2020 Science » Public Perception

A few Small Issues about Public Engagement on Nanotechnology

Craig Cormick — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 02:35:13 +0000

A guest blog by Craig Cormick.

Over the past decade there has been a significant growth in public engagement activities relating to nanotechnology and when you look across all the data being generated you can learn a lot about how the public view the risks and benefits of the technology. That’s probably not news for anybody who follows this blog. But what might be news is to look closely at who is driving these engagements. Is it the public? Generally no.

The majority of the public are still rather unengaged on nanotechnology, and tend to think it’s all rather good (not including food). Media coverage is predominantly positive and concern-stories don’t get much traction. And yet there is a lot of funding going into public engagement of nanotechnology – so engagement has to happen.

The premise behind most government funding of nanotechnology engagement world-wide is that we need to avoid a replication of what happened with Genetically Modified Foods, and so the errors of that public debate need to be addressed early in the nanotechnology debate. But is that a valid premise? Nanotechnologies and Genetic Modification (GM) technologies, while similar in some ways, are significantly different too. Most importantly GM technology was a “black hat technology” (which was its starting position in the publics’ eyes, as a risky thing, and there was little impact that positive information and engagement campaigns had on that) while nanotechnology is a “white hat technology” (and likewise negative information campaigns are having little impact on changing its initial perception of being more beneficial than risky).

So now let’s look at the engagements that are happening and who attends them. The majority of activities involve bringing a range of experts and the public together in some manner, or bringing lay publics together, to discuss nanotechnology issues, with research being conducted into what and how and why the public react to the engagement activity. That’s all good, and activities are getting better and better at developing two-way learnings. But there are publics and there are publics, and most engagement activities recruit people who self-select to attend, and as a result are more likely to represent those with some interest in the technology or its impacts already. So you could argue that a lot of activities are engaging with those people who least need to be engaged with, as they are already engaged.

So issue number 1: Most engagement activities favour the engaged, and there are not enough methodologies to engage with the broader unengaged people in our communities.

That brings us to the types of engagement activities happening. A useful GM analogy to use here is the difference between laboratory trials, greenhouse trials and field trials. Many nanotechnology engagements are the equivalent of laboratory trials – being conducted in artificial environments (focus groups, deliberative dialogues and citizens juries) that, while providing useful data, might not be easily transferable to the real world.

There are other engagements that we might consider greenhouse trials, such as online forums, café scientifics and so on, that are much closer to the real world that most people live in, but still aren’t quite it.

Then there are some good examples of engagements that are what we might call field trials (community group meetings and shopping center interviews), but not many.

Issue number 2 is the need to find engagements that replicate real world experiences as much as possible for the broad unengaged publics, both to allow research into real world experiences, and to provide modelling that people might be able to transfer to their homes and work places etc.

And this raises issue number 3, which is that while there is an expectation that people who take part in engagement activities – whether they be laboratory experiments, greenhouse trials or field trials – they will take their new knowledge or attitudes and go forth and multiply it within the broader community, there is very little data to demonstrate whether this actually happens or not.

So while it is useful to pool all the research data being obtained and make meta-analysis of the findings, as happens regularly, it might be more helpful at the moment to look for gaps in the data and then find ways to fill them. And that, I suggest, is the next major challenge not just for those undertaking public engagement activities, but for anyone seeking an effective way to come to good understandings of how the broad public actually relate to the risks and benefits of new technologies.

Dr Craig Cormick is Manager of Public Awareness and Community Engagement within the National Enabling Technologies Strategy in the Australian Department of Innovation.

Contagion, plausible reality and public health: In conversation with Larry Brilliant

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 16:27:49 +0000

Blockbuster movies aren’t usually noted for their scientific accuracy and education potential. But since its release last week, Steven Soderburgh’s Contagion seems to be challenging the assumption that Hollywood can’t do science.

The other day I posted a piece about how director Steven Soderburgh and screenwriter Scott Z Burns’ attention to detail and plausibility left me with a sense of optimism after watching the movie, despite its disturbing theme. This was due in large part to the involvement of three science experts – Ian Lipkin (Professor of Epidemiology at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columblia University), Laurie Garrett (senior fellow for global health at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Larry Brilliant (President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund).

Larry Brilliant is well known for his work on eradicating the smallpox virus. He was also a past Executive Director of the philanthropic arm of Google, and is currently President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund. Yesterday afternoon, I had the chance to chat with him on the phone about the movie, his involvement, and his thoughts on its importance.

What was quickly apparent in our conversation is that the idea of using film as a medium to help people better understand the threats epidemics and pandemics present is one that Brilliant has long been interested in. While Executive Director of Google.org, he supported production of the Oscar-nominated documentary The Final Inch – a film about the historic global effort to eradicate polio. Given the success of the documentary in bringing a global issue (and public health success story) to the attention of millions of people, Larry was interested in how the medium of film could be further used – in particular to alert people to the plausible threat presented by pandemics, and the measures that are necessary to curtail their global impact.

And in Steven Soderburgh and Scott Z Burns, he found the ideal partners.

Well before he became President of the Skoll Global Threats Fund, Brilliant was interested in exploring how humanity can prepare for low probability high impact events like pandemics. As he explained, he is particularly concerned over how we go about developing expertise and resources to tackle such events, especially where short term and local thinking does little to prepare society for eventualities that demand a globally coordinated and informed response. Brilliant emphasized that devolving responsibility to local communities and private organizations just doesn’t work here – you need the resources and reach of national and international government organizations, together with long term investment in expertise and people, in order to respond rapidly and globally to a fast-moving viral infection.

But how do you get that message across – especially at a time when long term strategic measures against catastrophic risks are being ditched in favor of short term economic and political gains?

Movies, according to Brilliant, are part of the toolbox for raising awareness and helping people understand how some challenges are just too big to be privatized. Unfortunately, films that build on fantasy rather than plausibility have led to the medium being marginalized as a vehicle for science-based communication and education. But in the case of Contagion, Larry felt that with the combination of a “brilliant” director and screenwriter, together with a cast of dedicated and engaged actors (on whom Larry lavishes praise and admiration – especially for Matt Damon and Kate Winslet), the scene was set for a movie which was was emotionally engaging yet grounded in plausible reality.

The scenario developed within the movie is clearly fictional – it hasn’t happened yet. But as Larry noted, because of the science that went into the movie, what emerges is a series of events that are not beyond the realms of possibility – and in fact, given enough time, are highly probable. As fellow consultant Laurie Garrett wrote the other day on the CNN website,

‘Contagion’ is part reality, part fantasy, totally possible

When asked whether he was pleased with the results, Brilliant gave an unqualified and very enthusiastic affirmative. As well as high praise for the cast and production team, he was pleased with the way that the response to the pandemic was portrayed in the movie. As he pointed out, the White House and UN are notable by their absence. Rather, the heroes – the people who identify, track and eventually tackle the pandemic – are government-employed public health professionals. To him, this is a highly realistic portrayal of how a pandemic is likely to play out, and a stark warning against cutting investment in public health because of short term thinking and a potentially catastrophic lack of understanding.

At a time when public health agencies in the US are facing significant cuts, this was a key message for Brilliant. Contagion is plausible reality wrapped up in a strong narrative – to Brilliant and others, it’s not a case of if such a pandemic will occur, but when. And what Burns and Soderburgh have done is provide us with glimpse of our best hope for surviving this eventuality – assuming we haven’t abandoned our trained and prepared public health professionals in the meantime because we didn’t have the intelligence and foresight to recognize their importance.

This is a key message that Brilliant hopes will come through loud and clear as people watch and talk about the movie. And it’s one that he hopes will have sticking power – with the movie stimulating conversations and action for many years to come.

Spiders, silk and a transgenic goat – the complex art of science communication

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:44:31 +0000

Last week while at the NISE Net network-wide meeting, I was fortunate enough to see a preview of part of NOVA’s forthcoming series Making Stuff. The series focuses on the wonders of modern materials science. But rather than coming away enthralled by the ingenuity of scientists, I found myself breaking out in a cold sweat as I watched something that set my science-engagement alarm-bells ringing: New York Times tech reporter and host David Pogue enthusing about splicing spider genes into a goat so it produces silk protein-containing milk, then glibly drinking the milk while joking about transforming into Spider Man.

I was sitting there thinking, “You start with a spider – not everyone’s favorite creature. And you genetically cross it with a goat – dangerous territory at the best of times. Then you show a middle aged dude drinking the modified milk from a transgenic animal and having a laugh about it. And all this without any hint of a question over the wisdom or ramifications of what’s going on? Man, this is going to go down well!”

But then, after some reflection, I wondered whether I was over-reacting – maybe I’m just over-sensitized to the challenges of grappling with the opportunities and challenges presented by new technologies. There was also a chance that I had missed something in the delivery – some of the dialogue was admittedly missing in the preview.

So I decided to post last week’s poll on the spider-goat story, just to get a sense of how others might respond to this story line.

The results were surprising, and suggested that NOVA weren’t as far off the mark as I suspected.

Unfortunately, with only 67 votes and a self-selecting pool of respondents, the data are a bit iffy to say the least. But they do suggest that a fair number of readers (28%) approved of the milk-drinking jocular approach to communicating this research.

However, the majority of the votes (54%) were for a balanced response.

Interestingly, only 2 people responded negatively to the story.

To be honest, this clip still disturbed me – although the producers emphasized to me that this wasn’t necessarily the final sequence that will be aired. It seemed to hark back to an era of science communication that is more akin to science promotion, with little room for dialogue or engagement. And to my over-sensitized perceptions, it came across as dismissive of concerns over the ramifications of emerging technologies.

But given people’s response to the question I asked last week, I’m willing to concede that NOVA and David Pogue might be doing a better job here than I initially judged of exploring materials science in this series in an accessible way.

The proof of the pudding of course will be in the eating – Making Stuff debuts on PBS in the US on January 19 2011.

[The goat-spiders silk story has been around for a decade or so by the way, but was given a new lease of life earlier this year through this piece from the NSF]

Science and the Media – a collection of essays from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:05:10 +0000

Back in August, the American Academy of Arts & Sciences published a collection of essays under the editorship of Donald Kennedy and Geneva Overholster on the (seemingly) increasingly strained relationship between science and the media. I was too embroiled in the move to Michigan at the time to pay it much attention, but a news release sent out by the Academy yesterday promoting the publication prompted me to sit down and browse through it.

At first, I was worried that this would be just another piece from scientists bemoaning the sorry state of a society that doesn’t “think right”. This wasn’t helped by the title of the press release: “Science and the Media” Explores Challenges to Scientific Literacy in U.S. Fortunately, I was wrong.

Certainly, there are places here where there are overtones of a community frustrated by a “public” and especially “journalists” who don’t see and understand the world as they presumably should, and who don’t give due deference to experts who do understand things. This is reflected to a certain extent in discussions around science literacy, which tend to overshadow more difficult questions of how anyone makes informed decisions about the impacts of science and technology in a complex world where multiple factors beyond just the science come in to play. Interestingly, many of the contributors are in the business of science communication rather than science practice, suggesting that these perspectives are not limited to scientists. But this emphasis on science contributors also gives the collection considerable value – especially as it reveals a science communication community that is far more diverse than is often thought.

The collection is short enough to read through relatively quickly at just 109 pages long. And it’s well worth taking the time to read. Browsing through it this morning, three essays in particular grabbed my attention:

In your Own Voice – Alan Alda

Alda writes a beautiful piece from the perspective of someone fascinated by science on how scientists can communicate more effectively. His question is the archetypal “dumb question” – the one that seems so obvious that no-one dares ask it, but in consequence is too often ignored or brushed aside:

“…if scientists could communicate more in their own voices—in a familiar tone, with a less specialized vocabulary—would a wide range of people understand them better? Would their work be better under- stood by the general public, policy-makers, funders, and, even in some cases, other scientists?”

Alda goes on to talk about how the actors tool of improvisation might be one tool that can help scientists begin to find that personal voice that connects with people they are attempting to communicate with.

This piece is well worth reading as it represents someone who is hungry for information from scientists, but needs them to communicate, not just lecture. But the essay is also a model of communication itself. Alda is engaging, exploratory, humble and passionate – all qualities that draw the reader in and feel as if they are having an intimate conversation with the writer. And most importantly, it’s short – just three pages. An excellent lesson in eloquent brevity!

Managing the Trust Portfolio: Science Public Relations and Social Responsibility – Rick Borchelt, Lynne Friedman and Earle Holland

This is probably the most controversial essay in the collection. Borchelt and his co-authors tackle the sometimes contentious and often misunderstood role of public relations in science communication.

I suspect that most people – scientists and others alike – have a somewhat skewed perception what modern day public relations is all about. There’s often a sense that it’s a bit of a dirty profession in a bit of a dirty world – selling an image, irrespective of whether the subject of that image is deserving. But Borchelt et al. do a good job of deconstructing this myth, and presenting a very different perspective on PR. They write:

“…for some time now, many scientific institutions have unadvisedly relied on retooled scientists and former reporters to crank out an increasing blizzard of peppy news releases, driven by the axiom—now rejected by communications theorists—that “to know us is to love us” … This new Madison Avenue–driven approach has a dim chance of regaining public trust. The scientific community needs to understand what ethical practitioners of public relations have long known: trust is not about information; it’s about dialogue and transparency.”

They go on to add that “As practitioners use the term, public relations is the art and science of developing meaningful “relations” (or relationships) with the “public” (or publics) necessary for the continuing work of an organization or the scientific enterprise itself.” This seems a useful approach to science communication that begins to open the door to engagement between different groups, and a two-way flow of information rather than top-down instruction. Indeed, Borchelt et al note that “many corporations have moved away from one-way communication approaches toward more fully symmetrical models.” In the context of science, they suggest that the goal of such two-way engagements is the mutual satisfaction of scientific organizations or groups and their publics with the relationship that exists between them.

The essay then goes on explore this two-way approach to science public relations in the contexts of trust and social responsibility.

Whether you agree with the construct of science PR that is developed here or not, this is an important piece from the perspective of science communication and engagement, and reveals a more complex relationship between the generators and receivers of information and their intermediaries. It is controversial – as is reflected in a response from NBC Science and Health correspondent Robert Bazell in the collection. But it does reveal another side of the dynamic between science and the media.

The Scientist as Citizen – Cornelia Dean

The final essay I wanted to highlight was Cornelia Dean’s piece that turns the spotlight back on scientists. Through her extensive experience as a science reporter, Dean writes that she came to realize

“…if we journalists were going to improve the coverage of science, scientists would have to help us. But two problems existed. First, many scientists are not good at talking about their work in ways ordinary people—and journalists—can understand. Second, many scientists do not believe they have any reason, still less obligation, to do so. This belief is by far the more serious problem.”

Rather than try and summarize the piece, I would encourage you to read it directly – Dean writes clearly and pointedly on the need for scientists to understand and learn to be comfortable and effective in communicating what they do to a wider audience – including journalists. And specifically, she notes the need for scientists to receive training on communication. She concludes with this account:

“A number of students have told me that the issues we discussed and the hints I offered helped them when their publications in scientific journals brought them to the attention of the lay press. One of them recently sent me an email message describing his first encounter with a journalist. “It was just awful,” he wrote. “I fumbled, said the wrong things, contradicted myself a dozen times, you name it.” He contrasted this experience with one he had later, after sitting in on one of my short seminars: “I asked [the journalist] to give me a few minutes to get ready. I went to my office to have a good quiet spot to talk, stood up while talking, and tried to follow your guidelines. It went a lot better this time!” Needless to say, he made my day.

I believe all scientists should encounter this kind of training—a short course, a semester-long program if they want it, or even an internship in a news outlet or policy-making venue. I would not give students advanced de- grees in science until they had heard the message this kind of training offers.

Is this enough to solve the problem? No. But it is a start. Seeding the nation’s scientific establishment with researchers who understand the impor- tance of communicating with the lay public, and who are willing to take the time to communicate, can only be good. More important, the establishment of university programs to advance this goal tells scientists-in-training that their institutions value the effort and regard it as a worthwhile use of their time. That is perhaps their most important lesson.”

Science and the Media is freely available as a download from the American Academy of Arts & Sciences

Culture Clash – the biopolitics of popular culture

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:54:16 +0000

This is a first for 2020 Science – a plug for a meeting which I have nothing to do with! But next month’s seminar on the Biopolitics of Popular Culture being run by the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET) looks so intriguing that I couldn’t resist! (that, and a heads-up from IEET Managing Director Mike Treder )

First though, a word on that term “biopolitics.” Biopolitics is a rather versatile concept that embraces a whole raft of stuff – from politics of bioethics through the use of biotechnology to human enhancement (check this overview out if you really want your brain scrambled). But there seems to be some convergence on the idea of biopolitics as grappling with the tough questions that arise at the intersection of emerging technologies and life.

In other words, how do we handle new technologies that could profoundly and intimately alter who we are and what we can do as a species?

When Jeff Goldblum’s character in the movie Jurassic Park came out with the line “Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should” he was echoing a long-running debate on who decides how science is used. As the rate of scientific discovery and technology innovation accelerates, this question is becoming increasingly relevant, and is central it seems to biopolitics.

But biopolitics is also being driven by another factor – imagination.

Imagination drives the vision of scientists underpinning emerging technologies – it’s the ever-present “what if…” of the consummate researcher. It drives the promoters of emerging technologies – selling dreams of Utopian futures enabled by revolutionary breakthroughs. And it fuels the aspirations and fears of people who stand to benefit or suffer from technological advancements – turning technological possibilities into imagined probabilities that end up influencing lives in complex ways.

And here you have the link with popular culture.

To quote the introduction to the IEET seminar,

Our most transcendent expectations for technology come from pop culture, and the most common objections to emerging technologies come from science fiction and horror, from Frankenstein and Brave New World to Gattaca and the Terminator.

Why is it that almost every person in fiction who wants to live a longer than normal life is evil or pays some terrible price? What does it say about attitudes towards posthuman possibilities when mutants in Heroes or the X-Men, or cyborgs in Battlestar Galactica or Iron Man, or vampires in True Blood or Twilight are depicted as capable of responsible citizenship?

Is Hollywood reflecting a transhuman turn in popular culture, helping us imagine a day when magical and muggle can live together in a peaceful Star Trek federation? Will the merging of pop culture, social networking and virtual reality into a heightened augmented reality encourage us all to make our lives a form of participative fiction?

It’s this interplay between popular imagination, technology development and – for want of a better word – “biopolitics” that I find fascinating. And to explore it, IEET have lined up an equally fascinating group of people – including Annalee Newitz (editor of Science Fiction blog io9), David Brin (scientist and best-selling author), Natasha Vita-More (pioneer of transhumanists aesthetics) and Jamais Cascio (futurist), along with may others.

Sadly, I won’t be around in Irvine CA on December 4, and so will miss the fun. But if you are even remotely interested in the intersection between popular culture and future technologies, this seems to be a meeting worth checking out – more details here.

Is too much choice bad for the health?

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 12:29:38 +0000

Sunday morning breakfast – a croissant, a coffee, and a stress-free morning.

But wait a minute…

I wonder how healthy all that butter is? When did I last have my cholesterol levels checked? Were they high? Will my crisp, moist butter croissant push me into a French pastry-coronary?

And how about the coffee? Didn’t I hear that caffeine gives you cancer? Maybe that was just the Daily Mail on another cancer scare spree.

But there’s no smoke without fire…

Bother – what am I going to do? I can already feel the panic rising!

Hang it all, I’ll just head out to MacDonald’s for a Sausage Egg and Cheese McGriddle, with a couple of hash browns on the side. After all, didn’t someone say it’s healthy to start the day with a good breakfast?

Okay so I’m not really sitting down to croissants and coffee (more’s the pity), and I’m not going to rush off for a MacDonald’s breakfast. But it is a Sunday morning, and with my brain in weekend mode (i.e. slow, relaxed, prone to roaming, uninformed speculation…), I found myself ruminating over something a friend said in an email a few days ago…

It concerned apparent resistance to having H1N1 flu shots in some quarters – an issue that is still bubbling away in the news.

I’m not going to write about the H1N1 vaccine directly – that would be irresponsible given my limited knowledge and my Sunday morning torpor. But the issue does raise an interesting question of what happens when we are forced to consciously make decisions we might usually take for granted.

Martye’s email came on the tail of the latest poll from the Associated Press and GfK on people’s intentions to be vaccinated against H1N1. The poll suggested that people were more wary of the new vaccine than “normal” flu vaccines, even though each year’s batch of flu vaccines is tailor made for that year’s prevalent virus strains – something that Martye had witnessed himself anecdotally.

He wondered how this played into people’s trust of science, scientists and government, and the role of mis-information in the decisions people make.

Because this is a Sunday morning, and there are important Sunday morning things to do (like find those croissants), this is a question that will have to wait until another day. But it did get me thinking about the degree to which too much information, or a particular focus on an issue, can create a quandary by shifting the decisions we make from the subconscious to the conscious level.

As a species, we’re pretty adept at letting the subconscious parts of our brains do the heavy lifting when it comes to making decisions. Just imagine how tedious life would be if we needed to analyze the pros and cons of every move or decision we made – much like the coffee and croissant illustration above, we would become paralyzed by indecision. But we’d also more than likely end up making decisions that were more based on what we were comfortable with, rather than what was good for us.

This raises a real dilemma though, and one I don’t have a good answer to. A major thrust of what I do is advocating for and enabling informed, evidence-based decision-making. It’s something I believe in strongly – that in a science and technology-driven society, people should be enabled to make the best possible decisions for themselves and their society based on good evidence and strong scientific principles.

Yet it seems that where the decisions people need to make are far from black and white, forcing them to think about things could end up leading to choices that are more harmful than helpful.

The H1N1 flu vaccine seems to be a case in point. If it was rolled out as just another annual flu vaccine, many people would have accepted it without question – the decision-making would have been at the subconscious level.

But because the issues of its importance and possible downsides have been raised explicitly, people are being forced to make a conscious decision whether to have it or not.

And kicking up the decision-making process from the subconscious domain to the conscious level has led to confusion and indecision.

So what should we do? Should complex decisions be left in the hands of “experts?” Should information – evidence – be withheld from people who don’t have the ability to process and use it? Should we just accept that others are more informed than we are – and trust them?

At this point, every bone in my body is screaming that transparency, access to information and personal decision-making autonomy are moral obligations in a mature society, and that a hierarchical technocracy is not the way to go. Yet, if this is the case, we need to face the fact that more information isn’t necessarily a good thing on its own. We need to develop the social tools to use it wisely, empowering individuals to make decisions that benefit themselves and society without leading to undue paralysis and harm.

This is a tough task. I’m sure there are mountains of scholarly works that address it. But I’ve yet to see any clear routes forward emerge.

Yet if we are going to cope with new challenges in a world where information spreads like wildfire, it seems more important than ever to work out how to empower people to make responsible and informed decisions on risks and benefits, without becoming paralyzed, or forced into relying on comfortable but possibly unhelpful decision-making shortcuts.

It seems that too much choice could be bad for the health. But I suspect that not enough choice – and a lack of help, guidance and other tools for making informed decisions – will be worse for the health in the long run.

But that is most definitely a Monday morning problem.

Now, back to that croissant and coffee…

Sunscreens and Alzheimer’s – solid science or scare-mongering speculation?

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:26:31 +0000

Could using sunscreen lead to Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, or other neurodegenerative diseases? The association seems far-fetched – given the amount of sunscreens, creams and lotions used every day, surely someone would noticed a link by now if it existed! Yet a press release from the University of Ulster suggests the nanoparticles used in some sunscreens could potentially cause or exacerbate these diseases. Drawing on the release, a number of media outlets are now running stories along the lines of “Sunscreen could cause Alzheimer’s” (this from The Daily Mirror in the UK).

This is a rather unfortunate case of a poorly conceived press release leading to sensationalist – and misleading – headlines… The press release is associated with new research funded under the umbrella of NeuroNano – a European project focused on developing nanoscale neuro-implants that will enhance the functioning of the brain. However this new project, being led by Professors Vyvyan Howard and Dr. Christian Holscher at the University of Ulster, is focusing on how nanomaterials inadvertently entering the brain could cause damage.

The basis of their research is actually quite reasonable. There is some evidence that exposure to specific types of nanometer-scale particles could lead to them entering the brain, either by traveling up the nerves connecting the nose to the brain, or by crossing over from the blood. If insoluble nanoparticles do get into the brain they are likely to stick around for a while, as there are limited ways in which the body is able to get rid of foreign material from here. While there, they could damage neurons by causing the release of reactive oxygen species (ROS) – highly active chemicals. And there is also research showing that some nanoparticles can cause the type of protein misfolding that has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer’s – although this was carried out outside the body, under conditions set up to favor misfolding.

These tantalizing snippets of information are like a red rag to a bull as far as scientists go – they suggest there is new knowledge waiting to be discovered; knowledge that could help prevent some forms of brain disease. Together, they form a sound reason for carrying out more research.

But in no way do they link sunscreens to Alzheimer’s!

The sunscreen link comes about because a number of these lotions use insoluble nanoparticles as the active ingredient. The thought-process then goes something like this:

The nanoparticles of titanium dioxide or zinc oxide in a sunscreen could conceivably get into someone’s body, by passing through the skin, being eaten, or being inhaled. Once there, they might be able to get into the blood. From there, there is a chance that they could pass over into the brain. Or they might even be inhaled and travel straight up the olfactory nerve and into the brain. And once there, they could cause vital proteins to misfold that then lead to diseases like Alzheimer’s.

But while this makes an interesting story and a compelling grant proposal, it has little bearing on reality as we currently understand it:

Most research suggests nanoparticles in sunscreens don’t pass through the skin.
Even if you could snort sunscreens (a feat in itself), studies showing nanoparticles traveling from the nose to the brain have used rodents not humans – and human noses are very different; they don’t offer the same opportunities for significant exposure through this route.
It takes a very special type of nanoparticle to cross the blood-brain barrier – you can’t get any old junk across it.
And research into nanoparticle-induced protein misfolding is at a very preliminary stage – any associations between effects seen in test tubes and brain disease are little more than speculative.

More to the point, we are exposed to billions of nanoparticles each day in the air we breathe; from car exhausts, fires, even sea spray. If any nanoparticles are going to find their way to our brains in large numbers, it will be these – not those used in some sunscreens.

This is not to detract from the importance of this new research project. If there are links between nanoparticle exposure and neurodegenerative diseases, we need to know.

But linking sunscreens to Alzheimer’s in the absence of any hard scientific data? Given what we currently know, that just seems irresponsible!

Update, 8/27/09. Since posting the original press release, the University of Ulster have changed the headline – without, apparently, telling anyone. What was “Groundbreaking Research Links Sunscreen and Alzheimer’s Disease” is now “Groundbreaking Research Into Nanoparticles And Alzheimer’s Disease.”

Makes you wonder how much of the sensationalist coverage could have been avoided with a bit of forethought, rather than post-thought.

Thanks to @silentypewriter for the archive link

For more information…

Information on the NeuroNano program can be found here

Nanoparticles traveling from the nose to the brain: There have been a number of studies showing that this is possible in rodents, although little is known about how many particles are likely to get to the brain after being inhaled. Three useful papers are:

Oberdörster, G., Z. Sharp, V. Atudorei, A. Elder, R. Gelein, W. Kreyling and C. Cox (2004). “Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain.” Inhal. Toxicol. 16(6-7): 437-445.

Elder, A., R. Gelein, V. Silva, T. Feikert, L. Opanashuk, J. Carter, R. Potter, A. Maynard, J. Finkelstein and G. Oberdorster (2006). “Translocation of inhaled ultrafine manganese oxide particles to the central nervous system.” Environmental Health Perspectives 114(8): 1172-1178. [PDF]

and

Oberdörster, G., V. Stone and K. Donaldson (2007). “Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective.” Nanotoxicology 1(1): 2 – 25.

For information on nanoparticles and protein misfolding, the following is a key paper:

Linse, S., C. Cabaleiro-Lago, W.-F. Xue, I. Lynch, S. Lindman, E. Thulin, S. E. Radford and K. A. Dawson (2007). “Nucleation of protein fibrillation by nanoparticles.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 104: 8691-8696.

The Mexico City study mentioned in the University of Ulster press release is:

Calderon-Garcidueñas, L., B. Azzarelli, H. Acune, R. Garcia, T. M. Gambling, N. Osnaya, S. Monroy, M. R. DEL Tizapantzi, J. L. Carson, A. Villarreal-Calderon and B. Rewcastle (2002). “Air Pollution and Brain Damage.” Toxicol Path 30(3): 373-389.

When it comes to crossing the blood brain barrier, there has been a lot of research on engineering nanoparticles to do exactly this – for delivering drugs. Most research has shown that fancy materials science and chemistry are needed to engineer nanoparticles to move across the barrier – it’s pretty effective at keeping bad stuff out of the brain. However, there are indications that small quantities of very small nanoparticles could inadvertently cross over from the blood – more more research is needed to understand whether early findings have any significance though.

Less is known about the possibility of ingested nanoparticles getting into the bloodstream. Again, the barrier between the guts and the blood is a complex one, and it is unlikely that any old nanoparticle will be able to fool the body into getting where it isn’t wanted. But this is an area where more research would be useful.

For more info on nanoparticles and sunscreens, check out Industry critics give nanotechnology sunscreens the thumbs up

For more papers on nanoparticles and the brain, check out the nanoEHS Virtual Journal

Reflections of a “scientific illiterate”

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:59:48 +0000

Reviewing Unscientific America: How scientific illiteracy threatens our future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum

My name is Andrew, and I am scientifically illiterate.

Just thought I’d get that off my chest!

And before you protest too much, I do have some pretty convincing evidence. Math makes my head ache. I cannot recite the Earth’s geological timeline from memory. And there’s a one in ten chance that I’ll stumble over pronouncing terms like artemisinin and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.

The problem lies of course with what is understood by “scientific illiteracy” rather than my abilities—at least I hope that’s the case.

The idea that modern society only works if it is based on a common understanding, appreciation and use of science has been around for a while. It seems to make sense – in a society that is increasingly dependent on science, widespread scientific ignorance is likely to lead to non-democratic leadership by a scientific elite, or ill-informed (but democratic) decisions that are ultimately destructive.

The solution would seem to be to replace scientific ignorance with scientific literacy. Get everyone thinking and acting like scientists, and the world will surely be a better place.

Unfortunately, this perspective turns out to be rather naïve. Dividing the world into scientific illiterates and literates devalues the many other skill sets and perspectives that contribute to healthy decision-making within society. It also encourages an over-simplistic approach to the challenges of critical thinking and evidence-based decision making—namely that educating people more about science will result in them making the “right” decisions. And it has a tendency to lead to scientific literacy being measured in ways that have little bearing on a person’s ability to make informed decisions…

Over the past decade or so, scholars and policy makers have come to realize that more sophisticated approaches are needed if science-informed, yet democratic, decisions are to be made by people. As a result, rather than talk about scientific literacy, discussions now tend to revolve around the ideas of dialogue and engagement – empowering people in a complex society to make personal and group decisions that are ultimately constructive.

So it was with some trepidation that I sat down to review Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum’s new book “Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.”

Fortunately, it didn’t take much reading to convince me that their perspective is rather more sophisticated than the book’s title suggests. Unscientific America is a laudable attempt to tackle science’s place in American society in an easily accessible way. Highly readable, largely enjoyable, occasionally infuriating, the book takes on the challenge of how to empower members of society to make the best use of science.

There was a lot that I liked about the book – and a lot that resonated with my own views. But there were also points where I felt the book fell short of what it could be.

Despite the book’s rather sensationalist subtitle, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do a good job of placing scientific illiteracy in a modern context. Chapter 2 on “rethinking the problem of scientific illiteracy” provides an accessible overview of current thinking – and does it reasonably well. The notion of a “public” that will make the “right” decisions if only they are sufficiently well educated – the so-called deficit model – is introduced, examined, then carefully put aside. The problem, Mooney and Kirshenbaum point out, is that the deficit model can all too easily be used to exempt scientists from the responsibility of ensuring their work is an integral part of the society they belong to:

“It’s an educational problem, they say, or a problem with the media (which doesn’t cover science accurately or pay it enough attention), and then they go back to their labs.”

But rather than discard the term “scientific illiteracy,” Mooney and Kirshenbaum prefer to redefine it, in their words “getting past issues of finger-pointing and buck-passing and the misconception that our problems can be reduced to what non-scientists say in response to survey questions.”

Their solution: emphasize an aspect of scientific literacy that stresses citizens’ awareness of the importance of science to politics, policy, and a collective future.

This makes a lot of sense, and is in many ways the lynchpin of the book. But I do have my reservations over their adherence to the idea of scientific literacy.

When scholars began to realize that the deficit model wasn’t particularly helpful to integrating science and society (for a multitude of reasons), they began to move away from talking about “science literacy” and towards talking about developing dialogues and engaging people in making science-informed decisions. These approaches complement broader discussions on the roles of critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making; integrating science into a more holistic perspective of modern society.

Having established the central focus of the book, Mooney and Kirshenbaum present their ideas in a series of connected essays. From a distance, the structure makes sense. Chapters 1 and 2 set out the challenge as seen by the authors. Chapters 3 and 4 continue on to fill in the historical background – how American culture’s apparently strained relationship with science got to where it is now. Chapters 5 – 8 then deal with specific issues that highlight the current state of play—science in the media, science and popular entertainment, science and religion, and science and politics. Finally, chapters 9 and 10 begin to explore possible solutions to the “problem” of scientific illiteracy – culminating in a short conclusion that attempts to pull everything together.

Some of these chapters are a good and informative read. I was enjoying myself immensely up to chapter 8. But then I felt that the book began to run out of steam. Repeatedly, I found myself intrigued by questions set up by Chris and Sheril, then disappointed by a lack of resolution. In an attempt to try and keep things simple I suspect they ended glossing over a lot of things (see my comments below on the book’s endnotes). But in the latter chapters I was increasingly aware of a lack of depth behind the points being made.

A good example is “Bruising their religion”—the chapter on science, religion and the “new atheists.” This particular chapter has ruffled plenty of feathers throughout the blogosphere already, and I don’t intend to ruffle more by adding my two cents worth to Mooney and Kirshenbaum’s perspective. But I do want to highlight the intellectual letdown that I felt when reading the chapter – something that I experienced with increasing frequency as I progressed toward the end of the book.

In this chapter, Mooney and Kirshenbaum roundly criticize vocal and intellectually aggressive proponents of atheism—a crowd that will stop at little it seems to denigrate religious beliefs and humiliate those who adhere to them. They argue that the crude combative and even ignorant tactics employed by people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins do more to undermine scientific literacy than they do to support it.

This makes sense—intellectual bullying doesn’t often have pride of place in communications manuals!

Mooney and Kirshenbaum then state that the divide between science and religion is a false one, and the two are not mutually exclusive. But they give no concrete evidence for this, beyond citing a handful of scientists who held (or hold) religious views.

The result is a reader who is left high and dry. I wanted to know how science and religion may be reconciled, and why the preaching of the new atheists is intellectually as well as socially suspect. But what I got was little more than opinion and unsubstantiated statements.

The following chapters in the book suffer from a similar glossing over of arguments—although perhaps not to the same extent as this chapter. And as a result, I was left feeling frustrated at the lack of substance in what I was reading.

Unscientific America culminates in a six-page conclusion titled “A new mission for American Science.” Reaching this point, I was full of expectations—this was where the meat would be (I thought), where I would finally learn how science illiteracy threatens our future, and what the answers are.

In the event, I found it a bit of a let down. While I had enjoyed the book – which is only 132 pages long if you discount the extensive endnotes – I felt that I hadn’t been convinced that scientific illiteracy does indeed threaten America’s future. And as for the solution to this apparently looming problem, everything seemed to lead up to Mooney and Kirshenbaum proposing that the responsibility for integrating science into society lies with scientists. After all the buildup, this seemed a little too easy.

To be fair, it’s an important conclusion. If science is to be integrated into society, scientists as a group need to be a part of that society rather than apart from it. It’s something that we are still a long way from achieving, but I would argue it is essential if future decisions are to help rather than hinder social development.

And to be honest, Mooney and Kirshenbaum do a good job of bringing this need to a broad audience.

But I can’t help feeling that Unscientific America falls short of what it could have been. Mooney and Kirshenbaum clearly have a political and ideological bias that ends up being woven through the book, and at the end of the day this weakens its authority for me. The Bush administration’s “war on science” for instance is cited repeatedly as hindering science literacy over the past 8 years, and Mooney and Kirshenbaum stress the need to move on from “an administration widely denounced for a disdain of science unprecedented in modern American history.” Indeed, Chris Mooney has written about this in his previous book—The Republican War On Science.

Yet framing a book on science in such a strong political light is likely to alienate some readers, and will lead to diminished authority over time.

On top of this, I feel that Mooney and Kirshenbaum never quite succeeded in making a watertight case for why scientific illiteracy threatens our future—leading to the central premise of the book coming across as ideological rather than a persuasively argued and clearly defined challenge.

And that brings me back to the issue of scientific illiteracy. From where I sit, it seems to be a phrase fraught with problems—it reinforces an “us” and “them” mentality, it has the potential to create arbitrary and often meaningless divisions. And, to be frank, it gets some people’s backs up. Joking aside, I could well be labeled “scientifically illiterate” under some measures of literacy. Yet I think I have been somewhat successful in my career as a scientist, policy advisor and communicator. So I struggle with a book so overtly focused on scientific illiteracy. Mooney and Kirshenbaum have done a good job of framing scientific illiteracy in a sophisticated and accessible way. But in the long run, I wonder whether the book would have had greater authority and a longer shelf life if it had made the break from dated concepts, and fully embraced the need for dialogue and engagement when integrating science into society.

So to wrap up – should you read this book? Absolutely. But read it forewarned. Understand where the authors are coming from. Accept that in 132 pages of writing for a general audience you won’t be taken on a deep and intellectually challenging journey. And don’t hesitate to chapter-hop – I particularly liked chapter 2!

And above all, enjoy it – whether you agree with Mooney and Kirshenbaum or not, they are entertaining and talented writers, and Unscientific America is an enjoyable—and not too taxing—read.

Endnotes

About the endnotes in Unscientific America

Although Unscientific America only stretches to 132 pages it is complemented by 66 pages of endnotes, comprising citations and additional comments. I’m not a great fan of this format—especially as the endnotes aren’t cited on the pages they relate to. But it is an extensive resource for those who are interested in delving further into the points Chris and Sheril make.

I do have a problem though where there is extensive commentary included in the endnotes. While reading the book, you have no idea whether a particular idea or comment is fleshed out later on, unless you keep one finger in the endnotes. This is not a comfortable way to read a book! I understand why the book is published this way – it keeps things simple for readers (I almost wrote “scientifically illiterate readers” – slapped wrists for that!). But it isn’t half a pain for anyone seriously interested in what the authors are trying to say.

It’s far better, in my opinion, to ensure that the relevant stuff is incorporated into the main text, not sequestered away where no-one will read it.

More on science and society

Many people have studied the complex interplay between science and society, and reams of work—from the scholarly to the popular—has been written on the subject. To get a good feel for current thinking, I would recommend “What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda” by Martin Bauer, Nick Allum and Steve Miller [PDF, 116 KB]. Also check out Matthew Nisbet’s blog, Framing Science, and the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School.

And a final comment…

Since it was released several weeks ago, Unscientific America has been the subject of a number of reviews. Although I’ve caught some of the chatter surrounding these, I have made a conscious effort not to read them before writing my own rather belated piece. So hopefully these thoughts are mine, and not simply a regurgitation of other people’s ideas.

Now to see whether what I’ve written is completely out of step with the rest of the blogging world…

Anything I can do, you can do better!

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:30:57 +0000

Art makes a mockery of experts and empowers the marginalized. At least that’s how I feel at the moment!

Having broadcast the news of Tim Jones’ fabulous Exquisite Corpse of Science project, I thought it only fitting that I do what I’ve been telling everyone else to do, and get out my Sharpie. And here’s the result:

My entry for the Exquisite Corpse of Science project - don't laugh!

(For the uninitiated, the idea is to get as many people as possible to draw what they think is important about science and submit these to Tim – who will then stitch them together into one large mosaic).

This has been a lesson in humility for me – I may know a thing or two about science, but I’m hopeless when it comes to expressing this through drawings.

Yet it’s precisely because of my artistic deficiencies that I thought it worthwhile posting my rather crude contribution here – if this is the best I can come up with, think what someone with a good eye and uninhibited imagination could do!

Just to prove the point, this is what my twelve year old son came up with:

My son's entry for the Exquisite Corpse of Science project - vsibly superior!

Tim’s Exquisite Corpse of Science concept is intriguing precisely because it humbles people who think they know stuff while empowering those who know they don’t – and in doing so it reduces many of the barriers to effective science engagement.

It’s also a lot of fun – once you’ve chilled out a bit and realized that there’s no such thing as a bad drawing here!

So now you know how low the bar is, grab your pen and pad and get drawing (details on what to do here). The more people who contribute, the better the end result will be!

End Notes.

Something I did try here was to record an audio commentary while drawing the pictures – I got my son to do the same. This is a lot more work than simply doing the drawing (although Tim is accepting accompanying audio files) – but the end result did help make sense of some otherwise rather obscure doodlings.

These are the results. Alex’s first…

Then mine…

Geoengineering the planet with nanotechnology ice-cream?

Andrew Maynard — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:24:52 +0000

Photo courtesy Zoe Papadopoulou

Scientists and engineers have their moments. But it they are hard pressed to beat art students when it comes to sheer audacious creativity.

Earlier this year I received an email so intriguing I couldn’t help but follow up on it. The email was from Zoe Papadopoulou, an MA student at the Royal College of Art in London. It was a request for help with a rather unusual design project she and fellow student Cat Kramer were hatching. Skimming through the message, phrases like “geoengineering,” “ice cream van,” “nanotechnology,” “clouds that taste of ice-cream” peaked my interest.

But then I saw the words “liquid nitrogen,” and I was hooked!

The concept was deceptively simple – use art and design to engage people on nanotechnology and geoengineering in a simple, enjoyable and appealing way. The realization was a little more complex…

The whole idea was sparked off by Professor Richard Jones – author of the Soft Machines blog and former Senior Strategic Advisor for nanotechnology for the UK’s Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC). In a talk to students on the Royal College of Art’s Design Interactions course, he introduced them to the emerging field of nanotechnology. Intrigued by the possibilities and potential hurdles here – and especially the need for public engagement – Zoe and Cat set out to use design, art and science to, in their words,

“frame a debate, and create interactions between people and their possible futures.”

The result? An ambitious plan to retro-fit a 1980 Sherpa ice cream van to create ice-cream flavored clouds, while acting as a focus for stimulating discussions on nanotechnology and geoengineering.

: Serving nanotech to the community. Wonder what tune it plays (I didn’t check)? Photo courtesy of Zoe Papadopoulou

The idea went something like this:

Making ice-cream using liquid nitrogen is a fun and accessible introduction to nanotechnology – the rapid freezing leads to the ice-cream having a nanoscale structure and a super-smooth texture. Nanometer scale particles also play a role in cloud formation, and in principle it’s possible to induce clouds to come together by injecting engineered nanoparticles into the atmosphere. So why not combine the two to get ice-cream flavored clouds? Why not inject a stream of liquid nitrogen and ice-cream mix into the atmosphere as a fine spray, leading to flavored condensation nuclei that will seed ice-cream clouds? And why not build it all into an old ice-cream van – a mobile fun-flavored cloud machine?

As you might imagine, the gap between technology concept and realization was rather large in this case. It’ll be a while before you’ll see (taste?) strawberry-clouds over the English countryside – although the van is fully equipped to demonstrate how the cloud machine could work.

But this wasn’t the point of the exercise. What Zoe and Cat were trying to achieve was using art and design to draw people into conversations about emerging technologies.

And in this they succeeded brilliantly.

: Cat Kramer making nanotech ice-cream with liquid nitrogen in the Cloud Project van. Courtesy of Zoe Papadopoulou.

My role in all of this – apart from making the odd encouraging noise – was to help out at a trial-run of the van back in June.

Part of the concept here was to use the van as a platform for experts to engage with real people on nanotechnology and geoengineering. I’m told the idea was to get experts and members of the public talking to each other in an accessible, fun, non-threatening environment. Fun and non-threatening for the public maybe – I’m not so sure the experts felt that way about it! But then maybe this was part of the process of breaking down barriers between people that know about emerging technologies like nanotech, and those that want to know more.

Actually, I had a blast with the van. Talking about the project, nanotechnology and geoengineering with Zoe’s friends and neighbors, I was fascinated by how easily the conversations flowed amidst demonstrations of the van’s cloud generators and roof-mounted industrial-strength water spray. With the van as a backdrop (and it really is an impressive piece of design-work), people started discussing emerging technologies – and what they might mean for them personally – without having to be forced into it.

Engagement is something that is talked about a lot in science and technology circles, but rarely done well. Yet here were a couple of arts students effortlessly* bridging the gap between emerging technologies and members of the public, using their imagination, design skills and a bit of fun.

For the past week the van has been on display outside the Royal College of Art and has been attracting plenty of attention by all accounts. Over the coming year it’s scheduled to make a number of appearances around the country – exactly where and when (and with whom) will be posted on the Cloud Project website (where you can also find out more about the project).

If you get the chance, I’d encourage you to visit it. It’s a lot of fun. But it also demonstrates the importance of using art and design together with other skills in bridging the gap between new technologies coming over the horizon, and people who they are potentially going to affect.

And geoengineering the planet with nanotech ice-cream? I don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon. But it’s certainly something to think about as you munch on your ’99 this summer.**

: Zoe serving up a beautifully designed portion of nanotech ice-cream. Courtesy of Zoe Papadopoulou.

End Notes

For more information on the Cloud Project, check out the project website.

Read more about the Royal College of Art Design Interactions course here.

*Actually, as Zoe and Cat will tell you, this project was far from effortless when it came to refurbishing the Sherpa van. This took a tremendous amount of effort over the past several months – but the results are impressive!

**For non-Brits, the ’99 is the peak of British gourmet ice-cream – a whirl of soft-whip with a length of flaky chocolate stuck in it. Delicious

Celebrity scientists – it takes more than stardust

Andrew Maynard — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:38:29 +0000

It’s been a few weeks now since the men’s style magazine GQ launched the “Rock Stars of Science” campaign. I’m a staunch advocate of raising science’s profile, but the whole campaign has had me on edge, and I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on why. Was it the exclusive use of white middle-aged male scientists? Was it the implied message that the science-guys were rock-star wannabes? Or was it the assumption that medical science is the only science worth promoting?

Sheryl Crow, Anthony S. Fauci M.D. and Harold Varmus, M. D. (I'll leave you to work out which is which.) From the Rock Stars of Science Campaign

Then it struck me – what really got under my skin was the cultural cargo cult mentality being flaunted.

Cultural cargo cult? It’s not a new metaphor, but not a commonly used one either. If it had a Wikipedia entry, it might read something like this:

A cultural cargo cult is a practice that may appear in societies in the wake of interactions with separate, socially advanced cultures. The cults are focused on obtaining the popularity of the advanced culture through association and behavior-emulation, believing that the fame and fortune achieved by others should be theirs, because they are more worthy.

Following contact with people from more socially advanced societies through random encounters, the media and, more recently, Twitter, cultural cargo cults have been observed around the world. They are particularly prevalent in the developed economies of the West.

Members, leaders, and advocates of cultural cargo cults maintain that the social kudos (“cargo”) of the advanced culture has been created by trivial means, such as through celebrity promotion. They believe this kudos is rightfully theirs but that, unfairly, the celebs of the other culture have gained control of this social status through attracting “cool” to themselves by malice or mistake.

Cultural cargo cults thus focus on efforts to overcome what they perceive as the undue influence of celebrities in attracting cool, by conducting rituals imitating behavior they have observed among the holders of the desired kudos and presuming that their fellow citizens will, at last, recognize their worth and send the “cargo” to them instead.

A characteristic feature of cultural cargo cults is the belief that punters will, at some future time, give much valuable kudos and desirable “cool” to the cult members, rather than worthless celebrities who should never, in their eyes, have got it in the first place!

(My apologies to the authors of the Wikipedia entry on cargo cults, which this has more than a passing resemblance to.)

I hate to be too critical of the Rock Stars of Science campaign. The medical research it aims to support is laudable. And truth be told, I’d have been there like a shot if the call came in to do a photo shoot with Sheryl Crow! But in the context of science communication and awareness-building, this is a classic example of cultural cargo cult-ism. In their haste to be seen with the cool gang, the scientists have forgotten to ask what makes its members cool in the first place!

This probably would have been fine if the only message emerging was that naïve scientists simply like to have fun. Unfortunately, I don’t think this was the case.

As @mjrobbins writes on The Lay Scientist,

“Let’s just look at the statistics here. GQ assembled 11 scientists, and 5 rock stars. Of the rock stars, two are black, one is a woman. Of the scientists, 11 are middle-aged white males. For a campaign that wants to attract new young people into science in a country where around half of young people are women and probably nearly half are from ethnic minorities, that’s just moronic.

But, okay, you’ve got your middle-aged white guys in suits into the studio and you’re ready to take some photos that promote science. It doesn’t take a marketing genius to tell you that the scientists should be in the centre, and the rock stars should be fawning over them.”

Given the reach of GQ and the rock stars that participated in the photo shoot, the messaging here will have an impact. And sadly, that message seems to be that successful scientists are white middle-aged males (with a dubious dress sense) who, when all’s said and done, wish they’d become celebrity musicians instead.

@drisis concludes her blog on the Rock Stars of Science campaign with:

“This campaign sends the message that scientists aspire towards other things. Not that other people aspire to be scientists. It seems to me that if you want to have an effective campaign then what you do is put Sheryl Crow in a lab coat and take pictures of those guys teaching her to pipet or culture some cells or use a microscope. Don’t take pictures of talented, gifted scientists — scientists whose talents make them as unique and talented as the rockstars they are pictured with — trying to be musicians. Take a picture of a musician aspiring to be a scientist.”

Getting people turned on to science is incredibly important. And nurturing science-savvy cultural icons will certainly help achieve this. Indeed, there are already plenty of icons-in-the-making around, if only they could be given a bit of a leg up.

But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that dressing like and fraternizing with celebrities will lead to some of the stardust rubbing off.

Postscript

In the Twitter chatter around the Rock Stars of Science campaign earlier today, a number of people pointed out that Queen guitarist Brian May is quite literally a Rock Star of Science – having reveived his Ph.D. from Imperial College in London in 2007. And his thesis? “Radial Velocities in the Zodiacal Dust Cloud.” Clearly a rock star of science who genuinely knows his stardust

Update 6/28/09 – Also check out Chris Mooney’s thoughts on the Rock S.O.S campaign, which provide a good contrast to mine. And if you want a closer gander at the pictures from the photoshoot that launched the campaign, here’s the 4-page portfolio from GQ Magazine [PDF, 580 KB]

A cautious thumbs up for synthetic biology from the UK public

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:26:38 +0000

According to a new public opinion survey from the UK Royal Academy of Engineering, the great British public is cautiously enthusiastic about the emerging field of synthetic biology.

Last summer, the Washington DC-based Synthetic Biology Project published a survey of US awareness and attitudes towards synbio. The new study builds on that work by taking a look what people in the UK make of synthetic biology. Drawing on a 1000-person strong phone survey and a more in-depth exploratory dialogue with 16 participants, it provides insight into current awareness of synthetic biology, potential public perception speed bumps, and some possible routes toward greater public engagement in the technology’s development.

: A word cloud of responses to the question “What comes to mind when I say synthetic biology.” From the RAE report.

I’ll probably write about the report in more depth at a later date—some of the recommendations from the dialogue are particularly interesting as is the process of empowering people to make informed recommendations on an emerging technology such as synthetic biology. But for now, I’ll limit myself to some initial impressions from reading the report:

The overall impression from reading the report is that people in the UK are cautiously optimistic about the future beneficial development and use of synthetic biology. However, this optimism is tempered by concerns over possible safety issues, unresponsive or inappropriate regulation, and fear-mongering in the media.

It is clear that the participants in the dialogue faced a steep learning curve when it came to synthetic biology, but that with help most of them were able to come up to speed on what the technology entailed, and what the potential implications were. None of the 16 dialogue group participants had previously heard of synthetic biology. In the telephone poll, only 33% of respondents had come across the term previously—the same level of awareness was found amongst US respondents the Wilson Center study. However, after two evenings of learning bout and discussing synthetic biology, a number of participants in the dialogue had a clear grasp of the essence of what synthetic biology is about, what it can potential be used for, and some of the challenges its development raises. It was noted though that there are next to no good sources of information available that provide a lay audience with clear information on synthetic biology.

Generally, people were excited about the potential applications of synthetic biology. Using re-programmed microbes to produce biofuels and medical drugs were seen as positive applications – with greater emphasis given to biofuels, as an application that had the potential to make a difference to a greater number of people in the near future. There was less enthusiasm and more concern expressed for applications that would lead to the release of modified microbes into the environment, such as might occur in pollution remediation.

Effective risk management was clearly a concern. Regulation was seen as important for the success of synthetic biology, but only if it didn’t stifle innovation. Participants generally felt that synthetic biology practiced by amateurs outside the confines and constraints of established organizations—garage biotech—is a bad thing, and should be discouraged.

There was concern that the media could undermine the development of synthetic biology by scaremongering, and that efforts are needed to educate and inform people about the technology – thus allowing informed impressions to be made that weren’t unduly influenced by the media. This may be a particularly British perspective given the state of science reporting in some UK media outlets. But I found it interesting that the dialogue participants were sufficiently enamored with synbio that they didn’t want the media to upset the cart here, while at the same time they (presumably) represented the readership that the UK media write for.

There didn’t seem to be much concern over scientists “playing God” and creating new life-forms. In fact—and this I found surprising—there seemed to be some question over whether engineered microbes were actually alive. Treating modified or new microbes as non-living commodities conveniently circumvents a number of ethical issues here. But I wonder whether this attitude will persist as synthetic biology develops. And if it does, I can’t help wondering whether this raises ethical issues in and of itself. In contrast to microbes, there seemed to be a consensus that tinkering with “higher” life forms was questionable.

There seemed to be strong support for the UK government investing in synthetic biology—along with some bemusement that Britain was already ahead of most other countries in the field.

Overall, these results should be seen as good news for synthetic biology. They suggest the opportunity exists for strong partnerships between members of the public and scientists, government and businesses in developing the field and translating it into useful applications. But there is also an underlying note of caution—get things wrong, and synthetic biology could become another genetically modified organisms fiasco—or worse.

The hope is that scientists, government and business learn from past mistakes, and work with regular people to develop synthetic biology in an acceptable, relevant and responsible way. This report is a great initial step toward doing this. It’ll be interesting to see what comes next.

Nanotechnology: Ensuring success through safety

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:00:36 +0000

This month’s issue of the magazine Science & Technology takes a closer look at some of the controversies, dilemmas and decisions that will impact on the future development of the science and technology of working at the nanoscale. Amongst the commentaries is a short piece I wrote about the importance of safety in underpinning successful and beneficial nano-enabled technologies:

Science & Technology, June 2009, Page 66

Over the past few years, scientists and engineers have made huge strides in their ability to manipulate materials at the nanometer scale. Tapping into novel properties that emerge when substances are engineered at the nanoscale, they have begun to push conventional technologies further than was previously thought possible. And with this new-found dexterity, they are beginning to develop innovative new technologies that were unimaginable not so long ago. The result is a rapidly emerging toolkit of scientific knowledge and technical expertise that could have profound economic and social impacts around the world; creating jobs and wealth while addressing challenges that range from disease treatment and prevention to renewable energy and clean water.

As with any new technology, however, the promise of nanotechnology comes at a price. When materials are engineered at the scale of atoms and molecules they can behave in unconventional ways—in effect, the rules that apply to non-nanoscale materials begin to break down. This is what makes the technology so powerful. But it raises the possibility of products that can also cause harm in unconventional ways, which may not be captured by the usual approaches to dealing with human health and environmental risks. Unless these unconventional risks are understood and addressed, the future of nanotechnology could be dogged by uncertainties over safety and dwindling public trust.

Not every product of nanotechnology will present unconventional risks. But if a nanoscale substance can get to places in the body or the environment that are normally inaccessible, and is able to elicit a response following exposure that is influenced by shape and form at nanometer dimensions, new questions need to be asked on how harmful the substance is and how it can be used safely. Five years ago, these concerns were raised by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. Since then, numerous reports have reiterated and expanded on the challenges being faced to developing safe nanotechnologies. Sadly, there has been substantially more talk than action.

Fortunately, there have been no documented cases of harm arising from exposure to engineered nanomaterials. But an increasing body of research indicates that some of these materials are potentially harmful if used without due care. Yet information is still lacking on what constitutes “due care” in many cases—especially with highly novel substances such as carbon nanotubes. And while global research into the potential health impacts of engineered nanomaterials is increasing, it still falls far short of what is needed to underpin evidence-based decision-making.

Recently, the US National Academies of Science called for a national research strategy for nanotechnology risk research, drawing on the expertise and perspective of multiple stakeholders. Coupled with adequate funding, such an approach could help bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers in developing safe nanotechnologies. Yet at the end of the day, even the best risk research strategies will not be of much use if the end users are suspicious of nanotechnology.

Experiences with genetically modified organisms have demonstrated the power of public opinion in determining whether a new technology succeeds or not. And while the similarities between nanotechnology and GMOs may be slim, it is clear that in today’s hyper-connected world, consumers have an increasingly strong voice. As a result, it is not sufficient to ensure the safety of nanotechnology-based products; public trust in the technology and the ability of government and industry to manage it safely must also be nurtured.

In many ways nanotechnology is a test-case for other emerging technologies. Countries and economies around the world are increasingly dependent on technology innovation. Yet the rules governing success are changing; driven by rapidly evolving global communications, ever-more pressing social and economic challenges, and an increasingly complex knowledge-base. Proactive risk research and public engagement are key not navigating through this changing landscape. Get them wrong and we face lost opportunities. But get them right and there is a chance that nanotechnology—and other emerging technologies—will deliver what they promise.

Originally published in Science & Technology Issue 3, June 2009, pp 66-67

Download the original article [PDF, 312 KB]

To tweet or not to tweet – social media and the scientific meeting

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:58:55 +0000

Should live tweeting and blogging from scientific meetings be controlled?

Back in May, Daniel MacArthur – a researcher and blogger – wrote a number of on-the-spot blogs on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) Biology of Genomes meeting. By all accounts a number of people were tweeting and blogging from the meeting. But Daniel had the misfortune to come under scrutiny from Genomeweb – a web-based news service – because of his actions. As ScienceInsider reported yesterday, Genomeweb complained to the conference organizers that Daniel was reporting from the meeting without having to abide by the rules governing professional journalists attending the conference. As a result, the rules are being changed – according to ScienceInsider, the meeting’s registration form will be revised “such that all participants will agree that if they are going to blog or twitter results, they need to let CSHL know in advance and get the presenter’s okay.”

Judging by discussions on the web today, the story has hit a nerve. More importantly, it has raised a thorny issue that really needs to be tackled as the way people communicate changes:

What’s OK and what’s not when you’re at a scientific meeting?

As a blogger and Twitter user, as well as a regular speaker at scientific meetings, it’s a question that is directly relevant to me. Reading the discussions today and talking with people on Twitter about the issue, I was forced to think a little more carefully about how I make decisions on when to tweet or blog, and when not to…

I do have my own set of rather fuzzy internal guidelines, but I’ve never attempted anything as formal as writing them down. However, given the rising significance of this issue, I thought it might be worth thinking through them a little more systematically.

I’m still trying to work out what the appropriate boundaries are here, so what you are getting is more my current thought processes than any definitive answers – think of it as live -logging from my brain. As a consequence, I could well change my mind – completely – at some future date. But this is where I am at the moment.

First off, it’s worth thinking about why people blog or tweet, what the purpose of scientific meetings is, and the role of the established media at these meetings.

Blogging and tweeting: Are bloggers and tweeps citizen-journalists? I don’t think we are on the whole. Certainly, some people use blogs and Twitter to report on events. But many others simply use the media as a way of communicating their own thoughts, observations and reactions to others. This is not journalism.

My own stuff is a mix of expert opinion, observations on stuff that grabs my interest, and occasionally factual information that I think others will be interested in. I don’t “report” – I’m not a reporter, and I couldn’t hope to do it with nearly the skill of someone having the appropriate training.

There is a potential problem though when social media commentators – which is what a lot of us are I guess – are treated as reporters, and the stuff we write is judged accordingly. However, placing the same code of ethics and restrictions on bloggers and Twitter users as professional journalists makes little sense – the problem is not one of what is being written as how it is being read. Rather, new solutions are needed to the new challenges raused by social media.

Scientific meetings: Scientific meetings come in all shapes and sizes. Some are invitation only; others are open and accessible to anyone. Some are designed to hash out areas of uncertainty between experts; others to present results to a broad audience. Some are held to expose research to rigorous peer review; others to establish scientific authority. Acceptable reporting practices will undoubtedly differ from meeting to meeting. I would be very surprised if anyone thought that live-tweeting from a private meeting was acceptable. But a running commentary on a public keynote given by established expert would be a very different matter in my eyes.

Scientific meetings and the media: Once upon a time, scientific conferences were predominantly about exchanging and examining new information with your peers – at least, they were in my field of research. Reporters just weren’t a part of the equation. Now, major conferences tend to be a media-fest – with the scientific community clamoring to have their messages and stories heard by all and sundry. There’s tremendous pressure to “sell” studies to the media – to work out what might appeal to a broad readership, then dress it up so it’s as attractive as possible. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the press releases and media coverage surrounding something like an American Chemical Society meeting.

As a result there is a tendency – at some conferences at least – for presentations to be less about peer to peer review and discussion, and more about broad dissemination and promotion. In this context, people want their work to be communicated in the media – but on their terms. In other words, they love the media when they feel they are on control, but get antsy if they feel that control slipping.

Trying to pull this together, it seems clear that as social media stretches and challenges the established way of doing things, there’s going to have to be some adjustment on both sides. I think it’s fair to say that there are probably boundaries to appropriate live-tweeting and blogging that still need to be hashed out. But conference organizers and speakers also need to adapt to changing circumstances. And I don’t think that this means treating citizen commentators as journalists. But I do think that, among other things, it means shedding attitudes that treat the media – social or otherwise – as something to be controlled and used, rather than worked in partnership with.

Which brings me to how I approach tweeting and blogging. I’ve live-tweeted from meetings in the past, as well as blogged on meetings. I have also made conscious decisions not to comment in any form on meetings on occasions. I don’t think I have got it right in every case. But I haven’t had too many complaints either. So how do I determine what I do and don’t do?

Here’s a first stab at trying to describe my decision-making process:

In general: Irrespective of the setting, I tend to ask whether the information being presented is confidential, whether it is sensitive in any way, and whether others would benefit from reading about it on Twitter or 2020science. There has been at least one occasion where I decided not to live-tweet from a public meeting because I thought it would embarrass the speakers unnecessarily. There have been other occasions where I have live tweeted to provide people not at the meeting a sense of what someone is saying, as they say it.

This only applies to formal presentations and public comments. Publicly commenting on private conversations is absolutely out as far as I’m concerned, and I will only write about side conversations the person I’m talking to knows my intentions beforehand.

Invitation-only meetings: Definitely no live tweeting, and no blogging unless express permission is given.

Meetings with clearly stated reporting limitations: Generally, no live tweeting, and abiding by the rules when it comes to blogging.

Expert presentation & discussion of non-peer reviewed data. If the aim of the meeting is to seriously assess and discuss someone’s unpublished research, I would hesitate to live tweet. I might blog – but only if it seemed appropriate given the state and significance of the research.

Open conferences (i.e. anyone who pays can attend) where researchers are reviewing the state of knowledge, presenting published data, or clearly think they are the bees knees and everyone should know it. These I see as fair game for live tweeting and blogging – without the permission of the speaker.

Public meetings, where anyone can attend and there is no entrance fee. Open season as far as tweeting and blogging go.

I will probably modify these with time and experience – it’s a first stab after all. But I think it’s a necessary one. Widespread communication through social media is a reality, it is challenging how things are done, and a new equilibrium needs to be found between those providing information and those using and distributing it. The danger is that without some honest soul-searching by everyone involved, the new equilibrium could be more detrimental than beneficial.

And on a final note, Daniel MacArthur wrote a very gracious yet insightful response to Genomeweb’s concerns – evidence (if you needed it) that serious commentations are committed to getting this right, for everyone’s benefit.

Culture clash: Take the 2-second two-cultures poll

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:13:44 +0000

A 2-second distraction in the run-up to the 50th anniversary of CP Snow’s Two Cultures lecture: Take the two-cultures poll (below), and see how your answer aligns with those from others:

Take Our Poll

(If you can’t see the poll, click here)

Now you’ve pressed the button and seen the results, here’s the background:

On May 7th 1959, the scientist, politician and novelist CP Snow highlighted a destructive gulf between the literary intellectuals of the day and scientists – his “two cultures.” Fifty years on, the cultures have changed, but possibly not as much as we would like to believe…

So where are we now? Do most people respect and understand science? Have the cultures of science and the humanities reconciled their differences? Or are there new cultures and divides emerging that are just as divisive now as Snow’s two cultures were 50 years ago?

These are issues that are going to aired far and wide around next week’s 50th anniversary of Snow’s Two Cultures lecture. As a precursor to these discussions though I wanted to start the ball rolling by posing a question that Snow famously asked of his literary friends.

But I wanted to pose the question with a twist.

Snow asked his colleagues to describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics as a way of revealing their disregard for scientific understanding. I’ve long felt the question was unfair, and Snow himself acknowledged its limitations in a follow-on to his 1959 lecture.

But a little bit of me has been dying to ask the question anyway – just to see what sort of responses I got.

Here’s the twist though: Rather than ask for a formal definition of a formal Law, the question above tests people’s grasp of the underlying science, and how they judge its importance. The possibility (or not) of perpetual motion – pendulums and other devices that go for ever and continue to work without additional fuel or maintenance – is deeply embedded in the Second Law of Thermodynamics

I have a sneaky suspicion that the results will reveal a greater appreciation for science than Snow found amongst his literary colleagues 50 years ago. But we’ll see – I’ll be blogging on what the poll does (and doesn’t) reveal next week.

And before I’m deluged with comments and criticisms, let me be clear – this isn’t a scientific poll. It is however a great teaser to the he myriad commentaries and seminars that will undoubtedly be appearing on CP Snow and the Two Cultures over the next few weeks. And it might just reveal something interesting – stay tuned.

And finally, please pass this link on – the more people take the 2-second poll, the more interesting the data will be

Thanks!

Update 4/28/09: As a “humanities counterbalance,” PLEASE check Ruth Seeley’s alternative poll out – another short one, so go for it!

In space, no one can hear you scream – unless you’re in a sci-flick!

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 02:18:25 +0000

If you want to annoy a scientist, show them a movie that gets the little details wrong—like the fact that sound doesn’t travel in a vacuum, or biologists always have a box of Kim Wipes within arms-reach.

If you want to annoy anyone else, put them in the same room with the scientist!

Scientists love to pick apart the poor depiction of science in movies and TV programs—I know, I’ve been there. It’s irritating, it suggests someone in authority who needs a crash course in scientific reality, and it raises very real fears that audiences will come away with warped ideas of what science is all about…

And as a result, scientists as a species tend to have a religious zeal for converting scriptwriters, producers and directors in Big Media to using literal depictions of science that would make a Creationist proud.

I bring this up because I decided to attend a session on science in the media at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago. The session—“You Ought To Be In Pictures: Science as Entertainment in Movies and Television”—attracted a large crowd. But while many of attendees were clearly reveling in the camaraderie of scientists versus the rest of the world, I left with something of an uneasy feeling about the whole enterprise.

Let me try and explain. I don’t mind a bit of harmless science snobbery when it comes to entertainment. I’m excited that real scientists are consulting with scriptwriters and directors to make sure the depiction of science is at least plausible. And, to be honest, if Hollywood called to ask me for advice, I would be off like a shot.

But what worries me is a push for realism that threatens to undermine people’s understanding of science through misplaced trust.

I suspect that few people seriously base their understanding of science and scientists on blockbuster movies—it’s generally accepted that these are works of fiction, that bend reality to tell a story. What happens though when you begin to inject science-literalism into movies and TV shows, and let people know that what they are seeing is close to the truth? You end up building trust within the audience—they begin believing that what they see is a literal rather than figurative representation of what science is about and how it works—which is great when the science is spot on. But really bad when it deviates even slightly from reality.

This gets to the nub of my concern. Once the audience trusts what they see, they will be fully justified in believing everything—because what this new science literalism does not teach is critical thinking. And as a result, even the smallest inaccuracies—the speed with which science progresses, the complexity of the discovery process, the limits of information recovery from data—become a betrayal of that trust.

In effect, you get a CSI effect that extends to all of science—not just forensic science.

The answer—I suspect—is to think critically about the role of science in entertainment. Unless someone can point me to clear evidence to the contrary, I don’t think it’s a good idea to use it as an educational tool. On the other hand, I do believe everyone benefits where the thoughtful input of a science consultant adds to the plausibility and internal consistency of a movie or show. And the idea of enthusing people about science and thinking more broadly and critically about their surroundings thrills me.

At the end of the day, entertainment is not science, and should not be seen as something to hijack for science education. Using science to tell a story, convey a perspective or explore an issue is great—it should be encouraged. And using entertainment to communicate science also has its place.

But science-evangelism? Knock on someone else’s door—please!

Footnotes

I should add that while the AAAS session prompted these ruminations, a number of the speakers did seem to have their heads screwed on—and were clearly enjoying their work with shows like The Big Bang Theory and Numb3rs. Jonathan Gitlin covers the session comprehensively here.

Both the National Science Foundation and the National Academies of Science have programs linking scientists with professionals in the entertainment industry. Details on the National Academies Science and Entertainment Exchange can be found here.

And I should add that, while I really enjoy scientifically inaccurate and implausible movies—if the story and characters are strong—I’m longing for the day when someone makes a really good science movie! I guess I’m still a science-snob at heart!

Five more good books

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:26:03 +0000

Science gone right, science gone wrong, science gone social, science gone political—it’s all here in five off-beat book recommendations to kick off 2009. Ranging from Darwin’s Origin of Species to Sir Terry Pratchett’s Nation, the one thing I think I can guarantee is that you will struggle to find an odder bunch of literary bed-fellows! Hope you enjoy them, and have a happy new year!

A new year, a new leaf—time for five more eclectic (some might say eccentric) book recommendations to see you through the hangover and into a brighter future.

As in the previous five good books blog, I’ve eschewed the conventional to provide as unusual a potpourri of literary delights as you will find anywhere. And as before, I’ve tried to inject a little method into the madness—spot it if you can!

I should first apologize because this was supposed to be a quick blog, rushed off before the New Years festivities began in earnest. But it turned into a veritable “slow blog!”

So for those of you impatient to read the recommendations and move on, here they are:

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow
Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham
Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee
Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett

But please do read on, and discover the why behind the what… Here then, is my retrospective-prospective reading list for a technologically-enlightened 2009—enjoy!

In the number one slot: On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. How could it be anything else? Perhaps one of the most influential books to have been written over the past couple of hundred years, the repercussions of Darwin’s seminal work are still being felt today. 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (as if you didn’t know)—and what better excuse to go back to the source and read what the great man really wrote in what he refers to as “this abstract”—and some abstract at nearly 500 pages!

Unlike much of the debate and controversy it initiated, Origin is a carefully developed and reasoned thesis based on Darwin’s observations—evidence-based science at its best. And rather impressively, the more we learn about life on this planet, the more Darwin’s Theory of Evolution makes sense.

This is essential reading for understanding how disruptive and empowering scientific knowledge can be within society. As society comes to rely increasingly on science and technology, there are lessons here that are well worth learning. The Origin of Species sold out on the day it was published in 1859. It’s hard to imagine a science text selling so fast nowadays. Which makes you think—in all the talk about how essential technology and innovation are in today’s knowledge economy, have we lost sight of the underlying science? I wonder…

Next up, another anniversary and another highly influential book. On May 7 1959, Charles Percy Snow—better know as C. P. Snow—delivered the annual Rede Lecture at the University of Cambridge. His title: The Two Cultures. The lecture—and its subsequent appearance in print—caught the spirit of the moment as two cultures; one dominated by literary intellectuals, the other by scientists; grew increasingly detached from each other and threatened to rob society of it’s ability to progress.

Snow’s thoughts have moulded thinking about science and society over the intervening 50 years. But just as few who uphold or decry Darwinian evolution have read the original text, I suspect that not many who talk “knowledgeably” about the two cultures are that familiar with what the man actually said.

Having recently revisited the lecture, I would strongly recommend anyone interested in the interface between science and society to read it. The lecture is clearly of its time—society has changed since 1959. Yet scrape away at the surface, and many of the themes in the lecture are as relevant now as they were fifty years ago—negligible communication between the world of science and “traditional culture,” disrespect for science literacy (as distinct from technology familiarity), and the importance of ensuring the scientific revolution breaks down socially indefensible barriers—especially between the rich and the poor.

Today the cultures are different, and the boundaries between them blurred. But the bottom line is that we are more dependent than ever on science in society, yet more ignorant than ever on how science works, and how to use it wisely.

If Darwin demonstrated how disruptive science can be, Snow illuminated how essential it is to harness and use its disruptive power for good within society—or suffer the consequences.

As an aside, even more significant (in my opinion) than the original Rede lecture is Snow’s 1963 assessment of the lecture’s impact. In The Two Cultures: A Second Look, C.P. Snow finds the freedom to explain more clearly what he was really getting at in the lecture. Here he explains the use of the “two cultures” as a vehicle to explore far more profound aspects of the science-society relationship—many just as important yet overlooked today as they were then. Quoting from the beginning of the essay:

“In our society (that is, advanced western society) we have lost even the pretense of a common culture. Persons educated with the greatest intensity we know can no longer communicate with each other on the plane of their intellectual concern. This is serious for our creative, intellectual and, above all, our normal life. It is leading us to interpret the past wrongly, to misjudge the present, and to deny our hopes of the future. It is making it difficult or impossible for us to take good action.”

Read these essays—they are important!

Third in the list comes something a little lighter: Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham. Published in 1960—right on the coat-tails of C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures—it is a fictitious tale of a scientific discovery leading to longer lives for a select few, and the social and moral challenges this raises.

Admittedly, the book is dated—it was written nearly fifty years ago after all. But it’s still a great read. And more importantly, it raises questions about the development and use of disruptive scientific knowledge that are highly relevant to today.

The story revolves around the discovery of a lichen-based compound that can extend a person’s lifespan by a factor of three. But the compound cannot be synthesized, and the source is limited. The moral questions raised are complex—longer life expectancy could lead to a more reflective society, more time to find solutions to pressing problems, greater quality of life. But it could also lead to social injustice—widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots, and initiate social unrest.

The context may be very 1960’s, but the general issues resonate strongly with challenges facing society today as science and technology become increasingly complex. And just as society was ill-equipped to handle disruptive science back in the 1960’s, it must be asked whether we are any better off now.

The fourth book in this list of five is something of an outsider—Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee. 2009 marks the fiftieth anniversary of this account of village life in rural England in the early twentieth century—anniversaries emerging as something of a theme here. Most of the book has nothing to do with science and technology. But it is worth reading for two reasons:

First, it is a beautifully crafted account of pre-industrial revolution English village life—I guarantee it will fill you for nostalgia, even if you have never seen an English village!

But more to the point, Lee begins to chart the enormous changes wrought on this thousand year old way of life by the industrial revolution—what Snow referred to as the beginnings of the scientific revolution we are still in. If you get the chance, read the final chapter of the book. While Lee is ambivalent on whether the changes he witnessed over the course of his youth were for good or ill, you cannot help but reflect on where the scientific revolution is leading us as you absorb his prose.

To whet your appetite, this is from the beginning of the final chapter:

“The last days of my childhood were also the last days of the village. I belonged to that generation which saw, by chance, the end of a thousand years’ life. The change came late on our Costwold valley, didn’t really show itself till the late 1920’s; I was twelve by then, but during that handful of years I witnessed the whole thing happen.

“Myself, my family, my generation, were born in a world of silence; a world of hard work and necessary patience, of backs bent to the ground, hands massaging the crops, of waiting on weather and growth; of villages like ships in the empty landscapes and the long walking distances between them; of white narrow roads, rutted by hooves and cart-wheels, innocent of oil or petrol, down which people passed rarely, and almost never for pleasure, and the horse was the fastest thing moving. Man and horse were all the power we had—abetted by levers and pulleys. But the horse was king, and almost everything grew around him: fodder, smithies, stables, paddocks, distances, and the rhythms of our days. His eight miles an hour was the limit of our movements, as it had been since the days of the Romans. That eight miles an hour was life and death, the size of our world, our prison.”

Then came cars and machines and science and technology…

Lee’s eloquent prose demonstrates just how disruptive science and technology innovation is. The innovation can lead to both good and bad—both Lee and Snow clearly acknowledge this. The trick it would seem—the moral imperative even—is to act to ensure the good outweighs the bad.

Last but most definitely not least comes another novel, and a real gem of a book: Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett.

(yes, Terry has just received a well-deserved “K”.)

A word of warning up front: This is a grown-up book masquerading as a child’s story. So you might at first dismiss it. But you do so at your peril, for Pratchett weaves an enlightening and challenging tale about science, society and religion that succeeds where many academic tomes have failed.

The story revolves around a young boy living on a Pacific island who looses his whole community to a tsunami, but ends up building a new one from the flotsam and jetsam of society that wash up on the shores. This seemingly simple setting allows Pratchett to explore the barriers between races, cultures, philosophies, religion and science, and what can be achieved when these are broken down.

The tale is set in a parallel world, which rather delightfully enables Pratchett to bend the history of science somewhat, and the activities of some of its leading lights. There is a beautiful homage to the likes of Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Carl Sagan, and even Patrick Moore in the closing pages!

But the power of this book—and it is powerful—comes from Pratchett’s knack of shining a searing spotlight on the human condition in the most gentle and humorous of ways.

Nation covers may themes, one of which is the foolishness of blind belief. Of course, this includes religious beliefs in the book. But it also extends to scientific “beliefs.” And there is a clear message here for societies facing a science and technology-dominated future: Learn from the past, respect evidence, and communicate across barriers.

To wrap up, while this is an odd set of recommended reading by anyone’s reckoning, hopefully the thread holding the list together is clear—addressing the challenges and opportunities of science and technology within society. Writing on the brink of 2009, science and technology innovation seem more important than ever. Yet we seem further than ever in understanding how to ensure everyone benefits from advances that are made.

Hopefully revisiting (or visiting for the first time) these books will provide a new perspective on making wise choices over the coming year.

Happy reading, and happy 2009!

_________________________

Footnotes, added 1/1/09

On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, is currently available in many imprints – check out Amazon.com for further details.

The Two Cultures, by C. P. Snow, is currently published by Cambridge University Press (in the Canto series). This edition includes both the 1959 lecture, the 1963 essay, and an excellent introduction by Stefan Collini.

Trouble with Lichen, by John Wyndham was recently re-released by Penguin Books UK. US readers will need to explore that archaic institution the Library… or pay for international shipping!

Cider with Rosie, by Laurie Lee, is currently published in the US by David R. Godine. In the UK, the publisher is Random House.

Nation, by Sir Terry Pratchett, is published by Random House in the UK, and HarpurCollins in the US.

For more on the “slow blog,” check out Todd Sieling’s Slow Blog Manifesto!

A "manifesto" for socially-relevant science and technology

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 20:36:15 +0000

In 2003, Harvard University’s Sheila Jasanoff wrote about what she termed “Technologies of Humility.” Recognizing the growing disconnect between technological progress and its effective governance, Jasanoff explored new approaches to decision-making that “seek to integrate the ‘can-do’ orientation of science and engineering with the ‘should-do’ questions of ethical and political analysis.” Five years on, her (still radical) ideas resonate deeply with the science and technology ambitions of the incoming Obama administration.

Sitting down this morning, I had intended to write about three papers recently published on-line in the journal Nature Nanotechnology. The papers (by Kahan et al., Pidgeon et al. and Sheufele et al.)—which were widely reported on a few weeks back—consider factors influencing “public” responses to nanotechnology, and challenge long-held beliefs that knowledge leads to acceptance.

However, I became distracted! Searching for an original frame for these studies, I returned to Jasanoff’s 2003 paper “Technologies of Humility: Citizen participation in governing Science,” published in the journal Minerva (Minerva 41:223-244). Reading it, I was struck afresh by how germane Jasanoff’s ideas are, how completely they seemed to have been ignored in US policy making, and how important they are to the science and technology agenda of the incoming Obama administration.

Rather than read a re-hash from me of what is an eloquently written and very accessible paper, I would strongly recommend you pour yourself a glass of good wine (a cup of coffee or fine tea will do just as well), carve out some quality time, and read the original—which is downloadable from here [PDF, 120 KB]. It is after all the holiday season, and what better than a good read to fill the long hours before the grind of work begins once again!

But just in case you are in a hurry and care to put up with my crude and flawed overview, here you are:

Jasanoff starts out:

“Long before the terrorist atrocities of 11 September 2001 in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania, the anthrax attacks through the US mail, and the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, signs were mounting that America’s ability to create and operate vast technological systems had outrun her capacity for prediction and control.”

Looking back over 20 years of “ ‘normal accidents’, which were strung like dark beads through the latter years of the twentieth century and beyond” Jasanoff notes that

“Scientiﬁc and technical advances bring unquestioned beneﬁts, but they also generate new uncertainties and failures, with the result that doubt continually undermines knowledge, and unforeseen consequences confound faith in progress.”

This opens up a discussion on risk, which Jasanoff argues, is not “a matter of simple probabilities, to be rationally calculated by experts and avoided in accordance with the cold arithmetic of cost-benefit analysis,” but rather is part of the human condition, and “woven into the very fabric of progress.”

“Critically important questions of risk management cannot be addressed by technical experts with conventional tools of prediction. Such questions determine not only whether we will get sick or die, and under what conditions, but also who will be affected and how we should live with uncertainty and ignorance. Is it sufﬁcient, for instance, to assess technology’s consequences, or must we also seek to evaluate its aims? How should we act when the values of scientiﬁc inquiry appear to conﬂict with other fundamental social values? Has our ability to innovate in some areas run unacceptably ahead of our powers of control? Will some of our most revolutionary technologies increase inequality, promote violence, threaten cultures, or harm the environment? And are our institutions, whether national or supranational, up to the task of governing our dizzying technological capabilities?”

According to Jasanoff, effective technology management needs to go far beyond the “speaking truth to power” paradigm that still seems to link knowledge to power. And in particular, greater accountability in the production and use of scientific knowledge is essential.

“Accountability in one or another form is increasingly seen as an independent criterion for evaluating scientiﬁc research and its technological applications, supplementing more traditional concerns with safety, efﬁcacy, and economic efﬁciency.”

But how can new approaches to establishing and ensuring accountability be developed within the constrains of existing ways of doing business? Jasanoff argued back in 2003 that the time was ripe for seriously re-evaluating existing models and approaches. And at the close of 2008, her recommendations are all the more pertinent for a lack of enlightened progress in the intervening years.

From this starting point, Jasanoff develops the idea of “technologies of humility”—“social technologies” developed around a framework that poses “the questions we should ask of almost every human enterprise that intends to alter society: what is the purpose; who will be hurt; who beneﬁts; and how can we know?” These are presented as a counter-balance to what she refers to as the modern reliance on “technologies of hubris”—a command and control approach to science and technology that seeks to clear the way for science-driven innovation. Instead, Jasanoff reasons that

“there is a need for ‘technologies of humility’ to complement the predictive approaches: to make apparent the possibility of unforeseen consequences; to make explicit the normative that lurks within the technical; and to acknowledge from the start the need for plural viewpoints and collective learning.”

In developing her ideas, Jasanoff highlights problems that continue to plague the sustainable development of emerging technologies—especially when it comes to addressing and managing potential risks. In discussing the limitations of conventional peer review in the context of oversight and risk management, she notes that a spate of highly-publicized cases of alleged fraud in science in the 1980’s showed that

“regulatory science, produced to support governmental efforts to guard against risk, was fundamentally different from research driven by scientists’ collective curiosity.”

This is a lesson that the US government still seems to be struggling with—at least when it comes to nanotechnology—if the recent report from the National Academies of Science is anything to go by.

The issue of peer-review opens up the question of how science should be evaluated within different contexts. Jasanoff remarks that, as new approaches to knowledge production are developed, so new ways of assessing quality are needed.

“Besides old questions about the intellectual merits of their work, scientists are being asked to answer questions about marketability, and the capacity of science to promote harmony and welfare.”

This is challenging the old way of doing things, and raising the need for new ways of ensuring socially responsive and responsible science and technology. As Jasanoff points out, “science that draws strength from it’s socially-detached position is too frail to meet the pressures put upon it by modern society.”

The overarching message here—and Jasanoff delves deeper into the problems and potential solutions than these notes reflect—is that new approaches are needed to partnering with society in the science and technology enterprise. And she reflects that

“while national governments are scrambling to create new participatory forms, there are signs that such changes may reach neither far enough nor deeply enough to satisfy the citizens of a globalizing world.”

Sobering words that are, if anything, more relevant now than they were five years ago.

But what is the solution? Jasanoff develops four focal points for socially relevant and responsible science and technology—framing, vulnerability, distribution and learning. These are packed terms, and you really need to read the paper to understand better what she is proposing. But here are some pointers:

Framing: The quality of solutions to social problems depends on the way they are framed. Get the framing wrong, and the solutions suffer. Jasanoff argues that frame analysis—how you define and approach a problem—is a critically important yet neglected tool for policy-making, which would benefit from greater public input.

Vulnerability: Population-based approaches to risk assessment and management typically overlook the condition and perspectives of individuals, and in doing so underplay the importance of various socio-economic factors. Jasanoff notes that through participation in the analysis of their own vulnerability, ordinary citizens may regain their status as active subjects, rather than remain objects in yet another expert discourse.

Distribution: Issues here stem from “end-of pipe” approaches to legitimizing science and technology advances, and disconnects between groups that benefit from advances, and those that pay for them. Jasanoff suggests that sustained interactions between decision-makers, experts and citizens, starting at the upstream end of research and development, could yield significant dividends in exposing the distributive implications of innovation.

Learning: There’s a tendency within the science and technology community to think that increased learning reduces divergence in opinions—as if there is one true “answer,” and more learning is the means to discovering it (see Kahan el al. in particular on this). But as Jasanoff points out, experience is subject to many interpretations—as much in policy-making as in literary or historical analysis. In other words, while the science might be clear, the decisions it leads to rarely are. Jasanoff recommends that new avenues be designed through which societies can collectively reflect on the ambiguity of their experiences, and assess the strengths and weaknesses of alternative explanations.

Looking through Jasanoff’s recommendations, her emphasis on citizen participation in governing science and technology comes to the fore. It is clear—from her perspective—that old-style command and control models of science and technology innovation no longer work, and that change is needed.

Sadly, in the US at least, we seem no closer to making progress than we were five years ago. The recent National Academies report on the US government’s nanotechnology risk-research strategy indicated that, despite huge efforts to get things right within the federal government, outmoded paradigms and bureaucratic constraints undermined the whole process. And movement on citizen participation in governing nanotechnology is near non-existent—despite clear calls for progress to be made in the 2003 Twenty First Century nanotechnology R&D Act.

And nanotechnology provides just one example—emerging technologies like synthetic biology, and the convergence between nanotech, biotech and information tech, are poised to stress the system to a far greater extent than nanotechnology alone has so far done. How then will our “technologies of hubris” cope?

The solution is to rethink the interface—or contract if you like—between science and society. When better to start this process of rethinking than with a fresh new science and technology-focused administration. And where better to start with Jasanoff’s technologies of humility.

And those three papers that started this rather side-tracked discussion? I must beg Dan, Dietram and Nick’s forgiveness because, excellent and relevant as their papers are, I have run out of space!

Instead, I would direct you to Richard Jones’ excellent Nature editorial on the three papers, together with his blog at Soft Machines. Or if you prefer a raunchier style of commentary, check out Tim Harpur’s thoughts at TNTlog.

And as you read both the papers and the commentaries, think about what might need to change for these insights to lead to more socially integrated science and technology development.

____________

Endnotes

The three Nature Nanotechnology papers I woefully neglected to comment on are:

Pidgeon, N., Harthorn, B. H., Bryant, K. and Rogers-Hayden, T. (2008). Deliberating the risks of nanotechnologies for energy and health applications in the United States and United Kingdom. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.362.

Scheufele, D. A., Corley, E. A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K. E. and Shirley S. Ho, S. S. (2008). Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.361.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. (2008). Cultural cognition of the risks and beneﬁts of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology DOI: 10.1038/NNANO.2008.341.

Sheila Jasanoff’s 2003 paper is:

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223-244. DOI: 10.1023/A:1025557512320

Small particles are sexy; Synthetic biologists are sexier!

Andrew Maynard — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:32 +0000

The October issue of Esquire magazine is remarkable. Not for the world’s first e-ink cover (appearing on limited special editions of the magazine). But because three of the five scientists featured amongst the seventy-five most influential people of the twenty first century are synthetic biologists…

Forget the recent poll suggesting most people don’t know their synbio from their streptococcus. Esquire has seen the future, and the future is, well, synthetic!

Let me explain. I don’t often purchase Esquire magazine—in fact this may be the first time I have picked up a copy. But what caught my eye in Barnes and Noble this evening was the use of electronic ink (e-ink) on the cover—apparently a world first…

Now, I have a soft spot for e-ink. If you’ve seen the movie “Children of Men” or read Neal Stephenson’s “The Diamond Age,” you will be familiar with the concept—print on paper that changes at the flick of a switch. The concept is beguiling; the elegance of the printed page, with the convenience of a digital display.

Today’s e-ink still has some way to go before it matches the sci-fi dream. But by using microscopically small black and white charged particles, the company E Ink is revolutionizing low power print-realistic displays that give traditional paper and ink a run for its money. Sony Reader® and Amazon Kindle digital books already use the technology, which thanks to micro-engineering is improving all the time. And now we have the first magazine cover that matches what could preciously only be achieved using digital special effects in movies.

Taken to its limits, this is a truly cool technology that could well transform the way information is displayed over the next decade, while slashing the power drain normally associated with digital displays—clean, green, and very sexy!

But not as sexy as synthetic biology.

Having purchased the magazine (the e-ink marketing ploy worked a dream on me), I started browsing through the seventy-five people featured as being the most influential of the twenty first century. Despite a paucity of scientists in the list, each one I stumbled on seemed to be a synthetic biologist—Jay Keasling, Drew Endy, Craig Venter. And of the two remaining scientists, Anthony Atalia—renowned for his work in regenerative medicine—is up to his elbows in biological manipulation. (The fifth scientist listed was Lisa Randall—flying the flag for physics).

This is really quite incredible. Despite low public awareness of synthetic biology, the folks at Esquire clearly see this convergence between biology and engineering as the wave of the future.

What we are quite possibly seeing is the synthetic biologist emerging as the new physicist in the popular role of science-personified: Step aside Einstein and Hawking; big physics is so twentieth century (with all due respect to the Large Hadron Collider). The twenty first century belongs to the likes of Keasling, Endy and Venter—brave new biologists for a brave new world.

Physics clearly still has a part to play—the small particles that make e-ink work for instance definitely have sex-appeal. But let’s face it—in the twenty first century, synthetic biologists are sexier!

Synthetic biology and the public: Time for a heart to heart?

Andrew Maynard — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:45:20 +0000

So, you have a cool new science that could make a major impact on global challenges like energy, disease and pollution and you want to make sure it reaches its full potential. What do you do? At some point, having a heart to heart with “the public” might be a good idea. Especially if your “cool new science” involves playing around with the very building blocks of life!

A just-released national survey on awareness of and attitudes toward nanotechnology and synthetic biology from the Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies should help kick-start this conversation. For the first time, this annual telephone poll has included questions on synthetic biology—the use of advanced science and engineering to make or re-design living organisms (such as bacteria) so that they can carry out specific functions. The results are intriguing, and should help inform the path toward responsible and socially acceptable uses of synthetic biology. But more on this later…

I have been eagerly awaiting the results of the survey for some time. Would people’s awareness and attitudes match those found for nanotechnology, or would the extension of nanometer-scale manipulation to the biological world raise new fears and hopes? And how would the concept of making new life from dead chemicals resonate with the religiously inclined?

Impatient for results, I tried out a quick experiment on my eleven-year-old son. Presented with a one-line definition of synthetic biology similar to the one above, I asked what his first thoughts were. The results: “Isn’t that against the Bible?” Followed immediately by “Isn’t that like Frankenstein’s monster?”

At this point I should establish that the reason for using such a young and naïve subject was to gauge how accessible the definition for synthetic biology was that we were developing. But his responses intrigued me. He is not overtly religious (although he does attend church regularly), and he is untainted by the Frankenfood debates surrounding genetically modified foods. Yet he immediately focused in on two key areas that seem to dog attitudes toward biological manipulation. Understandably therefore, I was keen to see whether the results of the current telephone poll—conducted across the United States by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc.—matched these concerns.

The results of the poll weren’t as clear-cut as my son’s response, but they did highlight some interesting points.

First off, synthetic biology is not on the radar for most people. 67% of the thousand people polled had never heard of the field, while a mere 2% claimed they had heard a lot about it. Yet when asked whether they thought the benefits would outweigh the risks (or vice versa), 60% of people who had never previously heard of synthetic biology voiced an opinion. That’s right—they didn’t know what it was, but they sure knew whether they liked it or not!

This has echoes of Dan Kahan’s work at the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School. Dan has shown previously that when people are initially introduced to nanotechnology, their attitudes are driven by an emotional response—their gut feeling. Such a gut-response to nanotechnology is seen in the current poll. But in this case, more people were willing to make an initial judgment on synthetic biology than nanotechnology.

I mention Dan’s work because he found that when people leaned more about nanotechnology, their opinions were heavily influenced by their value systems; moral, political, religious, or otherwise; and not just by the science. If this holds true for synthetic biology, people with strong religious beliefs might be expected to respond differently to more information on synbio than those less-inclined to a religious perspective—the “Isn’t that against the Bible?” response.

To gauge poll participants’ informed responses to synthetic biology, they were read two short paragraphs—one discussing its potential benefits and the other discussing its potential risks (see the PEN report for the paragraphs). The order in which these were read was randomly rotated. Participants were then asked again whether they thought the risks of synbio would be greater, the benefits greater, or whether the two would be about equal.

I was particularly interested in this question of how religious values affected people’s informed response. Delving into the data, respondents who never attend religious services were ambivalent on the risks and benefits of synthetic biology—there was no statistical difference between the numbers of people who thought benefits would outweigh risks, and vice versa. But people who attended religious services once or more per week were on balance more likely to feel that potential risks would dominate potential benefits.

Of course, it may be that this trend simply reflects a more risk-averse attitude amongst the religiously active. But comparing the synthetic biology data with the informed attitudes to nanotechnology counters this suggestion. In the case of nanotechnology, people who attended religious services once or more per week were ambivalent on whether the risks and benefits of the technology would dominate, while the religiously un-engaged clearly felt on balance that the benefits outweighed the risks.

A similar comparison between attitudes toward synthetic biology and nanotechnology was seen when poll subjects were separated out by gender, education and income.
Men on balance felt the benefits of nanotechnology would outweigh the risks, while women were on the fence. But when it came to synthetic biology, men were on the fence, and on balance women felt the risks would dominate.

College graduates anticipated the benefits of nanotechnology would dominate the risks on balance, while people educated to high school or less were ambivalent. For synbio, the graduates were undecided on whether risks or benefits were greater, while on balance those who only reached high school education or less thought the risks would be greater.

People earning more than $75 thousand a year thought the benefits of nanotechnology would be more significant on balance, while those earning less than $30 thousand per year weren’t sure. In the case of synthetic biology, the participants earning $75 thousand or more weren’t so sure about risks and benefits, while those earning less than $30 thousand were sure on balance that the risks would be greater.

Overall, there were plenty of people within each gender, education, income and religious observance group who bucked the trends—anticipating more benefits when the majority were expecting higher risks, and vice versa. But the overall picture is one of nanotechnology as an area where people are on balance either ambivalent about risks and benefits or anticipating the benefits to dominate, and synthetic biology as an area where people are either on the fence or anticipating the risks to dominate.

This is critical information to anyone trying to chart a course to successful and sustainable uses of synthetic biology. Clearly, there’s something about the conjunction of “synthetic” and “biology” that drives an emotive and values-driven response in people that isn’t seen for nanotechnology. But what to do about this? If synthetic biology is truly as important as its proponents believe, there’s a lot of work to do ahead in engaging with people to help develop socially acceptable applications.

Fortunately, this “new cool science” is still in its infancy, and the opportunities to engage with “the public” are still there. But it is growing up fast—The J. Craig Venter Institute is racing ahead towards creating the first artificial bacteria, and “biohackers” are learning how to re-engineer life at an increasingly rapid pace.

Some deep soul-searching between synthetic biologists and the public may not be in the making yet. But a serious heart to heart will be needed sooner rather than later, if synbio is to reach its full potential without major growing pains.

A consumer’s guide to nanotechnology

Andrew Maynard — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:15:11 +0000

How cool is this: A nanotech-enabled labcoat to protect the user against… well, nanomaterials presumably, amongst other things!

The labcoat—which uses Nanotex technology to make it stain resistant—is part of a major update to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Consumer Products Inventory that tracks manufacture-identified nano-products. Other eye-catchers in the update include a hunting shirt that resists bloodstains, a nanotech-based adhesive for McDonald’s burger containers, and an oven-like device for sanitizing whiffy shoes.

Of course, there are plenty of people who feel that consumer products represent an altogether too trivial side of nanotechnology. And I have to agree that on the scales of virtue, a nano-silver bidet would find it hard to compete with the next generation of nano-enabled solar cells or targeted cancer drugs. Yet trivial as many of the 800+ products in the updated inventory may seem, this is where most people will probably first come across the technology, and start to form their early opinions on whether it’s a good thing, or not so good.

And in this bizarrely-connected world within which we live, good experience with nano-bidets (for example) are more likely than not to make the introduction of nano-cancer drugs go just that little bit smoother.

But beyond initial impressions, consumer products in their broadest sense are where some of the first widespread exposures to engineered nanomaterials are likely to occur. And this means that care is needed over how nanomaterials are used in these products, and how that use is monitored and regulated.

In the US, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting the public against unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with consumer products. But recently, the CPSC has been struggling with low-tech problems like lead in children’s toys, and there is concern that this doesn’t bode well for the agency’s ability to tackle high tech nanotechnology-based products.

This is the conclusion of a new report by E. Marla Felcher of Harvard University’s Kennedy School. In “The Consumer Product Safety Commission and Nanotechnology,” published by the Project on Nanotechnologies, Felcher paints a picture of CPSC as an agency of lofty ideals, crippled by a lack of political support, dwindling resources, inadequate scientific expertise and inadequate authority. In the report’s executive summary, she writes

“CPSC’s inability to carry out its mandate with respect to simple, low-tech products such as Thomas the Tank Engine toy trains, Barbie dolls and Easy-Bake Ovens bodes poorly for its ability to oversee the safety of complex, high-tech products made using nanotechnology. The agency lacks the budget, the statutory authority and the scientific expertise to ensure that the hundreds of nanoproducts now on the market, among them baby bottle nipples, infant teething rings, teddy bears, paints, waxes, kitchenware and appliances, are safe. This problem will only worsen as more sophisticated nanotechnology-based products begin to enter the consumer market.”

The critique is harsh—all the more so because CPSC staff are clearly trying hard to get their heads around the challenges that nanotechnology is presenting them with. Yet according to Felcher, the problems lie not so much with the staff as with the agency’s lack of information, resources and authority. To ensure CPSC is nano-ready (and more broadly, emerging technology-ready), she recommends that:

The agency’s knowledge-base is built-up,
that CPSC work closely with other health and safety agencies,
that information on nano-products is solicited from companies,
that a Chronic Health Advisory Panel is convened to evaluate potential risks associated with nano-products for children,
that the agency appeal to industry to develop voluntary safety standards for children’s products,
and that the US congress take action on the Consumer product Safety Act bill to increase CPSC’s authority to address products based on new and emerging technologies.

There’s a good chance that many of the allegedly nanotechnology-enabled products entering the market are harmless (or at least, mostly harmless). But a combination of novel and sometimes unpredictable material behaviour, few checks and balances to use and an inadequately resourced and empowered regulator seems like a dangerous combination; when a potentially harmful nano-product does come along, there aren’t, it seems, many barriers to prevent problems from occurring.

And we are still dealing with very simple nanotechnologies—nanoparticles of silver, titania and carbon in the main. What happens when consumer product manufacturers start to use more complex nanotechnologies?

OK so nano-consumerism may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things. But the impacts of nano-consumerism gone wrong could be far from inconsequential. So if we want to see the less trivial products of nanotechnology—the renewable energy sources, the high performance batteries, the smart drugs—now might be a good time to make sure the first waves of products perform well without causing harm.

Now, back to that shoe de-whiffer—I think my “nano silver far infrared anti-odor healthy socks” need a little help…

__________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in August 2008

Nanotechnology—in bed with Madonna?

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:49:50 +0000

If you want proof that nano is mainstream, just pick up the U.S. May edition of fashion magazine “Elle.” Sharing cover-space with Madonna is the latest article on nanotech and the beauty business.

Elle might not be your first choice of reading for cutting edge science, but Joanne Chen’s article “Small Wonders” is no slouch when it comes to conveying complex ideas in digestible bites. Using beauty products as examples (from hair dryers to conditioners to anti-wrinkle cream), Chen takes the reader on a journey through the wonders and worries of nano. As an exercise in making nanotechnology accessible, the article is a must-read.

On the benefits of smallness:

“Once downsized, common materials can take on almost supernatural powers. Nanogold transforms into a catalytic agent and carbon, Clark Kent-like, suddenly acquires strength 100 times that of steel.”

And on nanoscale liposomes:

“If your liposome is your chunky, clunky well-loved first generation iPod, a nanosome is an nth-generation iPod, the hearing-aid size one that Steve Jobs will persuade you to buy in a few years. … But just as that little iPod of the future will inevitably get lost at the bottom of your F/W 2010 Balenciaga Giant purse, nanosomes could shimmy through the dermis, sliding into nerve endings, even into the blood cells, surfing their way through the circulatory system.”

Some dismiss nano-consumer products as trivial; even flippant. But for most people, this is where they will first encounter nanotechnology. And it is these products that will mould their perceptions and opinions. Pick up a nano-hair dryer that really works, and you have a nano-advocate. But slap on a nano-cream that leaves you with nothing but worries, and nano-doubts begin to set in.

These products are increasing rapidly in numbers and diversity—as Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies director David Rejeski noted while showing U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Chair John Kerry a locally-purchased tube of nano-silver toothpaste yesterday. The current tally of allegedly nano-enabled consumer products in the on-line PEN inventory is over 600; and these are just the tip of the iceberg. Rejeski’s Ace Silver Plus Nano Silver Toothpaste is typical of many entries—using nanotech to “improve” an existing product, but with apparently little attention paid to whether the use is a good idea.

And this raises serious questions in the minds of consumers, regulators and many nanotech businesses. What safeguards are there to ensure the nano-innovator next door (or South Korea in the case of the toothpaste) is asking the right questions about avoiding adverse impacts? Not a lot is the answer. Many nanotechnology industries are still floundering in a sea of uncertainty when it comes to ensuring product safety.

Matthew Nordan, president of Lux Research, summed it up in testimony submitted to yesterday’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing:

“Seven years after the NNI’s launch, it’s still unclear to most commercial entities when and how the materials they work with will be treated under the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act – forming a real commercialization gating factor.” [written testimony available here. PDF, 192 KB]

Such uncertainty is bad for business, bad for consumers, and ultimately bad for nanotechnology.

As nanotechnology begins to rub shoulders with pop culture and awareness of its existence grows, more and more people will be asking what it can do for them, and what the down sides are. Yesterday’s hearing (focused on the reauthorization of the U.S. 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D act) asked what is needed to ensure the commercial success of nanotechnology. And the answers came through loud and clear—understand and avoid risks ahead of the game, ensure transparency, and engage people.

This month in Elle, nanotechnology just happened to be in the right place at the right time as it shared the cover with Madonna. But awareness is definitely growing. And as it does, people will want to know whether it is safe and effective.

The question is, will we have the answers?

___________________________________

Trivia

Madonna’s 1991 film “Truth or Dare”, documenting her Blond Ambition tour, was released as “In Bed With Madonna” in the UK and Australia.

In 2004, nanotech commentator and fellow blogger Howard Lovy drew a link between Madonna and nanotechnology in the Salon article Nanotech angels.

I am not a Madonna fan

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in April 2008

Communicating nanotechnology: Image counts!

Andrew Maynard — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 23:21:06 +0000

What determines your view of nanotechnology—the message, or the messenger? Most of us would like to think it is the message that governs our internal risk-benefit analysis. But research published this week suggests other factors may be at work.

Dan Kahan at Yale Law School and his colleagues are shaking up our ideas on effective communication and engagement when it comes to complex issues like emerging nanotechnologies. They have already demonstrated what many jaded science communicators have learned the hard way—that shouting louder and longer about the facts doesn’t necessarily lead to “right-minded” thinking in the general population.* In their latest study (available here) they show that when it comes to balancing possible nanotechnology benefits and risks, the messenger is quite possibly as important as the message.

In brief, the team assigned positions on nanotechnology risks and benefits to four fictitious cultural advocates and recorded the risk perceptions of 800 people, based on which advocate was giving which message. In technical terms, both subjects and advocates were broken down by their different worldviews: hierarchs versus egalitarians, and individualists versus communitarians (mystified by the terminology? You’re not alone!). In practice, this led to four visually distinct advocates:

the smooth “leader of industry”—complete with power-suit (individualist/hierarchist);
the paternal community leader—sporting jacket and tie (communitarian/hierarchist);
the slick young entrepreneur—sans tie (individualist/egalitarian); and
the bearded Prof.—also without a tie (communitarian/egalitarian).

(My descriptions by the way – not Dan’s.)

The results: when subjects with egalitarian tendencies were exposed to an advocate who looked like a fellow egalitarian calling for a suspension of nanotechnology development, their perception of the risks went up. And when hierarchs heard someone who looked like another hierarch advocating nanotechnology development, their perception of the risks went down. In other words, the perceived values of the messengers were strongly biasing the subjects’ perceptions of risk. According to Kahan:

“when individuals of diverse cultural outlooks observe an advocate whose values they share advancing an argument they are predisposed to accept, and an advocate whose values they reject advancing an argument they are predisposed to resist, cultural polarization grows.”

The fun really started when the fictitious thought-leaders were given the opposite message to what you might expect—the “leader of industry” calling for a suspension of nanotechnology and the Prof. advocating its development. People tended to follow the advocates, even though the views being expressed were out of sync with their worldview! Kahan again:

“if, however, individuals observe an advocate whose values they share advancing the argument they are otherwise predisposed to resist, and an advocate whose values they reject advancing the argument they are otherwise predisposed to accept, there is a complete inversion of the positions on nanotechnology risks normally associated with particular cultural outlooks.”

This limited message-mixing exercise gives a tantalizing taste of what a planned follow-on study might reveal. But even accounting for its somewhat narrow scope, the conclusion is inescapable: the messenger is important.

Even more intriguing to me (or worrying – depending where you lie on the egalitarian/hierarchist/whatchamacalit/thingummybob scale) is that people may be willing to follow the opinions of advocates based on what they look like. (okay, so it is a little more complex than that, but what is clear is that visual impressions of empathy count—possibly more so than the science).

So where does this leave us with nanotechnology? For a start, in case we hadn’t quite got the message yet; the science does not speak for itself. If we are to communicate nanoscience and nanotechnology effectively and engender a meaningful dialogue amongst citizens and other stakeholders, we need to think carefully about who the messengers are, and what messages they convey.

The cynic in me finds this rather worrying—are we opening the doors to manipulating public opinion here, simply by choosing advocates that look the part? (To be honest, when first reading through this study the cynic in me also thought “so what’s new—haven’t we always suspected that in today’s society image is everything?”).

But Kahan eloquently makes the point that if we want enlightened public deliberation on nanotechnology, we have a means to neutralize cultural bias. The study shows that when multiple messages come from advocates having different outlooks—what Kahan calls “advocacy pluralism”—cultural bias begins to disappear. And this opens up the pathway to dialogues that are less likely to divide along cultural lines.

This surely is where we want to be, if the long-term aim is to enable science-based decision-making. But getting there will require action on the part of governments and others: to identify and equip suitable messengers; and to develop understandable and level-headed messages. And this must be followed by genuine citizen engagement, if the door to science and technology decision-making is to be opened wider to allow the public in. Only then will we be able to work effectively in partnership towards nanotechnologies that deliver on their promise.

And for those readers who are currently holding judgement on this piece until they know what I am wearing; let’s just say that in the complex world of cultural advocacy power-dressing, I strongly believe that less is more.

* Kahan, D., Slovic, P., Braman, D., Gastil, J. and Cohen, G. (2007). Nanotechnology risk perceptions: The influence of affect and values, Wilson Center Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Washington DC.

___________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in February 2008