Wonderful new nanotechnology..is the title of a feature article by Kamilla Lein Kjølberg in this week's Morgenbladet. Or in the original language: "Vidunderlig ny nanoteknologi". Kjølberg is a PhD student at the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities at the University of Bergen. The lead-in to the article reads: "Det er "stort", det "kommer", men hva er det egentlig?" (It's "big", it's "coming", but what is it really?) I thought this was an excellent start for a general interest piece dealing with nanotechnology, and the question is very pertinent regarding the very definition of nanotechnology and what makes that different from existing technology/science. After reading the piece, I'm left with the feeling that the question was not a rhetorical one, but rather something Kjølberg wished she had the answer to.
Let me put it like this; I am less than impressed with the candidate's command of the subject at hand.
Kjølberg has focused on what has been written about nanotechnology in Norwegian media from 2000-2007, and has reached the following conclusions: (i) The press coverage is predominantly positive. (ii) The focus is mostly on the potential realization of extreme visions in a distant future. (iii) Nanotechnology is often portrayed as a technology which allows for control over nature.
In short, Kjølberg argues in favor of more critical journalism regarding all things nano ("Jeg savner journalistiske vinklinger som kan provosere frem debatt og stille kritiske spørsmål"). Moreover, Kjølberg is very in favor of what she refers to as "lekfolksdialog" - an active dialogue wherein the government and media consult Joe and Sally Q. Public on matters regarding nanotechnology.
Am I the only one who immediately gets visions of text messages flashing across the lower part of the TV screen during debate shows like "Tabloid" where "the common man" gets to voice his or her feelings vis-a-vis whatever topic is at hand that day? Whenever I watch shows like the aforementioned "Tabloid" or "Holmgang" and I see what people see fit to bring to the table, I'm thinkin' "Dude; what did grammar ever do to YOU?" But I digress...
I'm not at all opposed to more critical journalism regarding nanotechnology - frankly it gets way too pie-in-the-sky most of the time. What I DO oppose is plain old incompetence and ignorance among those who have taken it upon themselves to communicate nanotechnology to the general public. It's even worse when they're doing it from behind a pulpit which lends credence to their argument, like being a PhD student with an official university affiliation. For example; Kjølberg defines carbon nanotubes as "karbon med en metallisk atomstruktur lettere enn aluminium og sterkere enn stål" ("carbon with a metallic atomic structure lighter than aluminum and stronger than steel"). Can anyone tell me whether there's a problem with this statement?
The source of my disappointment is altogether a different one though. It has everything to do with the fact that a very interesting topic for a critical general interest story would be how to separate "new" nanotechnology from the existing one, and the fact that a lot of nanotechnology is simply a repackaging of existing science utilizing new terminology and improved instrumentation. You want some examples, you say:
Ask the paper and fibre technology scientists who, not that long ago I might add, decided to christen their new technology "microfibrillar cellulose" despite the fact that the dimensions are very much on the nano scale.
Ask any biochemist - particularly one working with proteins - what separates what they always did from nanotechnology considering the broad strokes often employed to define this term.
Pretty much anyone working within the colloidal domain has probably also experienced that a lot of what they have done has been repackaged as nanotechnology. How is a nanoparticle different from a colloid, for example?
Ask Dr. Martin Fleischmann what separates his surface-enhanced Raman scattering technique - discovered in 1977 - from nanotechnology in it's present form.
..and the list goes on. This could've been an awesome piece - both critical and educational. The difference between new and old nanotechnology doesn't exactly jump at you from what's written in this feature article. If a PhD student had handed in this as a term paper to me, it would've gotten a D minus. Awesome concept and potential though.
Let me put it like this; I am less than impressed with the candidate's command of the subject at hand.
Kjølberg has focused on what has been written about nanotechnology in Norwegian media from 2000-2007, and has reached the following conclusions: (i) The press coverage is predominantly positive. (ii) The focus is mostly on the potential realization of extreme visions in a distant future. (iii) Nanotechnology is often portrayed as a technology which allows for control over nature.
In short, Kjølberg argues in favor of more critical journalism regarding all things nano ("Jeg savner journalistiske vinklinger som kan provosere frem debatt og stille kritiske spørsmål"). Moreover, Kjølberg is very in favor of what she refers to as "lekfolksdialog" - an active dialogue wherein the government and media consult Joe and Sally Q. Public on matters regarding nanotechnology.
Am I the only one who immediately gets visions of text messages flashing across the lower part of the TV screen during debate shows like "Tabloid" where "the common man" gets to voice his or her feelings vis-a-vis whatever topic is at hand that day? Whenever I watch shows like the aforementioned "Tabloid" or "Holmgang" and I see what people see fit to bring to the table, I'm thinkin' "Dude; what did grammar ever do to YOU?" But I digress...
I'm not at all opposed to more critical journalism regarding nanotechnology - frankly it gets way too pie-in-the-sky most of the time. What I DO oppose is plain old incompetence and ignorance among those who have taken it upon themselves to communicate nanotechnology to the general public. It's even worse when they're doing it from behind a pulpit which lends credence to their argument, like being a PhD student with an official university affiliation. For example; Kjølberg defines carbon nanotubes as "karbon med en metallisk atomstruktur lettere enn aluminium og sterkere enn stål" ("carbon with a metallic atomic structure lighter than aluminum and stronger than steel"). Can anyone tell me whether there's a problem with this statement?
The source of my disappointment is altogether a different one though. It has everything to do with the fact that a very interesting topic for a critical general interest story would be how to separate "new" nanotechnology from the existing one, and the fact that a lot of nanotechnology is simply a repackaging of existing science utilizing new terminology and improved instrumentation. You want some examples, you say:
Ask the paper and fibre technology scientists who, not that long ago I might add, decided to christen their new technology "microfibrillar cellulose" despite the fact that the dimensions are very much on the nano scale.
Ask any biochemist - particularly one working with proteins - what separates what they always did from nanotechnology considering the broad strokes often employed to define this term.
Pretty much anyone working within the colloidal domain has probably also experienced that a lot of what they have done has been repackaged as nanotechnology. How is a nanoparticle different from a colloid, for example?
Ask Dr. Martin Fleischmann what separates his surface-enhanced Raman scattering technique - discovered in 1977 - from nanotechnology in it's present form.
..and the list goes on. This could've been an awesome piece - both critical and educational. The difference between new and old nanotechnology doesn't exactly jump at you from what's written in this feature article. If a PhD student had handed in this as a term paper to me, it would've gotten a D minus. Awesome concept and potential though.
Posts
18 comments:
Yeah, nano-technology is cool enough, but you do run into problem when you try to upscale it to micro-scale. Not to mention gram scale. Oh, hang, that's organic, synthetic chemistry...
To be serious, what I like about nanotechnology are those tiny robots you can implant in your body, the kind that goes into your cells and fixes genetic deceases, kills cancer cells, improves personal hygiene and bad personality. I need to get me some of those. Real bad. Can you hook me up, Wilhelm? Pretty please, sugar on top?
Serisously, I'll have to read the piece before I comment on it, but apart from what you have pointed out I'm wondering of the following: This is a piece in Morgenbladet, so I assume it's aimed towards the general public. Does Kjølberg really think that people that don't know the structur of a nanotube, knows the atomic structure of metals? She obviously don't. Fallera, fullerens...
To be serious, what I like about nanotechnology are those tiny robots you can implant in your body, the kind that goes into your cells and fixes genetic deceases, kills cancer cells, improves personal hygiene and bad personality. I need to get me some of those. Real bad. Can you hook me up, Wilhelm? Pretty please, sugar on top?
..that's funny; I got an email today asking me about whether those robots could be hooked up to HIV-1 tat peptides to do just that.
But you need TWO of these robots to fix a bad personality.
Does Kjølberg really think that people that don't know the structur of a nanotube, knows the atomic structure of metals?
You're killing me here, A-train....that's the major problem you find with that statement?
You're killing me here, A-train....that's the major problem you find with that statement?
Still haven't read that article, so I don't know the context it was written in. But if her definition of is nanotubes is "carbon with a metallic atomic structure lighter than aluminum and stronger than steel", then she is sort of right. Carbon, yes, check, lighter then aluminium (I assume so, don't know the densities on top of my head), stronger then steel, yes, check (gross understatement, but still). My main problem with that definition is that the casual reader does not get any usefull information about carbon nanotubes or it's structure from that definition, other then it's carbon (duh, obvious from the name), it's light and strong. Does that answers your question, Willster, or do you have something else in mind?
However, my point in the previous comment was: "Metallic structur" doesn't give the casual reader any information. How many non-scientific people knows the structur of metal? There are tons of more "simplified" definitions she could have used, that would have been more correct and more descriptive for the reader.
Btw, you're killing me with the "Dude; what did grammar ever do to YOU?"-comment. :-D
....would carbon get a metallic _atomic_ structure by organizing the element into a different _supramolecular_ organization?
Tell you what; read the piece when you get the time, then get back to me
....would carbon get a metallic _atomic_ structure by organizing the element into a different _supramolecular_ organization?
You're right. I didn't even noticed that, I automatically though "molecular" structur. Dang.
Now I've read it. First of all, it this meant to start a debate about the (negative consequences) of nano technology? If so, she didn't convince me; she needs to get some stronger points. I found it boring, even though it is a subject that should be interesting for me. Maybe I'm just too tired from sleep deprivation lately.
But what puzzels me is this: Who came up with the term nanoVT? Talk about dorky acronym for a popular buzz word.
I thought the piece had great potential until about five sentences in.
Also on the subject of nomenclature: Is there a difference between nano carbontubes and carbon nanotubes? ;-)
The feature article left me less than impressed.
Is there a difference between nano carbontubes and carbon nanotubes? ;-)
Easy. I'm puzzeled that you didn't know this, Wilhelm.
Nano carbontubes: Tubes made of small carbon atoms, i.e. the 11C carbon isotop.
Carbon nanotubes: Small tubes made of regular carbon atoms, i.e. 12C isotopes or heavier.
:-)
Actually, now that I've slept on it, I do think something good can come out of Kjælberg's project. And I also remember that the article was shorten version of an article published somewhere else, which might be more interesting. So I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and wish her good luck with the rest of her project. 'Cause that's just the kind of guy I am.
...apparently I'm a different kind of guy, is that it, Anders? ;-)
Seriously though; much of the reason you don't see all that much debate on the possible downsides of nanotechnology is that it's not all new, and the old nanotechnology has been through scrutiny before.
...and mentioning the possible dangers of silver nanoparticles of all things......
Noble metal nanoparticles such as gold and silver have been in use since togas and chariot races were high fashion. Keywords like the Lycurgus cup and stained glass windows should be used here. Considering how many ancient stained (with gold nanoparticles, although they didn't advertise it as such then) have been in every major Norwegian church, and most of these glasses have been broken and since replaced. Maybe I missed a memo, but the spreading of these nanoparticles into nature hasn't caused any mass extinctions that I'm aware of.
When you drive along the highway, some of the particulates dislodged from the asphalt will be in the nanometer range. These particulates do suck, but it's out in the wild open, and I have still to see that this has caused any catastrophic events, despite this wear and tear having gone on for quite some time.
If you drip melted wax into water and stir like a mofo, odds are that a small fraction of the wax particles made are in the nano size. "Nano" sized wax molecules are employed in car wax, and recently they have been advertised as such, with "Turtlewax nano", where they have filtered out a larger fraction of the larger species. Any local communities you know about that have died because of rampant car wax?
The fact that something is nano doesn't automatically make it scary any more than it automatically makes it benign. However; examples like these further highlight why the author should've had a modicum of knowledge about what nanotechnology is before writing this.
I would have given this a D-. If this had been handed in as a term paper from an undergrad to my former advisor, said student would've really regretted not doing his or her homework.
..man was I tired last night when I wrote the above comment. Please overlook the epic sentence structure
...let me clarify my position with a one-sentence summary: If the only thing I do to an object is to rename it, it does f*ck all to either make said object more safe or dangerous.
Corollary: If, however, I were to make entirely NEW objects with unknown properties which fit the overall description given to the aforementioned objects, there might be a need to proceed with caution.
Yet another corollary: If renaming in general affected the properties, you would expect that there was less of a mismatch between internet handles and the owner of said handle, as it would mean that naming oneself "Biggunzz" or "FasterthanYngwie" actually affected your own properties to that effect.
If you do believe this, I suggest you mosy on to the forums at "iform.no" - a link is provided on this blog - and check out the correlation between usernames and the photos these people post of themselves. Additionally, I strongly recommend that you correlate their user name to the max lifts they feel fit to brag about.
...apparently I'm a different kind of guy, is that it, Anders? ;-)
No. I was just in a good mood, since I had time off from work and I was back in my "comfort zone" in the quiz.
There are basically two aspects here:
- The article, and
- the project Kjølberg is part of.
The project sounds interesting, and I hope something good come from. As for the article, I found it boring and not very inspirering. Ok, it is a short version of a longer article in Ny Tid, and I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that the original one might be more interesting (though there isn't much that indicates that).
As for the negative aspects of nanotechnology, I'm with you on the "same sh*t, new wrapping", i.e. that a lot of nanotechnology is really old, just given a new name.
But even so, some of the negative examples of nano technology doesn't hold much water. Take the silver nano particles in fridges: Yes, it may kill of bacterias, but 1) fridges get already gets recycled, and in any case the contamination would be very local (i.e. around the place were you dump the fridge), 2) there are other components in the fridge which are just as bad or worse for the enviroment and 3) as far as bacteria go, I'd rather focus on the massive use of antibiotics in fish breeding industry, farming and even human medicine.
And, she argues that some poeple may be negative because the feel the development goes too fast for them. I can't help imagine some old geezer going "Yes, when I was young, we didn't have those fancy nano robot fixing our cells on a molecular level. No, no, son, we had to make our own robots, from a pice of wire and some fish guts....". That's a crappy argument, because a) You can't stop development that are to the good for mankind just because some old geezers can't keep up with it and b) in Norway, we do seem to adapt to new technology pretty fast (e.g. everybody and his brother got a cell phone, and we send tons of SMS's) and c) nobody in the entire world has ever said "I think the development of new nano technology goes to fast". Yes, technology might be too fast for somebody, but I've never heard anybody specifying that to be nano technology in particular.
Still, I do like the thought of discussing ethics in science, see past the walls between different sciences, etc, so I still hope the project can come interesting stuff.
If you drip melted wax into water and stir like a mofo, odds are that a small fraction of the wax particles made are in the nano size.
I just have to ask: Got many mofo's working in your lab there, Wilhelm?
:-D
Ah, you manage to sneek in a comment before mine there, broski. A real funny one, I might add. :-D
But I'm with you on your point. Nano-tech. has been here for ages, just by a different name. It's too late to discuss that ethics of that technology, since it's accepted by all, etc.
However, just because the principle is old, doesn't mean that there are a rapid development in the field, which might give new ethical problems.
I think we see eye to eye on this one, maybe with the exception that I have hopes for the project Kjølberg is part of.
...and if we do not see eye to eye, you know were and when to throw hands...
Take the silver nano particles in fridges:
In the US you can go to the "health food" section and buy a colloidal suspension of silver colloids. It's been used as a general supplement for ages. Don't think you should expect too much of an effect from it, but.....
I can't help imagine some old geezer going "Yes, when I was young, we didn't have those fancy nano robot fixing our cells on a molecular level. No, no, son, we had to make our own robots, from a pice of wire and some fish guts....".
LOL..."and we had to walk uphill in the snow while we did it. We didn't have any shoes either, but we kept warm from working 36 hours every day and then some 24 hours every night. We didn't complain either."
there are other components in the fridge which are just as bad or worse for the enviroment and 3) as far as bacteria go, I'd rather focus on the massive use of antibiotics in fish breeding industry, farming and even human medicine.
Word life!
e.g. everybody and his brother got a cell phone, and we send tons of SMS's)
That's bullshit, as the SMS I just sent you clearly indicates, brah. Don't remember if I sent it to your work cell or your personal cell though
Still, I do like the thought of discussing ethics in science, see past the walls between different sciences, etc, so I still hope the project can come interesting stuff.
Like I said; I found the concept fascinating. It would've been even better if she knew anything about the topic she wrote about, though
I just have to ask: Got many mofo's are working in your lab there, Wilhelm?
..if ya only knew
I'll meet you at 7-11 right after sunset, bro. If I'm not there, start without me >:(
Like I said; I found the concept fascinating. It would've been even better if she knew anything about the topic she wrote about, though
That pretty much summarize up our agreement on this subject.
But in all fairness, not knowing anything about the topic at hand, didn't prevent me from writing my master thesis...
:-D
That's ok, considering the field you got your MSc in; when the uncertainties way exceed any measurable output, it's hard to state a definite conclusion while keeping a straight face :-)
Hey, hey, HEY!
Don't underestimate my ability to keep a straight face.
..gotta give you that, brah
Post a Comment