Progress may not always be

Sometimes you have to say whoa.

Running down a trail in pursuit of something new and wonderful is exhilarating, but no matter how magical the quest, it pays to pause periodically and sniff the air for signs of unintended consequences.

That's why a group of scientists is saying we need to do a better job of examining nanotechnology for potential problems.

Nanotechnology involves manipulating particles at the atomic or molecular level to create new material or even devices, everything from anti-odor socks to longer-lasting tennis balls to hair spray.

The field has generated anticipation and worries.

The report this month talked about reducing the uncertainty about the impacts of nanotech.

I used to think people centuries ago lived with more uncertainty than we do because they had so much less information, but I'm not sure that's so.

Ancient people's world was smaller, and they had a better mastery of the elements of their daily life.

Our knowledge explosion is also an explosion of questions.

Are you concerned the cellphone against your ear will cause brain cancer (or perhaps you've forgotten about that possibility because you're about to drive your car into an SUV)?

In its report, the National Research Council said the government's plan for research potential health and environmental risks of nanotechnology is not adequate.

Whether nanotechnology is safe is much more than an academic question.

In announcing the report, the council said, "More than 600 products involving nanomaterials are already on the market, the majority of them health and fitness products, such as skin care and cosmetics. And over the next decade, nanomaterials will be used increasingly in products ranging from medical therapies to food additives to electronics."

How do you know those nano particles that make your sunscreen transparent and more absorbable won't make their way into your bloodstream?

The council's chairman is David Eaton, a University of Washington professor of environmental and occupational-health sciences.

He said the government's current plan "catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology."

The report says government researchers should get input from academia, industry, consumer and environmental groups. It also proposed some concrete goals for the research.

A closer look could put consumers at ease, assuming it found no problems.

People love to explore, tinker and invent. Science has been a great tool for doing that, but, like every other human endeavor, it doesn't always get things right, at least not at first.

I tend to notice that most where health is concerned: We've been encouraged to take vitamin supplements but lately told some don't really do anything.

And consider the colonoscopy. I know you don't want to, but it's been an important test for people of a certain age.

A doctor examines the large intestine, looking for signs of dangerous growths. We rely on it to prevent death from colorectal cancer.

The news last week was that, even with a colonoscopy, doctors often can't see lesions on the right side of the colon.

Of course, it would be much worse not to know about something that could actively hurt you. Asbestos seemed like a great product once.

We aren't going to create a risk-free world, but we need to know enough to balance risks against gains.

Jerry Large's column appears Monday and Thursday. Reach him at 206-464-3346 or jlarge@seattletimes.com.