For the final exam I’d like you to investigate a real-life issue, in a real life format.

The real-life issue is the concern that nanoparticles may have an unanticipated ability to enter into the human body producing damaging interactions. More specifically: that nanoparticles already used in consumer products such as sunscreens and cosmetics may be able to move directly through the skin. If this is the case, many question if we should continue a presumption of safety (i.e. waiting passively until negative evidence spontaneously appears) and instead require manufacturers to prove safety (as they would have to do with food and drugs we knowingly introduce into the body). In the case of sunscreens, proponents argue that we’ve safely used ZnO particles in sunscreens for decades, so why now worry about the new use of ZnO nanoparticles? Against which skeptics cite the strange case of asbestos which, a generation ago, was thought to be just another micro-fiber which, if not inhaled in quantity or over long periods of time, did not present a particular health risk (i.e. similar to our current view of fiberglass). But asbestos turned out to have a very peculiar and completely unanticipated interaction with tissue that, after a single exposure (as simple as someone once changing the brake pads on their car) could lead to a deadly cancer.

So that is the real-life issue (about which I have not reached a personal conclusion!). I’ve given you a head start by digging up some papers, links to which you can find at the bottom of another class webpage by CLICKING HERE

As to the real-life format, I’d like you to imagine that after graduating from UVA you’ve been hired by one of the many “think-tanks” / consulting firms in the DC suburbs, and that your firm has been hired to compile a study on exactly the issues above (it could happen!). Assume you are my newly hired research team. Some months in the future we’ll have to assemble a formal report, but we are just now getting into the problem. We first need to scout the literature. Our challenge is that most of the papers (such as those linked above) are at a very high (low?) level, expressing only generalized arguments, composed for non-technical readers. Many cite no specific data. Others cite data only very indirectly (e.g. citing other papers that cite other papers that, somewhere down the chain, may finally refer to cold hard data and observations). But as our research team leader, I am very wary of such abstracted information. Busy authors often cite papers without completely understanding or even completely reading them (much less digging up the references those papers cite to justify their conclusions). A chain of citations can thus often be misleading or even blatantly incorrect! For this very reason, our firm was hired because WE are scientists and engineers and we should be able to find, understand, and correctly summarize the primary data, and base our report upon these data.

OK, in reality even this first step of preliminary investigation could take weeks or months. So for this exam, let me scale it down: I’d like you to read the papers above, and START this process by trying to follow an argument you find interesting down one or two levels closer to the primary scientific data. For instance, can you indeed find papers documenting nanoparticle penetration of the skin? Can you find papers documenting unexpectedly hazardous nanoparticle interactions with organisms? (For instance a rather confusing series of Washington Post articles first cited one group of people alleging that carbon nanotubes damaged fish larvae, then cited others disputing this – where are the facts?). Or, can you find why scientists now believe asbestos turned out to be so peculiarly dangerous (assuming that information might give us a hint on how to predict nanoparticle toxicity)?

From you I expect a typed report of your investigations (not a highly polished document already suitable for publication, but a document you would not hesitate to submit to your new boss!). This should include which arguments you chose to explore, why you chose these, and what you found. Here I want clear explanations and identification of your deeper sources of information (of which ideally I’d like pdf copies burned onto a CD for the use of future classes). What is enough? You are part of a many member team, so from you individually I am looking more for depth than breadth (we’ll get breadth when we combine our results). Follow your instincts, follow your personal interests. Greater depth should not be too hard to come by as on nanoparticle sunscreens alone, the web is full of articles that can lead you toward research papers elsewhere on the web or accessible through UVA’s e-journal databases. If this were a normal final exam you’d spend perhaps a half dozen hours studying and another three hours in the exam. So a report representing an intense full day’s work would be appropriate. Need something more specific? OK, I’d be very disappointed with a 2-3 page report. Something in the five to ten page range (with an attached CD carrying copies of 2-3 new really informative fact-based papers) would be more plausible.

Bear in mind: I am asking you to educate yourself on a problem that may already be affecting you & your loved ones!

 This exam is due at Professor Bean's office by noon Monday December 10th

 On my honor as a student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized assistance on this exam.

(ATTACH THIS SHEET TO THE FRONT OF YOUR EXAM)