphases mine] Reports from the field of business and politics, dealing above all with companies, research subsidies, environment and economic policies, occupied places four and five.

The conclusion of this Spotlight article seems to hint at a little disappointment,

The reporting on nanotechnology in the media in the three German-speaking countries is largely science-centred and attracts a generally low level of attention amongst the broad public thanks to its less emphasised placing. There is hardly any opinion-focused reporting, with classical news reports and reports relating to current research activities or events predominating. In all three countries, the newspapers’ science departments play a dominant role, and scientists also play a central role as actors.

An event-focused positive representation predominates. A focus on risks and controversial reporting, a concern raised regularly in expert circles, was not proven in the present study. Risk topics play a role in fewer than 20 % of articles; the benefits and opportunities of nanotechnology, on the other hand, are mentioned in 80 % of all articles.

Benefits are seen above all for science. Scientific actors are likewise mentioned relatively frequently, which indicates the close connections between science and business, and the economic expectations of nanotechnology. One would have to examine the extent to which the absence of controversies can be attributed to the hitherto lack of evidence of possible dangers and risks or to well-functioning strategic scientific PR work. [emphasis mine]

Why mention  “well-functioning strategic scientific PR work” in the conclusion when there has been no mention of public relations (PR) in any other section of this dossier?  As well, if strategic scientific PR work was that effective, then nuclear power might not be quite so controversial.

Overall, this study doesn’t break any new ground but does confirm a growing consensus of opinion, the public regardless of which country (with the possible exception of France) we are discussing tends not to be all that interested in nanotechnology.

For those curious about the French controversies, there’s a mention in my March 10, 2010 posting (scroll down about 1/4 of the way) about an Agence Science-Presse radio interview with Celine Lafontaine, a Quebec-based academic who studies the social impact of nanotechnology and was in France during a very contentious series of public debates on the subject.

For anyone who found the reference to ‘actors’ in this research a little unexpected, the term is being used by researchers who are using ‘actor-network theory’ as an analytical tool. You can find out more about actor-network theory in this Wikipedia essay.

65 + and another poll about nanotechnology awareness

Thursday, September 6th, 2012

As soon as you reach the age of 65, you cease to develop as a human being and nobody really cares about your opinions. The same is true of you prior to the age of 18. You are of interest from 18 to 29, more interest from 30-39, and 40-49 but by the age of 50, you hold diminishing interest (50-64) and after that it almost disappers. At least, that’s what I’m deducing from these standard age categories.

We don’t think a 25 year old and a 45 year old belong in the same category but have no problem putting a 65 year old and an 85 year old in the same category.  Interesting, non?

While the latest nanotechnology poll from Harris Interactive doesn’t break any new ground regarding age categories or ways to ask about nanotechnology awareness (How much have you heard about nanotechnology?) or results (low awareness), Harris offers a very interesting proviso about the poll results,

Methodology

This Harris Poll was conducted online within the United States between June 18 and 25, 2012 among 2,467 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online.

All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. [emphases mine] All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100% response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal.

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

I don’t know if this is a standard wording or if it’s unique to Harris but it’s certainly the first time I’ve seen a statement that the term ‘margin of error’ is misleading. Coupling it with a frank description of the possible errors and suggesting there may be even more sources for error is refreshing. I also very much appreciate the fact that they’ve shown the questions although I  would like to confirm the order in which they were asked (which I imagine is in the order shown).

A Sept. 6, 2012 news item on Nanowerk summarizes the poll results,

Awareness of nanotechnology is still low, but there are some surprising differences in opinion. Perhaps not surprisingly, reports of having heard at least a little about nanotechnology were significantly higher among all sub-65 age groups (ranging from 37% to 46%) than among those in the 65+ age group (26%). However, those older Americans aware of nanotechnology were more optimistic about its potential, with a stronger likelihood than any other age group to indicate a belief that the potential benefits of nanotechnology outweigh the risks (58%, vs. 32%-36% among other age groups).

The Sept. 6, 2012 press release from Harris Interactive (which originated the news item) provides more details including the wording of the questions and tables summarizing the data. Here are a few tidbits from the press release,

Older Americans aware of nanotechnology were significantly more interested than other age groups in seeing it applied to healthcare (80%-83% among those ages 50+, vs. 42%-66% among younger groups), energy production (63%-74% among those 40+, vs. 43%-53% among those under 40), whereas younger adults familiar with nanotechnology were more interested in seeing nanotechnology applied to clothes (16%-19% among those 18-39, vs. 4%-9% among those 40+) and skincare (20% and 10%-12%, respectively) than the older groups. The youngest age group was also significantly more likely than other groups to select “None of these” (15% among those 18-29, vs. 2%-6% among those 30+).

“Though it may initially seem counterintuitive, it actually makes sense that those aware of nanotechnology within the 65+ age group tend to believe that the benefits of nanotechnology will outweigh the risks, as the prevalence of worry in general tends to decline with age,” said Dr. Kathleen Eggleson, leader of the Nano Impacts Intellectual Community at the University of Notre Dame. “Older Americans also have firsthand experience with the emergence of many different technologies that have brought new benefits to their lives.”

“These data may help stakeholders nationwide make informed decisions, plan investments, and tailor education, advocacy, and marketing efforts in the nanotechnology field,” said Peter Tomanovich, Research Director, Health Care at Harris Interactive.

The poll also has information (taking all provisos into account) about US regional differences in awareness and sources for information amongst those who are aware here.

There is no indication in the press release that this poll was requested or paid for by any Harris Interactive client. Based on Tomanovich’s comments, the poll seems to  have been conducted at the company’s own expense as a means of gaining some attention within their government and business client base.

In any event, the poll provides an interesting contrast to the recent article in Nature about nanotechnology and terrorism (mentioned in my Aug. 31, 2012 posting) which suggested there may be a rising tide of violence against nanoscience and nanotechnology based on the bombings in Mexico and other incidents on the international stage.

Religion and nanotechnology but no spirituality?

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Chris Toumey, a cultural anthropologist at the University of South Carolina NanoCenter, has written an article for Nanowerk about the impact that religious belief has on nanotechnology and other science issues. In the Nov. 16, 2011 article on Nanowerk, “Nanotechnology and religion,” Toumey opens with this,

Survey research indicates that religious belief will be a powerful influence in shaping public views about nanotechnology, while knowledge about nanotech will be less influential. And yet religious thought about nanotech has received little attention. We know that nanotechnology has evoked a large body of literature on moral and ethical issues, but almost all of this is expressed in secular voices, e.g., those of philosophers, ethicists, and scientists. Religious commentaries about nanotechnology have been much more rare. Now it is worth knowing what religious voices have said about nanotechnology, so that we might anticipate future religious reactions.

Toumey cites three studies, George Gaskell and colleagues’ 2005 paper, “Social Values and the Governance of Science“, Dominique Brossard et al.’s study  “Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology” (the abstract is free; the article is behind a paywall), and a third study compared the US and twelve EU nations “Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States” (the abstract is free; the article is behind a paywall)  as forming the basis for his own paper, “Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology,” to be published in the December 2011 issue of NanoEthics. From Toumey’s Nanowerk article,

Because of those considerations, I assembled a collection of seven religious reactions to nanotechnology from a variety of faiths. Four are documents from religious organizations that deliver official institutional positions, namely: a major American Lutheran denomination; the Catholic Bishops Conferences of the European Community; a coalition of German Protestants; and, a Muslim think-tank in the United Arab Emirates. The other three are: a certain line of Jewish thought about technology; a group of Catholic and Protestant who oppose transhumanism; and, a pair of focus groups, one in England and the other in Arizona US.

Two common themes appear in those religious reactions.

According to the first, many religious persons worry that nanotechnology will contribute to re-defining human nature in ways that are amoral or dangerous. … For the second theme, religious persons worry that the control of nanotechnology by irresponsible entities will lead to adverse consequences like inequality or injustice.

At any rate, these seven case studies remind us that those who create new technologies can benefit by listening to the voices of thoughtful religious people.

I find the discussion about the impact of religious belief on one’s attitudes to nanotechnology and other emerging technologies quite interesting. After all, the Amish drew the line at allowing electricity and subsequent modern technologies into their lifestyles. Drawing on that example, I wonder what other groups may choose to reject one or more new technologies based on their religious beliefs.

I have one other thought about these studies with their focus on organized religion as opposed to spirituality. I expect it’s easier to study a religious group rather then something so nebulous as spirituality but I think it would be interesting to attempt an investigation into the impact that one’s  ‘spirituality’ has on one’s response to emerging technologies.

In the meantime, it is possible to get a copy of Chris Toumey’s paper, “Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology,” by contacting him (Toumey@mailbox.sc.edu).

Viruses as manufacturing plants

Tuesday, September 27th, 2011

In her January 2011 TEDx talk at Caltech (California Institute of Technology), MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Professor Angela Belcher talks about using viruses to grow batteries that don’t require toxic materials for their production or produce toxic materials themselves. It’s similar to biomimicry in that the reference point is nature but rather than trying to simulate nature using synthetic materials this work focuses on tweaking nature so that something like a virus can be used to create something new, e.g., a battery, a solar cell, etc.

 

A Sept. 25, 2011 article by Karen Weintraub on the BBC News website offers further insight into Belcher’s work,

Prof Belcher’s work unites the inanimate world of simple chemicals with proteins made by living creatures, a mash-up of the living and the lifeless.

She is motivated, she says, by a simple question: “How do you give life to non-living things?”

Like the abalone collecting its materials in shallow water and then laying them down like bricks in a wall, Belcher takes basic chemical elements from the natural world: carbon, calcium, silicon, zinc. Then she mixes them with simple, harmless viruses whose genes have been reprogrammed to promote random variations.

The resulting new materials just might address some of our most vexing problems.

The distinctiveness of Prof Belcher’s work, colleagues say, lies in her use of biology to synthesise new materials for such a wide range of uses, to develop an entirely new method for producing entirely novel materials.

“Her methodologies for directing and assembling materials I think will be unique,” says Yet-Ming Chiang, an MIT professor who collaborates with Prof Belcher on battery research. “I think 50 years from now, we’ll look back on biology as an important part of the toolkit in manufacturing… we’ll look back and say this is one of the fundamental tools we developed in this century.”

As I’ve been thinking about life/nonlife (in the context of human enhancement and memristors), this works offers me additional food for thought. Meanwhile, the TEDx talk and the Weintraub article point to some of the vast difference between scientists and lay people (general public). Belcher references life/nonlife quite casually, almost in passing. This could be quite disturbing to folks who believe there’s a distinct difference. The disturbances don’t stop there.

In the first place, viruses do not have a good reputation. When you add in the problems with calling your work biotechnology (as Belcher does in her TEDx talk), the stage is set for some interesting possibilities. If that isn’t enough, Belcher’s work comes perilously close to Eric Drexler’s self-assembling nano entities and the spectre of ‘grey’ or ‘green’ goo. It’s been a while since the big scares over genetically modified organisms (GMO), I wonder if scientists have forgotten or perhaps they don’t realize just how much conflicting (and often frightening) information is still being pushed at the general public. As for breaching the life/nonlife boundaries, that could be a whole other mess.

Australians, nanotechnology, and public perception

Friday, August 26th, 2011

The Australian government has released a study showing not only that Australians feel positively towards nanotechnology but those feelings have increased over time. From the August 26, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Australians are increasingly positive about nanotechnology, in particular its potential to improve our lives, according to a study (“Australian Community Attitudes Held about Nanotechnology – Trends 2005-2011″) by independent company Market Attitude Research Services.

Releasing the findings of a study of public attitudes towards nanotechnologies, Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr said the Gillard Labor Government was working with researchers and industry to ensure the benefits of nanotechnology were realised, while ensuring any risks were identified and managed.

“This study is the fifth conducted since 2005 and in that time we have found the understanding of nanotechnology is increasing,” Senator Carr said.

“Seventy-six per cent of those surveyed said they were aware of nanotechnology, compared to 51 per cent in 2005.

I’m particularly interested in the exceptionally high level of nanotechnology awareness there is in Australia. The latest (2008) figures I have for the US indicate that public awareness hovers at 30% as it has since 2005 (Sept. 28, 2009 news item on Nanowerk). From most of the material I’ve read, public awareness about nanotechnology is considered quite low in North America (Canada and the US [I've not seen any information about Mexico]) and Europe.

I have looked at the Australian report (the version I found is a short report on a series of slides) and there is no speculation about how such a high level of awareness was achieved. There are no references to any other studies about nanotechnology awareness in other countries or regions (in fact, no references at all).

The version of the report I’ve read is a fairly quick read (19 slides) which notes methodological changes year to year. I would have liked to have seen all of the questions in the order in which they were asked in the survey of 1100 Australians so that I might better understand the results.

Australians were strongly in favour of nanotechnology for medical purposes in common with the British who also expressed favourable views for medical uses of nanotechnology in their own earlier study. Australians were also quite positive about nanotechnology for use in  environmental clean up efforts.

From the August 26, 2011 news item on Nanowerk,

Improved medical treatments and preventions attracted the highest levels of support (90 per cent) followed by improved technologies for the environment (87 per cent).

Interestingly there was a study from North Carolina State University which suggests that the public tends to view nanotechnology (when they have any awareness of it) in a more positive than negative light. From my April 14, 2011 posting,

A new study (“Comparing nanoparticle risk perceptions to other known EHS risks” [published online in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research, DOI: 10.1007/s11051-011-0325, behind a paywall]) finds that the general public thinks getting a suntan poses a greater public health risk than nanotechnology or other nanoparticle applications. The study, from North Carolina State University, compared survey respondents’ perceived risk of nanoparticles with 23 other public-health risks.

I haven’t seen anything yet that offers an in depth analysis of why the public would adopt this positive attitude toward nanotechnology.