Ipro 341 - Research


Problem Our goal is to find a clear, understandable and unbiased provider of information on nanotechnology. We have also taken an extensive look at how information about nanotechnology is distributed to the general public, as well as some possible and current applications of nanotechnology. Why it is a problem The lack of sources with information on nanotechnology is a major concern. Due to the fact that this technology is often labeled “the next big thing”, it is important for the public to be properly informed without having an opinion forced onto them. This way they can take proper action when their opinion is needed with legal and ethical issues. Who this is a problem for This is a problem for the majority of the public who is not well informed with academic, scientific, and technological institutions. Since this technology can affect anyone and everyone, it is important to educate this group. IPRO 341 Project To research the distribution of information to the public on nanotechnology. It is extremely important for us to illuminate any biases (positive or negative) from the institutions that present information to the public. Procedure We, the IPRO 341 team first found it important to educate ourselves on nanotechnology. Phase I We divided our team into subgroups and selected four key applications involving nanotechnology that our team found to be most important. Consumer Goods Electronics Medical Military Grand Challenges (NNI, FY 2002) After our team made the four application selections, we stumbled upon the nine “Grand Challenges” shown by the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2002. 1. Nanostructured materials by design: stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer. 2. Nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, and magnetics. 3. Advanced healthcare, theraputics, and diagnostics. 4. Nanoscale processes for environmental improvement. 5. Efficient energy conversion and storage. 6. Microcraft space exploration, and industrialization. 7. Bionanosensors for communicable disease and biological threat detection. 8. Applications to economical and safe transportation. 9. Applications to national security. What we found interesting was that the applications we selected were actually among the highest priorities with the NNI. Phase II After completing phase I of the research, our team figured that the applications are derived from, but not limited to, four main areas of research stakeholders. Our motive was to see how biased the information distributed by these key areas was. To evaluate the information presented by the stakeholders, team members had to base their analyses off of specific criteria that was chosen by the team. To avoid conflict of what criteria should be used, we decided to utilize criteria from accredited universities. Listed below are the criteria questions extrapolated from University of California at Los Angeles, John Hopkins University, and University of California-Berkley: • What is it? • What type of domain is it? • Who authored the site? • Are they credentialed and are credential listed? What is the geography of the cyberspace? • Is information current and updated in a timely fashion? Is it “dusty?” • What do others say? • Sources well documented? • Links /or references to other sites? • All viewpoints represented and bias if any? • What organizations link to it? • Is the page rated well in directory? • Reason for web page inform, explain, persuade, sell, ethics, share, advocate, and other *Academic* Rice University (TX) & University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) Kent Law School (IL) & Rice University (Texas) Cornell University (NY) & Northwestern University (IL) Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA) Commercial Natural Nano & General Electric Dupont ApNano Materials & Azonnano.com Zyvex Government Asian Nano Forum Department of Defense Environmental Protection Agency National Institute for Nanotechnology (Canada) National Nanotechnology Initiative Independent Center for Responsible Nanotechnology & Wikipedia (Grey Goo) Foresight Institute & Woodrow Wilson International Center The International Small Technology Network & The Institute of Nanotechnology (UK) Nanoforum & Nanotechnology Now Nanophase Conclusion Our team hypothesizes that because nanotechnology has a such a multidisciplinary arrangement, there is a possibility that information might be filtered before presented to the general public, if it is being presented at all. We feel that there exists biases on what an organization's nature and mission is, as well as who they are affiliated with. Some common links we found are: -Each Organization and stakeholders of information has its own agenda to promote and support. -The information provided has a bias on some level, whether it is content presented or affiliations recognized. -Almost all funding could be traced back to government money (e.g. NNI) either directly or indirectly. Thus, we conclude that there is a need for a source that generates public awareness as well as participates in public discourse, which does not have influencers that could raise doubt about its integrity and reliability, and shares information that is easily accessible as well as credible.
© 2006 Spring IPRO 341

Problem

Our goal is to find a clear, understandable and unbiased provider of information on nanotechnology. We have also taken an extensive look at how information about nanotechnology is distributed to the general public, as well as some possible and current applications of nanotechnology.

Why it is a problem

The lack of sources with information on nanotechnology is a major concern. Due to the fact that this technology is often labeled “the next big thing”, it is important for the public to be properly informed without having an opinion forced onto them. This way they can take proper action when their opinion is needed with legal and ethical issues.

Who this is a problem for

This is a problem for the majority of the public who is not well informed with academic, scientific, and technological institutions. Since this technology can affect anyone and everyone, it is important to educate this group.

IPRO 341 Project

To research the distribution of information to the public on nanotechnology. It is extremely important for us to illuminate any biases (positive or negative) from the institutions that present information to the public.

Procedure

We, the IPRO 341 team first found it important to educate ourselves on nanotechnology.

Phase I

We divided our team into subgroups and selected four key applications involving nanotechnology that our team found to be most important.

Consumer Goods
Electronics
Medical
Military

Grand Challenges (NNI, FY 2002)

After our team made the four application selections, we stumbled upon the nine “Grand Challenges” shown by the National Nanotechnology Initiative in 2002.

1. Nanostructured materials by design: stronger, lighter, harder, self-repairing, and safer.
2. Nanoelectronics, optoelectronics, and magnetics.
3. Advanced healthcare, theraputics, and diagnostics.
4. Nanoscale processes for environmental improvement.
5. Efficient energy conversion and storage.
6. Microcraft space exploration, and industrialization.
7. Bionanosensors for communicable disease and biological threat detection.
8. Applications to economical and safe transportation.
9. Applications to national security.

What we found interesting was that the applications we selected were actually among the highest priorities with the NNI.

Phase II

After completing phase I of the research, our team figured that the applications are derived from, but not limited to, four main areas of research stakeholders. Our motive was to see how biased the information distributed by these key areas was. To evaluate the information presented by the stakeholders, team members had to base their analyses off of specific criteria that was chosen by the team. To avoid conflict of what criteria should be used, we decided to utilize criteria from accredited universities. Listed below are the criteria questions extrapolated from University of California at Los Angeles, John Hopkins University, and University of California-Berkley:

• What is it?
• What type of domain is it?
• Who authored the site?
• Are they credentialed and are credential listed? What is the geography of the cyberspace?
• Is information current and updated in a timely fashion? Is it “dusty?”
• What do others say?
• Sources well documented?
• Links /or references to other sites?
• All viewpoints represented and bias if any?
• What organizations link to it?
• Is the page rated well in directory?
• Reason for web page inform, explain, persuade, sell, ethics, share, advocate, and other

Academic

Rice University (TX) & University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)

Kent Law School (IL) & Rice University (Texas)

Cornell University (NY) & Northwestern University (IL)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MA)

Commercial

Natural Nano & General Electric

Dupont

ApNano Materials & Azonnano.com

Zyvex

Government

Asian Nano Forum

Department of Defense

Environmental Protection Agency

National Institute for Nanotechnology (Canada)

National Nanotechnology Initiative

Independent

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology & Wikipedia (Grey Goo)

Foresight Institute & Woodrow Wilson International Center

The International Small Technology Network & The Institute of Nanotechnology (UK)

Nanoforum & Nanotechnology Now

Nanophase

Conclusion

Our team hypothesizes that because nanotechnology has a such a multidisciplinary arrangement, there is a possibility that information might be filtered before presented to the general public, if it is being presented at all. We feel that there exists biases on what an organization's nature and mission is, as well as who they are affiliated with. Some common links we found are:

-Each Organization and stakeholders of information has its own agenda to promote and support.

-The information provided has a bias on some level, whether it is content presented or affiliations recognized.

-Almost all funding could be traced back to government money (e.g. NNI) either directly or indirectly.

Thus, we conclude that there is a need for a source that generates public awareness as well as participates in public discourse, which does not have influencers that could raise doubt about its integrity and reliability, and shares information that is easily accessible as well as credible.