While I was working on the previous post (introducing the you-are-not-goo tool), I ran across a textbook case study for Tool #1, and a reminder of how useful this one simple rule can be. ABC News (the Australian Broadcasting Company) online ran an article reporting on an experiment involving nano-sized metals (like the type commonly used in sunblocks and mineral makeup, but in this case involving metals used in artificial joints). The ABC headline, “More evidence nanoparticles damage DNA”, is worrying enough. And the outcome of the experiment, suggesting that nanoparticle metals can damage even cells they don’t directly touch, only reinforces that anxiety. Given that “DNA damage” is shorthand for “increased cancer risk”, and that nanoparticles are now widespread in the personal products market, what’s not to fear?
Remember these guys?
But as I continued to read the article, I noticed something. The descriptions of the experiment and findings mentioned only cells, or layers of cells, or tissues. All that talk of cell membranes but nary a mention of mice or men? It was a big red flag that this was investigational or exploratory research, and not a well-designed study on humans. In other words, the report was a perfect case for applying Tool #1.
So, I spent all of thirty seconds on Google, hoping that another service had picked up the story and furnished better analysis. And I was promptly rewarded! The New Scientist online published an excellent dissection, in Q&A format, of the limits of the original report .
Where the ABC simply reported the gritty technical details without analysis, the New Scientist article explains, in clear, ordinary language, what to make of the nanoparticle story. In it, you’ll find ample confirmation of the exploratory nature of the experiment. For example, the New Scientist offers:
Did the experiment represent something that could happen in my body?
The experimental set-up was entirely artificial, and nothing like it occurs naturally in humans or animals. Nor are the nanoparticles in question used in any current treatments, experimental or otherwise.
And after providing a wonderfully lucid explanation of what happened in the study, and the theory that was reported by the researchers, the New Scientist article goes on to answer the burning question the ABC article seemed designed to inspire:
Does this suggest that all nanoparticles may be unsafe?
No. There are hundreds of nanostructures under development and being tested as possible medical treatments and for other uses. It would be ridiculous to suppose that they would or could all cause this phenomenon.
What about skin creams like sunblocks that contain nanoparticles? Might they cause unknown effects below the skin?
Possibly. But again, this is such a newly discovered phenomenon that it’s too soon to say. The researchers are adamant that their set-up can’t and shouldn’t be extrapolated to any structures in the human body.
Plink! One incipient fear-raising article shot down with little more than the you-are-not-goo tool and a little help from the wise editors of an excellent science magazine!
The full New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18119-nanoparticle-dna-damage-study-what-you-should-know.html
Case Study: Nanoparticles and DNA damage
While I was working on the previous post (introducing the you-are-not-goo tool), I ran across a textbook case study for Tool #1, and a reminder of how useful this one simple rule can be. ABC News (the Australian Broadcasting Company) online ran an article reporting on an experiment involving nano-sized metals (like the type commonly used in sunblocks and mineral makeup, but in this case involving metals used in artificial joints). The ABC headline, “More evidence nanoparticles damage DNA”, is worrying enough. And the outcome of the experiment, suggesting that nanoparticle metals can damage even cells they don’t directly touch, only reinforces that anxiety. Given that “DNA damage” is shorthand for “increased cancer risk”, and that nanoparticles are now widespread in the personal products market, what’s not to fear?
Remember these guys?
But as I continued to read the article, I noticed something. The descriptions of the experiment and findings mentioned only cells, or layers of cells, or tissues. All that talk of cell membranes but nary a mention of mice or men? It was a big red flag that this was investigational or exploratory research, and not a well-designed study on humans. In other words, the report was a perfect case for applying Tool #1.
So, I spent all of thirty seconds on Google, hoping that another service had picked up the story and furnished better analysis. And I was promptly rewarded! The New Scientist online published an excellent dissection, in Q&A format, of the limits of the original report .
Where the ABC simply reported the gritty technical details without analysis, the New Scientist article explains, in clear, ordinary language, what to make of the nanoparticle story. In it, you’ll find ample confirmation of the exploratory nature of the experiment. For example, the New Scientist offers:
And after providing a wonderfully lucid explanation of what happened in the study, and the theory that was reported by the researchers, the New Scientist article goes on to answer the burning question the ABC article seemed designed to inspire:
Plink! One incipient fear-raising article shot down with little more than the you-are-not-goo tool and a little help from the wise editors of an excellent science magazine!
The full New Scientist article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18119-nanoparticle-dna-damage-study-what-you-should-know.html