Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
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.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
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.
Can I bum a sig?
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.
GM foods bad! Embryo research bad! Cloning bad! And now Nanotech bad too. Obviously scientists have no morality or sense of social responsibility. Arse!
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
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?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
That does in no way absolve _anybody_ (including you) to try _very hard_ to do something about it. Otherwise we might as well give in to environemntal pollution, exploitation of natural ressources, injustice done to variuos peoples and imperialism. Oh wait: we've already done that. Sorry, you're absolutely right. Let's sit back and do nothing.
For their safty (and your own), Please Don't Eat the Nanites. Thank you, Mgt.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
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!
+5, Female
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.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
Potatos, when propelled at high velocity, can be used as a deadly weapon. We must band together and stop these evil vegetables from reproducing before it's too late. Potato farmers must be eradicated.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
Oh wise and all knowing Magic 8 Ball, 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.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
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.
I work in the field of micromechanics/nanotechnology and at a meeting with some guys from Philips 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.
-- Cheers!
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'
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
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 slow and sustainable growth? I'd rather slow down the process and study the hell out of these new technologies (yes, that includes GMO foods, too) before they are commercialized.
Probably right before we hear about the French nano-commandos nano-limpet mining them in some poor bastard's kidney. Ouch.
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.
Life Found to be Leading Contributor to Death!
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 the ethics of either scientists or government people.
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...
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 is not yet a grey goo, as far as I can see (but my office has a window, so I can at least see Real Life).
The other use of the term is what this article is about - materials manufactured as ultra-fine particles. Such materials show distinctly different properties from the same materials in bulk form. Such differences might, for example, include being carcinogenic. Many other materiels become more carcinogenic in smaller forms: hitting you with a lump of asbostos will raise no more than a bruise, breathing in fibres will give you cancer.
So there is a safety case for stronger review of finely divided materiels before letting them into the environment. But this is not an end-of-the world scenario. But panic mongers have been going straight from "finely divided titanium oxide may be a bit carcinogenic" to "Flee - the grey goo is upon us".
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
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.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
This one is from Jeff Harrow (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 on his site.
Oh, and I highly recommend the Harrow Report newsletter to everyone here on
From the site:
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Does "Ministry of NanoEthics" sound kinda Orwellian to anyone else?
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
SMALL IS BIG
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?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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-optimism of the 60s back and if that means killing every environmentonazi, then so be it!
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
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 some "unforeseen" consequences somewhere down the line. Well I have news for these people, we've been "genetically modifying" food since Gregor Medal. We've been combining various strains of things for hundreds of years to produce new offspring that is not found in nature. Ah but it might have some "unforeseen consequences" down the line. What unforeseen consequences? They can't name any nor can they site any proof that is food is somehow "bad". So, elitist pigs that they are, they'll just sit back and let people starve. Here's an idea, why don't we arm 10 or 20 starving Africans with baseball bats and put them in a locked room with one of the elitist pigs that are standing in the way of these starving people and their genetically modified food and see what kind of "unforeseen" consequences result?
And here I thought it was yet another SCO article...
main(i){(10-putchar(((25208>>3*(i+=3))&7)+(i ?i-4?100:65:10)))?main(i-4):i;}
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 nanomaterials, and we really need to find out.
It's the job of the industry to prove nanotech safe, not to say it's safe and hope no-one produces contrary evidence.
This was the mistake made by the biotech industry over GM in Europe, and the nanotech industry needs to try hard to avoid falling down the same pit. If they start to look even a bit like the pro-GM lobby by ignoring peoples concerns, they'll be tarred with exactly the same brush.
Mostly, these activists are asking that we just slow down and use the Precautionary Principle 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.
Damn those pesky terrorists
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. For the most part the issue of bioethics stands alone.
In addition to their unique electronic/optical properties nanoparticles may posses unique toxic properties. This statement must be qualified: there is very very little research in the public domian on the toxicity of nanoparticles. More research needs to be done.
One thing to consider is that nanoparticles are very unstable. This is one of the reasons that there are very few commercial applications to date. To make nanoparticles more usable they need to be surface protected (they will combine into bulk material if the unprotected surfaces come in contact). I would think that, if nanoparticles prove to be toxic, the stability will be a major factor.
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 on the subject.
I play Nerd-Folk!
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.
This is another bit of that gray goo syndrome, to think that little tiny robots can take apart molecules or atoms and rebuild them as something totally different. Apparently they've seen a few too many bad movies and didn't stay awake long enough in physics class, because it is' awfully hard to move around atoms with any precision at all.
I'm babbling now and I'm going to stop. Like any sort of technology it's going to have a few bugs in the beginning, but it's doubtful they'll eat the planet and turn it into a lump of aluminum.
also...
...and pretty much anything else a human being can acquire, understand and manipulate in any way whatsoever.
Baseball Bats
Steak Knives
Bowling Balls
Pitch Forks
Fertilizer
Battery Acid
Pine Sol
Drano
Early man learned that sharp pointy objects can hurt. Similarly children learn that glass and cutlery are dangerous to handle, so care is required. Yet kitchen knives and jelly jars are in widespread use.
In the 20th century we learned very small sharp pointy things are also harmful (asbestos etc). We also have learned of all kinds of delivery mechnisms for harmful substances into our bodies (leaded gasoline, mercury in fish from coal fired power plants etc).
I am encouraged that there are individuals out there saying "Hey, lets think about this!" However, if a device that uses milliamps of power can reduce some form of wasteful consumption (those coal fired power plants)...the decision is a no-brainer.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Probably. Then eye cancer. Lots of stuff is not good for an eye. Eyes would get all itchy and infected. That isn't good.
Step away from the idiocy. Now. But first, a word from your sponsors!
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 harmless- but turn out to really fuck up us, the environment, etc.
Sorry, but in my book, ANYTHING some genius comes up with in a lab is dangerous until proven safe...
Please help metamoderate.
Atleast they shouldn't be trouble for more then a generation right?
Building a better backup.
Zettabyte Storage
And in particular, There aren't any large-scale studies showing a clear negative effect on human health. Despite many attempts. Even the claims of damage to birds have mostly been debunked. I didn't say anything about Dursban. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Dursban. But I'd like to point out that we don't need to "introduce" vast quantities of toxins into our environment; our environment is already full of natural "toxins" whether we choose to introduce new ones or not. Introducing new chemicals that - like everything that exists - are toxic to some at some dosage level, often reduces our overall health risk and removing old chemicals often increases health risk. For instance, outlawing DDT just meant that most people who would have used DDT used some other chemical as a substitute, and I don't believe anybody bothered to determine that DDT was MORE toxic than the likely replacements before banning it. It's also pretty clear that the short-term effect of banning DDT was to drastically increase human deaths due to malaria.
Junkscience.com's DDT FAQ
I play Nerd-Folk!
I reach for my revolver.
.45 with sound suppressor.)
(Actually that was a paraphrase of Goering - I reach for a Glock 21
The only "nanoethics" I need is MY interpretation of Transhumanism.
Have a nice day.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
- Grey goo would be eaten
Why? Well, first, assume that you really can create devices between a nanometer and a micrometer in size that replicate themselves. Now realise that these must be biological - they use materials readily available in the environment to construct themselves.
This doesn't make them 'biological'? Well, they will be eaten just as readily. Basically, if they can construct themselves from elements and molecules that are lying around, they will be made of stuff that biology likes to eat. they will therefore be eaten.