The content of this article is in parts more refreshing than its complacent headline suggests.

EXCERPT: As a polymer scientist at Imperial College London, she had, in effect, spent her entire career in nanotechnology and had been surprised when other chemists warned of a backlash. What problems could there be?

"There could be toxic problems. But I hadn't thought about them. Shouldn't we think about the potential problems before they become problems?"
---

Time to demystify science to win trust
Tim Radford
Monday September 6, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1297829,00.html

Public concern about the direction of research should be taken seriously, one of Britain's leading scientists will warn today.

Dame Julia Higgins, president of the British Association, believes that although people support science through taxes, they have very little control over its uses - and often suffer the consequences.

"There is a whole raft of questions about the dual use of science. Knowledge always has a dangerous side, you can use it for good, you can use it for ill."

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons provided an example.

Many people were suspicious of chemicals, forgetting that most of modern life would be impossible without developments in chemistry. This raised questions about the public's trust in science.

She called upon the entire science community - including politicians and business leaders trained in science, the "invisible" scientists who made careers outside science, and researchers and teachers - to debate the future.

She spoke of the "backlash" over genetically modified crops, and the potential alarm about the new science of nanotechnology, which deals with fabrics on the scale of millionths of a millimetre.

"We can't have a referendum on every scientific proposal. On the other hand we do have elected representatives; they listen to what the public is thinking. It is quite clear therefore that a publicly articulated, sensible debate, could be extremely helpful," she said.

"If people don't know about something, and scientists are not prepared to talk about it, using a language that is understandable, then it is reasonable that people get fearful."

As a polymer scientist at Imperial College London, she had, in effect, spent her entire career in nanotechnology and had been surprised when other chemists warned of a backlash. What problems could there be?

"There could be toxic problems. But I hadn't thought about them. Shouldn't we think about the potential problems before they become problems?"