Talk to Your Neighbor

The remains of a giant grain silo sit at the end of my crowded block of row houses in South Baltimore. To describe the building as monstrous simply doesn't do it justice. It is so large that I don't really even think of it as a building. Rather, it seems more like a piece of the natural landscape, like a block-shaped mountain or an ancient forest of concrete cylinders that's been in our little industrial neighborhood since the dawn of time.

Shortly before I moved into the neighborhood in 2002, the state-owned pier that linked the silo to the waterfront fell into the harbor, effectively ending the building's life as a grain elevator. But block-sized lots of waterfront land in gentrifying cities tend not to stay vacant for long. Within a few months, a developer had bought the property and was seeking the community's approval to convert the silo into pricey condominiums--a plan that was eventually adopted by the community with both enthusiasm and apprehension.

Last week, that same developer met with the community again to discuss his plans for a different piece of property in the neighborhood. But his newest project was met with considerable skepticism and even outright anger from some people. A few days before the meeting, a story in the Baltimore Sun had revealed that the silo's renovation plans had changed considerably from the original proposal and not in a way the community was happy about.

I bring all this up--the silo, the developer, the community meeting--because I couldn't help but draw parallels between the way my neighborhood perceives development and the way the public perceives nanotechnology, according to a study released this month by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. (C&EN, Sept. 12, page 27).

Social scientist Jane Macoubrie, the study's author, polled 177 participants from Cleveland, Dallas, and Spokane, Wash., about their views on nanotechnology before and after they had read material on the subject that she had prepared. Macoubrie found that, although the public is excited about nanotechnology's potential to provide medical breakthroughs and new consumer products, people also are wary of nanotech's long-term risks. "I'm all for it if it makes my life easier, but it is like Vioxx--the world is in a rush, rush, rush to get it out there," one participant said.

The study also found that the public doesn't trust industry or government agencies to effectively manage the risks of nanotechnology. "Study participants felt political pressure has in the past interfered with protections for public safety," Macoubrie writes of the low public trust in government. With regard to industry, she notes "a widespread perception that industry pushes products to market without adequate safety testing, makes too many errors affecting people's health, and puts its own motives ahead of consumer safety."

Whether it's new condos or nanotechnology, it seems that people are wary of promising developments touted by those who will profit from them.

I have to admit: I don't think Macoubrie's results are terribly surprising. But I am struck by one finding in the study: Macoubrie reports that participants who were familiar with nanotechnology prior to the study often knew of the subject from talking to other people. Only radio and TV were more frequently cited sources of information. Drawing a parallel with my neighborhood, this word-of-mouth information network shouldn't come as a surprise. After all, I find out about what's happening to the silo at the end of my street by speaking with my neighbors.

Public perception of chemistry tends to be a sensitive subject among chemists. "It has become an article of faith and matter of some concern among chemists that the public has a negative perception of us and what we do," wrote William F. Carroll, then American Chemical Society president-elect, as he urged ACS members to pursue outreach opportunities (C&EN, Oct. 4, 2004, page 49).

It seems to me that Macoubrie's results suggest an easy and often overlooked avenue for chemists to improve public perception of chemistry: conversing with the nonchemists in your life about your work.

In my own experience, these opportunities crop up all the time. During my days at the lab bench, people frequently asked me about my research at parties, family gatherings, and even when I was just shooting the breeze with my neighbors. At the time, my instinct was to change the subject for fear that I'd bore the person I was talking to, or worse, engage them in a debate about the dangers of "chemicals."

I now see that these were missed opportunities to dispel some of the myths surrounding chemistry and talk about chemistry's positive contributions. And with science increasingly infiltrating today's headlines--stem cells, climate change, and Vioxx all come to mind--I find that people are eager to discuss these topics with informed scientists whom they know and trust.

At ACS, we often talk about the flashy community outreach opportunities, but something as simple as talking with our neighbors about what we do actually goes much further than we think. We shouldn't forget these little opportunities that pop up in our everyday lives, because they give us a chance to earn the public's trust.

Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS.