Tag Archives: social science

Brown University (US) gets big bucks to study effect on nanomaterials on human health

Leave a reply

In over seven years of blogging about nanotechnology, this is the most active funding period for health and environmental effects impacts I’ve seen yet. A Sept. 26, 2015 news item on Azonano features another such grant,

With a new federal grant of nearly $10.8 million over the next five years, Brown University researchers and students in the Superfund Research Program (SRP) will be able to advance their work studying how toxicant exposures affect health, how such exposures occur, how nanotechnologies could contain contamination, and how to make sure those technologies are safe.

A Sept. 24, 2015 Brown University news release, which originated the news item, describes of Brown’s SRP work already underway and how this new grant will support it,

“There is more research to be performed,” said Kim Boekelheide, program director, professor of pathology and laboratory medicine, and fellow of the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society (IBES). “Our scientific theme is integrated biomedical and engineering solutions to regulatory uncertainty, using interdisciplinary approaches to attack the really difficult contamination problems that matter.”

The program is pursuing four integrated projects. In one led by Boekelheide, a team is looking at the physiological effects of exposure to toxicants like trichloroethylene on the male reproductive system. In particular he hopes to find the subtle differences in biomolecular markers in sperm that could allow for very early detection of exposure. Meanwhile in another line of research, Eric Suuberg, professor of engineering, is studying how vapors from toxic material releases can re-emerge from the soil entering into buildings built at or near the polluted sites — and why it is hard to predict the level of exposure that inhabitants of these buildings may suffer.

In another project, Robert Hurt, an IBES fellow, SRP co-primary investigator and professor of engineering, is studying how graphene, an atomically thin carbon material, can be used to block the release and transport of toxicants to prevent human exposures. Hurt is also collaborating with Agnes Kane, an IBES fellow and chair and professor of pathology and laboratory medicine, who is leading a study of nanomaterial effects on human health, so they can be designed and used safely in environmental and other applications.

The program will also continue the program’s community outreach efforts in which they work and share information with communities near the state’s Superfund-designated and Brownfield contaminated sites. Scott Frickel, an IBES fellow and associate professor of sociology, is the new leader of community engagement. The program also includes a research translation core in which researchers share their findings and expertise with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state agencies, and professionals involved in contamination management and cleanup. A training core provides opportunities for interdisciplinary research, field work, and industry “externships” for graduate students in engineering, pathobiology, and social sciences at Brown.

It’s good to see they are integrating social sciences into this project although I hope they aren’t attempting this move as a means to coopt and/or stifle genuine dissent and disagreement by giving a superficial nod to the social sciences and public engagement  while wending on their merry way.

Frames, nanotechnology and public opinion

Leave a reply

Frames, you find them on paintings and windows and you find them in the social sciences.As per the Wikipedia essay on Erving Goffman and his book Frame Analysis,

This book was Goffman’s way of trying to explain how conceptual frames structure the individual’s perception of the society; therefore, this book is about organization of experiences rather than organization of society. Frames organize the experiences and guide action for the individual and/or for everyone. Frame analysis, then, is the study of organization of social experiences. One example that Goffman used to help people better understand the concept is associating the frame with the concept of a picture frame. He used the picture frame concept to illustrate how people use the frame (which represents structure) to hold together their picture (which represents the context) of what they are experiencing in their life. The most basic frames are called primary frameworks. These frameworks take an experience or an aspect of a scene of an individual that would originally be meaningless and make it to become meaningful. One type of primary framework is natural frameworks, which identifies situations that happened in the natural world, and is completely physical with no human influences. The other type of framework is social framework, which explains events and connects it to humans. An example of natural framework would be the weather and an example of social framework would be the meteorologist who reports people with the weather forecast. Goffman concentrates more on the frameworks and tries to “construct a general statement regarding the structure, or form, of experiences individuals have at any moment of their social life”. [Note: I have removed the footnote numbers, see the essay for them.]

I’m mentioning frames as I’ve seen them referred to in some of the literature about nanotechnology and other emerging technologies and how people form opinions about them.  Specifically,it’s  the topic of one of Matthew Nibet’s latest postings on his new blog, Age of Engagement on his new home site, Big Think. From Nisbet’s August 20, 2910 posting (Study: In Communicating about Nano and GMOs, Do the Frames or the Facts Matter?),

Framing is an unavoidable aspect of human communication. There is no such thing as unframed information. On science-related issues, this idea is difficult to grasp for some advocates and scientists who still view communication through the lens of what scholars call the “deficit model” which assumes that opinion formation is a direct consequence of knowledge (or alternatively ignorance). If the public only better understood the facts of a scientific topic they would more likely view the issue as scientists do and controversy would go away.

Nisbet mentions this in the context of a specific study by Northwestern University researchers James Druckman and Toby Bolsen in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Communication.

On election day in 2008, Druckman and Bolsen assembled 20 teams of students to conduct exit polls of 621 voters in the Chicago region, querying voters on their perceptions of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and genetically-modified foods (GMOs). For the interviews, voters were randomly assigned to separate frame and issue conditions.

For different groups of voters, CNTs or GMOS were defined using either a “fact” free frame or fact-based frame, with an emphasis on either benefits or risks. In the case of CNTs, respondents were read the following introduction followed by one of the following frames, depending on their assigned experimental condition. A similar method was used on GMOs (see the paper for more details):

One of the most pressing issues facing the nation—as has been clear from the election—concerns the limitations to our energy supply (e.g., with regard to coal, oil and natural gas). One approach to addressing this issue is to rely more on carbon nanotubes or CNTs. CNTs are tiny graphite with distinct chemical properties. They efficiently convert sunlight into electricity, and thus, serve as an alternative to coal, oil, and natural gas. The uncertain long-term effects of CNTs are the subject of continued study and debate.

Fact Free Benefits of Nanotechnology

Most agree that the most important implication of CNTs concerns how they will affect energy cost and availability. A recent study on cost and availability showed that CNTs will double the efficiency of solar cells in the coming years.

Fact Free Risks of Nanotechnology

Most agree that the most important implication of CNTs concerns their unknown long-run implications for human health.

Fact-based Benefits of Nanotechnology

A recent study on cost and availability showed that CNTs will double the efficiency of solar cells in the coming years.

Fact-based Risks of Nanotechnology

A recent study on health showed that mice injected with large quantities of CNTs reacted in the same way as they do when injected with asbestos.

…

We find at every stage of the decision-making process, the processing of factual information is fraught with imperfections. First, facts have limited impact on initial opinions—no greater than alternative considerations including values and perceptions about science credibility (also see, e.g., Scheufele & Lewenstein 2005). Second, we find that when provided with frames that lack factual information and frames that include facts, individuals do not privilege the facts (also see, e.g., Nisbet & Mooney, 2007). Facts do not enhance frame strength (although facts do have effects equivalent to that of frames without facts). Third, once they form initial opinions, individuals process new factual information in a biased manner (also see, e.g., Kahan et al., 2008). Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing dispositions.

Of course ours is just one study on two particular technologies, and as a result, caution needs to be taken in generalizing. It does seem clear, however, that factual information is not always as it appears (to a neutral observer). Our results suggest that the best route to facilitate reasonable opinion formation may be to provide alternative ways of thinking about new technologies—that is, different frames—and then to encourage individuals to weigh these frames against one another. Under distinct circumstances, facts may play a more salient and less biased role.

I find this study a little confusing because they seem to be using at least two meanings for frames/framing. There’s both topical framing, i.e., fact-based vs nonfact-based with regard to how nanotechnology information is framed and an individual’s more comprehensive framing strategy which is derived from their values and beliefs.  (Note: I’ve read the preliminary paper which Nisbet makes available in the August 20, 2010 posting.)

Another element which always niggles at me in these kinds of studies is that people have  responded in a similar fashion to previously emerging technologies such as electricity and telephony (see Carolyn Marvin’s book, When old technologies were new, for some insights into the concerns and ‘cultural’ wars that ensued).  The question I keep asking myself is, what does understanding the process of framing in the context of accepting emerging technologies do for us? Humans have accepted any number of technological innovations  over the millenia while expressing many of the same concerns we do now without all this probing analysis and discussion of frames. What purpose is there to understanding framing strategies?

As for the suggestion that science literacy is neither here nor there, I’m not sure I’m ready to accept that but then I imagine the researchers would point out that my own framing strategy is what compels me to reject that notion.

One other thing, I found their ‘facts’ lacking. The information about the mice and CNTs with regard to nanotechnology risks is very minimal and frankly it wouldn’t be enough to convince of me of anything.

There’s gold in them thar nano hills; study on nanotechnology practices; robot actresses in Korea

Leave a reply

The World Gold Council has released a paper, Gold for Good: gold and nanotechnology in the age of innovation which highlights the many benefits of using gold nanoparticles in areas ranging from medicine to the environment. From the news item on Azonano,

The report, which was produced in conjunction with Cientifica Ltd, the world’s leading source of global business and investor intelligence about nanotechnologies, demonstrates how gold nanoparticles offer the potential to overcome many of the serious issues facing mankind over the coming decades.

Gold nanoparticles exhibit a variety of unique properties which, when harnessed and manipulated effectively, lead to materials whose uses are both far-ranging in their potential and cost effective. This report explores the many different applications that are being developed across the fields of health, environment and technology.

I found the report a useful (and rosy) overview of gold nanoparticles, their various benefits, and their potential for business investors as to be expected when one of the report’s authors is Tim Harper of the TNT Blog and principal of Cientifica. The report can be found here.

Michael Berger over at Nanowerk has written up a spotlight feature on a study about safety practices in  nanotechnology laboratories that was published in Feb. 2010 in Nature Nanotechnology.  From Nanowerk,

Published in the February issue of Nature Nanotechnology (“Reported nanosafety practices in research laboratories worldwide”), Jesus Santamaria, who heads the Nanostructured Films and Particles (NFP) Group at the University of Zaragoza, and his team have conducted an online survey to identify what safety practices researchers are following in their own labs.

“The results of our survey indicate that environmental health and safety practice in many research laboratories worldwide is lacking in several important aspects, and several reasons may contribute to this” Santamaria tells Nanowerk. “Toxicity of nanomaterials is a complex subject because it depends on multiple factors including size, surface area, chemical composition, shape, aggregation, surface coating and solubility. Furthermore, most published research emphasizes acute toxicity and mortality, rather than chronic exposure and morbidity.”

Meanwhile, Andrew Maynard at 2020 Science has written up a pointed critique. From Andrew,

Out of all those researchers surveyed who thought the materials they were using might become airborne at some stage, 21% didn’t use any form of “special protection” and 30% didn’t use respiratory protection.  Yet there is no way of telling from the survey whether “special protection” (the authors’ terminology) was needed, or indeed whether any respiratory protection was needed.  A researcher handling small amounts of fumed silica for example – used as a food additive amongst other places – might well handle it using established lab safety procedures that are entirely adequate and don’t include the use of a respirator – in this survey they would be classed in the category of “most researchers” not using “suitabe personal and laboratory protection.”

Unfortunately the Nature Nanotechnology article is behind a paywall but it is worth looking at Andrew’s critique both for the insight it gives you into laboratory practices and for a better understanding of the problems posed by the questions in the survey. Properly framing questions and the answers respondents get to choose from is one of the most difficult aspects of creating a questionnaire.

Andrew never mentions it and I can’t get past the paywall to find out but the questionnaire (or instrument as it’s often called) should have been tested before it was used. I suspect it was not. That said, testing won’t necessarily identify all the problems once you start dealing with a larger sample but it should help.

I have a couple of other comments. I didn’t see any mention of demographic information. For example, are they more careful in smaller labs or does lab size make any difference in safety processes? Does age or experience as a researcher have an impact? Are chemists more careful than physicists? Are men more careful than women or vice versa?

My second comment has to do with self-selected respondents. Why did these people respond to a survey? Generally, if you are surveying people about an issue, the most likely to respond are the ones who feel most strongly about the issue and this can give you a false picture of the general population. In other words, your sample is not generalizable. I don’t think that’s necessarily the situation here but it is a factor that needs to be taken into account. I would expect most social scientists (I gather the Spanish team is not composed of social scientists) to use a number of instruments and not just a self-reporting survey although that may be the first step as more work is undertaken.

I should mention the GoodNanoGuide as sharing handling and safety practices are the reasons this site was developed by the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON). From their website,

The GoodNanoGuide is a collaboration platform designed to enhance the ability of experts to exchange ideas on how best to handle nanomaterials in an occupational setting.

Now for something completely different, Korean robot actresses. From the news item on physorg.com,

EveR-3 (Eve Robot 3) starred in various dramas last year including the government-funded “Dwarfs” which attracted a full house, said Lee Ho-Gil, of the state-run Korea Institute of Industrial Technology.

The lifelike EveR-3 is 157 centimetres (five feet, two inches) tall, can communicate in Korean and English, and can express a total of 16 facial expressions — without ever forgetting her lines. Lee acknowledged that robot actresses find it hard to express the full gamut of emotions and also tend to bump into props and fellow (human) actors. But he said a thespian android was useful in promoting the cutting-edge industry.

Here’s a shot of the robot actress as Snow White (from physorg.com where you can see a larger version if you wish),

Courtesy of the Korean Institute of Technology, Eve Robot 3 in costume for Robot Princess and 7 Dwarfs

That’s it.