Ministry of NanoEthics?

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."

Comments

early

[Boromir son of Faram]

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

[s4m7]

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

[og_sh0x]

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.

Does anyone really believe that...

[YanceyAI]

"...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...

[kahei]

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.

Here is when to really fear nanotech...

[blcamp]

...When they start making nano-sized black helicopters.

Re:why is it so hard

[FooAtWFU]

Why is it so hard for people to see that public-key cryptography can be used for ill and will be very hard to stop?
Why is it so hard for people to see that atomic energy can be used for ill and will be very hard to stop?

Just because something can be used for Bad Things does not mean it should be instantaneously squashed. Just about any technology you want can be used for ill, and many of those would be very hard to stop. What about it?

flying carpet ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

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.