Nanotechnology :- Visions of the future

Baffled by nanotechnology? Me, too. But another item I missed while in Honduras was this FDA notice about nanotechnology. From the FDA email:


NOTE TO CORRESPONDENTS
For Immediate Release: Aug. 7, 2008 Contact: Christopher Kelly, 301-827-6242, christopher.kelly@fda.hhs.gov
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has posted a Federal Register Notice announcing a public meeting on Sept. 8, 2008 to consider FDA-regulated products that may contain nanoscale materials.
Nanotechnology involves the creation and use of materials and devices at the level of molecules and atoms. A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter, too small to be seen with a conventional lab microscope.
The purpose of the meeting is to gather information that will assist the agency in continuing to implement the recommendations of the Nanotechnology Task Force Report and in the development of agency guidances.
The task force issued recommendations on: foods, including dietary supplements; food and color additives, including food contact substances; cosmetics; animal drugs and feeds; and human drugs, medical devices and biologics.
The FDA also is announcing a request for available data and information on the effects of nanoscale materials on the quality and safety of FDA-regulated products.


Here some links on the future of nanotechnology:

The vision of nanotechnology

Nanofrontiers

Nanotechnology: the future is coming sooner than you think From the House-generated report from 2007:


There is a widespread desire to avoid repeating the mistakes of biotechnology, a technology whose advance has been substantially slowed by political opposition that has little scientific basis. But it is not really clear what the mistakes of biotechnology are. No human deaths can be attributed to genetically modified organisms. Nor has any product of biotechnology ever resulted in significant environmental harm. The potential health and environmental benefits of biocrops in the form of reduced use of pesticides, fertilizer, and fuel and improved vitamin delivery are totally discounted in favor of vague warnings against Frankenfood. One might wish that companies like Monsanto had been more open about their research and intentions, but this research surely would have been used against them by environmental groups who intentionally distort the debate by exaggerating any dangers and denying any benefits. It is far from certain that better studies and more open debate would have produced a more reasoned policy. Much of the reaction against nanotechnology is based solely on the fact that even if it has benefits, these benefits will change society in substantial ways. This is why opponents often mention the need to look at “socio-economic effects”. Similar arguments are being used today against the expansion of the Internet. Realtors have argued that home earches done over the Internet are not really the same as those done by a licensed professional and that the industry therefore should not have to open up its listing services to discount brokers. Optometrists have argued that contact lenses purchased over the Internet are not really as safe as those that they sell and that therefore they should be allowed to write prescriptions for brands that promise not to make their products available to Web stores. Of course, in neither of these arguments is there room for the consumer to determine what actually does or does not benefit him. Rather, the strategy is for the incumbents to make the decision for the individual. Had the development of the World Wide Web waited for a full understanding of its “socioeconomic effects” it would probably not exist today.