Last year, I participated in a conference titled "Risk Governance of Nanotechnology: Recommendations for Managing a Global Issue" held at the Swiss Re Centre for Global Dialogue. Yesterday I received in the mail a 75-page report on that conference, which is available for free download from their website.
In this report, you'll find several statements that, although not attributed, basically reflect my input at the event. For example, the following (from page 23) is taken almost word for word from a comment that I gave:
Most organizations including governments and NGOs that are considering these issues have focused on risks associated with the first generation, generally presented by nanoparticles and that definitely need to be addressed in the next few years. They are not however, preparing for the potentially revolutionary products that could emerge in the next five to ten years.
This was a reference to the "four generations" of nanotechnology, an idea that was discussed in some depth at this conference, as well as at a previous related conference that I attended. I'm pleased to see that the important point about "revolutionary products" from later generations made it into the final report.
Even more useful, however, is this acknowledgement of molecular manufacturing, as found on page 49 of the report:
[W]hile current attention is focused on near-term concerns, questions raised by Frame Two nanotechnologies are more difficult, particularly with respect to fourth-generation, atomically-precise manufacturing of macroscale products. The risk governance process must move faster to address longer-term political, military, and civil liberties issues in time.
Finally, also on page 49, there is this statement, which is largely derived from comments I made during a breakout session:
Military offense applications are particularly concerning because, unlike nuclear arms, verification difficulties mean there is no clear point at which opponents reach stability in the process of escalation and proliferation. Existing arms treaties may not apply to nanotechnology-based weapons, and there are important intellectual property, commercial confidentiality, and national security issues involved in addressing this challenge. One option is to brief and consult with relevant organizations for the next draft of the White Paper, with the goal of encouraging the eventual creation of an International Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty (INTACT).
I was particularly proud of the "INTACT" formulation, which I came up with during the conference. Let's hope that in years to come we can move forward with this idea and see it put into practical application.
Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics weblog blog
Very cool Mike. Thanks for continuing to support this effort.
Also thanks for the link. I look forward to reading it, or at least skimming through it, conference material isn't usually the most engaging reading material.
Posted by: Eric | July 11, 2007 at 01:28 PM