A few points about this recent news story...
Nanotechnology Regulation Needed, Critics Say
By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 5, 2005
First, good job by the writer, Rick Weiss, in making clear that the regulation in question concerns "nanomaterials." He uses that word several times before ever saying "nanotechnology."
Second, bad job by the Post's headline writer. It is misleading to imply that the article is about broad-based nanotechnology regulation as opposed to regulatory guidelines for nanomaterials.
Third, it is clear that considering health and safety regulation for nanomaterials or nanoparticles is appropriate. However, this must not be regarded as meeting the need for a broader-based investigation into the serious implications of molecular manufacturing.
Mike Treder
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
Conventional regulatory bodies will probably be capable of handling MM at some point in time, but there will just be too many implications and too many new technologies unleashed by MM for them to catch up in a reasonable timeframe. Our networking capabilities are advancing fast enough to keep up. It is the core drafting and brainstorming of content, that will lag behind. By the time the militaries of the world and other regulatory bodies and economic structures are ready to absorb MM, we may already be intractibly deep in a tyranny or WWIII aftermath.
It is human capital (education) that is prerequisite for policy drafts. We need a way of accelerating our rate of MM aware human capital building. A crash course in MM for every potentially viable avenue(physics+engineering), and for every timeframe (geo-politics).
It would be nice to have some agreed upon CNT safety precautions too. I know what happened to all those Manhattan Project scientists, and some nanotubes suspiciously resemble asbestos.
Posted by: Phillip Huggan | January 03, 2006 at 02:03 PM