Comments

Toni
05/08/09 16:20
I definitely think that more fundamental nanotech research will probably have more impact, and eventual benefit than research that is already near to an application. Because fundamental research will (eventually) disperse to many other countries before it is applied, and it will potentially facilitate many patents, though not for the original researcher.
Lenita T.
29/07/09 18:35
Paul's video clip impressed me most. In developing countries this technology will be of immense importance, because patients might come in when they already are very ill and they need cure as soon as possible. GP's work will made so much easier than before, correct drug to correct patient as said on the video clip. If data protection will be dealt with in the right manner, this project could go anywhere and can affect positively many lives.
Chris O'Brien
29/07/09 16:25
One other thing; for me, the description of each project is a little limited, it would be great to have a link under each, giving more detail and maybe the theory behind it (textual format is fine), for those who would like a bit more info.
Chris O'Brien
29/07/09 13:49

Paul Galvin: I can't see any health risk - It doesn't appear to be invasive and they are using drugs already FDA Approved. It would be excellent if we could take medicine that we know we won't react negatively to.

Dorothee Almecija: It sounds very interesting - I can't see how switching from Silicon to Germanium has any health issues - assuming it's use on appliances is tested to the same level as previous appliances and components.

Anika Mostaert: Invasive. As a layman, I'd have concerns, such as the adhesive continuing to grow, bond with something unexpected, or not releasing when it is designed to do so. Anika sounds like she's commercially driven- if this is the case, I believe it is the wrong motivator. Having said that, this sounds like the most exciting of the four developments to me.

Ronan Daly: Well described - I can't see any negative impact to health. It does appear to be an extremely time consuming and expensive way to create a porous membrane.

Monitoring test cases to ensure there are no unexpected effects including monitoring where 50% of the sample are using standard technology to achieve the same purpose. For any of these technologies, I think it's important to go beyond "normal" testing and monitoring - at least double the current test base sample and time requirements. Each country would need to being in legislation to ensure all monitoring is adhered to and there should be a central agency, maybe similar to WHO, facilitating each country.

I believe the general public has concerns in the bio and nano tech areas so it's important that ALL monitoring and control for the development and implementation is completely transparent. Failure to do so may retard or stop other legitimate life saving or changing projects.

Joan
27/07/09 14:47
I am hugely impressed by all four contributors and indeed the hard work of the designers. Decisions about technologies that could radically change society should'nt just be left to a few elite business interests, military and scientists, which is what is happening. What if in special cases like Nanotechnology countries held Referenda to decide on their use, like you might with stem cells or using Nuclear power? While I am on the subject, I think it is about time that our Government started to support our brilliant young scientists and contribute the funds necessary for them to continue their very important research.
CuriousGeorge
21/07/09 12:21
I found the clip on adhesion particularly interesting, I wonder how long before this becomes a reality? And if the large Pharma companies could put a stop to it?

Comments 1 to 6 of 19

  Next