Date published: 2007/03/28
The BBC says:
The UK government has failed to fund adequate research into potential risks posed by developing nanotechnology, a report by leading advisors has warned.
As well as not spotting possible harmful effects, the UK risked losing its world lead in nanoscience, it said.
The Council for Science and Technology (CST) review examined progress on government commitments made in 2005.
...
Governments and big business have high hopes for the tiny science. It is estimated that the industry could be worth $1 trillion (£500bn) by 2015.
...
Over the last five years, government has spent an average of just £600,000 per year on examining the impacts of nanoscience. In 2004 alone, it spent £90m on research and promoting commercialisation of nanoproducts."The safe development of a new technology should not depend on whether an academic wins a highly competitive research grant," said Sir John.
Professor Ann Dowling, chair of the working group that produced the original 2004 report, agreed.
"More targeted research to reduce the uncertainties around the health and environmental effects of nanomaterials must be funded - especially in light of the growing number of products on the market containing these manufactured ultra-small materials.
"This is a vital step to ensuring that nanotechnologies are well regulated and inspire the confidence of the public and investors."
Without them, the UK risked losing the competitive edge it currently had in nanoscience, said Professor Dowling.
"The UK is putting itself in a position where it will be unable to take part in international collaborations because very little research is being done on these issues at home."
...
FP7 [EU Seventh Framework Programme], which runs until 2013, will see more than 7bn euros (£4.6bn) per year handed to investigators to advance scientific knowledge in all areas. A pot of 3bn euros has been set aside for nanotechnology research, but none specifically for impact studies.
How much has any other country on the planet spent on investigating the risks rather than doing the fundamental research? Probably very little as well, so it is rather misleading to claim that somehow "the UK risked losing the competitive edge it currently had in nanoscience" if more money is not thrown at risk analysis. Given that none of the FP7 money is specifically targetted for this, it seems that the EU as a whole does not deem this to be a great issue. The only real reason these "impact studies" are being advocated is to try and placate the so-called environmentalists, who hate all modern technology, and in particular who managed to sink GM foods in Europe with their hysterical propaganda. The government and academics are just trying to buy them off. But it is far from clear that this kind of bribery will lead to the so-called environmentalists being placated. So it's just as well that most nanoscience money so far has indeed gone on research. And any new technology leads to problems. Nanotechnology will be the same. But the idea that anyone will be able to precisely identify the products that will cause problems before the products even exist is not credible.
_________________________________________________________
All material not included from other sources is copyright cambridge2000.com.
For further information or questions email: info [at] cambridge2000 [dot] com
(replace "[at]" with "@" and "[dot]" with ".").