Slashdot Mirror
Should Nanotech Be Regulated?
Memorize writes "Josh Wolfe writes an article in Forbes arguing that it is too early to regulate nanotech. Wolfe is worried that the 'green gang' (his term for environmentalists) are going to regulate nanotech out of existence before the technology even works in the lab. It seems like much of the discussion of nanotech is hype, including the potential benefits, such as immortality and the potential dangers such as grey goo. However, nanotech does hold some promise of environmental benefits such as cheap solar power. Are the risks real, and if so, is it worth the risk?" From the article: "There are rumblings that regulations are needed. They say they want to guarantee the safety of the technology and instill confidence in the general public."
From TFA:
"There needs to be a wide societal debate informing and underpinning government decisions, and this can't be confined to technical issues alone. It would be a mistake to attempt to sideline this discussion to a group of experts..."
Great thinking. Let's take the debate out of the hands of the people who know what they're talking about, and put it firmly in the hands of John Q. Public. "But I read a book about nanotechnology, and these swarms of tiny robots killed people. Won't somebody think of the children?"
I'm not saying that it's a mistake to involve society at large in a matter like this, but experts' opinions are going to be the most well-informed, and therefore the most valuable. People who know nothing about nanotechnology except for the fact that a manufactured particle can damage the environment just don't know as much about the issue as people who have been studying nanotechnology for years. The public's opinion can easily be swayed by politicians with hidden agendas, and somehow I doubt that scientific advancement will win out against mass panic and sentimentalism. What we need are some honest, unbiased reports of the pros and cons of nanotechnology: where it's headed, how it could help us, how it could harm us, and what the cost will be. Instead we'll have a mob of people going off half-cocked and writing their senators because them thar robots are goin' take over, and you cain't even see 'um. Give authority to the people who have earned it; they're the ones who will know the right thing to do with it.
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
the same group that had lobbied against Monsanto's genetically engineered crops in the 1990s--has called for nothing less than a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in commercial products.
So before we even know even a fraction of the possible benifits and dangers, they wan't an outright ban on anything that would let us find out what the good or bad is? Banning it from commercial products means it doesn't get used in anything, banning it from the lab means we won't ever find out more on it until the moratorium is lifted. Which probably wouldn't happen until we found out more about it. Catch-22.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
You also have to question the legitimacy and intentions of the regulators, as he's alluding to, sort of. In the broad sense, everyone is entitled to it. Better to allow everyone to have the stuff and treat them fairly, than withhold it and waste intelligence resources (and more) trying to stem its spread.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Once the federal gummint stops handing out monopolies to big players like candy to obese children, I'll agree that there's some self-regulating free market & that your argument holds. At the moment, there isn't much evidence of this.
Even then, your argument ignores obvious problems like asbestos-style "mistakes" in employee safety. The market doesn't protect employees and I think it's a gov't responsibility to do so. Before you start ranting about labor unions, I'm not talking about that - I'm simply talking about gross willful physical abuse of workers which the market has no selective pressure to abate. Employers may have the right to cull employees based on competence, &c., but damned if they have the right to endanger the lives and physical wellbeing of their employees. The decision between a productive living and your physical health has no place in a civilized society, with the exception of its military force.
Such an argument might not be logical, it might not be reasonable, but the opinion should be counted nevertheless. If there's enough of them, then so be it. Otherwise we end up with a scientific elite dictating what's best for everyone else and, as a scientist, I for one wouldn't want to see that.
The owls are not what they seem
Why is it not a valid argument? If there is some major reason why you wouldn't want to have it nearby you, then perhaps the root of that desire has some merit. Such as: Disposition of nuclear waste is a major concern, and if it is improperly disposed of near residential areas, it could poison and kill off the local environment. If you don't want to live next to it, then that concern should be addressed in a sane fashion before the process continues.
It is the irrational or unfounded 'NIMBY' responses to an issue that aren't valid arguments.
Ok, everyone keep it quiet that molecular biologists are doing way too much nanotech already. Enzymes are molecular machines that can build things at nano scales. When the nanotech regulators come around remember to call it biology. Storm
Yes, I understand what you're saying - I'm motivated to over-perform in my work too (at least relative to the norm I've seen). Looking at my coworkers, I realize that I could certainly get by with a LOT less. Further, I think that I'm doing the right thing and that they are not.
However I'm worried about social norms of employee endangerment arising. There's IMHO a difference between 80-hour weeks and, say, asbestos inhalation. If society allows the latter to happen in order for a co. to save, say, $40M while causing cancer in 100 employees, this implicitly values the non-lung-cancerous state at $400K. The state would probably consider it illegal for me to contract into an asbestos-inhalation experiment for a lump sum of $400K, and so it's a little bit contradictory for it to allow me to do the same thing in a less-informed environment.
Of course, one can resolve this "dilemma" by legalizing self-endangering contracts in general...
I agree (or at least hope) that EVENTUALLY the threat of punishment as you describe will cause free-market employers to consider worker health. AFAIC, this is yet another strong argument against the current anti-free market pseudo-fascism practice of monopolies in the form of patents and "corporate rights".
To establish my credibility: IAAPP (I am a physics professor). I'm an active researcher in nanoscale electronics, and I teach a two-course sequence on nanoscale physics and engineering.
Josh Wolfe is emblematic of what is wrong with media perception of science today. He has no undergraduate or graduate training in any physical science at all. His background is in business, and he works for a VC firm. He has no scientific credibility.
He is, however, articulate, bright, and very slick. That is why this guy, with less training than the undergrad working in my lab, is able to get national attention from the media (be it Forbes, or CNN, or MSNBC, all of which have deferred to him as an "authority on nanotechnology").
He has every right to speak his mind, and when it comes to investing in high technology companies, I think he knows his stuff. However, there is no way this guy should be viewed as an appropriate authority to whom policy makers should pay attention.
(By the way, I actually agree with his position on this issue. I simply take issue with the idea that he is viewed by the media as worthy of a bully pulpit on this.)
Why are we discussing this in this forum where only a few are well informed on the subject? Nanotech will be regulated to some extent and there are active knowledgeable groups like the Center for Responsible Nanotech and the Foresight Institutte that are able to say what is likely to be needed with credibility.
Lots of basic materials science is regulated. It is overseen and done in secure facilities. If the nano hypers say it cures old age, require drug company oversight. Apply appropriate means based upon the claims being made. You inhale billions of tiny particles all the time. So if you are really afraid, STOP BREATHING!