G\u00fcnter Oberd\u00f6rster, a professor of environmental medicine at the University of Rochester, and Paul Howard, an official with the Food and Drug Administration's National Center for Toxicology Research, both in the U.S., said there are reasons to be concerned about the human and environmental impact of nanomedicine, particularly since there is a simple lack of knowledge about exactly what these new materials do.<\/p>\n
According to Oberd\u00f6rster, the common thinking about all nanomaterials is \"\u2026that they're small and move freely around the body, and that humans have few defenses against them,\" adding that people think of these substances as \"cute little assassins.\"<\/p>\n
Studies being conducted to evaluate nanomaterials, said Oberd\u00f6rster, tend to use extremely high doses of the materials, calling their relevance into question. Howard said his agency's biggest problem is the difficulty of detecting problematic materials since traditional testing methods tend to be inconsistent or completely unreliable when nanomaterials are involved.<\/p>\n
Both researchers concurred that a lot more investigation is needed to understand what's dangerous, and what's not, when it comes to nanomedicine. \"The question I would ask is, where does it go? How is it metabolized?\" Oberd\u00f6rster said. \"That's the key issue, to follow the life cycle of a nanomaterial, from cradle to grave.\"<\/p>\n
The full article by G. K. Shaw (New Haven Independent) can be viewed online here<\/a>.<\/p>\n