Nanomedicine For Real Or Just More Hype?

from the can-we-see-it-in-action? dept

For years and years we've been hearing about expected revolutions in the medical field from things like nanotechnology. And, for years and years, nothing much has happened. While this stuff isn't simple, and things certainly don't happen overnight, the failure to see much of anything should keep everyone pretty skeptical until we see nano-medicine in action. So, while it's encouraging to read about some new nano-medical systems that may be coming to market, it would be nice to keep the hype in check until it's really here and really working.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    dorpus, 13 Oct 2005 @ 8:48am

    Odds Ratios

    If any of the detection tests work, we can expect the media to be filled with inaccurate statements that confuse Relative Risk with Odds Ratios, or use Simpson's Paradox to tell only one side of the story. I notice the Wired Article did not mention the distinction between sensitivity and specificity, or the distinction between Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV). The reporter probably didn't know the difference. These things matter a lot.

    For example, existing HIV tests can detect the disease with a high degree of sensitivity. But it also has low specificity, in which people who don't have HIV also have a high chance of testing "positive", causing unnecessary distress. Are these new nano-tests going to tell a lot of healthy people they have "cancer"?


    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Timothy McDonald, 13 Oct 2005 @ 9:41am

    nanoscience in its infancy

    I think it's too early to cast off nanoscience for lack of results. Remember, nanoscience is still very, very new. The National Nanoscience Initiative is only four years old. Controlling clusters of matter by coaxing molecules to assemble themselves ("bottom-up assembly") is a complete paradigm shift in our engineering methods. This is not as simple as developing new software; rather, tools and techniques must first be developed before breakthroughs in medicine and materials are seen.

    However, many of these tools and techniques are closer to maturing, new nano-materials are being discovered, and progress is creeping along. The National Science Foundation (NSF) expects nanoscience to become a $1 trillion industry in ten to fifteen years. This, coming from the NSF, is not hype. Instead, it is a conservative estimate based on current trends.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.