Fluff

I have a friend, a mathematician, that rolls his eyes at any infusion of the scientific with the mystical. He would call it fluff. Fair enough.

In my life I've made an attempt to reconcile my studies and knowledge of science with other facets of my life that are no less potent, nor less important to my mind. Though there are clear conflicts between some of my scientific and spiritual ideas, there are areas of overlap and agreement. The same can be said even within the various truths of my political repertoire. For instance, universal healthcare is appealing, as is a balanced federal budget. There is conflict, dissonance here, but there can be resolution.

One of the lessons I took home from the Tao te Ching is that we can learn from, and can best experience peace, fulfillment and productivity in our lives by learning the patterns and ways of nature. As stated in the translation linked above:

Man follows the earth.
Earth follows the universe.
The universe follows the Tao.
The Tao follows only itself.

In Herman Hesse's Siddhartha (full text), the title character, toward the end of his life and spiritual journey, lives with a ferryman by a river. At one point in the narrative, Vasudeva tells Siddhartha to learn from the river.

The river has taught me to listen; you will learn from it, too. The river knows everything; one can learn everything from it.

Nature (earth, the river) is the ultimate teacher and master for us mortal folk, in that the pattern of the universe is written in the pattern of earth. Hermeticism uses the phrase As above, so below. The Lord's prayer: On earth as it is in heaven. The microcosm reflects the macrocosm. By learning and applying the patterns of the earth, we humans, if we but humble ourselves, may come closer to an understanding of the universe, the heavens, the infinite, etc.

In the West, our scientific method has evolved out of the careful study of this nature (as has science elsewhere . . . I'm a little more familiar with the evolution of Western science) . . . the revolution of cosmic spheres, the ebb and flow of the tides, the movement of air masses, the cycles of our seasons, the dance of excited particles in the auroras. Our modern studies of physics, astronomy, chemistry and biology were once lumped under the umbrella of Natural Philosophy.

If I tried to explain what scientists do to a kindergartener, I suppose I would say that we ask nature (or, the universe) questions. I suppose I would give the same answer if I were asked what a Taoist does.

To me, engineers operating in the arena of biomimicry embrace this ideal in its fullest. The idea is simple . . . let natural systems provide inspiration for technological advance. Let's learn from someone who's been doing it longer and more efficiently. We now have artificial gecko feet for climbing walls. Aerospace engineers are taking a cue from maple seeds in the design of small aerial vehicles. The medical field has its humble roots in the extraction of beneficial compounds from medicinal plants. We learn from nature.

I left secondary education to go back to the lab because I felt I had more questions to ask of nature. I look at my work through a variety of lenses and parallels. My work parallels my philosophy. My work parallels my art, photography. In my art, a lens receives reflected energy, light, from a subject and focuses it on a digital sensor. Following the conversion of that light into a series of ones and zeroes, that information is fed to a computer, which converts data back to light on a monitor, producing an image. I find some of those images beautiful. Of course, I acknowledge my bias.

In my science, I frequently place a sample of matter (a subject) I've created (sub-created, manipulated or synthesized might be more appropriate terms) in an instrument that bombards the matter with various radiation - ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, a beam of electrons - energy. The energy interacts with the sample and is either absorbed, reflected, scattered, and the energy emerging from the sample invariably reaches a digital sensor, undergoes a conversion by a computer to ones and zeroes, and, in the end, generally is rendered as an image. Some of these are more or less beautiful. Admittedly, it is difficult to admire the beauty of a ultraviolet-visible spectrum of a sample of silver nanoparticles. However, as noted in a previous post, these nanoscale objects possess a beauty that we can unlock with more sophisticated tools and methods.

As I said, the notion of learning from the universe, earth, nature resonates with both scientific and mystic centers of my brain. At this point, after the discussion of nanoparticles and spectra, you may be thinking, "That's a stretch, Sandrik. Your nanoparticles aren't natural." Fair enough, but I disagree. In recent years the distinction between man-made and natural has given my brain some trouble. Certainly, I concede that there are sub-creations of humanity that are destructive by nature, even to ourselves. However, when a robin constructs a nest, do we call it robin-made? Do we distinguish it from what is natural? If a human builds a home of timbers from the forest, is it natural? If a steel doorknob is added? If vinyl siding is added? Where do we draw the line between the natural and the unnatural? Are humans natural? I think the last question gets more to the point. Was not all the matter in humans and the home present since the earth first cooled from a cloud of gas to a molten lump to a rocky orb covered mostly with water? If anything, we are manipulators, reassemblers, sub-creators, not makers. There can be no man-made, in the fundamental sense. To me, man-made implies a certain level of arrogance.

Björk relates this idea rather well in her song "The Modern Things."

All the modern things
like cars and such
have always existed.

They've just been waiting in a mountain
for the right moment,

Listening to the irritating noises
of dinosaurs
and people
dabbling outside.

Further, I think the natural/synthetic distinction serves to divorce and isolate us from the natural world. We see ourselves as a species apart from, rather than a species, a part of the natural world, much as our egos serve to isolate us from one another.

What's the point? Does the identification of ourselves and our sub-creations as natural give us license to run roughshod and re-create nature in our likeness? I wouldn't make that argument. While I wouldn't argue that my synthesis of nanoparticles is an unnatural process, any more so than is the construction of a robin's nest, I would and have argued that a kinship with nature should guide the manner in which I use, produce, spread and commercialize these nanoparticles. I believe the old model of holding dominion over the grass, herbs, fruit trees, great whales, winged fowls, cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth has gotten us where we are today, with deteriorating air to breathe, water to drink, along with diminished diversity of living species with which to commune in the enjoyment of life.

So what, then? Is the pattern of heaven written on these nanoparticles? Probably not. But, when I watch the beaker of clear liquid turn yellow, and imagine the interplay of atoms, molecules and electrons, and observe a correspondence between that hump in the UV-Vis spectrum and the size and shape of the nanoparticles, viewing this whole process of nanoparticle synthesis and analysis in my mind's eye, from the macrocosm to the nanocosm, seeing the parts and the whole, all the while realizing that this process is but one character (in the language sense) in the script in this particular scene and act of the play that is the life of the universe, I experience what I can only describe as Zen, or enlightenment, or the touch of the Holy Spirit. The ego dissolves and I inhale and exhale in unison with the heaving cosmos. It feels similar to the solitude on the top of a mountain, or standing in the spray at the base of a waterfall. It's unity. It's a recognition of myself taking part in the life of the universe, and recognition of the life of the universe taking part in me.

I ask my questions. The universe answers.

Tribute: Buckminster Fuller

I started teaching (assisting) a summer class this week. It's CH 1000, preparatory chemistry. Basically, it's boot camp for college science. In other words, high school chemistry. My advisor tells
me I could do the recitation in my sleep, but the educator in me feels the need to prepare. Thus, my update is not as punctual as I'd like.

Anywho . . . Buckminster Fuller. Anyone who has seen a geodesic dome is familiar with his most noteworthy architectural contribution, at which he arrived quite independently of Dr. Walther Bauersfeld, who used the dome design successfully to construct a planetarium 20 years prior to Fuller's work with domes. Epcot Center represents a full geodesic sphere, of which a dome is but a partial section.

Beyond his architecture, Fuller began thinking and writing about concepts like environmental sustainability. I'll let the man speak for himself about this and other topics beyond architecture.

Does humanity have a chance to survive lastingly and successfully on planet Earth, and if so, how?

For the first time in history it is now possible to take care of everybody at a higher standard of living than any have ever known.

Only ten years ago the ‘more with less’ technology reached the point where this could be done. All humanity now has the option to become enduringly successful.

Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value.

When I am working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I've finished, if the solution isn't beautiful, I know it's wrong.

I look for what needs to be done. After all, that's how the universe designs itself.

There is nothing in a caterpillar that tells you it's going to be a butterfly.

Intuition operates in the twilight zone between conscious and subconscious.

The nearest each of us can come to God is by loving the truth.

God, to me, it seems, is a verb not a noun, proper or improper.

Ninety-nine percent of who you are is invisible and untouchable.

For the chemist, Buckminster Fuller is most known for his legacy in Fullerene chemistry. The soccer ball-shaped Buckyball, more formally the Buckminster Fullerene, is essentially a geodesic sphere composed of carbon atoms at the vertices.

Fullerene chemistry has extended beyond the Buckyball to flat sheets & tubes (carbon nanotubes). Graphene (flat sheet form) carbon has recently been exploited by researchers at UC Berkeley for its semiconducting properties.

A materials scientist here at Tech borrowed some quartz cuvettes this week so he could obtain a ultraviolet-visible spectrum of some Fullerenes in benzene. It turns out he's working on using Buckyballs in solar cells. I'll give an update when he returns the cuvettes.

Nanotech Part 3: The Pulchritude

pulchritude: noun, physical comeliness

My favorite physicist, quite possibly my favorite scientist in history, Richard Feynman is frequently credited with throwing down the gauntlet, to which nanotechnology has been the response, in his lecture "There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom."

But I am not afraid to consider the final question as to whether, ultimately---in the great future---we can arrange the atoms the way we want; the very atoms, all the way down!

While Feynman may have brought the idea of nanotech to scientific minds as an active pursuit, it should be pointed out that nanoparticles, in particular, are not inventions of the 20th century. Much as quinine has been used since the 17th century as an antimalarial without the benefit of the knowledge of its chemical structure, nanotechnology is popping up in ancient artifacts. Copper and silver nanoparticles have been discovered in Renaissance, Moorish, Persian and Mesopotamian pottery glazes to add to their lustrous finish. It also appears that 17th century Muslim Damascan swordsmiths produced sabres with incorporated carbon nanotubes.

For more on nanotech's history, see Northwestern University's History of Nano Timeline.

Whether ancient accident or modern marvel, it is accurate enough to state that the ability to appreciate nanostructures is a recent development. In the last installation of the series on nanotech, I'd like to turn the focus away from benefits and risks of objects at the nanoscale, and simply invite you to take a look at a selection of images of nanothings. Here, I'm actually asking you to do the opposite of my stated intention of this blog. I'd like you to strip the science of any context and just look. Again, I admire Feynman's scientific perspective of aesthetics.




The first exhibit in the nanoart collection is titled "The nano-grip" and is displayed with permission from Dr. Boaz Pokroy at Harvard University. It is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of 250 nm diameter epoxy bristles which have self-assembled about a 2.5 micrometer polystyrene sphere.

This image is provided courtesy of S.K. Hark at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and is titled "Field of Sunflowers." The image was obtained by SEM and consists of densely packed silica nanowires comprising the central disc (in brown) with loosely packed silica nanowires comprising ray florets (in yellow). The SEM image was colorized with graphics software. The nanowires are roughly 10 nm in diameter and are on the micrometer length scale.

Matt Bierman at University of Wisconsin-Madison (Go Badgers!) went as far as providing a description of his image, "Two Pine Trees," which I'll use with no alteration.

Spiraling pine tree-like PbS nanowires are evidence of nanowire growth driven by screw dislocations without the help of metal catalysts. The screw dislocation drives the rapid growth of the nanowire tree trunk and causes the lattice of the trunks to twist (called the “Eshelby twist”) and their epitaxial branches to spiral. See Science 320 (2008) 1060.

Pretty soon all the kids will be doing the Eshelby twist.

I should note here that I came across all of the above images at the Materials Research Society's online gallery that resulted from their "Science as Art" competitions they've held at their meetings since 2005. There, you can find all of the above images, as well as many more, available as high resolution desktop images. Of course, you should obtain permission if you wish to blog about them.

I should also note that I intended to include quite a few more images in this post over which you could ooh and aah. I was caught between two competing interests. 1) Waiting to obtain responses to inquiries seeking permission to use more images. 2) Publishing on deadline. Even though the deadlines are self-imposed, and my blog probably isn't sufficiently popular to draw the attention of the imagemakers, I went with promptness (for the sake of my legions of fans) and integrity (for whose sake?).

As such, in lieu of a page full of beautiful images, I'll round off this post with links to more nanoart image galleries online.

NanoArt 21

Nanotechnology Art Gallery hosted by Nanotechnology Now

The Nano Gallery at Northwestern University

With that, the nanotech series comes to a close, for now. Of course, new developments are made daily. Progress in the field of nanotechnology will provide plenty of promise, peril and pulchritude to keep new nanoscientists, nanoartists, nanoskeptics, nanomystics, nanopoliticians, nanolobbyists and nanojournalists busy over the century ahead. The point I'm trying to make here is that nanotechnology adds another dimension to life . . . all of it, not just the science of life . . . the cogs, pulleys, gears and other assorted machinery that keep it all in motion.

A couple of friends of mine illustrate this last point well. They are artists, musicians, thinkers, dreamers, makers. The two of them formed a musical duo, The Nanobots. You can find them on MySpace and Facebook and can listen online. One of the members, * PETER BOT *, gave the caveat, "Other than by inspiration, no actual nanotech was used to create these songs." As a relatively new nanophile, I'm just pleased that nanotech is, indeed, providing creative inspiration.

Next week, tune in for a tribute to architect, philosopher, visionary Buckminster Fuller.

Post dates

Just a quick word about the dates appearing on posts. I'm a little frustrated by it. I have hairbrained ideas and start posts, saved as drafts, revise, and post when they're complete. However, blogspot, in its infinite wisdom, records the date the post was first created, rather than its publication date.

I suppose the solution is to copy and paste the body of a post into a new post that I start on the publication date. Having figured this out now, I probably don't need to post this. I need something to make this worth reading.

Some of you who follow my Facebook posts will see some videos, images, articles recycled here. This is one of those videos of Neil deGrasse Tyson at the Beyond Belief: Science, Reason, Religion & Survival conference that took place at Salk Institute for Biological Studies in November 2006.

Nanotech Part 2: The Perils

As stated last week, nanotech offers much in the way of new-fangled doodads and googaws galore. Nanotech will likely impact everything from the fibers in our clothes, solar cells on our roofs (hopefully soon), medicine in our tissues, sports equipment, you name it. Against our nature, perhaps, I think we need to be cautious moving forward.

In discussing a recent article in Environmental Science & Technology pertaining to nano silver in socks, which are currently commercially available, with colleagues in the Michigan Tech Chemistry Department, I posed the rather naive question, "Don't manufacturers have to demonstrate that their products are safe before marketing them? Doesn't the EPA regulate this kind of thing?" You see, silver nanoparticles are embedded in socks as odor-control agents, as silver nanoparticles have demonstrated antibacterial properties. However, as demonstrated by Benn and Westerhoff in the aforementioned article, some of these socks lose their nanoparticles in the wash, posing unknown environmental risks. Ionic silver (silver atoms minus one electron) is detrimental to aquatic life. Few environmental impact studies of nanosilver exist to date.

Back to my questions about product safety tests and regulation. According to MTU Chemistry chair Dr. Sarah Green, therein lies one of the differences between new product regulation in Europe and the U.S. In the interest of deregulated "free markets" here in the States organizations like the FDA and EPA are given the onus to demonstrate an existing technology or product is dangerous before it is regulated. In Europe, the tables are turned. Manufacturers, to a larger extent than in the U.S., must demonstrate first that their products are safe before mass production and marketing begin. Now, I recognize that this is a little simplistic. I've not delved into the depths of European regulation (as if all nations on the continent are equally regulated), but that's a tangent for another post, or another blog. I welcome your comments on the matter. Regardless, I posit that rational self-interest of Laissez-faire economics is not necessarily the be all and end all model when it comes to safeguarding human and environmental health. Let us consider Somalia.



But this blog isn't about capitalism, socialism, communism, name your ism. Let's take a look at some more risks and threats posed by nanotechnology, should the science be treated irresponsibly, or worse, maliciously.

Fictional peril
As promised, let's take some of our fears about nanotech to some absurd conclusions. With a little help from my friends, I've looked at nanotech through a pop culture, science fiction lens to bring some nanotech nightmare scenarios to light. Quoth the Wikipedia:

Grey goo is a hypothetical end-of-the-world scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating robots consume all matter on Earth while building more of themselves—a scenario known as ecophagy ("eating the environment").

The concept was introduced by Eric Drexler in his 1986 book Engines of Creation (click for a free HTML version), a hopeful, as well as cautionary tale of the burgeoning field of nanotech. Whether the nanobots responsible are released in an act of nanoterrorism, or simply an experiment gone haywire, perpetuators of the scenario envision these tiny machines/organisms devouring all manner of organic and inorganic matter and rearranging it in order to produce more of itself. In extreme scenarios, the wave of nanobots could spread beyond our planet and devour solar systems, galaxies, etc. As I've had my cable television service shut off for most of the past year, and have read little other than current research journal articles and textbooks in the last two years, I've become a bit out of touch with pop culture. I recently solicited references to nanotechnology in pop culture on Facebook and received quite a few responses, some of which I was familiar with but had forgotten.

One was a novel entitled Prey by Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and renowned technophobe. I'll add a caveat here that I've not read the book myself. Crichton spins a cautionary tale about the knitting together of three burgeoning technologies, namely nanotech, artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. In the course of the story, swarms of nanobots invade human hosts, alter their behavior, kill wild animals, learn, evolve, even coalesce into human doppelgangers. Apparently, this is not a story of a mindless herd, merely digesting and reproducing, but a purposeful, sentient organism bent on destruction. Chris Phoenix, co-founder of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, wrote a particularly acidic critique of Prey in 2003, published online at Nanotechnology Now. The following quote summarizes his thoughts pretty well.

He might succeed in scaring people; a friend of mine who's a geneticist told me that Jurassic Park set back public perception of genetic engineering by a decade. This would be unfortunate, because the Prey scenario contains so many implausibilities--and impossibilities--that in the end, the reader will have learned nothing about the actual risks of nanotech.

Now, to be fair, Michael Crichton was writing a novel, not a review article on the state-of-the-art in nanotechnology. However, to be fair, Michael Crichton has an agenda. As a best-selling author, he makes use of his soap box, much as I am making use of my soap box now. I think he and I would agree that we should be cautious of the greedy and powerful running amok with emerging technologies. I think it is a mistake, however, to make a case through appeals to fear . . . scaring the public and policymakers into making decisions about a particular science by inventing or perpetuating nightmarish fantasies. It is interesting to note that while obfuscating the risks associated with nanotechnology, Crichton undermines climate science by associating belief in extraterrestrials with belief in global warming, de-emphasizing genuine risks to human and environmental health.

In the interest of brevity, I won't dedicate as much time to other cultural references. I'd really like to get around to talking about what I actually meant to talk about here in a few paragraphs. Briefly, in the newest incarnation of The Day the Earth Stood Still, an extraterrestrial intelligence releases a swarm of insatiably hungry, insect-like nanobots with the intent to consume humanity, as well as its ballparks. In the computer game Deus Ex, players enhance their characters with nanotech augmentations, granting them superhuman powers and skills. The game also has as part of its plotline a synthetic and lethal virus called "Gray Death," no doubt a nod to Drexler's grey goo. Start Trek: The Next Generation featured an episode titled "Evolution," in which the precocious Wesley Crusher accidentally releases cooperative, evolving nanites into the Enterprise where they wreak havoc, but eventually negotiate a peace with Captain Jean Luc Picard.

Factual Peril
As Chris Phoenix pointed out in the above review, fictional accounts and pseudoscience do the science a disservice by distracting, and in some cases misleading the public about real risk. As with fictional risk, factual risk is a broad field, which I will only touch upon here. However, resources below will provide days of digging for the diligent and curious mind.

Nanotechnology Citizen Engagement Organization (NanoCEO) maintains an extremely thorough and organized list of risk resources associated with nanotech. One can start with reviews, studies on environmental effects, then narrow down and search studies categorized by type of nanomaterial, type of health effect, occupational safety, bio-nanotech, nanotech products, and agriculture & food. Let's take a look at just a couple of studies.

In 2005, Günter, Eva and Jan Oberdörster published a review of work in the newly forming and rapidly expanding field of nanotoxicology in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. They conclude that far more work has yet to be done prior to forming a meaningful risk assessment of nanotech, along with meaningful regulation. While calling for a multidisciplinary approach to building a body of knowledge on nanoparticle toxicity, the Oberdörsters urge parallel development of new technologies and evaluation of their risks. Currently, regulators do not distinguish, for example, nanosilver from silver in a necklace or electronics, treating them equally. However, it is specifically because nanomaterial properties differ from their bulk material counterparts that make them novel and useful in new materials. Otherwise, we might keep our socks from stinking by depositing a few dimes before inserting our feet. As such, regulatory bodies must consider that a given nanomaterial's toxicity may well differ from that of the bulk material, and thus, may require specific regulation. The following figure (posted with the author's permission) represents Oberdörsters' risk assessment and management paradigm for nanoparticles.

The Oberdörsters point to existing biokinetic studies (reaction rates with living systems) as a foundation upon which to build the field of nanotoxicology. These studies show that nanoparticles avoid our body's defenses and are easily deposited and absorbed through our respiratory tract and skin, and are transported throughout the body by the network of lymph nodes. If nanoparticles make it to the blood, they are readily spread to the liver, spleen, bone marrow, heart and other organs. In the end, the authors urge further research into nanoparticle toxicity.

Beyond human health impacts, we ought to be concerned with the impact of nanotech on the larger biosphere. Matthew 25:40 states:

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

There may be Christians that would make the argument that it is a misinterpretation of scripture to consider fish, trees, lions, fungus, bacteria to be the brethren of the divine. That's okay. The character Morpheus summed up my feelings on the matter well in The Matrix Reloaded.

Commander Lock: Dammit, Morpheus. Not everyone believes what you believe.
Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.

Regardless of your spiritual kinship with nature, there are pragmatic reasons to avoid destroying ecosystems. Ween put it succinctly in the title of their song "Don't Shit Where You Eat."

To that end, in January 2009, Farré et al. published a review in Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry titled "Ecotoxicity and analysis of nanomaterials in the aquatic environment." The authors summarize findings from hundreds of studies, citing and quantifying effects of various nanomaterials on a viariety of species. Just a few examples are decreased hatch rates of zebrafish in the presence of silver nanoparticles, respiratory toxicity and neorotoxicity of rainbow trout in the presence of carbon nanotubes (see image at right), a number of toxic effects on Daphnias (preyed upon by a number of Great Lakes fish) by carbon Fullerenes (see below). Titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles also demonstrated toxicity toward the Daphnias.

Aside from toxicological effects on humans and other species, there are economic, political and social implications for nanotechnology. The aforementioned Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has outlined Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing. CRN defines molecular manufacturing as:

Molecular manufacturing (MM) means the ability to build devices, machines, and eventually whole products with every atom in its specified place.

Their assessment of risks are focused the development of personal nanofactories, with which new products may dreamt, prototyped and mass produced where and when they are needed. Industrial age manufacturing, warehousing, shipping become obsolete in this model, as do a number of jobs. As manufacturing and distribution of goods become easier, the potential for markup and profitability of the masters of nanotech skyrockets. We just have to look at the recording industry to illustrate the point. A CD costs less than $1 to produce, but retails at $15-20.

As with weapons of mass destruction, there is concern over the technology falling into the hands of those that would do violence to civilization. Even conventional weapons might be produced cheaply and quickly and enter the black market. Chemical and biological agents could be manufactured from existing feedstocks on the site of an attack and released remotely.

As we saw after the attacks of September 11, 2001, there is the potential for extreme countermeasures to the risks described above. Further erosion of civil liberties and increased surveillance of citizenry is a conceivable response to an attack resulting from nanotech. Ironically, nanotech would certainly aid in construction of new devices to aid in surveillance efforts. Nanotech weapons employed by governments have the capacity to trigger an arms race among competing nations with unknowable consequences. The nuclear arms race is incomparable to a nanoarms race, as a variety of factors distinguish the two. 1) Nuclear arms are more destructive in the long-term from fallout and contamination, whereas these effects could be mitigated in a nanoweapon. 2) Nuclear weapons are not selective in their targets. 3) Nuclear weapons development is easily tracked and has a longer lead time between prototyping to deployment. 4) Nuclear weapons cannot be delivered in advance of deployment. It is likely a nanoarms race would destabilize international relations.

The authors at CRN state that these are complex problems with complex solutions, that will take time to develop, and should be undertaken now. To that end, they point to Thirty Essential Nanotechnology Studies. This is not a review of studies conducted, but a review of studies that must be conducted soon, within months, in parallel, and confirmed. Essentially, CRN sees a looming crisis that can be averted with adequate forethought and planning. In my humble opinion, adequate forethought and planning are not humanity's strongest suits (see asbestos).

Regardless, Chris Phoenix and Eric Drexler have provided us some pointers in the right direction in their opinion piece "Safe Exponential Manufacturing" published in the journal Nanotechnology in 2004. I present the link with no commentary. The PDF is a free download.

Nanotech and Culture War
Again, there is great need as scientists, corporations, governments, civilians move forward with nanotechnology to properly educate on the potential benefits and risks posed. Scientists can sometimes occupy a mental realm far removed from that of the artist, plumber, grocery clerk, athlete, attorney, salesman, etc. I can barely tolerate mathematicians. We have a tendency to bark at people when they don't understand the highly complicated world in which we live. We take the frontier for granted, as well as our privileged view of it. I assert that if we, as scientists, are discontent with the public's understanding of our respective fields, then we haven't done a very good job of explaining ourselves. The approach illustrated by the button above and to the right does not generate empathy or understanding.

In December 2008, Dan Kahan's research group published findings on the effects of cultural cognition on the perception of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Their work was published in Nature Nanotechnology and concluded that participants' perception of the relative safety of nanotechnology, after reviewing balanced information regarding risks and benefits, tended to follow patterns in terms of a participant's cultural identification as more individualistic or egalitarian. Participants identified as individualistic, or more pro-commerce, tended to view nanotech as relatively safe, dismissing risks, matching views on issues such as climate change and nuclear energy. Conversely, participants with egalitarian leanings, more concerned with economic inequality, tended to view nanotechnology as dangerous.

Furthermore, Dietram Scheufele at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that religiosity tended to correlate with a distrust of nanotechnology and a perception that nanotechnology is immoral. His findings were also published in Nature Nanotechnology here.

These findings point to the importance of sensitivity to cultural influences in presenting what scientists may view as culturally or morally neutral material. To me, nanotechnology is neither good nor evil, capitalistic nor socialistic. However, like it or not, nonscientific issues and ways of thinking will be attached to the science, impacting its reception, regulation, funding, and ultimately, nanotechnology's future.

Astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins have something to say about the need for sensitivity.



Next week, I'll take a look at some projects aimed at communicating nanotech in an alluring and fascinating way. Their media are less cerebral, more visual and visceral. Their appeal is the beauty present at the nano scale.