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."
Nanotech Inspector (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Nanotech Inspector (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's new (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and nanotech regulation used to be called micromanagement.
PHB's just love to make themselves look important
Nanotubes (Score:4, Insightful)
Regulating soot (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Regulating soot (Score:3, Insightful)
Come on, you can't possibly be serious.
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.
Too late. (Score:5, Informative)
Nanomaterials are weird. Gold metal and even sub-hair thin wires are fairly inert; but nanodivide it, and it becomes highly reactive and much more toxic than lead. And we're putting nanocrystal zinc oxide into sunscreens these days. I'll use it anyway-- with my skin and family history, melanoma is the bigger risk. But nanomaterials exposure is already happening.
Re:Too late. (Score:2, Insightful)
One day, politicians/ regulatory bodies are going to find a happy medum between FUD and ignorance.
Re:Too late. (Score:4, Funny)
The reason they can use it is because its effects are immediate. It has this neat property of killing or disfiguring, on contact, anyone who doesn't handle it properly.
I don't know where you get off saying H2SO4 has not been thoroughly investigated. What do you want, a guy in a labcoat with an eyedropper blinding mice?
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 det
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 press
Wide Societal Debate (Score:5, Interesting)
"There needs to be a wide societal debate informing and underpinning government decisions, and this can't be confined to technical issues alone. It would be a mistake to attempt to sideline this discussion to a group of experts..."
Great thinking. Let's take the debate out of the hands of the people who know what they're talking about, and put it firmly in the hands of John Q. Public. "But I read a book about nanotechnology, and these swarms of tiny robots killed people. Won't somebody think of the children?"
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. 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. The public's opinion can easily be swayed by politicians with hidden agendas, and somehow I doubt that scientific advancement will win out against mass panic and sentimentalism. What we need are some honest, unbiased reports of the pros and cons of nanotechnology: where it's headed, how it could help us, how it could harm us, and what the cost will be. Instead we'll have a mob of people going off half-cocked and writing their senators because them thar robots are goin' take over, and you cain't even see 'um. Give authority to the people who have earned it; they're the ones who will know the right thing to do with it.
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: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:Wide Societal Debate (Score:4, Interesting)
Better to not have any regulations at all then to let those who would break the regulations or who want to avoid competition in nanotech become the ones creating the regulations.
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.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:5, Funny)
"I saw that Star Trek episode where two nanites had sex and reproduced like rabbits! They had to shoot the computer! And then they, like, started talkin' and stuff, and that dude had to apologize.. Well, shit, I ain't wanna apologize to some sex-maniac robots who want to take over my computer! No way, man! None of this nanotechnology for me! I don't wanna shoot my 'puter neither!
I saw it on TV, so it's gotta be true!"
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.
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:3, Funny)
Or, just spray the local elementary school with brain-enhancer nanobots and let them do what they're good at!
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
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 r
Re:Wide Societal Debate (Score:2)
We've been dealing with particulate polution a lot longer than that. Imagine the particulate levels inside a cave with a fire burning, or any other structure with a fire pit and a hole in the ceiling as a heating/cooking system. People have been affected by particulate polution all the way back to the romantic dawn of time (so to speak).
Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Regulation (Score:2, Interesting)
You also have to question the legitimacy and intentions of the regulators, as he's alluding to, sort of. In the broad sense, everyone is entitled to it. Better to allow everyone to have the stuff and treat them fairly, than withhold it and waste intelligence resources (and more) trying to stem its spread.
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
Re:Regulation (Score:2)
No the problem with regulation is that it keeps everyone honest. If there is not rule, it's never wrong to break it.
Re:Regulation (Score:2)
Yes. (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but NIMBY is not a valid argument.
Re:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:2)
Re:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the irrational or unfounded 'NIMBY' responses to an
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:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:2)
Still hold that opinion when it comes to evolution, or just when its convenient for your agenda?
Re:Where's that nasty Green Gang? (Score:2)
Dog-eat-dog capitalism is what brought you the lifestyle that allows you to post on Slashdot, kiddo.
I love it when geeks slam capitalism. Since high tech equipment of all kinds can only be affordable via mass production and massive R&D, it's pretty fucking hypocritical to say anything about capitalism while you're typing away on a product that took MASSIVE capital investment by the largest companies in t
everyone should be concerned (Score:2)
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.
Grey Goo? (Score:5, Funny)
yes! (Score:5, Funny)
- flying cars
- artificial intelligences that pass the Turing test
- cures for the common cold
- concealed laser pistols
- faster-than-light travel.
I think the need for #1, for example, should be obvious -- I'm amazed that nobody's been killed yet, considering the complete lack of traffic regulations. And re #5, according to special relativity, any faster-than-light drive also allows time travel, which has obvious potential for use by terrorists -- surprising they haven't used it yet, given the complete lack of government oversight.Re:yes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yes! (Score:2)
But what's the reason for #3?
Snake oil salesmen and abuse. If you claim some drug does something, you must be able to prove it. Similarly, while it may in fact cure the cold, it shouldn't cause fungus to grow out of your nose. Both are classes where the law is used to great benefit.
Re:yes! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yes! (Score:2)
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:yes! (Score:2)
6. time travel
or maybe you did, and somebody travelled backwards through time and erased it!
Regulation will only slow things down (Score:2)
Re:Regulation will only slow things down (Score:2)
Tom
Re:Regulation will only slow things down (Score:3, Funny)
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 b
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
Nah (Score:3, Funny)
The greens ask for an outright ban? (Score:5, Interesting)
So before we even know even a fraction of the possible benifits and dangers, they wan't an outright ban on anything that would let us find out what the good or bad is? Banning it from commercial products means it doesn't get used in anything, banning it from the lab means we won't ever find out more on it until the moratorium is lifted. Which probably wouldn't happen until we found out more about it. Catch-22.
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 d
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.
Re:bullshit article about non-existent problem (Score:2)
If you stifle something, nothing gets done. Not even research. Therefroe, you won't know how to mitigate any dangers and won't ever unstifle it. Great way to kill off all industry. How about we stifle fusion research until we know how dangerous an exploding reactor is? Or Wind until we know the dangers it will cause on the world air flow? Could end up stoping the jet stream. Or how abou
Re:bullshit article about non-existent problem (Score:2)
Green Gang (Score:2)
He should learn some history, the Green Gang was the predecessor to the KMT, or Nationalist Chinese and was largely run by "Big Eared Tu" in the manner of organized crime with Chiang Kai-shek as his puppet.
Today's Nanotech is probably tomorrows equivilent to nuclear weapons. Who's to say who can and can't have it? The mighty leader of the free world?
Re:Green Gang (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, that will indeed have confused a lot of people. 'What's this got to do with pre-KMT Chinese nationalist political movements' I mused to myself as I read the article.
Actually, I'm lying - I didn't read it at all.
Smoky the Nanobot sez (Score:2, Funny)
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.
It Depends (Score:2)
It all depends on who will be making money off of it. If their are profits to be taken, public safety will have to take a back seat. If it threatens a current business' profits, "public safety" will be the rallying cry.
And, of course, the radical fundamentalists will somehow work "God's Law" into the whole debate.
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)
Re:Striking a balance (Score:2)
Changing the rules by which airlines ass rape the customer does not change the price of aircraft. the cost of fuel, or the fact that someone needs to pay to maintain airports and security.
What it did do is allow certain entities to push the cost off onto other entities.
Re:Striking a balance (Score:2)
California was botched because the regulators kept the price controls, but eliminated most everything else. The Electric companies were by law selling electricity at less than cost. That was going from a fully regulated to partialy de-regulated system. This is the opposite (big differnece here).
In Enron, the company was speculating in the energy business and
I'm Feeling Lucky (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Erm (Score:2)
Immortality is NOT a benefit, not to yourself, and not to the world population.
Re:Erm (Score:2)
I was hoping someone would make that point. To amplify: The extropy.org FAQ's response to this issue seems to be "Continuing to die to prevent overpopulation is like not curing a child's toothache because then it would eat too much". There are two problems with this reasoning.
First of all, the analogy is badly flawed in that the consequences are completely disproportionate: They're comparing overeating with increasing res
Save us now! (Score:3, Funny)
grey goo sounds a lot like cancer (Score:2)
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.
Nanotechnology is nanomaterials (Score:3, Informative)
Rather, most academic research is now geared towards the production of highly controlled materials at the nano-scale. Nanoparticulate metals and oxides have tons of applications but almost none of them are nano machines. Rather, this work has become advanced form of materials chemistry and physics, designing regular surface features or particles. For this reason, nano-materials are not going to be much more dangerous than normal materials in the big picture. Nano-disperse carbon, which is sometimes called *smoke* or soot, is probably just as toxic as bucky-balls.
An interesting issue is: why have researches have abandoned nano-machines? I think it has to do with the fact that we already know how to build them. There's technology that has a great track record and can do almost anything you'd like at the nano and sub nano scale. They're called *enzymes* and recent enzyme engineering advances have made many nano-related tasks kind of superfluous. Also there are viruses and bacteria(maybe) that range into the nano-scale as well. So I think it boils down to a "why bother" issue with nano machines.
Of course I *might* be biased given my chosen area of research. I'm a chem. Prof investigating enzyme and bacteria engineering. Nah, I'm not biased.....
If you've read "Century Rain" by Alastair Reynolds (Score:2)
Incidentally, I will hopefully post a review of this excellent book soonish, if nobody beats me to it.
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.
sssshhhh..... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
So how do new products get evaluated? (Score:2)
You would think that after all the lesson learned, and the work put in to get asbestos and PCBs off the market, there would be a mechanism in place to keep it from happening again.
Would regulation even work? (Score:2)
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.
Josh Wolfe is unqualified to judge. (Score:4, Interesting)
Josh Wolfe is emblematic of what is wrong with media perception of science today. He has no undergraduate or graduate training in any physical science at all. His background is in business, and he works for a VC firm. He has no scientific credibility.
He is, however, articulate, bright, and very slick. That is why this guy, with less training than the undergrad working in my lab, is able to get national attention from the media (be it Forbes, or CNN, or MSNBC, all of which have deferred to him as an "authority on nanotechnology").
He has every right to speak his mind, and when it comes to investing in high technology companies, I think he knows his stuff. However, there is no way this guy should be viewed as an appropriate authority to whom policy makers should pay attention.
(By the way, I actually agree with his position on this issue. I simply take issue with the idea that he is viewed by the media as worthy of a bully pulpit on this.)
why (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Grey goo is impossible (Score:3, Informative)
For nano to be useful it will either have to be in a food-rich environment (eg: inside the human body) or else plug into the power socket in the wall. Grey goo (were such a thing invented) would munch through the power cord, and just stop.
From one of environmental researchers... (Score:4, Informative)
As a bonus, here are some of the results from some others' research on nanotech:
* When rats inhale carbon nanotubes, the tubes bypass the blood-brain barrier and cover the brain. The resultant rats had black brains!
* Titania dioxide, a common ingredient in paint, sun screen and tooth paste, is very toxic to cells and rats.
* Silica dioxide, also a common ingredient in paint and food, is not toxic.
* Fullerenes (aka, bucky balls) are deadly to fish (verified by Richard Smalley from Rice University --- he created bucky balls)
Note that all of these materials exhibit very different properties from the bulk. You won't get sick from most of these products if you use the same concentrations of material, but simply change the size of the particles.
Our work will be published early next week on http://www.nanotoxicology.ufl.edu/ [ufl.edu].
De Rigeur Deregulation (Score:3, Insightful)
NNI, ICON, Foresight, IMM, DNA and self regulation (Score:3, Informative)
I have to say that this article seriously misses the mark.
Recombinant DNA research self-regulation has been in place for 30 years now, and it has worked very well to prevent "Andromeda Strain" style accidents. The most recent full overhaul was in 1994:
http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/rac/guidelines/guideli
There are people who are holding debates about similar regulation for molecular nanotechnology already: The National Nanotechnology Initiative http://www.nano.gov/ [nano.gov], The Foresight Institute http://foresight.org/ [foresight.org], The International Council on Nanotechnology http://icon.rice.edu/ [rice.edu], and many others, including the IMM. The intent of these organizations is to establish guidelines for developement of nanotechnology, and to explore applications.
Here is the first set of guidelines which have been established:
http://imm.org/guidelines/current.html [imm.org]
I fully expect that this will be updated, as the technologies involved become more capable.
A good analysis of the actual societal implications is available from NNI here:
http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/society.html [nano.gov]
Don't blow things out of proportion until they are actually implemented; the amount of regulation of any technology has historically always been as much or even much more than was necessary at the time.
-- Terry
Re:Wow (Score:2)
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.
Better yet: "What could possiblie go wrong?" (Score:2)
Re:If you want to be frightened... (Score:2)
The only nanotech babble that I seen that beats "Prey" is Michio Kaku's loony rant [prospectmagazine.co.uk] on how mankind "must escape the universe." Just skip straight to the bottom a read about nanobots that are "molecule sized" and capable of moving near the speed of l
Re:We don't understand ecosystems to try nanotech (Score:2)
Nano-tech is simply making things really small, and besides the potential pollution from such devices the enviromental impact is not much worse than for any other substance.