Tag Archives: Pekka Sinervo

Nanotechnology, toxicity, and sunscreens

Leave a reply

You don’t expect to read about nanotechnology in a fashion magazine but there it was — in an article on sunscreens by Sarah Nicole Prickett. (The article titled, ‘Overprotected‘ can be found in the Summer 09 issue of a Canadian magazine called ‘Fashion‘.) The piece highlighted for me some of the constraints that writers encounter when writing about science issues in articles that are not destined for popular science magazines and the concerns that scientists have with how their work is represented in popular media.

I enjoyed the article but this caught my attention immediatedly,

But there’s another potentially dark side to sunscreen: nanotechnology.

For nanotechnology, you could substitute the words science or chemistry. The word covers  a lot of ground as Victor Jones, consultant and former chair of Nanotech BC, noted in part 2 of his interview here where he described it as an enabling technology.

There are any number of reasons why the writer might have chosen this approach. She’s trying to keep your attention (I’ve done this myself); she doesn’t understand nanotechnology very well (Note: there are competing definitions and narratives which makes it time-consuming to sort things out); she thought the readers would not be interested in a more technically accurate and dull description (well, it’s not a science magazine); she didn’t have the editorial space; etc.

The problem for scientists is that a lot of people get their science information in this casual, informal way and it’s not understood by the general audience and scientists that writers are under a great many constraints when they’re producing their articles (or their tv or movie or game scripts for that matter) and I’ve only named a few possible constraints.

To give the writer credit, she does explain some of the potential issues with nanoparticles clearly. Personally, I would have liked to have seen where she got information from because I don’t know which type of particles she’s talking about.

Coincidentally, I just found a story about nanoparticles and lung problems. The type of particles discussed in the news release are new to me (from Physorg.com),

In a study published online today (Thursday 11 June) in the newly launched Journal of Molecular Cell Biology [1] Chinese researchers discovered that a class of nanoparticles being widely developed in medicine – ployamidoamine dendrimers (PAMAMs) – cause lung damage by triggering a type of programmed cell death known as autophagic cell death. They also showed that using an autophagy inhibitor prevented the cell death and counteracted nanoparticle-induced lung damage in mice.

Back to the article in ‘Fashion‘, she’s right there are a lot of questions about the impact about all these particles potentially entering our cells. The Canadian Council of Academies’ Expert Panel that she refers to in her article produced a report in 2008 and I thought their recommendations were rather tepid (you can see my posting here) but the quote she has from the chair of the committee, Pekka Sinervo, puts a different face on it.

I’m glad a chance to see the article and learn from it. Now, I’m going to be looking for more information about the particles in sunscreens and more cautious about what I put on my skin.

As for scientists getting their message out, maybe they could have a ‘Sexy Scientists’ article in a poular magazine and more accurate information about nanotechnology and other emerging technologies could be sausaged in somehow. In New York, there’s an annual World Science Festival going on. It looks like they’ve managed to move out of the science museum and into the street.

World’s first mandatory reporting of nanotechnology use in Canada?

5 Replies

Maybe. This bit of news was first reported (near as I can tell) on the Canadian Press news wire and on the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN) website on January 28 and, after much hunting, I determined that the Canadian Press article was written by John Cotter. Earlier (Jan.12.09), I posted about a story of his here where I analyzed what seemed to be a flurry of interest in a failure by the Canadian government to respond to a nanotechnology report. This latest story would seem to be related.

Here’s the story lede from this article which is the only one I could find which included  Cotter’s byline,

Canada is poised to become the first government in the world to require companies to provide information about their use of potentially harmful nanomaterials in their products.

The other articles open with similar ledes. here (Google News) and here (CBC News).  The lede differs somewhat here (Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies [PEN]); the writer  is more nuanced in their approach.

Other than John Cotter’s authorship of the ‘source’ article this time and last, there are another couple of interesting points. The announcement is being made by PEN (located in Washington, DC) and not by any Canadian government agency. Although Environment Canada  officials did not comment directly on the PEN announcement, they did say that there is a plan to send out a notice requiring companies and institutions that used more than 1 kilogram of nanomaterial in 2008 to provide information that may include: how the nanomaterials are managed, data on chemical and physical properties, and any other information that could be helpful.

It sounds a little vague and there’s no indication that this is anything more than a once only request. Plus, I’m wondering how the officials are going to define the terms. Is one company’s quantum dot another company’s nanoparticle?

That earlier article by John Cotter citing a nanotechnology report for the Canadian government? One of its authors, Dr. Andrew Maynard, Chief Science Advisor for PEN and Dr. Pekka Sinervo, another of the authors, are the only two experts listed in this latest article.

The whole thing smacks of a campaign (public relations, communications, or whatever else you want to call it). In principle, I think it’s useful to have a registry of products using nanomaterials (unfortunately this whole project seems a bit tenuous). I also find it interesting to note how various agencies and special interest groups get their points across in the media. One final thing, the announcement on PEN’s website points to reports about how the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Administration should be applying oversight to nanotechnology use in the US.