The study of societal and ethical implications, he said, isnow an embedded part of most government nanotechnology programs, andit's a direct descendent of the Human Genome Project, where science,government and business had amazingly learned from their mistakes.

"The scientists involved in the Human Genome Project weren'treally aware, until lots of surveys and things were done by the socialscientists, that privacy issues were going to be the public hot-buttonissue," Ausman said. "In hindsight it makes a lot of sense."

And it paid off in broader public acceptance and trust. "Youdo a comparison of the Human Genome Project to genetically modifiedorganisms, and it's just incredible the difference in publicperception, and I believe pretty strongly that's directly attributableto the money and the good-faith effort that went into studies aboutsocietal and ethical implications," he said.

One more thing about DNA on PBSthat I think could echo into nanotech's future. The documentarydescribes the "golden rice" debacle in which Monsanto essentially madeoverblown claims that it has found the solution to malnourishment. Longstory short: "According to a 1999 report in the Financial Times,African countries in particular are 'wary of increasing dependence ondeveloped countries and multinational corporations as a result ofgenetically modified crops.'"

A number of efforts are about to get under way that involveselling the idea of nanotechnology to developing nations, includingthose in Africa, as a means of solving local problems. Nanotechnologyproponents are telling them that nano is no GMO. There doesn't need tobe a Great White Monsanto to dole out its product. Developing nationscan grow their own nanotech industry and tailor it to their own needs.It's true, but nanotech proponents will first need to penetrate morethan a few layers of mistrust.

Watch for some of these efforts to make the news this year.

Related Posts
TheNapster of nano
Ananosize line in the sand
Waterfor peace

Discuss