I must have been just a little worked up when I spoke with Gwyneth Shaw at the New Haven Independent a couple of weeks ago on nanotechnology. I’m usually fairly circumspect with my comments to reporters (OK, so I know some readers have just spattered their coffee across the computer screen, but do try to balance occasionally strong statements within a broader context). So I was surprised to see a couple of rather robust quotes in Gwyneth’s piece this morning on the big jamboree celebrating 10 years of the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
It’s not that the quotes are incorrect – they align with stuff I’ve been saying for years. But they are rather forthright – and they lack a certain amount of context. The beauty of blogging though is that I can provide at least some context that might help to clarify where I was coming from.
Here’s the first quote:
“There’s still an awful lot of hype coming out of that group [the NNI], and I have mixed feelings about the initiative,” said Andrew Maynard, director of the University of Michigan’s Risk Science Center.
This is true. The NNI has been groundbreaking in stimulating new research and new innovation over the past ten years, and has enabled federal agencies, research communities and international organizations to work together in new and better ways. At the same time the NNI has been about more than science and technology – there is a social, economic and political side to the push to support nanotechnology that is not often acknowledged, and as a result has been handled rather naively at times. Underlying this is an assumption that nanotechnology is necessary for the good of mankind – it’s the kind of assumption that leads to hype and actions in support of an already-decided position. This is normal for big initiatives. But it’s not necessarily helpful – hence my mixed feelings.
Next:
Maynard worked at the NNI for a few years. He said that while the NNI has helped “set the pace” for nanotechnology internationally, there have been missed opportunities too. Mostly, he said, they’re in the area of public engagement about the benefits and risks of nanotechnology.
I didn’t strictly speaking work for the NNI – I was part of the NNI while working for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. But I do think there have been missed opportunities here to engage more effectively with a broader range of stakeholders. This is slowly changing as the NNI begins to put documents out for public comment. But ask the questions – where are the go-to NNI-led sources of information on nanotechnology that are accessible and relevant to tens of millions of citizens? Where are the opportunities for citizens to contribute to the development of nanotechnologies in substantive and influential ways? Where are the cross-agency initiatives on engagement that allow underlying assumptions to be questioned and modified? Ten years into a program that aims to change society, I would have hoped for a little more than we have now.
And finally:
The NNI, and the federal government, haven’t been a good source of basic information about nanotechnology, Maynard said. When the average person wants to figure out what’s going on, he said, “there is absolutely nothing coming from the fed government on that level.”
OK so “absolutely nothing” is hyperbole, and I should have been more careful with my words. There are strong government-funded initiatives that are beginning to connect with “average people” (whoever they may be) – the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network is one that I am closely associated with. And nanotechnology centers around the country are doing a lot to reach out to local communities. But the question remains – if someone like my mother, or my daughter, or my neighbor, wants a clear, balanced and accessible source of information on nanotechnology – where do they go? If the NNI has done something that I’m aware of, please let me know. If not, why not – if this technology is so important, surely getting information to people in a form that is relevant to them is essential?
The bottom line here is that I have great respect for the NNI, and for the people involved in it. But that doesn’t mean there are things that couldn’t be done better. And hopefully over the next ten years, they will be.
If I want a ‘clear, balanced and accessible source of information on nanotechnology’ I go to you. If I want a economic viability/time to market assessment on a nanotech venture, I go to Tim Harper. 😉 But not everyone’s put in the research I have and not everyone’s made the effort to cultivate relationships with experts – nor should they have to, which is the point you’re making.
If it’s any consolation to you at all re this interview and your feisty moments, I apparently succeeded in mispronouncing BOTH Tycho Brahe’s names in a radio interview yesterday. WTG Ruth!
Mispronouncing names in public – one of my worst fears – and for good reason (I have an appalling track record!).
Yes, the information sources point was exactly the one I was making – folks need something more than occasional blogs from people like Tim and myself!
It is exceptionally hard to devise and present an accessible general source of information regarding nanotechnology considering how this is a general term that applies to so many different disciplines. Look at the movements to regulate the toxicological effects and it is obvious they have had quite a difficult time trying to find a balance between protecting the safety of systems and not inhibiting the development of science and technology.
I do believe that part of the novelty in nanotechnology is the fact that it is not reducaible to a simple descirption (unless of course you want an opinion which is prone to producing bias) and that to understand it’s nature requires one to, in essence, not be lazy. I don’t think that the general public can simply be given information about nanotechnology but rather they must take an active role in informing themselves. This is the nature of things which are cutting edge and actively evolving and do not have general basis which can be referred to (although i would suggest that “small gods” offers a bit of insight into the motives behind these studies, and hence the future basis from which nanotechnology will be understood).
Time is needed and specific examples from each of the industry sectors, and we see this occuring already as nano-science based technology is starting to emerge. The question is, can we prevent the term from being fought over by the various separate disciplines (i.e batteries vrs life science), or will the inherent cross disciplinary nature allow a universal consensus.
Developing movements which actively engage the public and both inform them via direct face to face examples, or ping them for their own input, is the right direction.
I saw a stapler in a safe-way market yesterday that was called “Nano” and said on the back “go nano”, and frankly there was nothing “nano” about the stapler. Was just a plastic stapler.
I’ve got to find that stapler 🙂
I agree with you that nanotechnology is complex, nuanced and rather diffuse. But this is all the more reason for good information sources – not to “educate” people, but to make it easier for them to find, make sense of and use information which is relevant and of interest to them. After all, the implicit message “nanotechnology is going to change the world, but you’re not smart enough to understand how – trust me!” isn’t likely to win too many friends!
If you are going to collect something branded “nano” at least you could go for the iPOD or the car!
Seriously, I do think that the fact that the word “nano” marketed as a cute, smallish consumer item, is well known and accepted as such, does color the public’s image of nanotechnology itself.
The nano program at my school started a program called “shine” which seeks to educate children k-12, educators and the community at large about nano. I think it is important to understand who is doing the teaching, as you have mentioned before. Researchers them selves are often highly energetic but often bias due to their dependent nature on fund money.
Also, i have taught a free “Liberal introduction” to nanoscience to middle-schoolers and i think there is something to be said about this age group and it’s capacity to understand nanotechnology: they really understood innately what nano was in a a general sense.
The development easy to access electronic system should be a priority and i attempted to comment on this previously shortly after the PCAST report was put out but strangely my uploads were not working and i abandoned the effort. It is actually quite surprising that all of the nano info is so strewn about.
If you want the stapler, i made this little video ( live right next to safe way and had to get some bread any ways) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8kICeiA4LI
Ooooh, Kyle, I like the looks of that stapler – reminds me of the original iMacs and of a very interesting solar powered radio I saw a decade or so ago, designed for sale/use in Africa, that was round-ish and used similar translucent plastics. However, I’ll be very surprised if it can keep up with my 40-year-old black Swingline (which, bless its heart, has never jammed – that is what one wants most in a stapler, after all). Hmmm, it also reminds me of the new potato peeler I reluctantly invested in recently, which works surprisingly well (I’d been hanging onto a rusty old all metal thing for years because none of the new ones worked worth a damn). Let us know how you get on with it. 🙂