Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

How fast should nanotechnology advance?

Nature Nanotechnology volume 2, pages 327–328 (2007)Cite this article

Authors' response — Wintle, Burgman and Fidler1 raise several thoughtful points regarding public education about nanotechnology, public acceptance and the advancement of nanotechnology in general. However, we maintain our view that nanotechnology must advance. Indeed, both the science and the commercialization of nanotechnology is already advancing at a rapid pace and, unlike Wintle et al., we believe that questioning whether nanotechnology should advance is not a fruitful line of debate. The more interesting debate concerns how it should advance and at what pace.

Should public exposure to nanotechnology be allowed to proceed without government regulation or informed public debate about risks, benefits and ethical concerns? We think not and believe that this is the domain where intellectual and governmental policy debates should take place. Wintle et al. are correct to note the possible discrepancy between how scientists and members of the public perceive risks and benefits of nanotechnology. This was precisely why we conducted the first large-scale studies of how the public compares the risks and benefits associated with nanotechnology with those associated with other technologies, as well as how the public reacts to the risks and benefits of new commercial products containing nanotechnology2. Four of us (S.C.C., E.B.K., J.M., and S.T.) are behavioural scientists, so we are mindful of differences between the psychology of the layperson versus the scientific expert.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Wintle, B., Burgman, M. & Fidler, F. Nature Nanotech. 2, 327 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Currall, S. C., King, E. B., Lane, N., Madera, J. & Turner, S. Nature Nanotech. 1, 153–155 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bainbridge, W. S. J. Nanopart. Res. 4, 561–570 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hart Research Report on Nanotechnology; www.nanotechproject.org/78/public-awareness-of-nano-grows-but-majority-unaware (2006).

  5. Currall, S. C. Debunking the nanotechnology myths. BusinessWeek.com (31 January 2007); www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2007/tc20070201_257259.htm.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research discussed in this correspondence was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (award numbers EEC-0118007 and SES-0531146).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering Sciences, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    Steven C. Currall

  2. London Business School, London, NW1 4SA, UK

    Steven C. Currall

  3. Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, 22030, Virginia, USA

    Eden B. King

  4. Department of Physics and Astronomy and Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, 77005, Texas, USA

    Neal Lane

  5. Department of Psychology, Rice University, Houston, 77005, Texas, USA

    Juan Madera & Stacey Turner

Authors
  1. Steven C. Currall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eden B. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neal Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Madera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stacey Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven C. Currall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Currall, S., King, E., Lane, N. et al. How fast should nanotechnology advance?. Nature Nanotech 2, 327–328 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.163b

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2007.163b

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing