Creating Global Safeguards

Secretary General Kofi Annan of the United Nations warned Saturday that the potential for danger from the rapidly growing biotechnology industry was increasing exponentially and urged creating global safeguards.

Mr. Annan, in a speech in [Switzerland], warned of “catastrophic” results if recent advances in biotechnology, including gene manipulation and work with viruses, fell into the wrong hands.

“As biological research expands, and technologies become increasingly accessible, this potential for accidental or intentional harm grows exponentially,” he said, according to the text of his speech. “Even novices working in small laboratories will be able to carry out gene manipulation.”

In May, Mr. Annan called for a global forum on biological terrorism, saying current treaties were too weak and governmental and commercial initiatives too scattered. . .

“We lack an international system of safeguards to manage those risks,” he said. “Scientists may do their best to follow rules for responsible conduct of research. But efforts to harmonize these rules on a global level are outpaced by the galloping advance of science itself.”

We agree with Annan's warnings. Further, we encourage efforts toward an "international system of safeguards" to manage the equal if not greater risks associated with advanced nanotechnology.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog

Comments

[Don Little]

Any organization that hangs their hat on the credibility of Kofi Annan is suspect in my opinion.

[Phillip Huggan]

Feel free to suggest a more responsible geopolitical actor; they all tend to be self-interested to vary degrees in serving their own political populations. Kofi seems better than most heads of state, for instance.

[Michael Deering]

If you guys want a global security system for nanobots then you should work toward a global security system for engineered viruses. The technical availability will be earlier than nanotech. No scientist is going to argue with you about the feasibility or danger of engineered viruses. A properly engineered virus could decimate humanity in a few weeks. The fact that nanobots could do it ten times faster and more thoroughly is little consolation. All of the same institutions put in place for control of biotech would be easily morphed for nanotech. The best defense against biotech is nanotech. It just seems like a perfect path to your goals.

[Phillip Huggan]

My humble contribution towards anti-pandemic strategies in the years ahead will consist of essays deliniating a civilian defense blueprint for "lifeboat" communities (fortifying the most isolated potentially self-sustaining populations), and perhaps a SWAT-like first-responder rapid response protocol.

The thing that applies to MNT and not to potential bio-terror attacks, is that the products of MNT allow you to potentially mitigate against MNT-enabled catastrophies. For bio-terror, the mitigation strategies are more conventional; there is less scope for creative solutions.

[Brian Wang]

My proposals for countering bioweapons is to not depend upon paper treaties and promises. Political and policy discussions can and should proceed but the assumption has to be that detection and defenses need to be created as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Good points, Michael and Brian; but MM produces some problems like unstable arms race and economic upheaval that are just plain different from the impacts of a virus, and will need dissimilar strategies. Preparing for a virus may be useful, but it can't be more than a partial solution.

Chris

[Phillip Huggan]

Besides, the report for economic upheival unleashed by an Avian Flu pandemic has already been published by CIBC Wood Gundy. It says people will stay home from work to avoid getting sick and they will default on their mortgages. Banks and insurance securities will be hard hit. Travel and transportation industries too.