Our recent comments on mainstream science communicating effectively and that A little knowledge is both a dangerous and a tedious thing brought a swift rebuke from several sources who seemed to have rolled out of the wrong side of bed that particular morning.
Further proof, if needed, of the need to at least attempt to understand the facts before commenting comes in a letter to the Washington Post from a couple of members of the Public Citizen’s Health Research Group. While the PCHG rightly attempts to correct some of the starry eyed enthusiasm surrounding applications of nanotechnologies, by highlighting some of the potential toxicities, the few studies cited are as yet far from conclusive. In fact the evidence either for or against the toxicity of fullerenes is far from clear cut.
What is clear is that there is far more work to be done. Regulation, by its nature, tends to be reactive, and lags scientific discovery and often industrial applications. It is heartening to see the EU and NSF taking swift action to to reduce this lag, and ensure that any potential issues are addressed as quickly, and comprehensively as possible.
While a situation where everyone is equally ill informed could be misconstrued as democratic, it is in fact a classic case of the blind leading the blind. Lets not let strong, but poorly informed opinions take precedence over the facts, and in the meantime, in keeping with last year’s Royal Societys findings (and plain old common sense) treat fullerenes with extreme caution.