“Carbon nanotubes are smaller and harder than asbestos fibers, making it easier for them to enter the lungs and likely to cause far greater damage once there. Yet there are no standards for controlling them as a potential hazard in the lab or end-products.”

I was startled when I read this over five years ago in Science News. The article featured past discoveries and technologies with great capability or promise, but whose use was now banned, due to simple failure to consider and address inherent risks. Lessons from the past were followed by new, highly-promising discoveries with readily identifiable risks still waiting to be addressed.

Today, more than five years later, the risks for nanotechnology are still not addressed according to @WIREsNanomed (on Twitter), who brought to my attention a newly-released paper written by scientific representatives at the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, American Chemistry Council Long-Range Research Initiative; EPA; and Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Council of North America. The paper calls for researchers and standard-setters to pursue the establishment of appropriate standards to safeguard ourselves and the technology.

Those representing the businesses and other organizations who do/will benefit from nanotechnology should take the lead. While my quote from the Science News article is based on recollection, its point is unalterable. The ultimate cost of inadequate protective standards is the viability of the technology itself, even ignoring financial and ethical responsibilities for harm done. With many products already touting their inclusion of nanotechnology, the time for research to preserve its benefits is now.

I still recollect that first meeting perfectly: a room filled with over a hundred well-dressed business owners, executives, and a few retirees belting out,

“Old MacDonald had a farm, E – I – E – I – O,

And on that farm he had a…”

Why was this group of otherwise sane executives oinking, quacking and singing together? This ritual of sometimes-strange singing synchronicity is a long-standing tradition at this and many other Rotary clubs. In fact, whether pulling you into the Chicken Dance at a wedding or a rowdy version of your college fight song at the big game, the tug of synchronicity is hard to resist.

And, Mind Matters points out, it’s only natural. More than birds and fish benefit from synchronicity. Whether in the bush or the ghetto, any adversary would rather face an individual than a coordinated group. And we are so clued in to coordinating with others that our brains actually have special parts, mirror neurons, that, as we watch, re-enact others’ experiences in our own brains. So it’s natural, but how big might the benefit be? 

This is what Stanford researchers wondered about, and found. For those of us who work in teams to accomplish mutual goals, the benefits of coordinated group behavior can actually help us more effectively accomplish our goals. For example, comparing students who marched around campus together singing songs to control groups who did not, they found in later games and competitions that the synchronized students were more cooperative, more willing to sacrifice their own goals for the group’s, and felt more connected with and trusting of each other.

Getting back to those Old MacDonald pals, their cooperation in putting together tens of thousands of dollars each and every year for schools, community non-profits, scholarships, international clean water programs and hundreds of millions worldwide in an effort to end polio, is pretty amazing indeed. So the next time you’re searching for ways to build your organization’s connectedness, consider a fun round of synchronized activity to build on that sense of unity and cooperation. Even if it’s not a round of Old MacDonald, you may be surprised at the results.