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.

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.

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?