Revolution or Hypocisy?

"A revolution is just around the corner" trumpets the headline of this story about nanotechnology found at Canada.com, part of a major media conglomerate.

On the other hand, an article at nanowerk dares to ask:

Is nanotechnology a groundbreaking powerful new technology? Or is it neither new nor really a singular technology? We are told that it heralds "the next industrial revolution". Will its effects be revolutionary? Or familiar and incremental? Is nanotechnology's development inevitable? Or precarious? Are its implications nothing to be afraid of? Or are they so profound as to give cause for alarm? Does nanotechnology raise important new ethical issues or not?

Actually, it's Australian ethicist Dr. Robert Sparrow from the Center for Human Bioethics at Monash University who is asking these tough questions in an essay posted for download at the Friends of the Earth website. He says:

When advocates for nanotechnology want to drum up interest in it, or funding for it, they talk about nanotechnology and argue that it is revolutionary; when they want to defuse fears, they insist there are only nanotechnologies which are already familiar. When they want the public to accept nanotechnology they argue it is inevitable; when they want the government to provide more funding, change the laws, or educate the public to be more enthusiastic about it, they argue it is precarious.

They allow that nanotechnology requires regulation but ignore the problems with the institutions that will be doing the regulating. While they routinely acknowledge the importance of ethical issues, they seldom acknowledge the possibility that these might constitute a reason to turn away from developing nanotechnology. This pattern of claims reflects an attempt by advocates for nanotechnology to have the best of both worlds across these areas. It also functions to continually defer sustained ethical discussion of any of them.

CRN is pleased to have these truths spoken so plainly and eloquently. When I was in Australia last year, Dr. Sparrow attended a presentation I gave at Monash University. We talked afterward about the troubling inconsistencies of proponents who hype the benefits of nanotechnology while simultaneously downplaying any potentially disruptive impacts. I've written extensively about that problem here and elsewhere, and it's good to have others pointing it out as well.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog