Insurance Industry Warned of Nanotechnology Risks 165
SilentScream writes "Cordis reports that major reinsurance company Swiss Re has advised insurance companies that they may need
to reconsider covering products manufactured using nanotechnology until more is known about any possible side effects of the technology. The recommendation is detailed in a 57-page report titled 'Nanotechnology
- Small matter, many unknowns', which is available on the Swiss Re web site. The report acknowledges that
further research is needed but outlines the possible effects of nanotechnology on the human brain and the potential for an asbestos-like threat."
Glad (Score:5, Interesting)
Capitolism Works?
Re:Glad (Score:5, Interesting)
Most insurance companies will go to great lengths to not have to cover a procedure.
It's in their best financial interest to fully cover as little as possible.
It was fairly recently that even pregnancy coverage was mandated by the government.
Re:Glad (Score:2, Interesting)
That's not necessarily so. What they will do is go to great lengths to understand the risks they are taking to cover a hazard. They have to do this - to not understand the ramifications of a risk before covering it is financial folly. And like it or not, the insurance companies are in the business of making money. They have based their rates on covering a known set of risks. If new risks are found, then either they must ex
Re:Glad (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Glad (Score:2)
It's not flaimbait, it's the simple truth. On a societal level, the decision of whether to reproduce is no different from the decision, on a personal level, of whether to breathe.
Re:Glad (Score:2)
True enough. But also consider that the last few things you listed are learned and if the parent don't posses these the children will have difficulty obtaining them (see Canadian native populations) thus become as self perpetuating as true genetic traits.
Re:Glad (Score:2)
In either case, I certainly don't advocate adding to the population problem through mandatory reproduction, and surely any eugenics program based on economic position is shortsighted to say the least. Perhaps those people are earning that salary because they've taken the opportunity to forgoe children at a young age to get an education. There is no reason to suspect tha
Re:Glad (Score:3, Informative)
In this case, if there are increased costs or demand for "nano-insurance" it is not obvious. More likely, companies who make profit by mitigating risk are *creating* new market space by spinning up the popular uncertainty/unfamiliarity of the new technology as "risk."
funding (Score:5, Interesting)
Turns out they were wrong, wrong on asbestos, wrong on agent orange, but... you get the same amount of "scientists" now as back then still pulling the same thing-they invent something, and almost immediately say it's "safe" if there's an immediate or close to immediate mega profit angle that can be garnered.
With nano-they do NOT know what is going to be safe and what isn't, so from the insurance companies POV it's "waitaminnit fellas, you gave us this song and dance before,so let's just think on this again, or you guys underwrite it yourselves".
That's all that's going on now, and the insurance guys would be total fools to not be professional skeptics of "scientists" or "industrys" claims on this or that. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 2983 times, well shame on me. Even the dullest wits eventually bingo to what is a good deal or not. That's the position they are in now. for some things, there's no amount of money available to cover some of the potential risks, so it's uninsurable. Just the way things are I guess. If it costs as much to insure some piece of tech as you would hope to benefit from it, then it's a better idea to just skip it, go on to something else.
Re:Glad (Score:5, Interesting)
First fire companies.... Yup, insurance companies protecting its assets
First alarms about obesity in America... yup life insurance companies. This was back in the 1900s, when the government, and general opinion advised people to eat more and gain weight to combat "wasting diseases".
Capitalism does indeed work, because it assigns things value. When things have a value they are protected.
Re:Glad (Score:3, Interesting)
Here in NYC, the first fire companies were actually created by neighborhood gangs back in the early- to mid-1800s. The rival gangs would sometimes fight over who got to a fire first and who should have the honor of putting it out -- to the point where occasionally the building would burn down while the rival gangs were fighting.
Re:Glad (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Glad (Score:1)
They had a fire service in ancient rome. Brothels and corrupt city officials too!
Re:Glad (Score:1)
This indicates not that he believes they were the first fire companies in existence, but that he is referring to the first fire companies that existed in NYC.
Re:Glad (Score:2)
Re:Glad (Score:5, Interesting)
In the late Roman Republic, private fire companies were run like extortion rings. Crassus of the first Triumvirate was one of these folks. He would come up with his fire crew while your house burned down, and make a ridiculously low offer to buy the property. If he was refused, the fire company went home.
Re:Glad (Score:2)
Please tell me you didn't get your history from watching "Gangs of New York" (just checking)
Re:Glad (Score:3, Funny)
Being a resident of the St. Louis metro area, I would change from American to Anheuser-Buschian.
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.
People are so fucking clueless.
Re:Glad (Score:1, Funny)
Aaah, to be 15 again.
Re:Glad (Score:2, Insightful)
When you are dying in the gutter because you've sold the en
Re:Glad (Score:3, Insightful)
Slight clarification: When the government lets down the socalists, they will go and get a new government with essentially the same capital, less a bit for overhead.
When the corporations let down the libertarians, they'll start from scratch with no capital whatsoever.
If you have the choice between a dystopia where no one does business--and thus we all barter and farm to surv
Re:Glad (Score:2)
Good way to make yoruself into a uncredible exstremist.
Governments have huge elasticity. Many different systems can work. The democrat are no more left then the republicans. At best their right of center and slightly more right of center. Ditto with the Canadian government. We're Center and slightly right of center. The ideological differences between the USA's two parties are a lot smaller then you think if you take a step back and look at other countries in the world.
Re:Glad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Glad (Score:1)
Since, as we all know, comparing economic theory to government is valid.
Oh, wait....
Re:Glad (Score:2)
At least with my dad's experiences, it seems as if the insurance industry is practically unwilling to insure anything but tiny risks. My parents put in a pool, diving board and fence combination that went by national standards but the insurance company simply decided to yank house insurance. They are low risk people that only had made one minor claim in twenty years, but forget that, they have a pool now. My parents wo
Re:Glad (Score:2, Insightful)
I truly mean no offense, but the way you phrase your statement - "*this* new technology" - belies the fact that you (like the insurance companies here) don't know what nanotechnology *is*.
First, nanotech is a very loose definition for anything small. It isn't a technology - it is a very heterogeneous collection o
Re:Glad (Score:3, Interesting)
An insurance company is not much more than a collection of individuals grouped together to share the risk each one represent and help each other in case something goes wrong. So, each one is interested to be better covered at the lowest price. From this, everything else can be predicted...
Re:Glad (Score:3, Insightful)
With one crucial difference. It is a profit-seeking entity which would heartlessly deny coverage to a kid dying of cancer if it thought it could get away with it. Unlike a community that was genuinely interested in helping each other even if it might mean some sacrifice.
So, each one is interested to be better covered at the lowest
Re:Good Primer on Nanotech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Primer on Nanotech (Score:1)
thanks, i think i'll check it out.
oh, come on (Score:2, Funny)
It made him faster, stronger and able to control computers with his mind.
Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
Are they even aware that Skynet is taken from a movie? Like science needed more technophobic zealots anyway...
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yeah right (Score:1)
Just like when the pope comments on preservatives or when mormons talk about the internet, they should not be given any credibility...
Re:Yeah right (Score:3, Informative)
I am sorry, but if so is the case, then why aren't scientifics and/or government agencies takinng care of it instead.
From the FA, had you chosen to read it:
Re:Yeah right (Score:2)
It is their business to quantify risk. Nothing is more dangerous to the survival of an insurance company than an unquantified risk, because it makes it impossible for them to know what to charge for insurance. They have a legal responsibility of their investors to do their best to anticipate and quantify the ri
Ah! (Score:1)
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Far from seeming to be technophobic zealotry, the report appears to ask questions from a philosophically disinterested perspective.
It does not say "It will all go horribly wrong", in a technophic vein.
Rather, asks open, critical questions, that lead to the question most important for the interests of the insurance industry:
"are we at risk of losing money?"
Hardly zealotry.
Skynet succeeds as a dramatic device, because of its resonance in our culture.
It is a reflection of healthy distrust.
We have learnt to love the beauty of scientific philosophy and the comfort it has brought us. ... the list goes on.
But, we had out fingers burnt by asbestos, thalidomide, dirty air,
Why should we cede automatic trust to those who can make huge profits now, and never have to pay more than a fraction of the cost when things go abominably wrong?
I for one, refuse to bow to our new nanotech engineering masters
chickens and eggs (Score:2, Funny)
That is until the first lawsuits start getting settled. Then I suppose the actuaries'll have the real benchmark they need.
No big deal. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No big deal. (Score:1)
obvious answer (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No big deal. (Score:2)
Re:No big deal. (Score:2)
Are you ready for the Grey Death? (Score:1, Funny)
This shouldn't surprise anyone (Score:2)
Re:This shouldn't surprise anyone (Score:2, Insightful)
Nanotubes and buckyballs were originally manufactured by burning graphite rods, IIRC. And you can't tell me similar conditions don't exist elsewhere, such as coal-based power plants and steel refineries. Other particles of potential concern can probably be found in the same way.
Finally, AFAIK, there's not much difference between nanotechnology-produced devices and other artificially-produced chemicals. If anythin
Re:This shouldn't surprise anyone (Score:2)
lawyers run the show (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:lawyers run the show (Score:1)
Re:lawyers run the show (Score:5, Insightful)
But if lawsuits do happen, and the insurance companies don't charge the nanotech firms enough to , then the costs will get passed on to the consumer through higher insurance rates for everything else. In the end, it really doesn't matter... consumers will get screwed either way.
At least by raising rates, the insurance companies are encouraging more research into potenial health hazards of nanotech. Failing to research these hazards would be extremely unethical, and would be bad from a business sense (if there are problems once nanotech is widespread, a lot more R&D money will have been wasted than if they found it early on and could either abandon the research or find ways to make it safe). Once it can be shown that nanotech isn't going to be cause lung problems, etc., then rates will drop back down. This encourages nanotech companies to to conduct the research now (to get their rates down), rather than wait until we're hit by a wave of mesothelioma.
I can't believe I'm actually defending insurance companies :-/
Re:lawyers run the show (Score:2)
What's happening here, is that a reinsurance company had its analysts look at nanotech. Tho
Why dont they study (Score:5, Funny)
But then, people take sci-fi horseshit pretty seriously these days. I was watching a Greenpeace guy debate some scientist about "the day after tomorrow" on some news show.
Re:Why dont they study (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why dont they study (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why dont they study (Score:2)
> saved by nanotechnology, but being an insurance
> company this is not their focus.
Ah, seriously, that's what entrepeneurs and marketing are for.
Re:Why dont they study (Score:1)
What I want to know is why don't they just plan on using nanotech to make nanomachines capable of fixing the damage c
Re:Why dont they study (Score:2)
Thats generally like watching Bush debatign wiht anyone else.
A unknowgeleable knob who makes even the most marginal scientists seem like Einstien.
Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
Because of that, universities are trying to teach students about risk/reward, ethics and the rest. Turns out there needs to be someone looking out for things. If something isn't insured and it costs as much as nanotech then odds are it will run into a lot of problems getting financed. I see this as a good checks and balance thing.
Mmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mmm (Score:2, Insightful)
Insurance companies are notorious for using anyting that happens as either -
a) a reason to jack up premiums, or
b) a reason to not pay out.
or both.
Generally, insurance companies write clauses into their contracts to weasel out of paying in the 2-3 most likely circumstances.
and compulsory insurance is just a license for them to print money.
Re:Mmm (Score:2, Funny)
Insurance companies are notorious for using anyting that happens as either -
a) a reason to jack up premiums, or
b) a reason to not pay out.
or both.
Generally, insurance companies write clauses into their contracts to weasel out of paying in the 2-3 most likely circumstances.
and compulsory insurance is just a license for them to print money.
Yeah. Like the time they told me that my not-at-fault accident was an act of God because God made the guy that hit me. It didn't help when I told them he was a
Re:Mmm (Score:2)
Communicating communal risk experience to individual members is the entire point of insurance as that is a key element to the hedging decision (decision to buy insurance at all and from whom) of the individual. When you don't communicate that risk is when insurance collapses (e.g. current US health insurance crisis, Asian financial meltdown due to derivatives in the 90s).
Denied claims gives a risk signal/message to insured clients just as well as
Nanotech risks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nanotech risks? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nanotech risks? (Score:2, Funny)
Hey, Max Headroom, when did you start posting on
Re:Nanotech risks? (Score:1)
Coal dust (Score:2)
Not many coal miners would argue that it is harmless.
Eh? I know there's no such thing as... (Score:2, Insightful)
Listen to the insurance companies... (Score:4, Insightful)
They also addressed climate change from a relatively broad range of perspectives a couple of years ago. See this report [lbl.gov].
Of course, if we all go gray goo, there won't be anyone left to pay a claim to. :-)
You mean like... (Score:2)
Or nanobots replicating out of control until the earth is buried in grey goo? (yeah, i borrowed that one)..
Seriously though... There is a lot of good, and a lot of bad that can come out of nanodevices. Especially in the wartime or medical fields.
Common Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, after all, the basis of their business model.
One of the most effective ways to gain leverage (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not my intention to come off as a luddite, but these materials are potentially nasty. They react in very different ways than regular chemicals, and for the first time we have materials we can't assume that the natural environment of our planet will simply sweep them away to where we can't see them and where they won't affect us. We really need to be paying attention right here and right now because these materials can persist in our environment for a long time and are not easily incinerated or chemically treated.
The insurance industry should be taking a close look at covering the liability of companies involved in the manufacture and use of nanomaterials. The companies using nanomaterials ought to be held to the highest standards and employ rigorous manufacturing, environmental protection and recycling programs. Why should insurers be covering risk if their manufacturing plant is releasing carcinogenic and mutagenic material that embeds itself in the soil and never leaves it? I believe in conjuntion with government environmental protection agencies, companies will think carefully about employing such techniques. We can't afford to let it get to the point where the government or individuals start suing because of the damage, but neither can a company afford to get its insurance premiums hiked substantially or its coverage dropped.
The bottom line: if you're concerned about nanotech manufacturing facilities, live near a dump, or otherwise are going to be near these materials, get active and involved and start reporting the facts about nanotech materials to companies' insurers and other government agencies to ensure your safety and that of your children.
Also, on a slightly unrelated note, insurance companies are a great way to gain leverage against companies and organizations that screw you over. Whether you complain incessantly about unmaintained gym equipment, an apartment building full of mold, or an employer who insists on putting its employees in potentially dangerous situations, an insurer will always be interested in anything that's not disclosed to them that would affect their coverage risk. If you can find out who insures a company with such a "flaw," you can exact justice by simply documenting the issues with the insurer. Believe me, they DO listen and they WILL get on it.
Re:One of the most effective ways to gain leverage (Score:3, Insightful)
No, instead you come off like a chicken-little-hippy-activist scare monger.
Yes, precautions developing nanotech are important, but the potential benefits to everyone are tremendous. We need to be supporting this type of research, not running around encouraging the ignorant to demonstrate and complain about how worried they are.
This exact attitude is why there is a shortage of nuclear power in the US, which could
Re:One of the most effective ways to gain leverage (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just saying that you've got two problems here. One is the industrial-age old problem of metal pollutants, the other is the brand ne
Re:One of the most effective ways to gain leverage (Score:2)
What difference does it make? (Score:1)
Since when does ethics take a front seat when there is so much money to be made.
There is probably some privately funded lab somewhere doing all sorts of research. The same goes for clonning, it's only a matter of time before things get so out of control that the governemnt will have to Nuke private labs.
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:1)
Re:What difference does it make? (Score:1)
You don't say?
Where's the new risk? (Score:3, Interesting)
To me that's pretty much old risk.
notorious warnings (Score:4, Interesting)
I, for one (Score:2, Funny)
Litigation, insurance and business (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like having a rottweiler in a house - sure it's legal, but you can't get insurance for the house, which means you can't get a mortgage, which means you can't buy a house unless you pay for it out of pocket...so it may as well be illegal for you to have a rottweiler.
O
Re:Litigation, insurance and business (Score:2)
Reading that, what I really see is "I can't get insurance *at a price that's acceptable to me*" and or "I can't get insurance *in a convenient manner*".
I'm certain you can get insurance in almost all situations. It is true that due to
Re:Litigation, insurance and business (Score:2)
For those who proport to hate lawyers, insurance, goverment, businesses and free-markets, etc., what these individuals or groups do is create emergent, collective decision making regarding risks faced by everyone.
One of the infuriating (but structurally essential) aspects is that
Insurance as a check for captalism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Think car insurance. Were people required by law to own horse insurance or mule insurance when those were the methods of transporation? I don't think so. Now, every one is required by law, to own a min. of car insurance.
If you buy a house now, most people will have to get a mortgage. Almost every bank requires you to get insurance on that house.
Insurance companies are around to make a profit. I don't believe that they are a good check for anything.
How long until it is required by law that every citizen must be paying for health insurance, life insurance and lawyer insurance or be put in jail?
Re:Insurance as a check for captalism? (Score:2)
Re:Insurance as a check for captalism? (Score:2)
Re:Insurance as a check for captalism? (Score:2)
Re:Insurance as a check for captalism? (Score:2)
Oh, my gosh, we are going to be protected from ourselves again! Everything that I do affects others. IF I die, it affects my family, friends, co-workers, and boss. My family has to pay the cost of disposal of the body. My wife and children will have a source of income. (I'm the only income earner.) My boss will have to hire a replacement employee tha
Poorly researched (Score:5, Informative)
In fact they fail to reference, meaning they probably have not read, the three concrete references on nanotechnology. They are respectively works by Robert Freitas: Nanomedicine Vol. IIA: Biocompatibility [amazon.com], Nanomedicine Vol. I: Basic capabilities [amazon.com] and Drexler's Nanosystems [amazon.com]. It is worth keeping in mind that all of these are college level textbooks and the popular press and/or the authors of corporate press releases may not bother to read them (unfortunately).
Any published reports that do not cite these resources (or at least cite sources that cite these resources) can reasonably be assumed to have little or no understanding of nanotechnology and nanomedicine.
Freitas deals extensively with the biocompatibility problem in Nanomedicine Vol. IIA. and if you do not see a detailed analysis of this volume (which is several hundred pages, extensively referenced) in an insurance risk analysis then that analysis is either misinformed or incomplete. On top of that an insurance analysis should deal with the potential benefits of nanotechnology which include extending the human lifespan to several thousand years. There is no analysis for the insurance industry of the reduced payments for life insurance due to the benefits of the technology. I.e. there is no comparison of the potential downside vs. the potential upside.
I would suggest that SwissRe has failed to do a complete job in its analysis.
Re:Poorly researched (Score:2)
Lets see 3 college level textbooks with hundreds to thousands of peer reviewed references which for some reason are not reasonable citations for developing technologies. Precisely *what* do you require as convincing evidence? In case you have not checked -- none of the primary experts in nanotechnology are getting rich in an effort to promote it. (So I fail to see where the "money grubbing" reference comes into play).
Secondly with regard to "a non-biolog
Product Liability Fears Kill Planet Film at 11:00 (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't even begin to describe how disheartening this kind of story is. Asbestos was bad enough, Cigarretes were even more rediculous, but this truly demonstrates the pernicious and destructive effects product liablility lawyers have on society.
What I wan't to know is when I am going to be able to sue liability lawyers for damages done due to the absence of technologies they have blocked. Sorry sir those Amyloid plaques that are causing your alzheimers could be cleaned but the drugs couldn't be made because lawsuit fears. Sorry madam your child starved to death because of fears about GM foods. Sorry your fireproofing cost three times what it should have because we couldn't use asbestos anymore.
The insurer have taken a gutless though correct position. As long as the courts are willing to turn someones tragedy into a lawyers lottery ticket, As long as they are willing to hold inventors liable for things they didn't and in principle couldn't know, it will be folly for insurers to write liability insurance for any kind of new product.
Evil KISS members. (Score:3, Funny)
Swiss Re Ruschlikon (Score:2)
How new are buckyballs and other nanotechnology? (Score:2, Insightful)
When the research regarding the risks of buckyballs and other nanoparticles came out, I sent a letter to New Scientist where it was announced criticising them for "bad science". Buckyballs were specifically accused of hurting test subjects.
The testing may be valid, but leaves the wrong impression. Buckyballs are easily made by burning benzene and collecting them from the soot. Benzene is burned when we burn wood, coal, and gasoline. We've been burning these mate
researchers get stock options/paychecks (Score:2)
Stain-Resistant Pants: Threat or Menace? (Score:2)
No way I'm letting anything that might have side effects get that close to my genitals.
Re:Why dont they just rob us instead. (Score:2)
Re:Why dont they just rob us instead. (Score:2)