It's not very cricket for members of the media to insist on getting in the last word, so I asked Douglas Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, to write a rebuttal to criticism of his organization's July report on nanotechnology. Douglas rose to the task with this well-written commentary I've posted on Small Times.
I've been correctly accused of out-of-proportion obsession over the Greenpeace report, so let me explain why I dwelled on it.
First, the Weblog format allows me to do something that is not always possible at Small Times: React to, and instantly analyze, the increasing media coverage of nanotechnology. This blog is independent and covers a niche that Small Times, as a business-to-business publication, cannot focus on. That's why I've been filling the NanoBot with commentary on broader issues of nanotech perception, ethics and media coverage. These are not issues that Small Times explores in depth, yet I believe that these are areas where nanotechnology could meet a broader audience. The environmental/policy/ethical issues are a kind of "gateway drug" for the curious to seek out more nanotech fixes.
I began this Weblog because I wanted to present some of my thoughts on the larger context behind the ETC Group's anti-nanotechnology activism and the Drexler/Smalley debates. I knew that eventually a higher-profile organization like Greenpeace would weigh in and, in my position as news editor of one of only a few publications that cover nanotechnology, I would have a unique opportunity to help frame the issue. So, part of this site's reason for being was to help guide the debate in a productive way, while also exploiting this transitional moment in media and nanotech history.
I'm in a kind of unique position because, for this brief period of time, nanotechnology is a very hot subject for the mainstream press, and Weblogs are a relatively new phenomenon with a kind of lopsided influence on public debates because they are a quick resource for general-interest reporters who seek instant analysis.
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
Good work, Howard. It's really good to see someone digging seriously into a specific and significant topic like this. It certainly represents more consistent in depth focus on a narrow topic than I can usually maintain.
I'm just noticing your whole theme. I freely admit that usually when I see something with real math and science issues, my eyes tend to glaze over, and I start wanting to indulge in more silliness about Arnold or the Dixie Chicks. Quicker rewards for less thinking effort.
I'm definitely going to have to check your stuff out more closely. Keep at it.
2 - Howard Lovy
Thanks for the kind words. Nice to know that somebody out there is reading. My goal, by hook or by crook, is to try to get the eye-glazers hooked on nano. I'm a liberal-arts guy, myself, and never really excelled in science. So, my interest indicator light is simply whether a particular blog post or story is something that I might read if I were just cruising the day's news. I'm always open to suggestions on how to get a broader audience. Thanks, and spread the word!
Howard Lovy
http://nanobot.blogspot.com
http://www.smalltimes.com