backtop


Print 15 comment(s) - last by LatinMessiah.. on Apr 3 at 12:39 PM


Britain's Council for Science and Technology newly published report calls attention to underfunding of studies into the possible risks of nanotechnology.
Britain's top science watchdog group is calling for closer inspection of the potential health and environmental risks of nanotechnology

In a government report released this week, the Council for Science and Technology (CST) warned that promised government funds to study possible adverse effects of new nanotechnology have not materialized. Specifically, the report called attention to the administration's lack of progress on funding research into toxicology, health and environmental effects of nanomaterials.

In fact, during the last five years, the UK government has spent an average of only £600,000 ($1.2 million USD) annually to research adverse impacts of nanomaterials. The amount represents a small fraction of the funding the administration has poured into developmental research and efforts to commercialize nanotechnology products, the report says.

The meager effort to study risks associated with nanotechnology into the British Isles amounts to "virtually nothing," concluded Professor Sir John Beringer (PDF), who chaired the CST sub-committee which carried out the review. To bolster production of nanomaterials without adequately addressing potential impacts to health and safety is dangerous, the report concludes.

The promise of nanotechnology, creating and manipulating materials on a microscopic or even atomic scale, has fired the imagination of both industry and science communities worldwide. The independent Lux Research group estimates that sales of products containing nanomaterials exceeded $32 billion in 2005 alone. However, research has shown that normally inert materials can pose a danger when reduced to the nanoparticle level. For example, nanoparticles of gold have been observed bonding with DNA. The potential effects of such interaction with living organisms is still largely unknown.

The CST report also found that Britain may be falling behind in the development of new technologies and products in this fast-moving field. "In 2004 the UK was seen as a world leader in its engagement with nanotechnologies. It is now widely believed to have lost that leading position," Beringer said.





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

DNA Bonding
By ahkey on 3/31/2007 5:38:34 AM , Rating: 3
"For example, nanoparticles of gold have been observed bonding with DNA. The potential effects of such interaction with living organisms is still largely unknown."

I don't want to reduce the impact of what is clearly an important issue in terms of health risks but.. "Midas Maaan!"




RE: DNA Bonding
By yacoub on 3/31/2007 10:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
I LIKE... GOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLD


RE: DNA Bonding
By collegeguypat on 3/31/2007 11:58:49 AM , Rating: 2
Austin Powers; they should have made more of those movies, they were great.


RE: DNA Bonding
By LatinMessiah on 4/3/2007 12:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Bling-Bling.


RE: DNA Bonding
By KernD on 3/31/2007 10:25:04 AM , Rating: 1
Lead is poisonous, guess how gold going to be to your health? there both heavy metals, none of those are good for your health.

If it bonds with DNA you can expect cancer at least.


RE: DNA Bonding
By masher2 on 3/31/2007 12:00:35 PM , Rating: 1
Roughly 50% of all chemicals known to man are carcinogenic...in a high enough concentration. This includes tens of millions of chemicals found naturally within the foods we eat.


RE: DNA Bonding
By TheTerl on 3/31/2007 12:07:03 PM , Rating: 3
That's not really a fair comparison. Gold is one of the most inert metals in existence, while lead is highly reactive in your body. The problem they mention with gold is more a function of the particle size. When you make a nanoparticle of anything, it has such a large surface area (relative to the volume) that it will pretty much stick to anything. That's one of the toughest parts of working with nanotechnology. If you're not excruciatingly careful, all the nanoparticles clump together and you're left with a few big particles.


RE: DNA Bonding
By DokGonzo on 3/31/2007 5:03:22 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, the most significant biological threat from nanotechnology is the fact that at those sizes particles move through cell membranes with ease, and introducing that kind of cell contamination on such a scale can potentially have devastating effects on living organisms. Further research (and lots of it!) is definitely needed before this kind of technology becomes mainstream.


RE: DNA Bonding
By MarkHark on 3/31/2007 6:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the exact same thing.


Finance RESEARCH
By crystal clear on 3/31/2007 1:58:18 AM , Rating: 2
"estimates that sales of products containing nanomaterials exceeded $32 billion in 2005 alone"

Then let the mnaufacturers of these products put aside
1% of their total sales on a yearly basis,to be donated to some universites doing research on this.

This ofcourse should be TAX Deductable.
Atleast a START in the right direction.




RE: Finance RESEARCH
By crystal clear on 3/31/2007 2:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
"mnaufacturers '- sorry should read" manufacturers"

Also-

Just like Many years ago-Cigarette manufacturers should have (now we realize it).....
been forced or should have volountarily donated a certain percentage of their Total Sales (not Profits)to Medical RESEARCH about the HARMFUL EFFECTS OF SMOKING.


RE: Finance RESEARCH
By AndreasM on 3/31/2007 7:35:51 AM , Rating: 3
We should also put aside one percent of the total sales of monitors to medical RESEARCH about the HARMFUL EFFECTS OF READING TEH INTERNETS.

While I agree that it's good to make sure new technologies are safe to use, I'd have to say that taxing and then using 320 million dollars per year on said research would be a bit excessive.


RE: Finance RESEARCH
By ghost101 on 3/31/2007 9:12:53 AM , Rating: 2
You cant just force a firm to put money aside for research into such research by telling them to. You have internalise the externality so that they have an incentive to do so. The establishment of proper property rights will do that. Perhaps a regulatory body, but only because id rather we avoid taxation.


RE: Finance RESEARCH
By Ringold on 3/31/07, Rating: 0
suprise suprise
By otispunkmeyer on 4/2/2007 3:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In a government report released this week, the Council for Science and Technology (CST) warned that promised government funds to study possible adverse effects of new nanotechnology have not materialized .


yeah, sounds about right for our government. unless its themselves or the civil service...or perhaps new speed bumps and speed cameras.....

or maybe something to do with health and safety, political correctness, bending over to the will of the muslim community, pushing yet another bollocks CO2, 4x4 agenda or any other fruitless way to spend tax payers money, the gov wont spend.

Gordon Browns new budget has had a few weeks to be digested and it turns out that its a complete joke.




"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone
Related Articles
A Call for Nanopollution Awareness
January 19, 2007, 1:50 AM













botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki