Send us your comments
Name:
Email address:
Country:
Subject:
Comments:
Tick here to receive regular
updates
via email
Disclaimer: The Royal Society and The Royal
Academy of Engineering may edit your comments
and cannot guarantee that all e-mails will be
published.
Having witnessed
the great GM debate from the perspective of
a scientist turned communicator, I feel strongly
that scientists should be fully informed as
to the concerns and reservations of society
and other experts about new applications of
basic research. It is most important for scientists
to be involved in the debate, not least in order
to set some important frames of reference and
definitions, the latter of which seem of crucial
importance in nanotechnologies, which could
easily be thought of as encompassing many unrelated
research fields. Blurring of defining boundaries
does not help in the public debate, but this
is exactly what happened in the GM debate; before
long GM had joined the ranks of pathogenic microbes
(brought to the fore by food safety scares)
as public enemy number one.
Andrew Moore, European Molecular Biology
Organization, Germany
I'm very pleased that such a thorough study
on nanoscience and most of all, nanotechnology
is carried out and I look forward to the results!
From my point of view, education is one of the
most important things, i.e. providing the public
- especially young people - with the critical
thinking tools necessary to learn, understand,
participate and use the overwhelming scientific
information available especially in areas with
high impact factor on society such as nantoechnology.
To be able to distinguish between science fiction
and scientific facts, to develop "broad
thinking" skills while focusing on the
real needs of society; to conceive knowledge-based
societies, where science lies within consolidated
moral and ethical frames, and within a global
perspective; this is what is needed to really
exploit the terrific advances in nanoscience,
in a few words: ideas, structure (moral, legal,
etc) and resources (good scientists, proper
fundings, long term thinking, transparency,
and so on.
Silvia Valussi, Forensic Science Service