Tag Archives: Kathleen Eggleson

US Federal Bureau of Investigation talked nano at the University of Notre Dame

A Sept. 2012 US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) workshop held at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana) has spawned an article about ‘dual-use’ nanotechnology by Professor Kathleen Eggleson of the University of Notre Dame’s Center for Nano Science and Technology, from the Jan. 25, 2013 news release on EurekAlert,

Every day scientists learn more about how the world works at the smallest scales. While this knowledge has the potential to help others, it’s possible that the same discoveries can also be used in ways that cause widespread harm.

A new article in the journal Nanomedicine, born out of a Federal Bureau of Investigation workshop held at the University of Notre Dame in September 2012, tackles this complex “dual-use” aspect of nanotechnology research.

Here are the specifics,

The report examines the potential for nano-sized particles (which are measured in billionths of a meter) to breach the blood-brain barrier, the tightly knit layers of cells that afford the brain the highest level of protection—from microorganisms, harmful molecules, etc.—in the human body. Some neuroscientists are purposefully engineering nanoparticles that can cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) so as to deliver medicines in a targeted and controlled way directly to diseased parts of the brain.

At the same time, the report notes, “nanoparticles designed to cross the BBB constitute a serious threat…in the context of combat.” For example, it is theorized that “aerosol delivery” of some nano-engineered agent in “a crowded indoor space” could cause serious harm to many people at once.

The problem of dual-use research was highlighted last year when controversy erupted over the publication of findings that indicate how, with a handful modifications, the H5N1 influenza virus (“bird flu”) can be altered in a way that would enable it to be transmitted between mammalian populations.

After a self-imposed one-year moratorium on this research, several laboratories around the world announced that they will restart the work in early 2013.

The FBI is actively responding to these developments in the scientific community.

This is what the FBI and Eggleson have to say about the relation between science and law enforcement,

“The law enforcement-security community seeks to strengthen the existing dialogue with researchers,” William So of the FBI’s Biological Countermeasures Unit says in the study.

“Science flourishes because of the open and collaborative atmosphere for sharing and discussing ideas. The FBI believes this model can do the same for our two communities…[and] create effective safeguards for science and national interests.”

The scientists and engineers who conduct nanoscale research have the ability and responsibility to consider the public safety aspects of their research and to act to protect society when necessary, argues Eggleson.

“The relationship between science and society is an uneasy one, but it is undeniable on the whole and not something any individual can opt out of in the name of progress for humanity’s benefit,” she says.

“Thought about dual-use, and action when appropriate, is inherent to socially responsible practice of nanobiomedical science.”

Here’s a citation and link to Eggleson’s article,

Dual-use nanoresearch of concern: Recognizing threat and safeguarding the power of nanobiomedical research advances in the wake of the H5N1 controversy by Kathleen Eggleson. In Nanomedicine: Nanotechnology, Biology and Medicine (article in press) advance article published online 17 January 2013.

This article is behind a paywall. There are two abstracts, one is a standard text-based abstract and the other is a graphical abstract,

Graphical Abstract 

From deliberate translocation of nanoparticles across the blood-brain barrier to virulence factors in the genomic era, this article argues that issues of dual-use or DURC are pertinent to the broader scientific community. Awareness of potential misuse, and communicative action when warranted, is of particular importance for nanobiomedical researchers.

GraphicalAbstractjpg

65 + and another poll about nanotechnology awareness

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.