Nanomedicine - European Science Foundation

24
2. CURRENT STATUS OF NANOMEDICINE RESEARCH AND FORWARD LOOK
nised as such, as the reviewers lack the necessary
knowledge. Failure to recognise the significance of
our success in multidisciplinary activities has been a
great loss to European scientific growth. One way
forward is that the national and European funding
agencies that provide funds and who audit research
output take a lead in pushing for equal weighting
for transdisciplinary research.
Nanotechnology has to counter two preconceptions
in the mind of the general public. Nanotechnology
was initially (and continues to be) popularised
through science fiction, and many of the
well-established nanoimages are figments of the
imagination of Hollywood-inspired artists. Secondly,
it suits sensation-seeking journalists to compare
nanotechnology with the already discredited genetically
modified organisms (GMO) technology. The
fact that nanotechnology is such a broad area –
covering most if not all areas of technological development,
and particularly in the context of the present
argument – can make the term Nanomedicine
almost incomprehensible to the general public.
To avoid backlash, Nanomedicine-related developments
must be presented in a realistic way, without
overhyping. It is important to focus on the real
benefits that people understand: better diagnostics,
smaller doses, fewer side-effects, disease targeted
therapy, better efficacy, etc.
The media must be handled intelligently and
with caution. And there could be a benefit in providing
them with carefully constructed ‘copy’ in
advance of any new development. Individuals who
have to interact with the press should receive special
training. It was also considered important to
improve the breadth of communication; through
possibly organising thematic meetings aimed at
informing focus groups. Nanomedicine awarenessraising
activities need public funding (at all levels)
in order to ensure a continued dialogue with all
stakeholders.