Posts tagged with ‘nanotechnology’
How many bioethics subfields do we really need to grapple with the issues at the cutting edge of contemporary science? Maybe just one.
History that only considers success stories creates a very real danger for policymakers. Telling the story of nanotechnology in all its fascinating, sometimes weird, detail makes this important technology more human and approachable.
A recent conference examining the legal protections corporations are taking to defend themselves in the event their products turn toxic should raise regulatory questions.
Proponents of nanotechnology—along with federal regulators—have some serious work to do beyond public education if the field is to break through safely to commercial success.
The National Research Council cannot tell us whether or not nanomaterials present a danger to the public, but the Council is sure that the federal government is not doing enough to identify risks nanotechnology may pose.
Some new products built on advances in nanotechnology improve people’s quality of life. So how come nobody’s ever heard of these wonderful new advancements? A new report released reveals that almost half of U.S. adults have heard nothing about nanotechnology. Even fewer have heard about synthetic biology.
How can FDA reasonably protect public health in the interim period before researchers completely understand the science of nanotechnology?
Bugs pack an amazing set of capabilities into a very small package. Understanding and mimicking those abilities can allow researchers to shrink the size of autonomous robots to proportions like those of household pests.
Medicines delivered in nanoparticle form, more potent than their ordinary counterparts, are on deck for regulatory approval. The agency has some catching up to do before it can determine the safety of these cutting-edge products.
Nanotechnology offers potential solutions to many pressing medical and scientific questions, but with these solutions it also offers a host of ethical and policy issues. The House recently aimed to address those issues with new legislation.
Advocates and critics of nanoscience research often compare the technology to the creation of genetically-modified organisms, yet the more apt analogy is to the space program. But there are limits to the analogies used in shaping emerging technology policy.
The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology and potential regulation were the only points of contention at an otherwise congratulatory Senate hearing held to discuss the reauthorization of the $1.5 billion National Nanotechnology Initiative last Thursday.
The House Oversight Committee on Bush Administration interference with climate science; Atlantis grounded; framing nanotech; sex difference in math and science; Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies; VCs doubtful on carbon regulation from the government.
Advances in nanotechnology may yield myriad powerful technical applications. But to grapple with the gap between research and regulation, the Center on Nanotechnology and Society held its 2nd Annual Conference on Nanopolicy this past Friday.
Nanotechnology offers great promise, but an incomplete understanding of the potential dangers and the lack of a unified regulatory framework threaten the potential of research. And despite the concerns of scientists, the public is not engaged with nanotech policy.
John Kanzius, a retired electrical engineer and TV and radio station owner, is developing one of the most promising new techniques to kill cancer cells.
Nanotechnology is fertile new field with a host of unexplored risks, so how should the government go about cultivating it? This was the major question at yesterday’s hearing on the National Nanotechnology Initiative.
This week boasts a slew of congressional hearings on science and technology policy issues including: renewable energy, gene patenting, aviation safety, nanotechnology safety, and drug-resistant TB.
The Bush Administration continues to censor scientists. The AP has the latest on extensive revisions made to the testimony of CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding, who testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Tuesday on the health impacts of climate change.
