MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W250837622

A Prospective Look at Risk Communication in the Nanotechnology Field

2004· article· en· W250837622 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanuelle Schuler

Notice bibliographique

RevueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueRisk Perception and Management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNanotechnologyCarbon nanotubeSkepticismMedicineMaterials sciencePhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Public scepticism and resistance can significantly hamper the development of new technologies. As nanotechnology unfolds worldwide into commercially available products, discussions on how to assess and manage the potential risks are gathering momentum. I. The Current State of the Evaluation of Nanotechnology Initial scientific data on the impact of nanomaterials on health have recently been released. Though initial results are preliminary and inconclusive, a joint study by the NASA Johnson Space Center and the University of Texas Medical School suggested that single-walled carbon nanotubes directly injected onto the lung of mice at a dose of 0.5 mg led to the formation of microscopic nodules in lungs after a week. (1) These nodules--which can potentially cause more serious lesions--persisted and became more pronounced after three months. Another toxicology research team at DuPont independently conducted similar studies with the difference that carbon nanotubes were placed in the rats' trachea. (2) Results showed that with high doses of carbon nanotubes, fifteen percent died. The cause of death was attributed to suffocation. Nodules were also found in surviving rats but were not persistent beyond a month after instillations. This study suggested that nodules resulted from a reaction to presence of foreign substances--the carbon nanotubes--rather than from a toxic reaction. These initial studies have received a lot of attention from scientists, industry, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), specialised media and the mass media. Since then, the topic of toxicology of nanomaterials is on the radar screen of the mass media, both in Europe and USA. (3) The Canadian-based ETC Group (Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI group), who in the past was active and successful in campaigning against biotechnology, was early to pick up on the potential negative aspects of nanotech. Last year, the ETC asked for a moratorium on the commercial production of nanotechnology (4); this largely contributed to bring the public debate to the international level. Greenpeace has taken a more balanced approach, acknowledging both the potential benefits and risks of nanotechnology, but asking that the debate around nanotechnology be inclusive and transparent, by including public consultation and participation in decision-making processes. (5) These ongoing discussions may have already contributed to framing initial attitudes among the interested public--technophiles and supporters--as well as among technophobes or rejecters. But the vast majority of the public probably has little knowledge of, or interest in, nanotechnology and its potential hazards. II. In the Near Future More data on the impact of nanomaterials on human health and the environment is expected to be made public soon. The European Commission recently initiated a programme called Nanosafe. This programme will examine the risks involved in the production, handling and use of nanoparticles in industrial processes and consumer products and will recommend regulatory measures and codes of practices for the workplace. In July 2003, the US Environmental Protection Agency launched a call for proposals, with a budget of $4 million, to academic and not-for-profit organizations on the impact of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment with a focus on toxicity, environmental and biological transport, exposure and bioavailability. In addition, a growing number of others institutions, NGOs, industries and researchers worldwide are getting involved in the technical assessment of nanomaterials. (6) The outcomes of the current toxicology studies are likely to affect the trajectory of industrial applications of nanotechnology, favouring one type of application over another, for example. The stakes are high for both the public and private sectors. The global public investment in nanotechnology research and development is now close to $3 billion, more or less equally distributed between Europe, the USA and Japan. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,028
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,044
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,146

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0280,042
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,017
Communication savante0,0240,035
Science ouverte0,0020,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0440,028
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0320,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,210
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library)Même sujetRisk Perception and ManagementTravaux en français237 207