Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nano policy

Expand Messages
  • david lyndel
    hi Brain, Thank you very much for this information. Very helpful and timely. Good link. Best regards, David ... located in Northern California, Dr. Jeff Wong,
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      hi Brain,
      Thank you very much for this information. Very helpful and timely.
      Good link.
      Best regards,
      David


      --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, Brian Tran <b.tran591@...> wrote:
      >
      > Hi all,
      >
      > For those of you who are interested in nanotech regulations and
      located in Northern California, Dr. Jeff Wong, the Chief Scientist
      from the California Environmental Protection Agency will be talking
      about the the EPA's soon-to-be-implemented regulations and mandates.
      >
      > Info
      > Location:
      > 1290 Parkmoor Ave,
      > San Jose, CA 95126
      >
      > Date
      > Thursday, July 3, 2008
      >
      > Time:
      > 11:30 AM - 1:30 PM
      >
      > Registration Fee: $10
      >
      > Here's a link to the event: http://ianano.org/Nanolunch.htm
      >
      > Brian
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message ----
      > From: david lyndel <bodhitreekey@...>
      > To: nanotech@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:40:29 AM
      > Subject: [nanotech] Re: Nano policy
      >
      >
      > hi Nanogirl,
      > You raise some great questions. Please allow me some time to think
      > about this. I will gladly state my opinions and ideas for whatever
      > they are worth. One problem I see immediately is non-uniform global
      > guidelines.In the US the FDA is ill-prepared and underfunded to
      meet
      > these challenges. Further international efforts will be difficult
      to
      > enforce beyond say the EU and possibly India. On the other end of
      the
      > spectrum we face reactionary groups from Canada, EU and elsewhere
      > including Germany, UK and US. Reasoned balance is necessary in
      > tackling the issues you bring up.
      > David
      >
      > --- In nanotech@yahoogroup s.com, "Gina Miller" <nanogirl@ .> wrote:
      > >
      > > I'd like to start a thread concerning
      > > 1.Government intervention
      > > 2.Policy and legislation approval for advanced technology
      > > 3.Guidelines for applications of nanotech
      > >
      > > How will these issues be dealt with in the advanced stages of
      > nanotech? Can
      > > we steer a type of governing situation ahead of time? Will there
      be
      > clashes
      > > between the scientific community and government? Who do we want
      to
      > approve
      > > these standards?
      > >
      > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
      > > Nanotechnology Industries
      > > Web:
      > > http://www.nanoindu stries.com
      > > E-mail:
      > > nanogirl@
      > > Alternate E-mail
      > > echoz@
      > > "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • david lyndel
      hi my good friend Spandan, The meaning of your name is shining through. I can agree with mistakes in the past by some physicists but as one myself I cannot
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        hi my good friend Spandan,
        The meaning of your name is shining through. I can agree with
        mistakes in the past by some physicists but as one myself I cannot
        personally take responsibilty for the acts of those who destroyed
        those two cities in Japan.
        I attempted replies last night but was experiencing the
        shortcomings of IP technology. Very frustrating after one types two
        or three paragraphs only to be denied a chance to sound off.
        I still contend that in the US that the Food and Drug
        Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for
        Disease Control are ill-prepared to provide constructive intervention
        and much less capable of providing viable oversight. My greatest
        reservation is some will over-react out of unfamiliarity with nano-
        science and its technology. My point is not all nanomaterials are
        created equal. This means each product or invention must be treated
        individually. Also caution in enforcement would ensure that the
        possible benefits would not be stifled by over-regulation. Let's not
        throw the baby out with the bath water as we say in the States from
        time to time.
        Most of the public has no idea of what nanotechnology is. Surveys
        have mirrored this fact. Even among many acquaintances and extended
        family they first heard the term from me. I lay the blame at a the
        corporate media that tends to over-sensationalize stories to sell
        newspapers and magazines as well as advertising by television
        concerns. Also we in the techno-engineering scientific research field
        have done a terrible job getting out the message of the potential
        benefits of this relatively new field. Maybe this is because it is a
        toddler somewhat afraid to gingerly take its first steps for the
        world/public to see.
        In fact the field of medicine has been operating on the nanoscale
        for at least a couple of decades in some form or another.
        If gov't is going to extend any sort of intervention then labs
        need to be set up along the line of the centers that deal with
        nanocharacterization, testing, etc. by the main center focused in the
        field of nano-research in cancer.
        I'm not familiar with their equipment but I'd think such labs
        need TEM (transmission electron microscopy), tunneling microscopy,
        electron tomography, electron holography, AFM possibly coupled with
        Raman, electron energy loss spectroscopy and shear-force controlled
        scanning ion conductance microscopy. I'm sure others in group could
        suggest other spectroscopy.
        It is necessary to give well-resolved images of fine structures
        like membrane proteins in living cells. Interferometry is likely
        essential as is X-ray diffraction to aid in motional changes in
        electronic properties of low dimensional electronic systems such such
        QDs, quantum point contacts, CNTs and single electron transistors.
        Interferometry as many here know is useful to mechanically detect the
        atto-newtom level force generated by a single electron spin.
        Since nanomaterials and devices are finding their way into
        superconductors we need to think single electron transistor and ultra-
        sensitive microwave detection networks in testing a nanomechanical
        resonator. Operational safety is the main concern here since complex
        devices, extremely low temperatures and large magnetic fields are
        needed. I'm thinking researcher safety here.
        If NEMS/MEMS are involved then we need to use ultrasensitive
        force microscopy, accurate readouts by quantum info devices, very-
        high frequency communication filters and multiplexed sensor arrays.
        Some of these depend on NEMS based technology themselves.

        One odd question I have been pondering: Can NEMS be incorporated
        into sol-gel based sensors? I'd appreciate responses from those who
        may have looked into it or read articles on such.

        If companies and academic centers police themselves there will
        be much less reason for government agencies around the globe
        to "intervene". However track records of industry is by no means
        stellar on this. It does seem to me that academics would choose to
        ensure the safety of their workers. In fact if there is government
        intervention then those same entities should make additional funding
        of at least 15% available for preclinical and clinical toxicity
        testing. We have to consider dangers to researchers, technicians, the
        environment, workers in industry and the public-at-large. This
        requires long-term and periodic testing throughout the life cycle of
        the materials used. Can politician be trusted to see this through?
        Sadly for the majority the answer is no. Most people and politician
        are reactionary and take action only in the event of a catastrophe.

        The cynic
        David

        --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "spandan pandya" <djay_spooky@...>
        wrote:
        >
        >
        > It is not much of a to-be sort after topic as of now....Government
        > interventions can be dealt wih...through political tactics...but
        what
        > sems to be a daunting threat over the future of nanotechnology is
        the
        > advent of money makers and businessminded people. Do we pose a
        threat to
        > the word with our very own nanoscience geting famous ( like
        biosciences
        > in past).
        >
        > I read a book called Next in which differrnet manners of genetic
        world
        > were shwon ..as a matter of fact ..... Will our nanotech become a
        > tool..for acquiring fame..power...money and above all..acquire
        Life!..!!
        >
        > This is a seriuos concern....Since many years science has fallen
        under
        > wrong hands..and exploited badly..be it hiroshima...be it gene
        > patenting..what so ever..!! Probably this is one of those reasons
        that
        > government feels it a need to intervene the scientific community.
        >
        > I may be wrong and if I have oversaid something kindly accept my
        > appology..just a thought..tht i felt like sharing
        >
        > Spandan
        >
        > --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "Gina Miller" <nanogirl@> wrote:
        > >
        > > I'd like to start a thread concerning
        > > 1.Government intervention
        > > 2.Policy and legislation approval for advanced technology
        > > 3.Guidelines for applications of nanotech
        > >
        > > How will these issues be dealt with in the advanced stages of
        > nanotech? Can
        > > we steer a type of governing situation ahead of time? Will there
        be
        > clashes
        > > between the scientific community and government? Who do we want to
        > approve
        > > these standards?
        > >
        > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
        > > Nanotechnology Industries
        > > Web:
        > > http://www.nanoindustries.com
        > > E-mail:
        > > nanogirl@
        > > Alternate E-mail
        > > echoz@
        > > "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
        > >
        >
      • david lyndel
        Hi Nanogirl, Sounds like a superhero. I like that. 1: Your first sectional topic speaks of gov t interaction. I d think the key would be not to stifle research
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Nanogirl,
          Sounds like a superhero. I like that.
          1: Your first sectional topic speaks of gov't interaction. I'd think
          the key would be not to stifle research but also designate a portion
          of federal or gov't monies to test for toxicity. I think I've posted
          as much before. Often government intervention or even gov't
          interaction results in government interference. This can range from
          the direction of research to even who is allowed to work at a
          facility or on certain programs.
          The drawback of gov't intervention is that many legilators are
          woefully ill-informed and unfamiliar with science in general. Then
          when we have agencies' employees changing the facts to meet the
          desired policy this is a recipe for disaster. Personally I was
          disapponinted when in the mid-Nineties the US Congress shut down the
          Office of Technology Assessment (or maybe it was TAO) and began to
          rely upon an in-house (no pun intended) office of science advisors.
          The former group was known for unbiased non-agenda presentations.
          Sadly many of these reports were misinterpreted by Congress or taken
          out of context to to fit a particular politician's own agenda. But I
          think the old system was better than the new system in assessment of
          potential applications of discoveries across the board.
          Once again my humble opinion is the CDC, DoE, FDA and EPA are not
          prepared to meet the demands of nanotechnology or nanoscience. In
          fact the DoE is currently planning layoffs in some lab or so I read.
          Is this tech-smart? No. There has been a shift by the present US
          administration to shift the responsibilty for research funding to the
          private sector. However in doing so the private sector must be aware
          that accepting one dollar of federal funds comes with a big price
          tag. In a perfect world we could 'trust' companies and labs engaged
          in nanoscience to 'police' themselves. This might possibly reassure
          the political bureaucrats but I doubt it.

          2: The second topic you raise deals with policy and legislation
          approval for advanced technology. It seems apparent that those in
          science and research must do a better job of educating the public and
          those elected officials that represent them. This means getting rid
          of some of the jargon and terms that we use. In fact since
          nanoscience is necessarily interdisciplinary it would behoove us all
          to come up with a new form of cross-discipline 'jargonese' to be used
          by those engaged in such research and its applications. It would be
          good to educate the public on both the benefits and dangers of such
          technology. I believe the public is more intelligent than officials
          give them credit for. Sure Joe-Sixpack could care less unless you
          show him how he will benefit from it. If nanotechnology helps solve
          the energy challenges in a reasonably quick and affordable matter it
          would go along way to further public acceptance of nanoscitech. Also
          medical benefits should be at the forefront but not rushed down the
          pipeline only to give lawyers ammunition and cause for class action
          lawsuits. Scientists and engineers need to refrain from intellectual
          arrogance and bullying in the public forum. Telling an interested non-
          scientist to simply scratch their chin and nod knowingly while the
          real scientists do the work is counter-productive and socially
          unacceptable. It does more harm than good.
          Influencing the mindset does not always require large monetary
          donations or expensive lobbyists. In fact a post letter to your
          district Representative and state's Senators will get more attention
          than an email. Unfortunately few are willing to take up the pen. Keep
          in mind advisors understand if they get "X" amount of letters they
          fully realize each letter received means there is a "N" amount of
          those that also feel that way with each X.

          I wish to think a bit more about "guidelines for applications of
          nanotech" before posting.

          I too would like to read others ideas and opines on the questions
          you have posed.

          Highest regards,
          David

          --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "david lyndel" <bodhitreekey@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > hi Nanogirl,
          > You raise some great questions. Please allow me some time to think
          > about this. I will gladly state my opinions and ideas for whatever
          > they are worth. One problem I see immediately is non-uniform global
          > guidelines.In the US the FDA is ill-prepared and underfunded to
          meet
          > these challenges. Further international efforts will be difficult
          to
          > enforce beyond say the EU and possibly India. On the other end of
          the
          > spectrum we face reactionary groups from Canada, EU and elsewhere
          > including Germany, UK and US. Reasoned balance is necessary in
          > tackling the issues you bring up.
          > David
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In nanotech@yahoogroups.com, "Gina Miller" <nanogirl@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I'd like to start a thread concerning
          > > 1.Government intervention
          > > 2.Policy and legislation approval for advanced technology
          > > 3.Guidelines for applications of nanotech
          > >
          > > How will these issues be dealt with in the advanced stages of
          > nanotech? Can
          > > we steer a type of governing situation ahead of time? Will there
          be
          > clashes
          > > between the scientific community and government? Who do we want
          to
          > approve
          > > these standards?
          > >
          > > Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
          > > Nanotechnology Industries
          > > Web:
          > > http://www.nanoindustries.com
          > > E-mail:
          > > nanogirl@
          > > Alternate E-mail
          > > echoz@
          > > "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.