PLAGIARISM SCAN REPORT

Words 758 Date December 31, 2021

Characters 5503 Excluded URL

3% 97% 1 30
Plagiarized
Plagiarism Unique Unique Sentences
Sentences

Content Checked
For Plagiarism

DATA AND METHODS

The National Science Foundation funded this multidisciplinary project at Chandigarh University as part of the
Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams (NIRT) programme, which fosters collaborative research in nanoscale
science and engineering.
This study looks at the toxicity, biocompatibility, and practical health and exposure problems connected with a range of
present nanoparticles, as well as the societal implications of upcoming nanomaterials, with an emphasis on risk
perception and university nanomaterial safety.
In addition, the project's cross-disciplinary teaching component educates graduate students to be more aware of new
nanotechnologies' social, ethical, and human health ramifications.
Interview questions were crafted using a study of relevant social and ethical implications (SEI) literature for
nanotechnology, as well as input from the SEI team's larger environmental health research group and an independent
SEI expert. The interview was then evaluated on a single research subject. The remaining interviews were conducted
by two researchers between March and December of 2016.
The comparisons made by interviewees were divided into six categories: (1) benefits and applications, (2) liabilities and
risks, (3) ethical implications, (5) public perceptions of science, and (6) discussion of the precautionary principle.
To ensure consistency, all final coding was done by a single researcher, and the accuracy and consistency of the
coding was assessed by many members of the study team for a large number of sample transcripts. The same
"attributes" were assigned using NVivo.
In addition, the interview transcripts describe the participants' position (professor or graduate student) and training
disciplines, as shown in Table 1. (toxicologists and non-toxicologists, and those active in biological vs material
sciences).
All of the quotes in this research are from respondents who can be identified by their transcript numbers.

Table 1: Status and Areas of Training

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

A. Benefits and Applications
The benefits and uses of nanotechnology expressed by respondents (Table 2) were quite comparable to those
projected by the National Nanotechnology Initiative as well as the media and popular press.
Biomedical applications garnered the most attention (N=33; 85%), with 15 (38%) of responders specifically mentioning
medicine delivery.
Furthermore, all interviewees (39; 100%) believed that the benefits of nanotechnology could potentially accrue to the
following "computer users" or "the general public" as nanotechnology stakeholders, as well as several statements
similar to one graduate student's claim that "nanotechnology is the future" (BGS003).

B. Liabilities and Risks

Page 1 of 2
During the interviews, all of the participants (N=39) mentioned certain risks and liabilities related with the usage of
nanomaterials and nanotechnology (Table 3).

The majority of interviewers (25; 65 percent) accurately said that nanotechnology's risks and liabilities are uncertain or
incomplete.
Nanoparticles, on the other hand, were viewed as a threat to human health and the environment by even bigger
majority (35; 90 percent) (26; 67 percent ).
Thirteen persons (33%) said nanotechnologies may be exploited; nevertheless, this was commonly highlighted in
connection with the ten (26%) statements that these risks aren't inherent in anything "nano," but rather are comparable
to worries about other technologies.
The ten (26%) publications that stated that risks and liabilities differed depending on the type of nanomaterial used
mirrored the majority of toxicological literature

particular human health problems that might be linked to nanoparticles Table 4 (below) adds these specific dangers to
the preceding table.
Inhalation and respiratory risks were the most common health effects mentioned by our responders (24; 62 percent).
This was highlighted as a general nanoparticle liability as well as something to be aware of while managing laboratory
risk.
Only six people (15%) believe nanoparticles pose a concern to consumers, while twenty-four people (62%) believe
there are risks associated with nanomaterials in the lab and workplace.
Only six people (15%) believe nanoparticles pose a concern to consumers, while twenty-four people (62%) believe
there are risks associated with nanomaterials in the lab and workplace. Although there were small differences between
graduate students and professors, as well as those working in biological and material sciences, toxicologists and non-
toxicologists were found to have the most significant discrepancies (Table 5).
As previously noted, one of the key reasons for taking a careful approach to the regulation and implementation of
nanomaterials is that the hazards associated with these materials are yet unknown.
Identifying differences in the risks associated with certain nanomaterials will be critical to developing these technologies
in a safe and cost-effective way, as will be discussed later, and should be emphasised and shared across scientific
domains.
Finally, whereas 32% (9) of non-toxicologists stated that the risks connected with working with nanoparticles were
similar to those associated with other issues, just 9% (1) of toxicologists concurred.

Sources Similarity

ENMM-S-21-00594-converted-2 | PDF | Nanotechnology ... - Scribd

Implications of nanotechnology as perceived by nano scientist. The authors whose names are listed immediately ...
“nanotechnology is the future” (BGS003). 5%
https://www.scribd.com/document/541567043/ENMM-S-21-00594-converted-2

Page 2 of 2