Insurance Industry Warned of Nanotechnology Risks

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."

Comments

Glad

[PktLoss]

I am glad to see some sort of forward thinking on the possible risks on this new technology. Though it surprises me to see the source isnt government regulation, but instead insurance hesitation.

Capitolism Works?

Re:Glad

[mobiux]

I am not sure why it would suprise you.

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

[thefirelane]

It only surprises you because you assume most things now run by the government were invented by it.

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

[I_M_Noman]

It only surprises you because you assume most things now run by the government were invented by it.

First fire companies.... Yup, insurance companies protecting its assets

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

[MaxQuordlepleen]

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

[das_cookie]

Most insurance companies will go to great lengths to not have to cover a procedure.

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 exclude them or charge more for the coverage.

It was fairly recently that even pregnancy coverage was mandated by the government.

So? With that mandate comes higher premiums. It's a risk that wasn't covered because it's a risk people choose to undertake and should be prepared to handle on their own. If I understand this mandate correctly, it simply amounts to subsidized health care as opposed to risk mitigation. Of course, that's what health insurance is evolving into these days anyway, so no surprise, I guess.

Re:Glad

[AchilleTalon]

There is nothing closer to democracy (or even socialism) than an insurance company.

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

[timeOday]

I see a disturbing trend. The low lifes are breeding while the academics and proffessionals are too busy getting Prada bags and Browns shoes to make kids.

Obviously Evolution and our society are having a difference of opinion as to what constitutes "intelligence" and "success." A culture which scorns the simple fact that "sex is for making babies," and which views family as a lifestyle choice (like whether to buy a waterskiing boat) is not well positioned for the long term.

Ethics

[millahtime]

When I was in college we were required to take an ethics course for engineers. We design so many things and don't take many of the risks into account.

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.

Re:Nanotech risks?

[Cyno01]

Despite being carbon based life forms, carbon is not good for us. Not sure about nano-tubes, but i can attest to coughing like a 60 year old 3 pack a day smoker for a week after shoveling out a coal room in an old house friends of my parents bought.

Where's the new risk?

[romit_icarus]

The need to formulate a new risk category sounds a bit alarmist to me. Nanotechnology is not something dramatically new. It usually means more specific and smart pharma drugs. The physical nano micro-machines that were envisaged when the term was propelled into vogue, have not yet taken off!

To me that's pretty much old risk.

notorious warnings

[khallow]

Swiss Re is notorious for these sorts of warnings. Think of it as the "you don't have enough insurance" warnings. They do the same thing with global warming.

Insurance as a check for captalism?

[kabocox]

I don't like the idea of insurance as a check on anything. Of course I've always thought of insurance as a scam that everyone has to buy because of government laws rather or not they really want it.

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?

Product Liability Fears Kill Planet Film at 11:00

[Crashmarik]

Inovations who needs it, things are perfect as they are. If anything goes wrong somebodys responsible and it sure isnt the VICTIM.

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.

funding

[zogger]

Insurance companies are in no way totally funded by what you pay for an insurance premium. Not even close, in the vast majority of cases. Most of them are part of conglomerates, and make their real money in diverse ways, large wall street trading, mortgage brokering and so on. All of them are seeing their businesses go south in this economny, at the same time that risks are being better analysed. In addition, they have suffered some pretty significant losses in the past, after first being "assured" by scientists and whatnot that such and such was "completely safe", asbestos being mentioned in the opening blurb being a very good example. Here's a clue: scientists are just as often wrong in their future predictions as they are right. Hmm, another one. I can distinctly remember any number of "scientists" and "government spokes people" assuring the US and the military that "agent orange" was perfectly harmless and safe.

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:funding

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's a clue: scientists are just as often wrong in their future predictions as they are right"

Here's a better clue: scientists are more often right than wrong in their predictions, but are subject to commercial and political pressure to write their reports in a way that hide the dangers.

Two examples to consider (both Australian, forgive my parochialism):

1: Commonwealth Sugar Refineries (CSR), a major asbestos manufacturer, had internal reports dating from the early sixties noting the incidence of mesothelioma and silicosis in it's asbestos miners. Publicly, they maintained that there was no correlation between asbestos and respiratory disease, a stance they maintained in order to avoid massive disability payouts. The scientists were right, but the management decided that profits came before responsibility, and that damages would be less than the returns IF they could delay long enough for the complainants to die; a case of waiting long enough, and the problem goes away.

2: Telstra, the telecommunications juggernaut, commissioned a study into the safety of mobile ("cell" for you USAsians) phones using mice as test subjects. Publicly, they announced that the study showed there were no dangers from mobile phones. The executive summary seemed to confirm this, but only because the terms of the study was for heating effects; the body of the report, which was largely ignored in the media, stated quite clearly that all (not one or two, not half, but EVERY SINGLE ONE) of the mice used in the study died of cancer. However, since Telstra commissioned a report into HEATING EFFECTS, not the carcinogenic properties, the study showed that radiation from mobile phones was harmless.

In both cases, management made the decision to deny or ignore any dangers, contrary to the evidence provided to them by scientists. Asbestos is now well known to be lethal; any epidemic of brain tumors is five to ten years away (and will probably be most apparent in the teenagers who are microwaving their developing brains as we speak). Naturally, I hope I'm wrong on this, but the history of corporations (and governments) covering up detrimental research results doesn't fill me with confidence.

While its a promising sign that insurance companies are wearying of carrying the costs of other comany's recklessnenss, this kind of thing will continue until managerial liability is mandated by law. Blaming scientists is really ignoring the root of the problem.