I finally stumbled upon the website for “Power of Small: Nanotechnology”, the PBS program intended to enlighten us about nanotechnology’s promises…and threats. Needless to say I wasn’t breathlessly looking for it. So after having forewarned of it two months ago, I actually watched some of it.
Based on the early PR, I was expecting a documentary, but instead it follows the Fred Friendly model of a panel discussion. I waded in undeterred, but my interest quickly waned.
By and large based on what I did watch, I agree with David Berube of Nanohype, who clearly has far more patience than me as he watched all the clips.
The clips are organized around three topics of discussion: Privacy, Health and Environment.
For the privacy section, Berube notes, “There is little distinction about how nanoscience will sufficiently increase the privacy concerns given microchips are already available.” We’re in agreement there.
On the health part, the discussion quickly descends into 150-year life spans…sigh. Again, how you pin this problem of extended life on nanotechnology is unclear as Berube argues “Then we move to genetic switches that affect aging. We don’t need nano to engage in genetic engineering.” Exactly.
The third portion on the environment engages mainly in hypotheticals. While Berube finds this section worth watching, he does complain that is based on the counterfactual argument.
To me it just gets all a little silly with continual references to the hypothetical “Admiral Chicken”. But what is disturbing is that a representative of the Mercury News maintains that even if Admiral Chicken’s anti-salmonella packaging is approved by the FDA, and the company argues that its properties are proprietary, she would go investigating if she suspected that there were “nanotechnology” involved.
Has “nanotechnology” become the latest item to uncover in probing investigative journalism? I suppose that the Mercury News wouldn’t concern itself if a food manufacturer was using petroleum products in its packaging, but didn’t reveal the specifics of how they made the packaging.
As Berube argues this panel format is not the proper way to approach the subject of nanotechnology. What you get is strange hypothetical questions posed by a moderator and getting off-the-top-of-their-head responses from the panelists. Additionally, none of it is edited, so meaningless comments are given the same weight as the important ones.
Someone needs to sit down and try to do this right, not just gather together some panelists in a TV studio for an afternoon and asking some fairly strange questions.
