Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
paul reinheimer
I'd say the risks of nanotechnology are of small concern.
Yet again, lawyers will dictate the course of technology - the fear of a lawsuit jacks up insurance rates, which makes research and development excessively costly.
The risks of cloning dinosaurs or time travel?
But then, people take sci-fi horseshit pretty seriously these days. I was watching a Greenpeace guy debate some scientist about "the day after tomorrow" on some news show.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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.
Evolution or ID?
I've been working with carbon nanotubes (buckyballs) for 5 years, no filters, no clean rooms, no suits, none of that fancy stuff. Carbon nanotubes are basically a superfine black dust. I haven't any I haven't I haven't noticed haven't noticed noticed haven't noticed I haven't noticed any problems.
They also addressed climate change from a relatively broad range of perspectives a couple of years ago. See this report.
Of course, if we all go gray goo, there won't be anyone left to pay a claim to. :-)
Uhm, they aren't talking about skynet or grey goo or any technophobic BS like that. They're talking about nano-sized dust that could cause problems similar to asbestos when inhaled. It's absolutely a real problem that should be researched.
Every technology is risky. We should go back to plowing fields with oxen and hunting with a bow and arrow, then we'd be safe from all of this horrible technology. Millions might die of hunger, but hey, at least they won't be killed by technology.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
That is, after all, the basis of their business model.
For those of us who are even slightly environmentally or health conscious, the effects of nanotech-related waste of one type or another should be of concern. From the mercury used to extract gold to the lead used in the solder of so many electronic devices, we now have a new potential threat in the form of nanomaterials.
It's not my intention to come off as a luddite, but these materials are potentially nasty. They react in very different ways than regular chemicals, and for the first time we have materials we can't assume that the natural environment of our planet will simply sweep them away to where we can't see them and where they won't affect us. We really need to be paying attention right here and right now because these materials can persist in our environment for a long time and are not easily incinerated or chemically treated.
The insurance industry should be taking a close look at covering the liability of companies involved in the manufacture and use of nanomaterials. The companies using nanomaterials ought to be held to the highest standards and employ rigorous manufacturing, environmental protection and recycling programs. Why should insurers be covering risk if their manufacturing plant is releasing carcinogenic and mutagenic material that embeds itself in the soil and never leaves it? I believe in conjuntion with government environmental protection agencies, companies will think carefully about employing such techniques. We can't afford to let it get to the point where the government or individuals start suing because of the damage, but neither can a company afford to get its insurance premiums hiked substantially or its coverage dropped.
The bottom line: if you're concerned about nanotech manufacturing facilities, live near a dump, or otherwise are going to be near these materials, get active and involved and start reporting the facts about nanotech materials to companies' insurers and other government agencies to ensure your safety and that of your children.
Also, on a slightly unrelated note, insurance companies are a great way to gain leverage against companies and organizations that screw you over. Whether you complain incessantly about unmaintained gym equipment, an apartment building full of mold, or an employer who insists on putting its employees in potentially dangerous situations, an insurer will always be interested in anything that's not disclosed to them that would affect their coverage risk. If you can find out who insures a company with such a "flaw," you can exact justice by simply documenting the issues with the insurer. Believe me, they DO listen and they WILL get on it.
I am sorry, but if so is the case, then why aren't scientifics and/or government agencies takinng care of it instead.
From the FA, had you chosen to read it:
It seems to me that a the board of directors of a corporation that may find itself financially affected by unintended consequences which arise from the use of nanotechnology probably has a duty to its shareholders to be at least a little nervous about possible future liabilities.
I saw that shot more than a few times back when Starbuck was a man. ~ lucabrasi999
Far from seeming to be technophobic zealotry, the report appears to ask questions from a philosophically disinterested perspective.
It does not say "It will all go horribly wrong", in a technophic vein.
Rather, asks open, critical questions, that lead to the question most important for the interests of the insurance industry:
"are we at risk of losing money?"
Hardly zealotry.
Skynet succeeds as a dramatic device, because of its resonance in our culture.
It is a reflection of healthy distrust.
We have learnt to love the beauty of scientific philosophy and the comfort it has brought us. ... the list goes on.
But, we had out fingers burnt by asbestos, thalidomide, dirty air,
Why should we cede automatic trust to those who can make huge profits now, and never have to pay more than a fraction of the cost when things go abominably wrong?
I for one, refuse to bow to our new nanotech engineering masters
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.
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?
In fact they fail to reference, meaning they probably have not read, the three concrete references on nanotechnology. They are respectively works by Robert Freitas: Nanomedicine Vol. IIA: Biocompatibility, Nanomedicine Vol. I: Basic capabilities and Drexler's Nanosystems. It is worth keeping in mind that all of these are college level textbooks and the popular press and/or the authors of corporate press releases may not bother to read them (unfortunately).
Any published reports that do not cite these resources (or at least cite sources that cite these resources) can reasonably be assumed to have little or no understanding of nanotechnology and nanomedicine.
Freitas deals extensively with the biocompatibility problem in Nanomedicine Vol. IIA. and if you do not see a detailed analysis of this volume (which is several hundred pages, extensively referenced) in an insurance risk analysis then that analysis is either misinformed or incomplete. On top of that an insurance analysis should deal with the potential benefits of nanotechnology which include extending the human lifespan to several thousand years. There is no analysis for the insurance industry of the reduced payments for life insurance due to the benefits of the technology. I.e. there is no comparison of the potential downside vs. the potential upside.
I would suggest that SwissRe has failed to do a complete job in its analysis.
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.
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.