Is it possible to reconcile the caution of most scientists about their results with the demands of the media for headlines and the growing emphasis placed by funding agencies on the economic impact of research? In this month’s issue of Nature Nanotechnology (3, 65-66; 2008), Richard Jones urges caution: “scientists may not be at all confident that their own work will have a big impact, but they are confident that science in general will deliver big benefits. On the other hand, the public have long memories for promises that science and technology have made but failed to deliver (such as electricity from nuclear power being ‘too cheap to meter’). This, if nothing else, suggests that the nanoscience community would do well to be responsible in what they promise.”

The cancer nanotechnology plan of the US National Cancer Institute, for example, is criticized for its opening statement: “To help meet the Challenge Goal of eliminating suffering and death from cancer by 2015, the NCI is engaged in a concerted effort to harness the power of nanotechnology to radically change the way we diagnose, treat and prevent cancer.” As Dr Jones writes," a close textual analysis of the document shows that the NCI does not explicitly claim that nanotechnology will cure cancer by 2015; rather, it talks of “challenge goals” and “lowering barriers”. But is it wise to make it so easy to draw this conclusion from a careless reading?"