Responsible Nanotechnology

Democratizing Medicine

At the Earth & Sky site, research scientist Michael Roukes, from the Kavli Nanoscience Institute at Caltech, says this about nanotechnology and medicine:

It's become clear that we can think about biological systems, medical systems, in the same way we think about bits of information flowing through digital computers.

Roukes adds that nanotech will deliver medicine into the hands of individuals, allowing the possibility to instantly diagnose and treat disease:

I think the most profound—I use this word repeatedly—transformative potential that this technology has is to basically democratize modern medicine. One can have very, very detailed real-time diagnostics in one's home that will create this ensemble with a genetic predisposition, environmental stressors and current physiological state. And all this information can then be uploaded, if a person wants, to some sort of large-scale Google-like cluster of computers and out of that, various proclivities, current conditions, an understanding of a person's global medical state at that time can be derived. I think this is absolutely inevitable and will happen.

And, of course, it's not only in the field of medicine, but also in energy production, education, information, communication, transportation and, ultimately, economic disparity that nanotechnology can serve as a democratizing catalyst.

The key word to remember, though, in the quote above from Roukes is potential. Nanotech may have the potential "to basically democratize modern medicine," but just saying so doesn't make it happen. Any technology is only a tool, and what happens when that tool is placed in the hands of users -- and those who wield power -- will be determined by the choices we make (or don't make) between now and then.

(Hat tip to Nanotechnology Now)

Mike Treder

Reviewing the Argument

We recently received a message from the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. In the hopes that you will find some of the resources they've offered useful, we have decided to share it with you in full.

MYANMAR
Reviewing the Argument for
Humanitarian Intervention

Unfolding events in Myanmar have once again shocked the international community by the sheer scope of a natural disaster, and by the enormous humanitarian need that has been left in its aftermath. Comparisons to the Asian tsunami of December 2004 are obvious and not inappropriate.

However, a key difference between the two situations is that in the case of the tsunami, the affected governments not only welcomed international humanitarian relief, they literally pleaded for it. Not so in Myanmar. What began as a purely natural disaster has quickly become exacerbated by the lack of cooperation—even the obstruction—of the country's ruling Junta.

In the face of such a crisis in which the lives of countless thousands are in eminent peril, the thorny question of humanitarian intervention must inevitably arise. The question has, of course, long been with us. Put in simplest terms: Does the sovereignty of the state trump the responsibility of the international community to take action when the peoples of a nation are at risk? But of course the question is anything but simple, and the Carnegie Council has long explored this delicate and controversial nexus of sovereignty and humanitarian responsibility, turning to the brightest minds and most profound thinkers on this topic.

To that end, we offer here a sampling of works from our journal, Ethics & International Affairs, that explore the boundaries (and beyond) of humanitarian intervention from a variety of perspectives. As events continue to unfold in Myanmar (and, inevitably, elsewhere around the world), we hope that these resources will continue to provoke new thinking in this complex area.

THEORY

Toward a Realist Ethics of Intervention
Michael Wesley, Vol. 19.2, Summer 2005 [Excerpt]
Wesley explores the possibilities for developing a realist-informed normative framework for humanitarian intervention in the context of the post-September 11 international concern with transnational threats.

The Moral Basis of Humanitarian Intervention [Abstract]
Terry Nardin, Vol. 16.1, Spring 2002
Nardin examines the moral principles underlying the idea of humanitarian intervention from the perspective of international law and from that of the natural law tradition.

Humanitarian Intervention: An Overview of the Ethical Issues [Excerpt]
Michael J. Smith, Vol. 12, 1998
This essay analyzes the arguments justifying or opposing the notion of humanitarian intervention from realist and liberal perspectives and considers the difficulties of undertaking such interventions effectively and consistently.

Intervention: From Theories to Cases [Full Text]
J. Bryan Hehir, Vol. 9, 1995
This piece examines the ethics of intervention in light of recent policy and academic debates on the subject. It proceeds from an examination of the reasons for intervention today to an assessment of the moral and legal traditions governing intervention and also provides a review of selected cases of intervention recently confronting U.S. foreign policy.

 

LEARNING FROM THE PAST

Legitimizing the Use of Force in Kosovo [Full Text]
Julie Mertus, Vol 15. 1, Spring 2001
Kosovo captured the attention of policy makers, ethicists, journalists, peace and human rights activists, military analysts, and international relations scholars. Something new happened there. This review covers books by Noam Chomsky, Howard Clark, Michael Ignatieff, and others.

Humanitarian Intervention: Which Way Forward? [Abstract]
Richard Caplan, Vol. 14, 2000
NATO's member states put aside their concerns for national sovereignty in favor of humanitarian considerations, acting without UN authorization. European states are rethinking historic prohibitions against humanitarian intervention after Kosovo.

Special Section: The Politics of Rescue [Abstracts]
Lead authors Amir Pasic and Thomas G. Weiss, "Yugoslavia's Wars and the Humanitarian Impulse", plus commentaries by Andrew S. Natsios, Morton Winston, Alain Destexhe, and David R. Mapel, Vol. 11, 1997

THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT

Whither the Responsibility to Protect? Humanitarian Intervention and the 2005 World Summit [Abstract]
Alex J. Bellamy, Vol. 20.2, Summer 2006
This article examines how consensus was reached on the responsibility to protect, given continuing hostility to humanitarian intervention expressed by many (if not most) of the world’s states and whether the consensus will contribute to avoiding future Kosovos and Rwandas.

Responsibility to Protect or Trojan Horse? The Crisis in Darfur and Humanitarian Intervention after Iraq
Alex J. Bellamy, Vol. 19.2, Summer 2005 [Excerpt]
What does the world’s engagement with the unfolding crisis in Darfur tell us about the impact of the Iraq war on the norm of humanitarian intervention? Is a global consensus about a "responsibility to protect" more or less likely? There are at least three potential answers to these questions.

Redefining Sovereignty and Intervention [Full Text]
Joelle Tanguy, Vol. 17.1, Spring 2003
The International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty's effort to revisit intervention and the lessons of the 1990s have resulted in a conception of intervention as a "responsibility to protect." But its effort to ensure that past failures are not repeated may go unfulfilled. (Review Essay)

Responsibility to Protect

Gareth Evans is President of the Brussels-based International Crisis Group and co-chair of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, based in New York. Today on "To the Point," a program that airs on National Public Radio (US), Evans was a guest of host Warren Olney, and they had the following exchange...

Olney: Time is growing short, according to all concerned, particularly the Secretary-General of the UN who can't even get through on the phone to the leader of the junta in Myanmar. How long do you think it will be before the pressure builds in such a way that the international community will feel ashamed?

Evans: Well, I think there's already a very large measure of shame, and it's coming through the discussions I'm hearing at the EU here in Brussels, and it's coming through from what people are telling me is being said around the corridors in the UN.  Whether that can be converted to a willingness to formally authorize some kind of more intrusive intervention is a very hard call; it's too difficult for a lot of people to contemplate.

But, whether or not it creates a sense that there's just enough moral outrage out there and enough good rational grounds out there for one or two countries to take the bit between the teeth and actually do something creative and adventurous and get that aid in there, come what may, that pressure for that to happen is building up very very substantially.

I hope that this message is somehow getting through to the generals, that they are listening -- because the world is not going to stand by and let another catastrophe involving a million or more people to die. It's just not going to be allowed to happen. Times have changed, and we don't have that indifference that people seem to have managed for previous centuries. There's just too much consciousness, too much media attention, too much concern out there, and I don't think that voice can be ignored.

With the death toll continuing to mount in Burma/Myanmar; with the generals who run the country reported to be hoarding supplies and preventing relief from reaching the worst struck areas; and with fears of an even larger man-made catastrophe caused by avoidable contamination, disease, and starvation -- the possibility of a UN-sanctioned international invasion to defy the ruling junta and bring aid to those who so badly need it apparently is being considered.

Last week, we wrote that a lesson might be learned from this disaster, that we (the free world) might just decide that our moral obligation to protect the defenseless from needless suffering could be seen as so strong that it trumps the sovereign rights of irresponsible states. We're frankly surprised -- but pleased -- to find that we are not alone in this thinking.

There's no question, of course, that all this is far easier to say than to do. But we believe it's a good sign that cosmopolitanism is gaining strength, and not for philosophical reasons alone.

Since the founding of CRN, we have been concerned that the unprecedented power of molecular manufacturing and the potential for exponential proliferation of nanofactory technology may make it essential to create an international administration to regulate it. That may not prove to be necessary, but just in case it does, it would be helpful if the world already had experience in managing global challenges with a collaborative consensus approach.

Mike Treder

A Woman

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches . . . Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles or gives me any best place. And a'nt I a woman?

Look at my arm! I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And a'nt I a woman?

I would work as much and eat as much as a man, when I could get it, and bear the lash as well. And a'nt I a woman?

I have borne thirteen children and seen em most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And a'nt I a woman?

— Sojourner Truth, at an 1851 woman's rights convention

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages and lifted over ditches . . . Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles or gives me any best place. And a'nt I a woman?

Look at my arm! I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And a'nt I a woman?

I would work as much and eat as much as a man, when I could get it, and bear the lash as well. And a'nt I a woman?

I have borne thirteen children and seen em most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And a'nt I a woman?

— Sojourner Truth, at an 1851 woman's rights convention

Catastrophic Conference

Here's a reminder about an opportunity to learn a lot and engage in discussion about the issue of really big and dangerous risks...

Global Catastrophic Risks Conference
July 17-20, Oxford, UK

In July, the Future of Humanity Institute will play host to a number of leading experts on a range of different global catastrophic risks. The conference in Oxford is intended to advance knowledge and increase academic interest in this neglected area and provide a forum to discuss the common problems and methodologies which affect the study of global catastrophic risks.

The term global catastrophic risk refers to the possibility of serious damage to human well-being on a global scale. Using this definition, an immensely diverse collection of events could constitute global catastrophes: potential factors range from volcanic eruptions to pandemic infections, nuclear accidents to worldwide tyrannies, out-of-control scientific experiments to climatic changes, and cosmic hazards to economic collapse.

This event is built around a new book composed of essays on the full range of global catastrophic risks. Chris Phoenix and I co-authored a chapter on advanced nanotechnology for the book, and we will make a joint presentation at the conference on the subject of "Small Machines, Big Choices: The Looming Impacts of Molecular Manufacturing."

If you're in the area at that time, I hope we'll see you at the conference!

Mike Treder

(Limited) Nano Futures

We've been asked by the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University to bring your attention to a set of "Nano Futures" prepared by their group. They are seeking feedback and offering the opportunity for users to revise the sketches in a wiki format.

Here is the list of the six "fictional scenes" they have developed:

Engineered Tissues

Using tissue printing technology, this system is able to build tissues with a vascular structure enabling the building of new organs.

What are your thoughts on synthetically grown tissues and organs?    

Living with a Brain Chip

This cranial chip features a data feed that puts information into the brain while the user is resting. 

What are your thoughts on using cranial chips to enhance cognition?

Automated Sewer Surveillance

Ultra fast sequencing technology is used to analyze the DNA in harvested waste water, thus screening large populations.  

What are your thoughts on tracking individuals using their genetic material?

Disease Detector

Doc in the Box is a device that tracks an individuals protein levels to monitor changes that imply early stage illness or disease before symptoms emerge.

What are your thoughts on diagnosing disease before you are ill?

Barless Prison

NanoCage has developed a caged drug that is injected into prisoners that becomes activated by radio control if prisons cross designated boundaries.

What are your thoughts on a barless prison?

Bionic Eyes

Opti-scan is an optical implant that looks and functions like a normal eye, yet has new enhancements enabling magnification, visualizing infra-red, and night vision. 

What are your thoughts on visual enhancement?

The group readily acknowledges that these sketches are "extrapolations from current nanoscale research." In other words, they have made no attempt to include the potential of advanced nanotechnology. Thus, what they have produced is quite different from the more fully developed scenarios prepared by CRN's Global Task Force, all of which look toward the emergence of molecular manufacturing.

Still, it's a good effort and we encourage you to look into what they've done and considering giving your input.

Mike Treder

Q: A Moral Obligation?

Cyclone Nargis flooded the entire coastal plain of southern Burma. The satellite picture on top was taken before the storm hit. The one on the bottom was taken Monday.

The appalling disaster suffered by the citizens of Burma (Myanmar) raises a difficult moral question. Before considering it, let's review the scope of the devastation:

Burma, already the poorest country in Southeast Asia, shows all the signs of total collapse. It's been four days since the killer cyclone ripped across the Irrawaddy delta in Burma's south and devastated the city of Rangoon -- home to 6 million people -- before cutting a swathe through the jungle on the Thai border.

But the government of General Than Shwe, 75, doesn't appear to have the situation in hand or be able to coordinate disaster relief. The military isn't even in a position to give a rough overview of the true scope of the catastrophe. . .

The region affected by the storm has a population of just under 24 million people. Many of them are now likely to have no roof over their heads. In addition, their wells are polluted and a large part of the rice harvest has suffered serious damage.

Could some of this death and destruction have been avoided?

It is already clear that the weekend's cyclone in Burma was the worst storm that has ravaged Asia since a cyclone killed tens of thousands in India in 1999. It is also the most devastating natural disaster since the tsunami of December 2004 laid waste to large parts of coastal regions in South and Southeast Asia. Then, more than 230,000 people died in Thailand, Indonesia, South Asia and Africa.

Once again, many deaths could have been prevented in Burma if the government had warned its people about the impending disaster. But nothing of the kind happened. "The only thing that was broadcast over the radio on Friday was the propaganda for the bogus referendum next Saturday," said Aung Zaw, editor of the Thailand-based opposition magazine Irrawaddy. Burma's military wants to use the May 10 referendum to secure its power after the elections promised for 2010.

As a result, the civilian population in the affected areas was completely unprepared when Cyclone Nargis hit the south coast of Burma around midnight on Friday. Many of the coastal inhabitants support themselves by fishing and so a large number of boats must have been at sea at that point. It is still not clear what happened to those boats.

But, instead of taking quick and straightforward action to help its suffering population, the junta continues to only think about its political situation and how to stay in power.

So, as Westerners, enjoying a fortunate position of freedom and prosperity, is it enough for us to shake our heads, cluck our disapproval of the military leadership, and make a small donation to humanitarian relief?

For most of us, that probably is a reasonable and understandable response. In fact, we can be rightly proud of our willingness to freely send aid when others suffer natural disasters.

But the larger moral question is not so easy to answer.

It seems clear that a different, more responsible government would have given their citizens earlier warning. It's also clear that this is not the last time that a huge disaster -- whether cyclone, earthquake, drought, fire, or flood -- will strike a vulnerable population yoked with a bad government that disregards their safety.

Given those two points, do we have a moral obligation to do something in advance of the next disaster? And, if so, what?

In general, I am not a proponent of intervening in another sovereign nation's internal politics. But are there times when intervention is warranted? When we see tens of thousands of poor people dying and millions more left homeless and helpless, should we not be moved to prevent the next such occurrence?

This post is not intended to offer a prescription, but just to raise the question. What's your answer?

Mike Treder

Snarky Quote of the Month

The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months...

That would mean gasoline prices of $5 to $6 a gallon. Unless of course we permanently suspend the gasoline tax, in which case gasoline prices would only be $5 to $6 a gallon...

...says Joe Romm (hilariously).

The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months...

That would mean gasoline prices of $5 to $6 a gallon. Unless of course we permanently suspend the gasoline tax, in which case gasoline prices would only be $5 to $6 a gallon...

...says Joe Romm (hilariously).

The possibility of $150-$200 per barrel seems increasingly likely over the next six-24 months...

That would mean gasoline prices of $5 to $6 a gallon. Unless of course we permanently suspend the gasoline tax, in which case gasoline prices would only be $5 to $6 a gallon...

...says Joe Romm (hilariously).

Simple Philosophy

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

I have a simple philosophy: Fill what’s empty. Empty what’s full. Scratch where it itches.

— Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Not Necessarily Relevant Quote of the Week:

I have a simple philosophy: Fill what’s empty. Empty what’s full. Scratch where it itches.

— Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Media Warming Confusion

You may already have seen some of these misleading headlines:

The UK Telegraph says, “Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict” — “… Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a ‘lull’ for up to a decade.”

National Geographic News blares, “Cooler Climate May Hit N. America, Europe Next Decade.”

The New York Times wonders, “Can Climate Campaigns Withstand a Cooling Test?” and says that the Nature study forecast “some Northern Hemisphere cooling in the coming decade.”

Unfortunately, that's not the real story. Those headlines misreport what the cited studies -- and the scientists who performed them -- actually said.

For an explanation, we'll turn to environmental scientist Joseph Romm, author of the Climate Progress blog:

None of these headlines accurately portray what the data presented actually says. Let’s look at the paper’s key figure, the one that looks at past and (forecast) future global temperatures:

[click image to enlarge]

Let me try to explain this complicated figure.

The first thing to know — indeed, one major source of confusion — is that “each point represents a ten-year centred mean.” That is, each point represents the average temperature of the decade starting 5 years before that point and ending 5 years after that point.

Second, the red line is the actual global temperature data from the UK’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research. Why does the red line stop in 1998 and not 2007? Again, it is a running 10-year mean, and the authors use data from a Hadley paper that ends around 2003 (I believe), so they can’t do a ten-year centered mean after 1998.

Third, the black line is one of the IPCC scenarios, A1B. It is a relatively high-CO2-growth model — but actual carbon emissions since 2000 have wildly outpaced it (see here).

Fourth, the solid green line is the “hindcast” of the authors — how well their model compares to actual data (and the A1B scenario). It is then extended (in dashes) through 2010 and finally to 2025, where it meets up with A1B, since their model only imposes decadal variability on the inexorable climb of human-caused global warming.

Fifth, the short purple line is with radiative forcing (i.e greenhouse gas concentrations) frozen at 2000 levels, which, of course, didn’t happen.

So you can clearly see that the green line rises and then plateaus, repeatedly, until it really starts to take off in the decade of the 2010s. Perhaps the source of much of the media’s confusion is that the authors describe their results in the final line of the abstract this way:

Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

But what they mean by that statement is not what a simple reading of that sentence would suggest:  They do not mean that “the global surface temperature may not increase over the next ten years starting now.” What they mean is what the lead author, Dr. Noel Keenlyside, wrote me last night when I asked for a clarification:

Thus, based on our results we don’t expect an increase in the mean temperature of the next decade (2005-2015).

They are predicting no increase in average temperature of the “next decade” (2005 to 2015) over the previous decade, which, for them, is 2000 to 2010! And that’s in fact precisely what the figure shows — that the 10-year mean global temperature centered around 2010 is the roughly the same as the mean global temperature centered around 2005.

The authors have not predicted the next 10 years won’t see any warming...

I recommend you read Romm's whole article if you want to really understand what the data means.

Mike Treder