In my usual daily trawlings of the web for newsworthy items to add to SAFENANO.org, I get through plenty of news that isn’t really relevant to our initiative, and occasionally come across some totally weird and wonderful (but in a geeky-kinda way great) stuff. Usually I don’t have time to write about any of this, and really, why would you want to know about it anyway - its my job to spend half my life combing through this information so you the readers don’t have to!
However, one news item did catch my attention today, and really for all the wrong reasons.
‘New in North America: Sanitized® Silver for All Textiles without a Binder’ the headline says…. “So what?” you’re probably thinking – given the attention that silver has received in the nanotechnology world over the last 2 years anyone that follows the nano-scene won’t be amazed by the appearance of yet another silver based product on the market. Nor will they be blown away by its application in protecting textiles (albeit delicate and stretchable ones this time) against odour and bacteria.
However, the thing that caught my eye about this was past the science bit and the list of benefits to be gained from using Sanitized® Silver in protecting your textiles – it was a totally new section, which began “Sanitized® Silver is NOT Nanotechnology” – just like that, in bold, and backed up by an entire paragraph quoting the company's Business Development Manager distancing the company from nanotechnologies & boasting that following characterisation, the product was most definitely not and would never be nanotechnology-related.
I know we’ve seen this kind of attitude from some industry players before - take the case of
Benny the Bear highlighted by Andrew Maynard last year – but actually when I consider it that was different, in so much as when the company that marketed Benny stopped associating themselves with Nano Silver, they did so quietly. Sanitized® Silver on the other hand has incorporated it into its main marketing message – something which in a way seems far more sinister, and shows a complete lack of awareness for the ongoing strugglefor public acceptance of companies working to develop responsible & safe ways to make use of the numerous benefits nanotechnology can bring.
Whilst I’m in no better a position than the next scientist on the block to predict where the nano-silver saga will end in terms of acceptance of or rejection by the major stakeholder groups involved; to me this froms a pertinent reminder that those working in science communication really have a duty to ensure developments in toxicological research are put across in a manner which avoids building on the pre-existing fears of stakeholder groups who will ultimately determine how a technology is received e.g. the general public. In this way, maybe industry won’t feel the need to pitch its products from such an openly anti-nano angle.