Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Science

Ministry of NanoEthics? 171

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
hlovy writes "Here's part of a blurb that promotes, Nanotechnology: Atom and Eve in the Garden of Eden," an upcoming conversation between Foresight Institute founder Eric Drexler and ETC Group head Pat Mooney: "Recent studies indicate that nanoscale materials now being commercialized pose potential hazards for human health and the environment." The "studies" were actually incomplete surveys of inconclusive toxicology reports, commissioned by ETC Group, itself. Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed. Read Howard Lovy's NanoBot for commentary."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ministry of NanoEthics? More

Ministry of NanoEthics?

Comments Filter:

  • early (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Boromir son of Faram ( 645464 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:38AM (#6793055) Homepage
    I think that while this is a good idea, it's maybe a little too early to be thinking about nanoethics. Existing nanomachines are simple automata with no sort of intelligence or self-awareness. Therefore, issues of ethics and morality do not apply to them. We have several more decades before nanoethicism is needed.

    • Re:early (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cwernli ( 18353 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:42AM (#6793082) Homepage

      IMHO the ministry is used for governing the use of nano-tech by human beings - after all, there are some potentially serious implications in deploying, or even developping nano tech (take Billy Joy's article, or, for that matter, Vonneguts Ice-9).

      Now it doesn't really matter if those scenarios become reality anytime soon, but the mere thought of them becoming real convinces me that a governing body is needed, the sooner the better.

      • but the mere thought of them becoming real convinces me that a governing body is needed, the sooner the better.

        More important than ineffectual government regulations on nanotech, will be developing an artificial immune system for the planet, the sooner the better. Every nook and cranny filled to the brim with smart "good guys", assuming the good guys get there first.

        --

    • Re:early (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KMAPSRULE ( 639889 )
      Therefore, issues of ethics and morality do not apply to them.
      Maybee the issues of ethics and morality(IOEAM) dont apply to the nano-beings quite yet, However the IOEAM do apply to the human beings in charge of devising ways to use these devices. While they are not nano devices look at the uproar over RFID tags in retail stores, same thing is going to happen. We need to instill some responsibility in the people who come up with uses for new technology. To summarize you are correct, IOEAM should never app

    • Re:early (Score:5, Insightful)

      by s4m7 ( 519684 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:49AM (#6793133) Homepage

      it's not about whether the 'nanomachines' are sentient... it's about chemical properties. apparently folks at the ETC seem to fear something like the old anti-atomic camp used to claim, something like if we manage to make a molecule that's just promiscuous enough, that it will start a cataclysmic reaction eventually turning all of space, or some significant portion of it, into homogenous 'grey goo'

      It's certainly an interesting idea. But there isn't much reason to believe it is any more likely than the moon spontaneously converting itself into a duck.

      Now these extremists tone down their argument a little: "nanoscale materials are toxic". The problem is that most nanotechnology is just unusual applications of exisiting natural chemical processes.

      It IS high time to start the ethics discussion on nanotech, and the first step is to throw out the debunkers. We waited far too long to publicly have the genetic ethics discussion, and look at the stupid stem-cell research laws that were proposed.

      • Re:early (Score:5, Insightful)

        by og_sh0x ( 520297 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:21AM (#6793391) Homepage
        Do not assume that just because it is "natural" then it is inherently safe. After all, asbestos is a natural mineral mined from the ground. It is dangerous in it's natural form and needs no processing at all. And it's particles are microscopic in size. Perhaps nanotechnology is non-toxic, but the "natural" argument holds no water.

        • I'm not saying nanotech won't produce toxicity. I'm not even suggesting that nanotech is a Safe field of research.

          The only thing I am sure of is that nanotech, like any other field of human endevour is a double-edge sword. The science itself cannot and should not be cast as evil, or we will lose out on a field of exploration that will over time prove to benefit humanity.

          The agrument I make about natural processes is that we don't refer to plastics manufacturers as unethical because they contribute

      • But there isn't much reason to believe it is any more likely than the moon spontaneously converting itself into a duck.

        How about Moon turning into grey cheese?

      • Re:early (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Idarubicin ( 579475 )
        Now these extremists tone down their argument a little: "nanoscale materials are toxic". The problem is that most nanotechnology is just unusual applications of exisiting natural chemical processes.

        Well, microscale materials are toxic. Why shouldn't nanoscale materials be dangerous, too?

        Crystalline silica (quartz) is totally harmless in bulk form. It is, quite literally, a rock. You could eat one and it wouldn't do you any harm, unless it was pointy. Large crystals of it are kind of pretty; I have

    • Atoms are very small, does this mean that ethics and morality do not apply to atomic bombs?
    • People are using the term "nanotechnology" for two very different things.

      One is nanomachines. These are, as you say, in a very early stages yet and present no risk at all at this point. Some of the doom-omngers have taken some of the wildest prodictions of self-reproducing nanomachines (a very, very blue sky concept at this point) and the possibility that they could run amuck, turning the earth to so-called "grey goo". We already have self-reproducing nanomachines - viruses, bacteria, insects. The world i

  • Nanotech can be dangerous (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:42AM (#6793085)
    Nanoscale particles can pass through the skin, and therefore can be dangerous if the particles in question contain toxic substances. It is important that this is studied proerly and the appropriate regulations put in place before manufacturers start selling us carcinogenic toothpaste. It's also refreshing that they're addressing real issues, rather than paranoid sci-fi nonsense like grey goo.
    • ...carcinogenic toothpaste...rather than paranoid sci-fi nonsense like grey goo

      So that's what the slogan "Grey Goo (tm) is good for you, and makes your teeth shine, too!) means.

    • It's a good thing that they didn't think like this in the past centuries or our knowledge of chemistry would never have developed the way it did.
      • There is a difference between regulating something, and banning it outright. Would you also say that we shouldn't regulate the use of asbestos as a building material, because it might hinder the development of architecture? Would you have opposed research into the health hazards of asbestos? If there are safety issues, they should be investigated, and a sensible response taken to the results.

    • Smaller can be safer as well. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:12AM (#6793312) Journal
      Take the case of microsilica AKA silica fume. This is a material used in a vast number of products but perhaps most famous for making ultra-high strength concrete.
      There are two common forms known as amorphous and crystalline microscilica. The amorphous product is not known to produce the lung disease silicosis while the larger scale crystalline variety does so quite readily.
      So, substances don't necessarily become more dangerous at smaller scales, the opposite can also be true.
      • Absolutely true.
        In fact, the size fraction having harmful effect on human health is the one with particle diameters around 1 micrometers. This is true for most airborne particles - in addition to silica, diesel soot is one of the prominent examples.
        Particles with diameters lower than one micron are usually exhaled faster - they are carried along with the air leaving your lungs. The particles with diameters much larger than one micron usually don't make it that far into your lungs - they are deposited early

  • Does anyone really believe that... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by YanceyAI ( 192279 ) * <IAMYANCEY@yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:44AM (#6793093)
    "...we run the risk of reducing the biosphere to gray goo, and if so, what should we do?"

    I'm a bit sick of reactionary fear of technology. I work for a major university and deal with "outcry" to many of our "potentially dangerous" research projects. I hate to tell the reactionaries this, but the people capable of, say, bioengineering plants to extract toxins from the soil, are also the most competent ones for putting in safeguards and policing themselves.

    The IT world is a perfect example of what happens when the uninformed start trying to regulate an industry they don't understand. I'm not saying everyone whould have free reign, I'm just saying that the fanatics should get maybe work on getting their PhD's if they are that concerned. Of course, then they might then find that they can solve problems with technology that they create, instead of wasting their time fearing what the can't comprehend.

    • Re:Does anyone really believe that... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kahei ( 466208 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:49AM (#6793142) Homepage

      I agree that those capable of doing the work and understanding the systems involve are the best qualified to use (or decide not to use) a new technology.

      The trouble is that it's not them making the decision; once the technology's become available it's up to the upper management of Del Monte and Exxon to decide how it's used. And they are neither well qualified nor disinterested.

      P.S. I, for one, welcome our new nanoparticle overlo -- oh, whatever.

    • The world is actually already full of self-replicating nanoscale bots, and at this very moment your very own precious body contains billions of them! Scary, huh? Better outlaw them until they do something dangerous!

      They are called "bacteria". They have been around long before us, and they will be here long after the last human has died.
    • but the people capable of, say, bioengineering plants to extract toxins from the soil, are also the most competent ones for putting in safeguards and policing themselves.

      Right, and people who write Windows are the most competent to implement Palladium.

      So you oppose the idea of ethics for researchers and corporations that benefit from that research.

      No industry polices itself, thats whitewash for the public.
      • I don't oppose having ethics for researchers and corporations. In fact, I stated that I am not proposing free reign. Having ethical guidleines in place, written by scientists, for scientists is a great idea. Unfortunately, we tend to have draconian or nonsensical laws instead.

    • Re:Does anyone really believe that... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by joib ( 70841 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:12AM (#6793314)

      I'm a bit sick of reactionary fear of technology. I work for a major university and deal with "outcry" to many of our "potentially dangerous" research projects.

      No shit. There was recently a case of an experiment to study vortexes in liquid He or something like that. Anyway, the equations that describe the flow of this fluid is very similar to the equations that describe black holes.. Yeah, you guessed it; some enviro-wackos tried to prohibit the experiment because they were afraid that a black hole would be created which would swallow the earth.

      *sigh* indeed.


      I hate to tell the reactionaries this, but the people capable of, say, bioengineering plants to extract toxins from the soil, are also the most competent ones for putting in safeguards and policing themselves.

      It seems to me that these days the green movement is more about micromanaging peoples lives than about truly caring about the enviroment. I find it very sad.

    • Re:Does anyone really believe that... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "I'm a bit sick of reactionary fear of technology. I work for a major university and deal with "outcry" to many of our "potentially dangerous" research projects. I hate to tell the reactionaries this, but the people capable of, say, bioengineering plants to extract toxins from the soil, are also the most competent ones for putting in safeguards and policing themselves."
      Bullshit. There are thousands of examples of how manufacturers DON"T regulate themselves, from Bhopal, not the rural population of China bei

  • Small != Dangerous (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pork-Chopper ( 701450 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:45AM (#6793100)
    I fail to see why materials with features of a particular scale are implicitly more dangerous than those of another. I suppose I'm afraid of centitechnology, especially bullet sized things.
    • Because you have "skin" and an "immune system" to deal with "big" things.

      If I blasted your computer into molecular bits and squished it through your skin, it'd probably give you cancer, so you should think about that when miniaturizing a computer to molecular size.

    • Yeah, dangerous as nanotechnology may be, remember that just *one* gigatechnology device could squash the entire planet!

    • The size is a factor too, anything so small you can't see it is essentially an invisible. An invisible threat is much more menacing than mere bullets.

      But primarily t's not about the size. It's the implied ability for nanomachines to replicate themselves. Basically some are afraid that we can create nanomachines that will wipe out everything biological.

      Personally, I'm not too worried. I find it hard to believe we can outdo 4 billion years of evolution the bacteria and viruses have behind them. After a

  • Fear? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by henbane ( 663769 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:45AM (#6793102)
    Why do these people assume that scientists have no ethics? Is it currently possible to do research in a cutting edge field without moronic protestors telling you what you are doing is wrong and stirring up the general public to believe you are breaking the laws of nature?

    GM foods bad! Embryo research bad! Cloning bad! And now Nanotech bad too. Obviously scientists have no morality or sense of social responsibility. Arse!

    • Re:Fear? (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Why do these people assume that scientists have no ethics?"

      perhaps to quote a film...

      "Scientists have always been pawns of the military"

      Its more probable that the governing bodies of those scientists are more to blame for that assumption.
      • You couldn't think of anything better to quote than Star Trek II? Perhaps to quote a television show: "It was the best one of those movies." How about quoting J. Robert Oppenheimer, who was quoting the Bhagavad Gita, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." Oppenheimer said this in full knowledge of the horrific potential of the atomic bomb; he was working for the military (well, really the U.S. Government), but was hardly their pawn. I think it is dangerous to make sweeping generalizations about

    • Re:Fear? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by mirko ( 198274 )
      Why do these people assume that scientists have no ethics?

      Because they don't : A scientist studies a phenomenon and implements a mechanism, or whatever else.
      Where are the ethics, here ?
      It is not about saving the world, it is about producing something.
      Years ago, my chemistry teacher explained me that once researchers have found that a reaction has a negative standard entropy, they first build the factory, then study the usability of the new molecule.
      Where are the ethics in this case ?

      (non-native speaker
      • The ethics come from the ethics board. For real. For virtually any experiment involving humans, and many involving animals, the scientist(s) proposed experiment has to be reviewed to make sure its ethical sound first.

        The actual goal of pure science is to increase knowlege. "Producing something" is the goal of applied science.

        As to your "non-native speaker question": I was born and raised in the U.S. and I'm not really sure which sounds more correct "where *are* the ethics" or "where *is* the ethics"
      • You seem to be assuming that science exists in a vacuum, and that scientists are automatons who have no interest in or knowledge of the ethical implications of the knowledge they work to discover. This is bullshit. Scientists are people, and moreover they're smart people who are intensely curious about the world -- all of it, not just the part of it they're studying in the lab. As a rule, they know much more about the ethics of their work than any bunch of alarmists ever will.

    • Re:Fear? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:05AM (#6793260)
      Why do these people assume that scientists have no ethics?

      Because they've grown up watching formulaic sci-fi shockers in which a brilliant, but (irresponsible/unethical) (scientist/engineer) creates something which could potentially be used for good, but (rages out of control/gets into the hands of terrorists/ is used for evil purposes) and threatens to kill (millions of people/the world/the universe) if the brave, handsome, street-smart hero doesn't save the day with the help of his love-interest.

      • Or they know scientists invented the A-Bomb, Nerve Gas, mustard gass and the nutron bomb.

    • It isn't that I don't trust scientists in particular... I just don't trust people in general.

      I do some work for one of the national laboratories, and some (not all) of the scientists have enormous eogs. Any time someone has ANY incentive in their work (business==profit, science==prestige), there is an opportunity for someone to put themselves above the rest of the world (eg Hmm, I'm pretty sure this new nano substance is safe, so an environmental release should be no big deal)

      What ever happened to s

    • Re:Fear? (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Evryone knows that scientists have no ethics. There not even in the inner circle. That's why laws and regulations should always be left up to people with the highest ethical and moral standards....LAWYERS & Politicians are in the inner circle. Or was that Dante's 9th circle.

    • I don't think anyone believes that scientists have no ethics. I think that the people you are talking about (the "moronic protestors") just have different ideas about what is ethical than the scientists carrying on whatever research they are protesting. Maybe in some cases their fear is irrational, but it isn't too tough to see what might be fueling it, in some cases. Scientists and engineers have given us a lot of nice stuff, but they've also given us the threat of NBCs, more pollution than we know what
    • because those scientist get the paycheck from big corporations?
    • Why do these people assume that scientists have no ethics?
      • Mustard gas
      • Nuclear weapons
      • DDT
      • Agent Orange
      • [any of hundreds of biotoxin weapons(sarin and the like)
      • [any of hundreds of] engineered biological weapons(helloooo anthrax)
      • PCBs
      • Asbestos
      • Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island, etc.

      The list goes on. And on. And on. Scientists have an EXCELLENT record of happily developing horrible technology. Further, they ALSO have an excellent track record at developing technologies which appear, on the surface, to be har

  • Here is when to really fear nanotech... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by blcamp ( 211756 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:45AM (#6793103) Homepage
    ...When they start making nano-sized black helicopters.

  • WARNING (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jace of Fuse! ( 72042 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:49AM (#6793136) Homepage
    For their safty (and your own), Please Don't Eat the Nanites. Thank you, Mgt.

  • Common Problem.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Talia Starhawke ( 650311 ) <talia_starhawkNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:49AM (#6793141) Homepage Journal
    I have to admit, when I first learned about nanotechnology, I thought it was cool, but I didn't truly understand it. I don't really think I understand it still, after doing a bit of research on the subject.

    It's similar to a lot of technology that has really become commonplace in the media. Recently, a local TV news headline in my area had the audacity to say, "Food from Cloned Animals... IS IT SAFE?" Everyone in the room who knew a bit about cloning rolled their eyes. But later that evening, my grandmother called me, wanting to know if I was going to watch the broadcast.

    "Recent studies indicate that nanoscale materials now being commercialized pose potential hazards for human health and the environment."

    Yeah, and milk from cloned cows is going to make you grow three stomachs! Details at 10!

    • Sure, milk is milk and it probably won't hurt too much if it isn't.

      Giant, sterile genetically-modified salmon, otoh, could end up being a real problem if they got out into the regular population. No one thought about that until the fish-farms were already built.

      The ethical dilemma is that, once these technologies become available, companies will use GM foods and nanotech to make a quick buck without another thought to the unintended consequences.

      Even worse, in the case of GM foods, would it really hurt
      • Even worse, in the case of GM foods, would it really hurt the fish farmers if natural salmon were to become extinct?

        Hello? Who needs Fish farmers -- or any kind of farmer for that matter -- in a post-nanotech Economy? All you'd need is the "molecular blueprint" for just one nice salmon specimen to instruct your "desktop manufacturing" assembler to copy. Raw, recycled, feedstock molecules in; Tasty salmon out.

        Of course, keeping ecosystems alive even when not necessary for our survival anymore is still a

        • Who needs Fish farmers -- or any kind of farmer for that matter -- in a post-nanotech Economy?

          People who would still like to eat without being beholden to those who own the IP rights for 'salmon'.

          Besides, we're nowhere near 'post-nanotech' and I'm not inclined to risk my current standard of living on pie-in-the-sky predictions of what 'post-nanotech' will be like.

  • Greenpeace (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Yorrike ( 322502 )
    "Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed."

    Wow! Greenpeace said that!? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm convinced. Greenpeace being such a noble and trustworthy source of things that are true. </sarcasm>

    I'm sure they're right in this case, but citing Greenpeace's opinion as the be all and end all of an argument is just stupid, IMHO.

    • Re:Greenpeace (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zirnike ( 640152 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @03:06PM (#6797058) Journal
      I think that's actually the point... Greenpeace (well, the environmental movement in general, unfortunatly*...) has a distinct tendancy to take the first very tentitive report of some possible problem and use that as final proof that the technology needs to be banned. The fact that they say haven't seen anything yet is rather telling.

      * If it wasn't for this, I might have actually joined one of the groups. Too much of an anti-tech bias, though.

  • Let me consult the Magic 8 Ball (tm) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:58AM (#6793213) Homepage

    Oh wise and all knowing Magic 8 Ball [federated.com], will this debate be fruitful?

    Concentrate and ask again.

    Hmm, perhaps a little vague. Will this ethical debate drag on for years?

    Signs point to yes.

    And while we debate whether we should use it or not, will the technology be put into production in some foreign asspit who don't give a mouthful of spit about ethical issues?

    You may rely on it.

    And after that happens, will we terminate our debate on the basis that the cat is out of the bag, and that American industry needs to compete or be destroyed by the Foreign Menace?

    Most likely.

    And after this happens, will the hissy fitters who predicted the imminent end of the world over this suddenly forget their claims, and instead find a new technology to shriek and gnash their teeth over, as they always do?

    Better not tell you now.

    Thank you, Magic 8 Ball, your answers are most enlightening.

  • flying carpet ethics (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @09:59AM (#6793218)
    Worrying about the ethics of nanotechnology is like worrying about the ethics of flying carpets. Sure, somebody might fly over the Sultan's garden and peek at his wives---but he has to build the damn thing first.

  • Overhyped (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:06AM (#6793274) Homepage
    I work in the field of micromechanics/nanotechnology and at a meeting with some guys from Philips [philips.com] I heard that nanotechnology is so overhyped that even the suits were aware of it being overhyped. And I seriously think it is overhyped; there are so many promises done by many 'specialists' that we don't even begin to know how to start to make true, like the nanobots that repair you body from the inside, and the machine that makes tomatos out of thin air... Micromechanics turned out to be a big disappointment to many people I know who work/worked in this field (in that only a tiny fraction of the promises that people did ten years ago have come true), but the way things are going now nanotechnology could be worse. And that is a pity because it certainly, like micromechanis, has the potential for use in many interesting areas, just not as spectacular as is promised by many people.
    • That is completely untrue.

      Micromachines rool.
      • I didn't say micromechanics is not an interesting subject, only that not many of the amazing promises that were made have come true. We now have cheap reliable acceleration sensors for use in cars (for the airbag), but where are the micro-insects that would clean our houses, and the micro factories that make tiny amounts of very pure complicated chemicals, the tiny harddiscs and the Micro Total Analysis System (a system that takes a sample from for instance a ploouted river and analyzes its contents automag
    • I heard that nanotechnology is so overhyped that even the suits were aware of it being overhyped.
      Pfftt! That's just anti-hype hype. :)

  • I am convinced (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:07AM (#6793282)
    that in the future we will have nano technology embedded within us to enforce RIAA etc type infringements by punishments such as inducing bouts of uncontrolled urination and defecation in public. People will see you crap yourself at the touch of a button and say 'ahh he must have been using P2P again'
  • Life Found to be Leading Contributor to Death!

  • test 'em! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by scrotch ( 605605 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:27AM (#6793488)
    Personally, I'm not putting anything in my body that hasn't been tested. I imagine that the research to this point has been focussed on getting these little bots to do stuff and not on whether the material they're made of is toxic, or builds up in your liver, or promotes the clogging of arteries or anything else. They're still at the stage of "look, we made a tiny, tiny motor." They will have to go through a stage of testing before they start injecting people with stuff.

    And it's amazing to me how many posts here are suggesting that something needs to be proven dangerous beyond all reasonable doubt before we stop to think about using it. I'm of the opinion that you've got to prove something is safe before unleashing it on the public, whether it's nanobots or the smoke from your chimney.

    There's no way I'm putting anything untested in my body. Unless, you know, my best friend does it first and says it feels good...

  • "Nanoethics" (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by djeaux ( 620938 )
    When I saw this word, I immediately thought of politicians. Their "ethics" are definitely nano-scale!

  • Biased spin (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nadaou ( 535365 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:55AM (#6793863) Homepage
    Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed.


    Talk about biased spin. I would think that Greenpeace is specifically making noise that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed.

    It is the same problem as placing genetically modified food into the mouths of the population. We are messing with powerful technologies that we barely understand. The least that we can and have a duty to do is take some care before haphazardly deploying them. It is totally irresponsible not to.

    The burden of proof does not lie with Greenpeace, it solidly lies with those bringing new, untested, and possibly dangerous products to market. Maybe they're harmless, maybe they'll kill 15% of the population. Who the hell knows. Greenpeace's argument is let's find out first. We don't need 99% understanding before we can move on any new technology, but surely way less than 1% just isn't good enough.

    Greenpeace's beef isn't that technology is bad, it is that we have no idea if it's the next R-12 or DDT or other 'good idea at the time'. There exists a responsibility to find out.

    And nanomaterials is such a broad topic, I can't imagine there ever being a definative answer. Some nanotech will be harmless, other will be the end of us all. It's like saying "really small science is bad". Dumb.

    • Correction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by geekoid ( 135745 )
      We are messing with powerful technologies that YOU barely understand.

      You cite poor examples. How are we to test for things we didn't know to test for?

      If we barely understand cancer, like back in th 50's, how are we to know to test for it?

      • So many times it is not ignorance of what some harmful substance does, but corruption that allows it to be brought to market anyway. Once it was thoroughly proven that DDT was extremely harmful to all forms of life, the chemical companies promptly focused on selling DDT outside the US. So that your food if it came from outside the US, would be toxic. You know what? There is there so much food coming into the US from other countries that still use DDT, you are still eating toxic food today. When it comes

        • Once it was thoroughly proven that DDT was extremely harmful to all forms of life, the chemical companies promptly focused on selling DDT outside the US.

          DDT was never "thoroughly proven" harmful to humans, much less to "all forms of life". There was some evidence to suggest it may have been harmful to a few varieties of bird, but that's about it. The few studies used to suggest possible harm to humans have generally been debunked.

          Here's a brief free encyclopedia article [goobig.com] on the subject.

      • You cite poor examples. How are we to test for things we didn't know to test for?

        If we barely understand cancer, like back in th 50's, how are we to know to test for it?

        I understand that the traditional solution usually involves a whole lot of lab rats. (The little white rodents, not graduate students.) Expose them to the compound in question, then wait for consequences. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you have a good handle on the physiological effects of nanoparticles.

  • Nanotechnology Now interviews on Ethics/Safety (Score:4, Informative)

    by Dave21212 ( 256924 ) <dav@spamcop.net> on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @10:59AM (#6793922) Homepage Journal

    This one is from Jeff Harrow [theharrowgroup.com] (formerly of "The Rapidly Changing Face of Computing" when he was at Compaq Research).

    It's an interview with some interesting names including a Senator, some techies, and a bunch of Nano/NBIC people. It's free trial for the whole thing on the magazine site, but Jeff has reprinted his discussion [theharrowgroup.com] on his site.

    Oh, and I highly recommend the Harrow Report newsletter [theharrowgroup.com] to everyone here on /. - Jeff always has interesting info and insight.

    From the site:
    "
    Nanotechnology Now [nanotech-now.com]" magazine recently interviewed twelve people (including myself) who are involved with the emerging world of nanotechnology. They've now published the results of the interviews in Issue 2 of their "NanoNews" newsletter. All twelve of the participants' responses are available in that publication, which you can find through http://www.nanotech-now.com/newsletter/ [nanotech-now.com]. Issue 2 specifically is available at no cost as part of their free trial subscription.

    The participants include (with partial affiliations shown here):

    * Sen. George Allen, U.S. Senator (R.-Va.)
    * Morten Bogedal, CEO, Nordic Nanotech
    * A.S. Daar, Professor of Public Health Sciences and of Surgery, University of Toronto
    * Neil Gordon, Partner, Nanotechnology, with Sygertech
    * Tim Harper, Founder & President, CMP Cientifica
    * Jeffrey Harrow, Principal and Technologist, The Harrow Group
    * Lerwen Liu, President, ABACUS Partners
    * Cathy Murphy, Guy F. Lipscomb Professor of Chemistry, Univ. of S. Carolina
    * Vic Pena, Co-founder & CEO, nanoTitan Inc.
    * Ottilia Saxl, Ion European Board & Founding Director, The Institute of Nanotechnology
    * Bo Varga, Principal and Strategic Consultant, The Strategic Synergy Group
    * Dennis Wilson, Chief Technology Officer, Chairman of the Board, and Founder, Nanotechnologies, Inc.

    However, if you don't wish to register on their site, you'll find the questions plus my answers (one-twelfth of the content) below, in this "Harrow Technology Report" Special Report.

    The following twelve interview questions were developed by "Nanotechnology Now" Editor Rocky Rawstern, Chris Phoenix of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN), and Tim Harper of Cientifica. "
    ...continued here [theharrowgroup.com]
  • Does "Ministry of NanoEthics" sound kinda Orwellian to anyone else?

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    SMALL IS BIG
  • I think it might be time. In my opinion we'd rather take the risks, try everything new (unless it's obvsiouly a bad thing to do, like creating Skynet, Jurassic Park or smth like that) and solve a few problems that arise later, then not try and remain in the Industrial Age forever (or actually until we run out of oil and gradually drift back into Environmental golden age (i.e. Stone Age or Mad Max style anti-utopia).

    P.S. This is not a troll. I am honestly sick of people worrying too much. We need our techno

  • Great, something else for the environmentalist wackos to flip out about. I'm all for clean water, clean air and saving trees but there are a whole bunch of absolute, environmentalist nuts in this world that bitch, moan and protest about everything.

    Can you believe these nut jobs that don't want to import "genetically modified" food to Africa? The people there are starving and dieing as a result of lack of food but oh no, we can't be importing "genetically modified" food to save them because there might be

    • Whether GM food is safe or not, has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Nano scale materials are. Studies hae to be completed in order to make sure that things are handled correctly.

      It's not about stopping research, develoment and commercialization of nano technologies, it should be about making them safe for humans and the environment.

    • Look, you're missing the point about GM foods. It isn't all freaking out about Frankenfood [biodiv.org], for crying out loud! Read the arguments [ramshorn.bc.ca]. Opponents to the proliferation of GM food are also very concerned about the long-term issues of food security [foodsecurity.org], because capital-intensive closed-source products like GM seeds means giving up food sovereignty [foodfirst.org] to foreign life-sciences monopolies [etcgroup.org]. As once published in a Cargill [ramshorn.bc.ca]l newsletter: "He who controls the seed controls the farmer, and he who controls the farmer controls the
      • Maybe there are countries that *need* controlling, because their "goverments" are stupid and evil, and the citizens suffer and die because of it. Sure, tell me I'm elitist because there's not one person within a hundred miles of where I'm sitting whose belly is bloated from starvation, not one woman within a hundred miles being gang-raped by my country's military, not one leper whose rotted body parts are being eaten by flies, etc.etc. Sure, my system is no better than theirs; I've no right to criticize
  • And here I thought it was yet another SCO article...

  • Twisting! (Score:2, Informative)

    by jarran ( 91204 )
    Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials

    Er... of course they do. In fact, even though the author is clearly trying to twist this into some sort of admission of guilt by Greenpeace, this is in fact, exactly the point they want to make.

    No complete scientific study has been done, and one is needed badly. In many other areas we have found that as particles become increasinly small, they also become increasingly toxic. This may or may not be the case for na

  • The Precautionary Principle (Score:3, Informative)

    by gobbo ( 567674 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2003 @01:16PM (#6795673) Journal
    People who are concerned about the manner in which new technologies are developed and implemented are not all reactionaries, kneeJerks, or boneheaded luddites, folks. Please just drop the "I hate those anti-technology people" rhetoric and be reasonable.

    Mostly, these activists are asking that we just slow down and use the Precautionary Principle [biotech-info.net] when bringing out novel technologies that have the potential to interact with the world in unforseen ways. It's really just being sensible instead of rash.

    The ETC group is not just focussed on technology: "The issue of ownership and control of this all-pervasive technology is paramount." Mooney has been one of the better informed observers on this issue for 20 years.

    Go ahead and promote a technology without caring about its implementation; that's like running a department store with no cash registers, just a jar by the door--it won't work.

    To paraphrase Vico: our skill with invention always surpasses our understanding of ourselves.

  • There will be ethical considerations with nanotechnology in the future however, as far as ethics are concerned, biotechnology is far more important now and in the near future. Questions like "Should genes be patentable?" "Should Human genes be patentable?" are very real and current questions. These questions do interface with nanotechnology, e.g. DNA-Nanoparticle composite materials [nanosphereinc.com]. For the most part the issue of bioethics stands alone.

    In addition to their unique electronic/optical properties nanopartic

  • The only way we're going to see any progress is if developers of nano-scale materials get things going BEFORE these ethics boards and such get put into place.

    Once they are in place, everything will be so tied up in red tape, environmental impact statements, proof of harmlessness against every imagined ill, etc, that nothing new will actually get developed; best to just move onto some new thing the "ethics" people haven't discovered yet.
  • I reach for my revolver.

    (Actually that was a paraphrase of Goering - I reach for a Glock 21 .45 with sound suppressor.)

    The only "nanoethics" I need is MY interpretation of Transhumanism.

    Have a nice day.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close