Making Noise About Nanotech

It looks like the heat is being turned up on nanotechnology discussion and policy preparation:

An independent report...concludes that current U.S. laws and regulations cannot adequately protect the public against the risks of nanotechnology -- the rapidly growing science of making invisibly small particles and molecular devices.

Unless existing laws are modified or a new one is crafted, the report warns, the immense promise of the field -- predicted to be a trillion-dollar industry by 2015 -- may be short-circuited by either a disaster or an economically damaging crisis of public confidence...

The report outlines the range of laws and regulations in place to protect people and the environment from such risks, and finds each one wanting when it comes to nanotechnology.

It must be noted that the report described above, prepared by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, is focused only on health and environmental risks from nanoscale technologies, and does not address longer-term and more disruptive impacts from molecular manufacturing.

Which leads us to the next item, a criticism of the news media's too-narrow coverage of nanotech issues:

The media play a defining role in educating people about nanotechnology. Yet, historically, articles about nanotech have provided a relatively "free pass" to this emerging science according to a recently released study by a Clarkson University [Potsdam, New York, USA] research team...

[M]edia reports about nanotechnology [from 1986-2000] were overwhelmingly positive and based largely on speculation and opinion with few articles citing specific data or research methods. Nanotechnology was reported as an elite science associated primarily with prestigious universities and well-known companies. Sustained coverage of societal issues associated with nanotechnology did not emerge until 2000 and this reporting was based entirely on opinion and speculation...

The team argued that reporting should not skip over the social issues and impacts of nanotechnology, nor should journalists take for granted the economic impacts, technological innovations, or scientific progress associated with nanotechnology.

We agree with this 100%. Reporting should not skip over the social issues and impacts of nanotechnology, nor should they take the hype for granted. Much more serious study of these issues is essential.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Rip]

Do you have any concerns about the promotion of potential negative consequences of MM turning popular public opinion against technological development? I agree that we can't ignore all the issues, but I'm somewhat worried about the public's tendency to fear the unknown, which could possibly lead to a stifling of further R&D. How do you see this issue?

[DT]

I've been reading alot about nanotechnology and I have to say its reaching a point of impossible because of its complexity not in developing nanofactories but integrating it and the huge amount misconception.

Even if they build the most advance system known to mankind one very primitive and simple area will never get replaced, and thats natural resources, you cannot build anything without using something else, alot of people are talking about nanotubes and carbon as if they're popping out of the ground, graphite is a natural resource which has to be mined and thats where nanotubes come from, if not graphite then another natural resources. Even if dirt is used(highly unlikely) the price would skyrocket, gravel and sand is a multi million dollars industry today and its used mainly for simple things, imagine if everything was made by it, its not like a corporation can dig its backyard for billions of tons of dirt.

There are also tons of other unanswered questions and hurdles which could maybe never be overcome. I'll elaborate on them later.

[Mike Treder, CRN]

Rip,

Promotion of potential negative consequences can be a problem when it is not conducted responsibly. Books like Prey and calls for a moratorium or for relinquishment are not helpful.

But even worse than clumsy discussion of dangers would be no discussion at all. As you said, fear of the unknown is a big obstacle. That's why open study and consideration of nanotech's major societal implications is so important. Public servants, scientists, and educators who speak only of benefits are doing themselves and everyone else a serious disservice.

[LDMiller]

All the good news about nanotechnology should be juxtaposed with the question of ethics. Patents claiming to own agricultural seed will only benefit, conglomerates whether it corporations or governmental, and this in turn will suffer farmers and cultures which sustainablity is their inherent right! Third World countries and cultures will no doubt suffer the consequences.