
Advances (ever an optimistic notion!) in technology take many forms and may have unanticipated consequences. Take, for example, the emerging discipline of nanotechnology, which works with structures that are intermediate between isolated atoms and bulk materials β in the range of 1β100Β nm, and which often display physical attributes substantially different from those displayed by either atoms or bulk materials (e.g. Zhong Wang). Not surprisingly, therefore, concerns have been expressed about the effects that manufactured nanomaterials (MNMs) may have on human healthΒ or other biota if they βescapeβ into the environment.
John Priester et al.Β Β examined the response of a major crop β soybean β to farm soil amended with two βhigh-productionβ metal oxide MNMs, nano-CeO2 and nano-ZnO. Amongst other findings, they show that plant growth and yield diminished with nano-CeO2, and nitrogen fixation was shut down at high nano-CeO2 concentration. As the authors chillingly – but calmly – conclude, βthese findings forewarn of agriculturally associated human and environmental risks from the accelerating use of MNMsβ. You have been warned!
However, and not that Iβm cynical or anything like that, Iβm a little exercised by the fact that the manuscript was received for review on 1st April (2012). I donβt know about the rest of the world, but there is a tradition in the UK of playing what are euphemistically termed βpranksβ β βpractical jokesβ and the like β on April Foolβs Day, 1st April. But those antics are only permitted up until 12 noon on that date. So, Iβm hoping that the paper was received during the afternoon of that day. Plus, having been published in such an august organ as PNAS some months after that date, Iβm guessing that this is a genuine piece of science. Further reassurance comes from the fact that it has subsequently elicited a letter that challenges the studyβs conclusions. Co-authored by Rothamsted Researchβs Professor Steve McGrath (UK PI for a transatlantic consortiumΒ set up to investigate the environmental and human health implications of nanotechnology), that epistle needs to be taken seriously. And it has been, in the robust rebuttal by way of reply thereto by the original paperβs authors. Consequently, we should be rightly concerned about those nanomaterials (or not, per Lombi et al.β¦).
[One of the most famous April Foolβs Day hoaxes in the UK β and which is coincidentally botanical! β was the BBCβs news item in 1957Β that purported to show the βharvestingβ of spaghettiΒ in Switzerland. And it has even been voted βthe top April Fools prank in historyβ β Ed.]