(NHI Nanoblog) Does the big debate over super-tiny superparticles make your head spin? Wondering whether you should pay more attention to size than compound, or worry more about some applications than others?
A lot of people are asking questions like that about emerging so-called nanotechnologies. The field is packed with experts who know they’re asking many more questions than have answers.
Those solutions remain a ways off. But if you’re a visual thinker, a picture like the one here might help.
Hilary Sutcliffe believes so, at least. She is trying out a new medium, called DebateGraph. The website makes visual “maps” out of discussions, to show the connections within those debates — as well as the ways in which an individual conversation overlaps with others. Sutcliffe just started a map on “nanotechnology distinctions,” hoping to kick off a virtual chat that might help those in the field explain what they’re doing to neophytes.
Sutcliffe is the director of MATTER, a British think tank that studies emerging technologies. The organization already does some projects aimed at educating the public, including the excellent “Nano and Me” page. She also keeps a blog on these issues, and is actively engaged in discussions over Twitter.
“I think the definition issue is genuinely difficult, with many diverging opinions and difficulties in aligning the science with the need for legally binding definitions,” Sutcliffe said in an email.
Nanotechnology leverages super-small particles (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter) to create products with amazing properties. These materials can make bike frames lighter and stronger and sunscreen more transparent on the skin, as well as new medical instruments and medicines that can save lives.
There is broad agreement that nanomaterials hold great promise for a wide variety of applications. But shrinking these substances can change their properties, and scientists are struggling to figure out whether, how and why that shift can make them dangerous in the process.
MATTER Photo
Sutcliffe.
That struggle has been going on for years, and shows no sign of abating. But Sutcliffe, like others in the field, wants to push the discussion toward identifying the easy distinctions, then working on the harder ones.
For example, should “natural” nanoparticles be treated differently, in a formal way, from “engineered” nanoparticles? It’s the difference between nano-sized carbon in gas fumes and the tiny cylinders that are carbon nanotubes. Does it matter?
Sutcliffe said she chose DebateGraph as the forum because it offers the chance to incorporate many perspectives. The application also allows for voting, something Sutcliffe said she might ask participants to do once there’s more meat on the bones of the virtual conversation.
“DebateGraph is perfect for this because it doesn’t allow single voices to dominate at all, their positions, especially if ranty and lacking in substance do stand out in a context where the majority of contributions are measured, thoughtful and constructive,” she said. “It allows nuanced debate, and it allows for all sides of the argument to be articulated and clearly seen.”