<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>International Council on Nanotechnology, Rice University - ICON News</title>
			<link>http://icon.rice.edu/</link>
			<description>ICON News</description>
			<language>en-us</language>
			<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:49:03 GMT</lastBuildDate>
			<docs>http://icon.rice.edu/icon_rss.cfm</docs>
			<generator>Web Services</generator>
			<managingEditor>icon@rice.edu</managingEditor>
			<webMaster>webserv@rice.edu</webMaster>
			
					
					
						
						<item>
							<title>Why Don&apos;t Scientists Submit Post-Peer-Review Comments?  (ICON Blog)</title>
							<link>http://icon.rice.edu/details.cfm?NID=1685</link>												
							<pubDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							<description>When we were setting up the rating system at the Virtual Journal of Nano-EHS there was much hand-wringing about what such a system would do to the credibility of our organization and to academic discourse in general. </description>
							<guid>http://icon.rice.edu/details.cfm?NID=1685</guid>
						</item>
					
				
					
					
						
						<item>
							<title>Temptation, Temptation, Temptation: Why Easy Answers About Nanomaterial Risk are Probably Wrong (Azonano Essay)</title>
							<link>http://icon.rice.edu/details.cfm?NID=1563</link>												
							<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
							<description>Whilst many celebrate the amazing properties these novel materials [nanoparticles] can bring to technological applications, others fear we may be opening a modern Pandora&apos;s box. When the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) at Rice University was funded in 2001, there was almost no scientific literature on the potential environmental, health and safety risks (EHS) of engineered nanoparticles. </description>
							<guid>http://icon.rice.edu/details.cfm?NID=1563</guid>
						</item>
					
				
		</channel>
	</rss>
	