Should Nanotech Be Regulated? 403
Memorize writes "Josh Wolfe writes an article in Forbes arguing that it is too early to regulate nanotech. Wolfe is worried that the 'green gang' (his term for environmentalists) are going to regulate nanotech out of existence before the technology even works in the lab. It seems like much of the discussion of nanotech is hype, including the potential benefits, such as immortality and the potential dangers such as grey goo. However, nanotech does hold some promise of environmental benefits such as cheap solar power. Are the risks real, and if so, is it worth the risk?" From the article: "There are rumblings that regulations are needed. They say they want to guarantee the safety of the technology and instill confidence in the general public."
Nanotubes (Score:4, Insightful)
Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. This article is nothing but yet another libertarian call for unlimited dog-eat-dog capitalism. Then again, what else can you expect from Forbes?
Of course anything that has as monumental potential consequences as nanotech needs at least proper societal debate -- even when it's still in discovery and development stage. What are we going to do if the promises and nightmares come true? Furthermore, in the case of nanotech we would not only need government scrutiny but international governmental scrutiny and control. You don't have to be a greenie to realize that.
The fact that the people doing the debate do not understand the scientific details has nothing to do with their eligibility to participate in the debate. We already have referendums concerning whether we should build new fission plants and a perfectly valid argument against such a plant is: I don't want nuclear waste buried in my backyard for my grandchildren to take care of. You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to have something meaningful to say in a sociological/political sense. The same goes for nanotech.
So why is this guy saying that we shouldn't have public discussion (not referendums, mind you) about such a revolutionary technology as nanotech? Because it makes the profitmongering more difficult. That's why. The part of the article that I quoted above summarizes the attitude of the author perfectly: "shut up, shut up, shut up - I can make a lot of money with this, so you've better shut up about anything negative we might face when developing nanotech".
And where is that nasty Green Gang anyway? All sources I can see him quoting are respectable research organizations like the British Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering. If his beef is with scientists who're capable of thinking green in any other context than a dollar bill, he's the one who's risking the nanotech revolution.
Questionable... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, an earlier report has shown conclusively that just about any substance will cause brain damage in fish, provided that enough of said substance is introduced into their little brain cases.
Seriously, though...just how much fullerene was used in this study? From www.nanomedicine.com:
I really sympathize with the hippie tree-huggers....honestly, I do. My personal opinion is that all industry should eventually be moved offplanet, and the earth itself converted into one big park. But that goal's quite a ways off, and without important technologies like nanotech, we simply aren't going to make it. These Luddite environmentalists who foam at the mouth at the mention of every new technology, and attempt to instill the same irrational, knee-jerk mentality in the general populace are not helping their species, or Mother Earth. Another point in their disfavor: every prohibition simply creates another underground. There's big money to be made in nanotech, and if people can't do it legally, they'll do it illegally, and I'm betting that the people who are bold enough to disregard the regulations won't really put too much thought...not to mention funds...into safety.
bullshit article about non-existent problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Because nanotech was such an abysmal failure, in order for people to save face and sell old research as new, the term has now been applied to traditional areas of material science and molecular biology. Whether those areas need to be regulated and how needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
For example, releasing new materials into the environment, in particular dusts and coatings that can turn into dust, should be subject to stricter regulations--whether "nanoengineered" or just chemical, that sort of thing is a health risk.
Molecular biology generally has regulations in place already; applying the moniker "nanotech" to molecular biology should not let companies or researchers evade those regulations.
More generally, however, I don't subscribe to the notion that a new industry (even if "nanotech" were a new industry rather than just good old chemistry and material science) should not be stifled; if it's potentially dangerous, of course, its growth should be stifled until we know how to mitigate the dangers.
What good will regulation do? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question we SHOULD be asking is how can we develop nanotechnology in such a way as to make sure we can stop dangerous/malicious applications. Because they WILL happen. There are just too many people on this planet for any kind of control to succeed in general on such matters. I suspect in the end nanotechnology will become another kind of virus, and it will take something like nanoengineered biological defenses to stop them, which will have to be continually upgraded.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
This stuff now pervades many aspects of our everyday eating habits, yet I can't find out about it, and I don't know the risks or benefits.
The "people who know what they're talking about" are often people firmly entrenched in companies that are out to make a buck, and are possibly more than willing (as history has proven) to ignore potential dangers in that quest. Do you trust Monsanto to tell you the god's honest truth about GM foods?
The biggest problem here was that there was next-to-no public debate about it. These companies are even resisting a requirement to label foods as GM foods! This is ridiculous! It eventually comes down to individual choice, so it makes more sense to get involved sooner rather than later.
The more this is done under public scrutiny, the more we can verify that companies or special interest groups are not bribing or unduly influencing public officials. Or do you think it's a wise idea to have accounting crooks shaping national energy policies behind closed doors to suit their own motives?
Re:everyone should be concerned (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't what you think it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
--
Want a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
Wired article as proof [wired.com]
Striking a balance (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sick of these thinly veiled propaganda pieces that take selective examples of private success and government failure to back up their market fundamentalist ideas.
Re:Regulating soot (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, you can't possibly be serious.
In a word: Yes (Score:3, Insightful)
Take carbon nanotubes. Companies allowed to treat it, according to OSHA standards, as graphite. Technically, yes, it is pure carbon. But there are some exotic, and potentially carcinogenic, reactions that nanotubes can create in the human body. Particularly when inhaled.
Re:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:1, Insightful)
You call that perfectly valid? Of course you would, you know jack shit about the subject. You don't know that for decades now there have been re-enrichment processes that can recycle most of the "waste" products back into material suitable for use in a normal reactor again with very little leftover waste. The reason we don't do this is because that same reactor design can keep going past the reactor-fuel level up into the nuclear-weapon-material level, and if someone forgot to turn it off at the right time, it would be "bad" (according to the treaties we pretend to obey anyway. Any guesses on where the US is getting its new nuclear warhead material?). And produce energy doing it. You'll probably cite supercritical reactor accidents next despite the fact that modern pebble bed reactors address the issue by breaking the fuel up into pebbles that, by themselves, can't sustain a reaction. Then when the containment is breached, they're sent scattered across the reactor floor where you end up with quickly cooling bits of uranium waiting for someone in a suit to sweep up.
You're right about the libertarian tripe though, but saying that the public should have a say first requires that the public be properly educated (and by that, I mean with the real truth, not the version thats spinning so fast it generates electricity all by itself).
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one won't welcome our new technocratic overlords.
People who know nothing about nanotechnology except for the fact that a manufactured particle can damage the environment just don't know as much about the issue as people who have been studying nanotechnology for years.
True. But people who are promoters of the technology can't be entrusted with decsions that affect society as a whole either. Even "experts" in nanotechnology aren't necessarily experts in environmental impact. They aren't necessarily experts in human health. The problem when it comes to assessing widespread commercialization of a technology like this becomes interdisciplinary. Who will enforce that this debate takes place? Mr. Special Interest pushing against unwashed John Q. Public who is whipped into a frenzy by Snidely Politician, Esq.
If you want a better system, do something for your local elementary school, shake, stir, then wait twenty years and hope things turn out beter.
I'm not saying that it's a mistake to involve society at large in a matter like this, but experts' opinions are going to be the most well-informed, and therefore the most valuable.
Well, I'm not sure what you propose then.
The fact is, venal politicians will try to sieze on an issue one way or the other. The answer is not to discourage debate, but to encourage more of it. The power of the "opinion makers" to convince society of all kinds of malarkey doesn't come from vigorous public debate, but the lack of it.
You can't moderate the entire world (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't question the ethical nature of a technology itself and restrict it appropriately and also have progress. Would nuclear technology have advanced if they were worrying about the very long term consequences? You might argue that nuclear facilities haven't helped us all that much, and have done quite a bit of damage, but we also couldn't be taking steps toward fusion without learning from our mistakes with fission.
Essentially, the countries that take the risks and have the courage to step into unknown territory are going to see the biggest returns the fastest, since ultimately nanotech offers to return more resources than those expended getting to it. Meanwhile, anyone who pussyfoots around is going to find themself quickly losing military, economic, and technological prowess.
Re:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:5, Insightful)
So why is this guy saying that we shouldn't have public discussion (not referendums, mind you) about such a revolutionary technology as nanotech? Because it makes the profitmongering more difficult. That's why. The part of the article that I quoted above summarizes the attitude of the author perfectly: "shut up, shut up, shut up - I can make a lot of money with this, so you've better shut up about anything negative we might face when developing nanotech".
Exactly. The belief that the market will take care of everything bad all by its lonesome is just asinine. It's religious in a way: the market is perfect and holy, and the government is evil and wicked. It's stupid mainly because it is so grossly simplistic.
Just because money is to be made at something doesn't mean that it is risk-free or unworthy of regulation. This is a potentially very dangerous technology. Examining that and working towards prevention of abuse is just the wise thing to do. If it is possible for someone to use nanotech to make machines that present a realistic threat to the general population, then by all means we can and should look at taking legal steps to prevent such abuse.
The free market is great, except when it isn't.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
"Leave the regulation to the industry who knows it best" - er, hello, conflict of interest anyone?
I don't want to regulate new technology out of existence, but at the same time, I don't want lack of regulation allowing big corps to go ahead and do exactly what they want without any accountability and/or assessment of the risks.
We're not talking about regulating scientists here, we're talking about regulating corporations.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
By now we should have had multiple nuclear wars
The worst case scenario was "nuclear winter" which implied one game only.
would have extreme shortages of food
Developing Countries
# 815 million people are undernourished
# 1.2 billion people live on less than $1/day
# 153 million children under age 5 are underweight
* 11 million children under age 5 die every year, over half of hunger-related causes
# 1 in 6 people is hungry
# 1 in 4 people lacks safe drinking water
would be all dying from pollution
Europe's children dying from pollution [ehn-online.com]
would no thave enough oxygen to breathe
Decreased oxygen content in the atmosphere--an ecological disaster imperceptibly sneaking up? [nih.gov]
Gimme a break folks and do your science.
Well.
CC.
Re:Too late. (Score:2, Insightful)
One day, politicians/ regulatory bodies are going to find a happy medum between FUD and ignorance.
Your priority list is messed up. (Score:3, Insightful)
Time travel is so dangerous it makes H-bombs seem like perfectly safe gifts for children and imbeciles. With a bomb, what's the worst that can happen? A few million people die. With time travel, we can wipe out the entire universe.
Oh, and flying cars are covered under the FAA rules, as I recall.
Re:The greens ask for an outright ban? (Score:3, Insightful)
So banning it from the lab is wrong if it can be dangerous, and is wrong if it cannot be dangerous. Therefore it's always wrong.
Of course, if there were some unmanagable danger, things would be different. But why should nanotech be more dangerous than e.g. highly infectious bacteria (which labs obviously can handle quite fine)? Propably the opposite would be the case.
And no, I don't believe in grey goo.
Where's the beef? (Score:4, Insightful)
The only evidence he offers is that people were worrying that buckyballs might cause cancer, and the NSF is funding toxicity studies. And the British are also interested in studying nanoparticle toxicity. So what?
But he also offers this, from the same source from which he gets his scary "wide societal debate" quote:So a small Canadian corporate watchdog group [etcgroup.org] with an unsuccessful record of opposing biotech holds an extreme position on nanotechnology. Oooh, I'm scared!
This link found in the article is rather telling:With your subscription for the special introductory price of only $195 (a 67% discount off the cover price), you will receive 12 monthly hard-copy issues of the author's Nanotech Report delivered right to your door. No doubt each issue will be filled with screeching about nonexistent political threats to nanotechnology from powerful Canadians.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:4, Insightful)
Einstein once said "You don't really understand something until you can explain it to your grandmother."
If the techies can't put it in layman's terms, they don't understand the material well enough themselves. And considering that the people who have to live in the world with this stuff ARE John and Jane Q. Public, if you don't want them showing up at your doorstep with pitchforks and torches, you need their buy in early.
If a technology is safe and effective, consumer resistance is as long as their attention span. The technology will be used, it may just be 20 years later.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point. The debate is already in the hands of the masses, and is always in their hands. The largest source of funding for research is the government, and the government answers to the people, at least nominally. Furthermore, the public is ultimately going to pass judgement by either buying nanotech goods or boycotting them.
People respond not to reason, but to intuition and impression. Just take the example of genetically modified foods. There are plenty of reasons to be both for and against these foods, but the lasting impression that most people have is of "frankenfoods", the label attached to them by environmental organizations. This is the first and only exposure that most people have with the debate, and simply by dominating the sound bites, the environmental movement has succeeded in making people queasy about it. (I won't say whether I think that's a good thing or not.)
The main lesson here is that having good public relations matters more than winning debates and having sound science on your side. Nanotech scientists should learn this lesson well if they hope to have wide adoption of their products.
Regulating chemistry? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the most part, nanotechnology is just a novel approach to doing chemistry--creating molecular assemblies of atoms. It makes possible some novel chemistry, and there will probably be some novel hazards, but there's nothing to indicate that there is some kind of "generic" hazard as is the case with radioactivity, where many different isotopes emit only a handful of energetic particles. So it makes no sense to try to create generic regulations for nanotechnology.
So we're going to have to investigate the risks of nanosubstances just the way we investigate the risks of biological substances (which are just "evolved organic nanotechnology," anyway) and new chemical compounds--case by case. A company that wants to discharge some nanotechnological waste should be subject to exactly the same scrutiny as a company that wants to discharge a new chemical. Eventually, we'll probably begin to figure out whether particular classes of nanosubstances have particular hazards, like asbestos or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. But targeting nanotechnology per se for some sort of heightened scrutiny is just obstructionist fear of new technology.
Re:Regulation will only slow things down (Score:3, Insightful)
There are many reasons to include regulation in such development when the potential fallout from the products could be lethal. But hey, as your logic goes, let's remove the FDA and get all those drugs out onto the market faster! Doesn't really matter if they kill a few thousand or so because they weren't properly tested, or because the company (as just about ever f'king company that ever existed does) cut corners and shaved off the testing time of development in order to make their buck NOW and beat the competition.
Maybe it'll be fine and there's no reason to worry. That'd be nice. Maybe it won't and having regulations in place would save our asses. Who knows! I, for one, would err on the side of caution, especially when all the promises made by the development are so grandiose. What better reason to approach with caution then when they tell you it'll give you the wonders of the world, yet haven't proven that it will.
Re:Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Regulations keep everyone honest. How? Because entreprenuers are REALLY good at knowing what is in the rules and not in the rules. And there is no rule about X (no matter how morally repugnant), and if X means bigger profits, do X with abandon.
Engineers do the same with the laws of physics. Things like refrideration and the haber process exploit loopholes in thermodynamics and chemistry.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:4, Insightful)
To nitpick, it's pretty well known that almost every physicist who worked on the Manhattan project encountered the "atmospheric ignition" problem. Apparently it was considered a good exercise for the newbies to prove that it was not possible given what was known about the nuclear cross-sections and energies of atmospheric atoms. For example, see "The making of the atomic bomb" by Richard Rhodes.
So the debate can be phrased better in terms of: what if there are unknown phenomena that could still lead to atmospheric ignition? This is not a trivial question. For example, the "Castle Bravo" nuclear test had a design yield of 6 megatons, but actually yielded 15 megatons due to an unforeseen fusion reaction involving lithium in the core. It ended up being the largest nuclear test ever performed by the United States, and ended up sickening and killing Japanese fishermen who accidentally saied through the fallout.
Another problem is that it's very hard to put a percentage on the risk of an event which is by nature unknown, or that by nature is either true or false. We now know that the atmosphere didn't ignite (and that micro-organisms didn't come back from the moon, etc.), so to say there is a 1% chance is somewhat meaningless. It's like saying there is a 1% chance that God exists.
What is nanotech? (Score:4, Insightful)
But when I peruse web sites of companies claiming to sell nanotech what I actually find are companies selling small amounts of powder that has been ground up really small. For example a medical application of nanotech is really small bits of ground up magnet with antibodies attached giving a nice way to detect antigens through a magnetic field. Or another application comes from the fact that really small particles have a high surface area to volume ratio making good reagents and catalysts for chemical processes. So nanotech is really just finely ground stuff. (It sounds a lot less sexy when you actually say the truth free of jargon.) And that, IMHO, is far more dangerous than imaginary robots because it can get in your lungs and lodge in other parts of your body. But this doesn't necessarily need specific regulation, we can just use existing regulation for particulate pollution more finely grained (no pun intended) to limit how much nanoparticle sized stuff may be released into the air.
Re:Regulating soot (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have nearly enough data about most of the molecules being introduced into our lives. I don't see buckyballs as being particularly special in that regard. You seem to be saying that, because we've lived with "soot" for the last fifty thousand years, that is sufficient evidence of one of its components' harmlessness. It isn't, and it's better that we find out the facts before we base multi-billion dollar industries on it.
Re:Striking a balance (Score:2, Insightful)
When firms were developing novel internet based system, we could say there wasn't much danger inherent in the process. What's the worst that could happen with email?
But with nanotech we're talking about altering the construction of matter at the molecular level. That's obviously more dangerous than sending 1s and 0s around a network.
What if the US were to regulated nanotech like it did email? We'd have months of grey-goo outbreaks before the Congress passed the CAN-GOO act (Citizens Against Nanotech's Grey Onmipresent Ooze) allowing citizens to opt-out of being decomposed into their individual molecules.
OK I jest - but the point is that more dangerous technologies; eg nuclear power, contagion research, human cloning; need more regulation than technologies like email and internet search engines.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Some other stats:
* Since late 50's, the price of food has fallen by two thirds.
* Since '60, average calories per day in the *developing* world has risen by 40 odd percent.
* Proportion of starving people has fallen in all continents since the 70's. Varies per region and the worst is Subsaharan Africa where it's only fallen 7-ish percent.
* Proportion of undernourished children in the developing world has fallen from 40 to 30% in the last 15 years and is expected to fall further.
And this all when:
* Population has doubled since 1960.
So it's unacceptable, but getting better, contrary to what some might have you believe.
Of course we could all go 'organic' and starve billions if we wanted to.
Re:Regulation will only slow things down (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are risks to moving too slow. People die by the thousands when the FDA is too slow to approve a product. But when a substance gets widely adopted and then is discovered to be too dangerous (asbestos, PCBs, etc), the costs of taking them back out of the environment range from ludicrous to prohibitive.
I simply cannot fathom this neo-connish "all regulation is evil evil evil" mentality that so many people have. I think it's absurd to regulate "nanotech" in the sense that it's absurd to regulate "computers": The field is too broad for a one-size-fits-all approach. But the article seems to be suggesting a "once the horse is gone, maybe commission an underfunded and non-binding study to see if locking the barn door might have mitigated the problem" approach.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:5, Insightful)
GM Foods - For starters, GM foods are more or less prevasive in the US right now. If you buy produce at a major supermarket, chances are 99% that it's a GM product. If it's marked "Organic" odds are that it's only partialy organic, more than likely also incorporating GM strains. Yes, that's not how it's supposed to be, but that's proving to be overwhelmingly the case.
GM foods carry a lot of risks, though not as many to the 1st world population as you've probably been lead to beleive. There is evidence that US Beef may contribute to various forms of cancer (the EU brought this evidence to light in their case before the WTO on their argiculture subsidies) but that's not a GM issue so much as it being pumped full of antibiotics and sterroids.
The real danger of GM foods is in the 3rd world (no longer an accecptable term, but a hell of a lot shorter than the real deal... and everyone knows what it means). Because GM foods are considered intelectual property, the seed stocks cost a great deal more than non-GM seed stocks. In many 3rd world countries, where 1st world corporations own a huge amount of the land, subsistance agriculture is no longer an option. In order to drive down food prices, 3rd world governments are forced to try to maximize production on non-agribuisness owned land. When offered GM crops that yeild 4-5x as much, they jump at the chance. Typicaly the first year's seed stock is free.
Unfortunatly, Thermodynamics comes into play here. You can't just create 5x as much food from the same plant without takinx 5x as much out of the soil. Doing so depletes the soil, making it all but useless for non-GM products. You can use high end fertilizers, but these very high nitrogen compounds often damage plants that have not been specificly tailored to survive them (read GM plants).
The trap is closed in year two. With feilds unable to sustain anything but GM products the faltering agricultural economy has no choice but to buy the seed stocks. Since they are IP, the stocks are priced well above those of normal seed stocks and are typicaly incapable of reproduction.
And you wonder where famine comes from.
In all honesty, the risks to you of eating a tomato grown with an extra tick skin to allow easier transport are fairly minimal... it just tases like crap. The real victims are the countries in which those tomatoes are grown to the exclusion of staple crops like corn and wheet so that you can have a Whopper meal (with tomato, lettuce, and pickles) for less than $5.00
Of course, there are a few stocks of GM corn that made it into the human food supply that were never approved for human use, just cattle. God alone knows what's in that stuff. That, by the way, does reproduce... and today we've no idea what corn is natural and what is cattle GM.
This so-called "Green Gang" bullcrap (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to pick a bone with this labelling people with environmental concerns as some kind of wierdo hippy gang.
We live on a planet that is vital for our existence, yet we (as a species) seem to take every opportunity to destroy it or damage it, because each individual small piece of damage doesn't seem much on it's own. It seems that only once it's too late and we've poisoned the whole place will we think about changing our ways.
Quite frankly, if you aren't really, really concerned about protecting the environment that gives you and those you love the chance to live, then you don't deserve a life here at all.
When making money comes ahead of protecting our home, that's when you know we are fucked. But then, only a complete asshole would put profits ahead of planet anyway.
I'm not going to comment on the nanotechnology issue as I'm still undecided, but trying to label people who care about the environment as a minority freak group is just bullshit.
Everybody needs to care about the environment we live in, because if we don't, there will come a point where the environment we live in will be damaged beyond repair, and we will no longer be able to live in it.
Unlike nanotechnology, this isn't fiction. It's already happening, and will continue to get worse unless we act right now to improve our ways. No amount of technology can save us from the terminal stupidity of our species, and making fun of people for looking out for our home is about as low as you can go.
So let's regulate it (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where the stupidity in the proposed falls. Nanotech is a bunch of very disparate materials that have been lumped together 1) by people who don't understand them, and 2) researchers trying to make their work sound more interesting than it might actually be.
Nanotech is pretty much nothing and everything. This is just baseless fear of the unknown. We've been doing nanotech for years, it's called pharmaceuticals. Just like any other material, safety needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
We've been breathing buckyballs etc. since caves. (Score:3, Insightful)
Harmfull stuff, too. Humans have evolved to be MUCH less damaged by such things as a result of long use of fire in enclosed places. (To the point that some dioxins amount to deadly poisons for EVERY animal but people, for whom they're just a medium-grade carcinogen/teratogen at exposure levels high enough to overwhelm the detoxification enzymes.)
Granted industrial production of nanoscopic materials means more exposure to a wider variety of stuff. But biochemical/nanomechanical warfare has been in progress since the advent of single-celled life. Most nanotechnological hazards are likely to be a matter of degree, not something totally new - even if particluar materials ARE totally new.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess you don't have a feel for the history of "expert's opinions" and where they lead: But the night of Dec. 2-3, 1949, was cloudier than expected, and the winds kept shifting. Calculations were off, and almost 8,000 curies of iodine 131 were released. And soon afterward, rain and snow came to force the iodine particles down all over the inland Northwest. One follow-up iodine 131 reading on vegetation in Kennewick was almost 1,000 times the limit set at that time. link [tri-cityherald.com]
Experts are in love with their cool new field. Experts are human. Experts will almost always exagerate the benefits and minimize the harm that their work will bring. Not evil, just human.
But experts are not to be trusted.
Socetal Debate and Trust in Experts (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I think the article is right to challenge the reflexive call for social discussion and debate about these issues. This isn't restricted just to nanotech but to virtually all scientific and even complex policy questions. It appears that somewhere along the line the fact that the voters have the right to vote on whatever opinion they have was confused with the idea that its okay for the voters to have whatever opinion they want and that it is somehow discussion amoungst the general populance which should decide issues of public policy.
Quite simply the average voter just doesn't have the training or expertise to understand these issues. Thus it is NOT societal debate which should decide the question but scientific debate. Just as it is a bad idea to let public discussion drive the debate about how much arscenic we should have in our water rather than scientific experimentation (the public will probably come up with the unrealistic standard of 0).
Of course at the end of the day the public needs to decide which experts to trust but it should be emphasized that this is the role the general voter should aspire towards. The voter should not aspire to making up their own mind based on emotions and intuitions they have about nanotech (or GMOs or whatever) but based on the degree of trust and credibility they have in the various experts.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:3, Insightful)
Laymans terms. Will this crap give me cancer (or at least any more than anything else I use)? If this stuff leaks into the environment, what will happen? If a shipment of this stuff spills on the freeway, can you clean it up with a hose, or do you need the guys in MOP suits? What would happen if my toddler swallows the stuff? How long can I store it on the shelf? Can I throw it out with my regular garbage.
If you can't answer these basic questions, you are worthless as an engineer.
De Rigeur Deregulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Too late. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Look at the data sheet for table salt [jtbaker.com]. "Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES; LAB COAT; PROPER GLOVES", "In the event of a fire, wear full protective clothing and NIOSH-approved self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece operated in the pressure demand or other positive pressure mode.", " Ventilate area of leak or spill. Wear appropriate personal protective equipment as specified in Section 8. Spills: Sweep up and containerize for reclamation or disposal. Vacuuming or wet sweeping may be used to avoid dust dispersal.", "Containers of this material may be hazardous when empty since they retain product residues."
Oops, I forgot to wear my goggles and gloves when I had dinner this evening. I wonder if I'll live.
To be fair, I think that MSDS's are written with mass industrial processes in mind. Perhaps you have to be a bit more careful if you're working with a thousand tonnes of finely-ground salt. Still, MSDS's do not seem to me to be a very good guide to the overall hazardousness of a substance, especially when they say something as vague as "THE CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND TOXICOLOGICAL PROPERTIES HAVE NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED."