X-Message-Number: 21171 From: "Mark Plus" <> Subject: Nanotechnology next Luddite target? Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:04:19 -0800 Is anyone else on this list paying attention to the fact that the people in the "bioethics" hustle are now targeting nanotech research for prohibition? The question below about "cyborganization" has already been answered, of course. Nobody thinks people with defibrillators or cochlear implants have become "dehumanized" because they bear implanted computer chips, though some christian prophecy kooks identify chip implants with the biblical "Mark of the Beast" in the book of Revelation.-- Mark Plus http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-02-14-1 Nanotechnology Confrontation Is Looming Betterhumans Staff [Friday, February 14, 2003] Long ignored by groups opposed to biotechnology, nanotechnology research and development has been rapidly growing unfettered. But a new report from a leading bioethics group warns that this is about to change, and that a looming confrontation could derail a major scientific revolution. "The only way to avoid a GM foods-style confrontation is to take immediate steps to close the gap between the science and ethics of nanotechnology," says Abdallah Daar, coauthor of the report, which is published in the journal Nanotechnology. Daar and colleagues from the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics claim that while nanotechnology is in its infancy and most applications are decades away, a backlash against the technology is gathering momentum and needs to be addressed. "It is to be expected that a technology that promises to make massive changes in our lives would be viewed with suspicion and, perhaps, outright fear," says report coauthor Peter Singer. "Open public discussion of the benefits and risks of this new technology is urgently needed." Research and development The paper cites the fact that most industrialized countries are investing heavily in nanotechnology research and development while there has been relatively little consideration of the ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social implications of the technology. Between 1997 and 2002, the paper notes, nanotechnology research and development has increased dramatically worldwide (all figures in US dollars): USA: From $432 million to $604 million Western Europe: From $126 million to more than $350 million Japan: From $120 million to $750 million South Korea: From nothing to $100 million Taiwan: From nothing to $70 million Australia: From nothing to $40 million China: From nothing to $40 million The rest of the world: From nothing to $270 million While there was little opposition to such growth in the past, there are signs of change. Opposition In early February, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration -- the group that helped stop Monsanto's research into the creation of bioengineered plants with so-called "Terminator Technology" -- released a report calling for a moratorium on the commercial production of new nanomaterials, an international forum for evaluating new technologies and United Nations-led monitoring of corporations working with new technologies. The report was criticized by nanotechnology experts, but showed that veterans of the biotechnology wars have a new target. "Calls for a moratorium on deployment of nanomaterials should be a wake-up call for nanotechnology developers," says Daar. Questions to ask The Nanotechnology paper sets out a number of questions that its authors say need to be addressed now: Equity: Who will benefit from nanotechnology? Can we ensure that developing countries benefit? Privacy and security: How will such things as invisible microphones and cameras affect the protection of privacy? Will nanotechnology offer increased security or nano-terrorism? Who regulate military nanotechnology research? Environment: What are the effects of nanomaterials on the environment? Cyborgization: How will people react to the implantation of artificial materials or machines? Besides laying out such questions, the paper calls for people to heed lessons from genomics and biotechnology. Specifically, it cites a need for a consultation process involving developing countries, scientists, interest groups, government, industry and the public. Dealing with danger In a statement to Betterhumans, the nonprofit policy research group Center for Responsible Nanotechnology says that the dangers of nanotechnology are real. "CRN is deeply concerned about the potential for abuse of nanotechnology. Dangerous misuse of advanced nanotech can come from a variety of quarters, not only from terrorists or criminals, but also from rogue military, political establishments, big industry or reckless individuals. Damage of many kinds -- economic, environmental, human rights -- must be contemplated and averted," says the group. But CRN says that its research suggests extremist solutions such as moratoriums or bans could be dangerous. "Though perhaps well-motivated, calls for complete relinquishment of the technology are no less danger-provoking, and irresponsible, than is the cry for entirely unfettered development," CRN says. "A patchwork of extremist solutions to the wide-ranging risks of advanced nanotechnology is a grave danger. All areas of society stand to be affected by molecular manufacturing, and unless comprehensive international plans are developed, the multiplicity of cures could be worse than the disease. The threat of harm would almost certainly be increased, while many extraordinary benefits could go unrealized." _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21171