After a yearlong hiatus, I thought it was about time that I got back on the nano-horse and giddy-yupped into some new thoughts and understandings regarding that tiny little thing we call “nanotechnology.”
As previous readers understand, when I say “nanotechnology” I mean all nanoscale technologies, of which there are thousands today and millions on the technological horizon.
In late 2009, I presented several thought-leaders with the same question that I had asked in years past. “If you had the attention of the entire world, what would you say about nanoscale technologies?”
The answers that I received bring us a step closer to realizing that there continues to be an urgent need for society to pay attention to the mind-boggling rapid growth in our understanding and implementation of nanoscale technologies. Let me put it another way: We are learning more about (and more really important stuff about) why things are different at the nanoscale.
There are maybe a few hundred individuals who understand advanced technologies and can articulate their impact as well as these contributors. (Full disclosure: these folks are long-time, long distance, global-connectivity friends and associates. I seriously respect their individual and collective understanding of and opinions regarding advanced technologies. Mike Treder, Robert A. Freitas Jr. , Neil Gordon, Jack Uldrich and Vic Peña are just some of the world-class minds who you should spend a small part of your time listening to, if you do not do so already.)
From the Futurist
From the futurist we learn that nanoscale technologies are simply another set of new technologies that we need to understand and prepare for. How important are they? They are important on the order of: today and every day that follows, we will be introduced to another of thousands of new products that owe their technological and market leadership to “nanotechnology.” Today and every day that follows we will be confronted by decisions regarding whether or not to allow a nanotech-enabled product into the market; whether or not to pull an existing product from the market because it is simply connected to “nanotech” (or is in fact faulty in some way, thereby tarnishing with the same brush every other nano-enable product). As sure as the day after today is tomorrow, nanotech-enabled products will create a huge stir within society. How well we adapt to those products depends on how much we pay attention, today.
From the Medical Scientist
From the medical scientist we learn that “Medical nanorobotics holds the greatest promise for curing disease and extending the human healthspan.” Cool! Count me in! Nanotech-enabled machines roving around in my body, repairing cellular damage, detecting disease and malfunction, and generally keeping me a fit old son, yeah, count me in. Make me smarter you say?! COUNT ME IN!
From the economists/business men
And from the economists/business men we learn that critically important dollars are not being spent on nanoscale technologies, but are instead being squandered on “business as usual” and politics. Why, oh why, do we sit ineffectively by and watch as our leaders, of both parties, waste our dollars and squander both our future and our grandchildren’s heritage?
We also learn to have a sense of excitement regarding the short- and long-term potential of nanoscale technologies (in spite of our leader’s ineptitude, short-term-gains mindset and back-room dealings).
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. -- Winston Churchill, November 1947
What can we learn from this? Depends on who you are. Average citizens may feel a bit overwhelmed by the exceeding complexity of the science, the enormous potential for societal change, and/or the continued nonsensical meddling in the markets by our elected officials. Scientists, economists, innovators, inventors, investors, and savvy business folk know without a doubt that nano-enabled technologies, followed by the inevitable advanced products, will create massive shock-waves in each of their respective areas. By the way, that means if you can answer “Yes” to “Do you live on Planet Earth?” then count on the fact that the future is going to present us with an increasingly complex and exuberantly abundant supply of new technologies that will change our lifestyles and force us sit up and pay attention.
Of course, that is just my take; the futurist, the medical scientist, and the economists/business men may hit you from a totally divergent p-o-v, and yet I bet we all agree that “May you live in interesting times” never meant as much as it does right here, right now (are you paying attention yet?)
Rocky Rawstern, March 15, 2010
Here are their answers
Mike Treder – Our Future Depends on Us / Technology is Only a Tool
Every technology—no matter how powerful—is never a solution in itself. It is only a tool, to be used by its owners for good or for ill. This is as true for nanotechnology as it was for electricity or for the printing press before it.
We should never fall into the trap of looking for or expecting our technologies to save us. Emerging technologies—whether nanotech or AI or synthetic biology do not emerge into nor from a vacuum. They are always developed within a context of political reality, amidst the daily tussle over regulation, funding, and proper usage. They do not arise fully-grown and pristine, but are hammered out, molded, shaped, and modified through endless discussions in corporate boardrooms and the halls of government.
Thus, the color of our future depends much more on us—that is, on our political practices and choices—than on our technologies.
(c) 2010 Mike Treder
Mike Treder is the managing director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, is a prolific writer, speaker, and activist with a background in media and communications. He has published dozens of articles and papers and been interviewed numerous times by the media. As an accomplished presenter on the societal implications of emerging technologies, Mr. Treder has addressed conferences and groups around the world, including in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil.
Treder co-founded the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) in 2002 and served as its executive director for six years. CRN promotes public awareness and education about the implications of molecular manufacturing, with the aim of creating and implementing wise, comprehensive, and balanced plans for global management of the technology. Treder currently sits on the Board of Advisors for CRN.
In addition to his work with the IEET, Mike Treder is a consultant to the Millennium Project of the American Council for the United Nations University, serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for the Lifeboat Foundation, is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, a consultant to the Future Technologies Advisory Group, and a member of the World Future Society.
Visit ieet.org/index.php/IEET/bio/treder/
Robert A. Freitas Jr. – Molecular Manufacturing and Medical Nanorobotics
The ultimate tool of nanomedicine is the medical nanorobot – a robot the size of a bacterium, composed of molecule-size parts somewhat resembling macroscale gears, bearings, and ratchets. Like a regular robot, a nanorobot may be made of many thousands of mechanical parts, such as bearings and gears, composed of strong diamond-like material. A nanorobot will have motors to make things move, and perhaps manipulator arms or mechanical legs for mobility. It will have a power supply for energy, sensors to guide its actions, and an onboard computer to control its behavior. Medical nanorobotics holds the greatest promise for curing disease and extending the human healthspan.
To build medical nanorobots, we need to create a new technology called molecular manufacturing. Molecular manufacturing is the production of complex atomically precise structures using positionally controlled fabrication and assembly of nanoparts inside a nanofactory. We’ve published the first description of a complete set of tools and positionally controlled reactions that should enable building small bits of perfect diamond crystal, based on extensive analysis and quantum chemistry simulations of a large number of potential tooltips and reaction sequences.
Ralph Merkle and I founded the Nanofactory Collaboration to coordinate a combined experimental and theoretical R&D program to design and build the first working diamondoid nanofactory. This long-term effort is developing the initial technology of positionally controlled mechanosynthesis of diamondoid structures using engineered tooltips and simple molecular feedstock. One of our international colleagues is undertaking direct experiments to build and validate several of our proposed mechanosynthesis tooltips.
(c) 2010 Robert A. Freitas Jr.
Robert A. Freitas Jr., J.D., published the first detailed technical design study of a medical nanorobot ever published in a peer-reviewed mainstream biomedical journal and is the author of Nanomedicine, the first book-length technical discussion of the medical applications of nanotechnology and medical nanorobotics. Volume I was published in October 1999 by Landes Bioscience while Freitas was a Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing (IMM) in Palo Alto, California. Freitas published Volume IIA in October 2003 with Landes Bioscience while serving as a Research Scientist at Zyvex Corp., a nanotechnology company headquartered in Richardson, Texas during 2000-2004. Freitas is now completing Nanomedicine Volumes IIB and III and is also consulting on diamond mechanosynthesis, molecular assembler design, and nanofactory implementation as Senior Research Fellow at IMM. He won the 2009 Feynman Prize in nanotechnology for theory, the 2007 Foresight Prize in Communication, and the 2006 Guardian Award from Lifeboat Foundation.
Visit www.rfreitas.com
Neil Gordon – 2009 was a bad year for nanotechnology
The financial demise of long established nanotechnology companies such as Nanogen, Evident Technologies, Luna Innovations, and NanoDynamics may be an expected fall-out of the economic downturn. However, the real impact of the financial crisis to nanotechnology is more pronounced.
Technology ventures need funding to develop and commercialize new products. Greater investments are required for advanced offerings employing nanotechnology because of the long time horizon for adopting nanotech into end user products or processes. Not only do nano-enabled products offer the potential for better, faster, cheaper and more environmentally-friendly applications, they also bring high tech R&D and manufacturing jobs that will be in demand for decades to come. So with unprecedented government stimulus spending one might expect a boom time for nanotech companies on the cusp of commercialization.
However, what we are seeing is completely different. Money is being used:
- to reward financiers for bad investment decisions instead of infusing capital to early stage ventures and Series A venture capitalists.
- to create government programs that will increase the cost of health care instead of new technologies for lowering the cost of health care.
- for preventing the spread of a flu strain that killed less than 10% of the infected people from a typical seasonal flu rather than funding new technologies for treating more virulent diseases
- for deploying under-effective counter-terrorism activities instead of new surveillance technologies for the early detection of explosives, illegal drugs, infected people, toxic food, and contaminated water
- to finance bankrupt automobile companies to manufacture the same cars that caused the bankruptcies rather than funding disruptive production and performance innovations that will be competitive against low cost cars from China and India.
- for middlemen to manage and extract fees from carbon cap-and-trade schemes rather acquiring prototypes employing breakthrough energy technologies
So where does nanotechnology stand at the end of 2009? Apparently at the bottom of the 2009 priority list. 2010 appears to be an equally disappointing year.
(c) 2010 Neil Gordon
Neil is the CEO of Early Warning, a NASA spin-off company and co-inventor of the world’s first inline diagnostic nano-biosensor that automatically detects pathogenic bacteria, viruses and parasites in water in under 3 hours. He was previously the President of the Canadian NanoBusiness Alliance, and head of a nanotechnology consulting practice at Sygertech where he was involved in over 20 nanotechnology projects over the last 10 years.
Visit http://www.earlywarninginc.com/
and
nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2009/01/neil-gordon-goes-to-market.html
Jack Uldrich – The impact of nanotechnology is going to be huge
To those who don't believe nanotechnology will change the world in the near future just because it hasn't accomplished much in the last 20 years, consider this little quiz: If a single lily pad began doubling on a pond on the first day of June and doubled each day thereafter until the entire pond was covered by the end of the month, on Day 20 what percentage of the pond would be covered with lily pads?
The answer is one-tenth of one percent. That's right, .1%! What happens over the next 10 days is a little short of amazing -- the entire pond gets covered. Such is the nature of exponential growth.
Now, advances in nanotechnology aren't quite experiencing exponential growth but they are close and over the course of the next decade nanotechnology's impact on material sciences, medicine, and energy are -- like the lily pads' spread over pond in the last few days -- going to be extraordinary."
(c) 2010 Jack Uldrich
jumpthecurve.net
unlearning101.com
Follow Jack at http://twitter.com/jumpthecurve
Vic Pe̱a РThe future is here and achievable!
About five years ago, I responded to a similar question. Like this. At that time I was firmly convinced that we had reached an historic milestone in the evolution of science, namely the foundation for the research and development of nanoscale technologies. I still have this conviction. In fact, I am more enthusiastic of the possibilities open to the human experience through nanoscale technologies. “The future is here and achievable.”
The future is here. We are achieving it (especially during the last decade) by accelerating, building, and evolving the principles upon which nanoscale technologies research and development thrive. We have created myriad nano-applications for development and commercialization not generally known or available in the past. We have brought the future to the present and are progressing towards greater achievement.
At the same time, we can say we are not the yet. Achievement in nanoscale technologies is an evolutionary process integrating all disciplines of science. And, we recognize that nanoscale achievement is critically dependent on education and funding. In the United States, the National Nanotechnology Initiative is at the forefront in promoting these. Admittedly, these are subject to the vagaries of societal and economic factors, but consider the advances made in nanoscale technologies.
Imagine what is achievable in our now and present future.
So, what do I say about nanoscale technologies? The future is here and achievable!
(c) 2010 Vic Peña
Co-Founder, nanoTITAN, Inc. (now shuttered)
Former Member, President’s Council of Advisers in Science and Technology (PCAST), Nanotechnology Technical Advisory Group (NTAG)
Former Chairman, Nanotechnology Committee, Northern Virginia Technology Council
Former Member Nanotechnology Advisory Committee, The Virginia House of Delegates
Founding Member Initiative for Nanotechnology in Virginia
In closing
I would like to close with the response from Ray Kurzweil from the previous Q&A. Why am I closing with this quote? Because it best illustrates the immediacy of the need for us to start paying attention (with graphs and charts and things that even I can understand!). (1)
When we have full molecular manufacturing, we will be able to create any physical products we need from information files just as we can create music, movies, and books from pure information today. In about twenty years, the original goals of communism ("from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs") will be achieved not through forced collectivism but through the information technologies of nanotechnology and artificial intelligence.
When will we have full molecular manufacturing? About 10 years after people stop laughing about the difficulty of building the first nanofactory. Let me put it another way: sometime within the next 15 years, possibly a lot sooner. Does that give us enough time to prepare? Certainly, but only if we start now.
May you live in interesting times!
Rocky Rawstern
(1) http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
From the previous Q & A:
http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2006/12/nanotechnology-q-pt-i.html
http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2006/12/nanotechnology-q-pt-i-more.html
http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2006/12/nanoscale-materials-q-pt-i.html
http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2006/12/nanotechnology-q-pt-i-more_21.html
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Monday, March 15, 2010
Monday, January 19, 2009
Nanomedicine Today
To get excited about the potential of nanomedicine (AKA: nanobiotechnology) all one need do is read the headlines at sites like Nanotechnology Now.
Here are a few since January 1st:
- Nano "Tractor Beam" Traps DNA
- Revolutionize the utility of adult stem cells through nanotechnology
- Tiny capsules deliver
- Wireless microgrippers grab living cells
- Tool Gives a Glimpse of Biomolecules in Motion
- New guidelines open up the potential of molecular diagnostics
- Lab-in-a-Cartridge for Fast and Accurate Detection of Cancer and Infectious Diseases
- Nanotubes Sniff Out Cancer Agents in Living Cells
- Artificial Antibody Delivers Nanoparticles to Tumors
- Toxin-Nanoparticle Combo Inhibits Brain Cancer Invasion While Imaging Tumors
- Microfluidic Devices Capture and Analyze Single Cancer Cells
- Biodegradable Nanoprobe Images New Blood Vessel Growth
- Polymer Nanoparticle for Oral Anticancer Drug Delivery
- A fantastic voyage brought to life
- Synthetic HDL: A New Weapon to Fight Cholesterol Problems (as illustrated, next)
“The researchers successfully designed synthetic HDL and show that their nanoparticle version is capable of irreversibly binding cholesterol. The synthetic HDL, based on gold nanoparticles, is similar in size to HDL and mimics HDL's general surface composition.”
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=31934
Now, more than ever, nanobiotechnologies are looking increasingly promising for applications in screening, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of today’s more pernicious diseases. While I was cautiously optimistic back in the 1990’s and into the ‘00’s, I am now certain that nanobio will enable many lifesaving technologies in the next decade. Some of which may do more than just detect and cure; they may even help extend our productive life spans, giving each of us several more decades (or more) of good health and vitality.
There is also good news on the “safety” front:
- Nanotech Safety High on Congress' Priority List
http://www.nanotech-now.com/
http://crnano.typepad.com/
Want to learn more about nanotechnology in general? Here are a few sites that offer information essential to understanding nanoscale technologies:
What is Nanotechnology? -- http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm
Howard Lovy’s Nanobot -- http://nanobot.blogspot.com/
Wikipedia -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies --http://www.nanotechproject.org/
And by all means read the books you see listed on the right column on this blog.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society
In her latest book Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society Dr. Deb Bennett-Woods talks about the ethics of dealing with rapidly changing technologies, in specific, those enabled by our greater understanding of the nanoscale. Depending on who is talking, nanotechnology means many different things. What everyone can agree on is that a) nanotechnology (whatever it is) will enable a huge number of new technologies and consumer products, and b) we need to prepare now.
Another in a growing chorus of knowledgeable persons and organizations, Dr. Bennett-Woods brings her expertise to bear in an exceedingly complex topic: ethics of scientific discovery and the subsequent technologies and products.
As part of her research, Dr. Bennett-Woods asked that I say a few words, which you see, above. Click image to see larger version.
From the book: Nanotechnology promises to be the next great human technological revolution, but such change often comes at the price of unforeseen consequences. Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society explores several of the practical and ethical dilemmas presented by this technological leap.
Nanotechnology: Ethics and Society
By Deb Bennett-Woods
Published by CRC Press, 2008
ISBN 1420053523, 9781420053524
312 pages
Learn more about Deb Bennett-Woods, Director and Associate Professor, Rueckert-Hartman College for Health Professions at Regis University
http://www.nanoscienceworks.org/people/bennett-woods-deb
http://www.regis.edu/regis.asp?sctn=rhhce&p1=fac&p2=dbennett
Foresight Institute Prize in Communication
http://bir-consulting.com/2005-Foresight-Prize-in-Communication.htm
Monday, December 15, 2008
The following is an email “conversation” I had with one of my Access Nanotechnology team members, Patti Hill . The Questions and Statements are her’s; the Answers are mine.
Q: Are there advantages to products with “nano inside”?
A: The short answer to this seemingly simple Q is “yes.” A better answer is “Caveat emptor.”
Statement: The consumer marketplace has become rich with nanotechnology-based or enhanced products from sunscreens to water repellant and stain-resistant clothing, gum, car wax, sporting equipment, heat-resistant windshields, consumer electronics, and nanoparticle-laden cosmetics.
Q: They all suggest significant strides from the scientific perspective - but from your point of view, does it matter?
A: Yes, as long as the “nano inside” the product has A) made it cheaper to the consumer, while making it no more harmful to the environment or the consumer, B) made the product more effective or better able to meet a need (with the same caveat as above), or C) created an altogether new product that serves a new market (again, with the caveat as above).
Additionally, the fact that we are making real strides in our understanding of nanoscale properties means that we have a whole new set of tools that will also enable the creation of products that are less harmful to the environment, as well as those that help remediate environmental damage. Those two categories alone make the effort and investment worthwhile.
Q: Are these products simply new or different versions of products in an already crowded marketplace, or would you purchase a product that claims to have “nanotechnology inside”?
A: “Claims to have,” no. Does have, and meets the criteria as above, then yes. Addressing “simply new or different versions” my answer would be “what have product promoters done in the past?” Have they always been truthful? Do the products always do what they say they will do? You get my drift.
Q: Do you believe the integration of nanotechnology boosts a product’s strength, durability or performance?
A: It certainly can, but may not always. In the “certainly can” area, take a look at products that contain sunlight-activated (photocatalytic) nanoscale titanium dioxide (Tio2).
There are several Tio2-enable surface coatings products on the market that have anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-mold properties. In addition, some of these coatings reduce pollution and improve air quality, while protecting from environmental contamination. Such coatings are, or will soon be, economical for building owners (for reducing maintenance costs) and anyone who simply wants to coat a surface to take advantage of one or more of those properties.
Having said that, as always with new products, there is a need to more fully understand the long-term effects of the nanoscale particles that may come in contact with you and I; products used in items such as cosmetics and skin treatments. Due to their size, these particles have the ability, under certain conditions, to penetrate well past the outer skin layers and possibly into the circulatory system (with unknown effects). Consideration must be given to the fact that nanoscale particles, by their very nature, can and do follow their own set of rules; rules different from their larger cousins (whose properties we pretty much understand and account for).
We also need to fully understand the ways in which nanoscale particles may harm those who handle them during production. And further, we need to understand the long-term waste stream potential of these products. I believe that both these issues can, are now, and will be dealt with easily and will be accounted for during development (at least by companies that understand the downside of not applying “an ounce of prevention”).
Getting back to “but not always,” there have been notable exceptions to the claim of “nano inside,” such as the now infamous “Magic Nano.” Magic Nano was billed as a “a protective glass and bathroom sealant” which in fact did not contain nanoscale particles. It did, however, cause breathing difficulties in several users, prompting a public outcry over “harmful nanotechnology.” The product was recalled. Face was lost, as were dollars, or Euros in this case.
I believe that our immediate investment of dollars and time should be focused on nanoscale particles that can be used for screening, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of disease (where great strides are already being made). With subsequent technologies we will be able to rid ourselves of many age-old scourges, such as cancer. After that, I think the bulk of our efforts should go towards creating nanoscale-enhanced products that exhibit astonishing strength, flexibility, conductivity, and/or reactivity (other areas where we are making huge strides, a few of which are enabling changes in how we generate clean energy). With these, we will be able to reach for the stars and go to them, too, as well as power our future. Our third focus should be on products that help remediate environmental damage (and yes, this too is an area where we’re seeing massive leaps in understanding). Any one of those three areas, by themselves, have the potential to create huge numbers of new, high-paying jobs. Together, it is believed by many learned individuals, governments and corporations that these technologies will make those nations that invest in them quite wealthy, more secure, and more productive.
To sum up: No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time-frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided attention. Will we be ready?
Q: Are there advantages to products with “nano inside”?
A: The short answer to this seemingly simple Q is “yes.” A better answer is “Caveat emptor.”
Statement: The consumer marketplace has become rich with nanotechnology-based or enhanced products from sunscreens to water repellant and stain-resistant clothing, gum, car wax, sporting equipment, heat-resistant windshields, consumer electronics, and nanoparticle-laden cosmetics.
Q: They all suggest significant strides from the scientific perspective - but from your point of view, does it matter?
A: Yes, as long as the “nano inside” the product has A) made it cheaper to the consumer, while making it no more harmful to the environment or the consumer, B) made the product more effective or better able to meet a need (with the same caveat as above), or C) created an altogether new product that serves a new market (again, with the caveat as above).
Additionally, the fact that we are making real strides in our understanding of nanoscale properties means that we have a whole new set of tools that will also enable the creation of products that are less harmful to the environment, as well as those that help remediate environmental damage. Those two categories alone make the effort and investment worthwhile.
Q: Are these products simply new or different versions of products in an already crowded marketplace, or would you purchase a product that claims to have “nanotechnology inside”?
A: “Claims to have,” no. Does have, and meets the criteria as above, then yes. Addressing “simply new or different versions” my answer would be “what have product promoters done in the past?” Have they always been truthful? Do the products always do what they say they will do? You get my drift.
Q: Do you believe the integration of nanotechnology boosts a product’s strength, durability or performance?
A: It certainly can, but may not always. In the “certainly can” area, take a look at products that contain sunlight-activated (photocatalytic) nanoscale titanium dioxide (Tio2).
There are several Tio2-enable surface coatings products on the market that have anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, and anti-mold properties. In addition, some of these coatings reduce pollution and improve air quality, while protecting from environmental contamination. Such coatings are, or will soon be, economical for building owners (for reducing maintenance costs) and anyone who simply wants to coat a surface to take advantage of one or more of those properties.
Having said that, as always with new products, there is a need to more fully understand the long-term effects of the nanoscale particles that may come in contact with you and I; products used in items such as cosmetics and skin treatments. Due to their size, these particles have the ability, under certain conditions, to penetrate well past the outer skin layers and possibly into the circulatory system (with unknown effects). Consideration must be given to the fact that nanoscale particles, by their very nature, can and do follow their own set of rules; rules different from their larger cousins (whose properties we pretty much understand and account for).
We also need to fully understand the ways in which nanoscale particles may harm those who handle them during production. And further, we need to understand the long-term waste stream potential of these products. I believe that both these issues can, are now, and will be dealt with easily and will be accounted for during development (at least by companies that understand the downside of not applying “an ounce of prevention”).
Getting back to “but not always,” there have been notable exceptions to the claim of “nano inside,” such as the now infamous “Magic Nano.” Magic Nano was billed as a “a protective glass and bathroom sealant” which in fact did not contain nanoscale particles. It did, however, cause breathing difficulties in several users, prompting a public outcry over “harmful nanotechnology.” The product was recalled. Face was lost, as were dollars, or Euros in this case.
I believe that our immediate investment of dollars and time should be focused on nanoscale particles that can be used for screening, diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of disease (where great strides are already being made). With subsequent technologies we will be able to rid ourselves of many age-old scourges, such as cancer. After that, I think the bulk of our efforts should go towards creating nanoscale-enhanced products that exhibit astonishing strength, flexibility, conductivity, and/or reactivity (other areas where we are making huge strides, a few of which are enabling changes in how we generate clean energy). With these, we will be able to reach for the stars and go to them, too, as well as power our future. Our third focus should be on products that help remediate environmental damage (and yes, this too is an area where we’re seeing massive leaps in understanding). Any one of those three areas, by themselves, have the potential to create huge numbers of new, high-paying jobs. Together, it is believed by many learned individuals, governments and corporations that these technologies will make those nations that invest in them quite wealthy, more secure, and more productive.
To sum up: No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time-frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided attention. Will we be ready?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Is nanotechnology morally acceptable?
The Next Bit comes to us from The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN)
“For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.” The survey, by Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, shows that “religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.”
To understand where the nano-nay-sayers come from, note especially this paragraph describing just what nanotechnology is, and see if in fact it differs from any other set of technologies, hundreds of which enable our current life style:
“Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules.”
Hmmmmmm… just science. Can’t blame the science, nor the resulting technologies, for things we don’t like. Blame perhaps each of us for not participating in the decisions that can enable or stifle new technologies.
“In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.”
Let me go out on a limb and state that these folks equate anything “not occurring in nature” as unnatural. Have they given even the smallest bit of thought to the many “unnatural” bits and pieces found in everyday 21st Century life? Things such as, oh, let’s see….. most modern medicine (diagnosis and treatment), the vast majority of technologies that create functional items from base materials and components, etc. Almost everything we do and see and eat owes some part of its existence to one or more “unnatural” elements.
My point? Do not equate the science nor the resulting technologies with how they will be used and how they effect society. Science is neither good nor bad. (Geez, how many times have we heard that. Did we all pay attention? Apparently not everyone.) Good and bad come from our use of technologies, for instance by allowing some to be used to impinge on another’s rights. Just google “Genocide” to get an idea of what I mean.
Are there some technologies that we should ban? Excellent question, glad I asked. Absolutely. The world, as a body, has banned the use of some weapons of mass destruction, such as nerve gas. So yes, we can make “morality-based” decisions, as an informed group. Have we made mistakes, allowing some bad technologies to live and some good ones to die on the vine? I’ll leave that up to each of you to decide.
Where are we now?
Once again we find ourselves at a crossroad, trying to decide which of many technology-paved paths to take. Many of them could lead us to a nanotech-enabled, globe-spanning, prosperous future, where no person is treated as having less value than another. A future where the few don’t get to decide for the many. Where everyone is heard, anyone can speak, and decisions-makers listen.
Because more and more of us are paying attention to and participating in the debate surrounding nanotech-enabled technologies, I am hopeful that we are traveling down the better paths.
In Closing, let me hammer home this point, yet again (I will undoubtedly do so again, and probably many times, right up to the point where it doesn’t matter, one way of the other):
No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale societal change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided and immediate attention.
Will we be ready?
One of the best places to stay informed about preparing for advanced nanotechnologies is at The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (crnano.org).
Find news and information about nanotechnologies at Nanotech Now (nanotech-now.com)
Read entire article at
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2008/02/religion-nanote.html
“For a significant percentage of Americans, the answer is no, according to a recent survey of Americans' attitudes about the science of the very small.” The survey, by Dietram Scheufele, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of life sciences communication, shows that “religion exerts far more influence on public views of technology in the United States than in Europe.”
To understand where the nano-nay-sayers come from, note especially this paragraph describing just what nanotechnology is, and see if in fact it differs from any other set of technologies, hundreds of which enable our current life style:
“Nanotechnology is a branch of science and engineering devoted to the design and production of materials, structures, devices and circuits at the smallest achievable scale, typically in the realm of individual atoms and molecules.”
Hmmmmmm… just science. Can’t blame the science, nor the resulting technologies, for things we don’t like. Blame perhaps each of us for not participating in the decisions that can enable or stifle new technologies.
“In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable.”
Let me go out on a limb and state that these folks equate anything “not occurring in nature” as unnatural. Have they given even the smallest bit of thought to the many “unnatural” bits and pieces found in everyday 21st Century life? Things such as, oh, let’s see….. most modern medicine (diagnosis and treatment), the vast majority of technologies that create functional items from base materials and components, etc. Almost everything we do and see and eat owes some part of its existence to one or more “unnatural” elements.
My point? Do not equate the science nor the resulting technologies with how they will be used and how they effect society. Science is neither good nor bad. (Geez, how many times have we heard that. Did we all pay attention? Apparently not everyone.) Good and bad come from our use of technologies, for instance by allowing some to be used to impinge on another’s rights. Just google “Genocide” to get an idea of what I mean.
Are there some technologies that we should ban? Excellent question, glad I asked. Absolutely. The world, as a body, has banned the use of some weapons of mass destruction, such as nerve gas. So yes, we can make “morality-based” decisions, as an informed group. Have we made mistakes, allowing some bad technologies to live and some good ones to die on the vine? I’ll leave that up to each of you to decide.
Where are we now?
Once again we find ourselves at a crossroad, trying to decide which of many technology-paved paths to take. Many of them could lead us to a nanotech-enabled, globe-spanning, prosperous future, where no person is treated as having less value than another. A future where the few don’t get to decide for the many. Where everyone is heard, anyone can speak, and decisions-makers listen.
Because more and more of us are paying attention to and participating in the debate surrounding nanotech-enabled technologies, I am hopeful that we are traveling down the better paths.
In Closing, let me hammer home this point, yet again (I will undoubtedly do so again, and probably many times, right up to the point where it doesn’t matter, one way of the other):
No informed person doubts that developments at the nanoscale will be significant. We debate the time frame, the magnitude and the possibilities, but not the likelihood for large-scale societal change. The least-speculative views suggest that we're in for changes of an order that justifies--if not demands--our undivided and immediate attention.
Will we be ready?
One of the best places to stay informed about preparing for advanced nanotechnologies is at The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (crnano.org).
Find news and information about nanotechnologies at Nanotech Now (nanotech-now.com)
Read entire article at
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2008/02/religion-nanote.html
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Interesting Bits
A great bit on the Singularity starts with an article by Michael Anissimov, and follows up with a discussion. Read about how “The word “Singularity” has been losing meaning for a while now” and “Rather than any single idea, Singularity has become a signifier used to refer to a general cluster of ideas, some interrelated; some, blatantly not. These ideas include: exponential growth, transhuman intelligence, mind uploading, singletons, popularity of the Internet, feasibility of life extension, some developmentally predetermined “next step in human evolution”, feasibility of strong AI, feasibility of advanced nanotechnology, some odd spiritual-esque transcension, and whether or not human development is primarily dictated by technological or social forces."
"Quite frankly, it’s a mess.” To which I’d agree, in the sense that there are many opposing points of view and conflicting ideologies as to make this a topic that will remain contentious, and worth reading about.
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=504
----------------------------
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology announced “a series of professional-quality scenarios of a near-future world in which exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing becomes a reality.”
As a participant in the first CRN Task Force Scenario Project I would like to invite readers to consider these “what ifs” as worthwhile reading for anyone wishing to expand their understanding of advanced nanotechnologies and their implications.
And for those of you who would like to step off the sidelines and get in the game, consider this “You can participate in a discussion of these scenarios (and anything else you'd like to bring up) by joining our CRN-talk Yahoo group.”
http://www.crnano.org/CTF-Scenarios.htm
"Quite frankly, it’s a mess.” To which I’d agree, in the sense that there are many opposing points of view and conflicting ideologies as to make this a topic that will remain contentious, and worth reading about.
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/?p=504
----------------------------
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology announced “a series of professional-quality scenarios of a near-future world in which exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing becomes a reality.”
As a participant in the first CRN Task Force Scenario Project I would like to invite readers to consider these “what ifs” as worthwhile reading for anyone wishing to expand their understanding of advanced nanotechnologies and their implications.
And for those of you who would like to step off the sidelines and get in the game, consider this “You can participate in a discussion of these scenarios (and anything else you'd like to bring up) by joining our CRN-talk Yahoo group.”
http://www.crnano.org/CTF-Scenarios.htm
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Weekly Roundup
Here are some of the news bits that caught my eye this week:
Students from the competition's NanoFresh group had their own innovative ideas. The team presented a water purifying mechanism designed for backpackers, travelers and commercial facilities such as schools and offices. According to team member Lyle Kaplan-Reinig, a fourth-year chemical engineering major, the group's goal for the product was for it be an easy-to-use household mechanism that eliminates harmful carcinogenic compounds found in tap water.
The first-place winner of the final competition will receive $10,000 to start up their business. Another $23,000 will be given out for the various other prizes.
RR: This is a great way to generate the next batch of technologies and products. Enable our country’s best and brightest young minds with a little cash incentive. While the dollar amounts are low, they do serve as an incentive, and are, at the very least, a step in the right direction. Anything we (the previous batches of "young minds") can do that serves to set free these young minds will be to our benefit.
From: Contest Finalists Display Inventions
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13762
It’s a big feat of the tiniest proportions. Simon Fraser University’s Nano Imaging Lab has produced the world’s smallest published book. At 0.07 mm X 0.10 mm, Teeny Ted from Turnip Town is a tinier read than the two smallest books currently cited by the Guinness Book of World Records.
RR: This latest nanotrek (an adventure into the nanoscale) serves to illustrate our ever-expanding ability to control the nanoscale.
From: Nano lab produces world’s smallest book
http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/news_releases/archives/news04110701.htm
image here: http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1773.php
Deformable, spherical aggregates of metal nanoparticles connected by long-chain dithiol ligands self-assemble into nanostructured materials of macroscopic dimensions. These materials are plastic and moldable against arbitrarily shaped masters and can be thermally hardened into polycrystalline metal structures of controllable porosity. In addition, in both plastic and hardened states, the assemblies are electrically conductive and exhibit Ohmic characteristics down to 20 volts per meter. The self-assembly method leading to such materials is applicable both to pure metals and to bimetallic structures of various elemental compositions.
RR: Yes, I know, that paragraph is a mouthful. What it means to me is that once again we’ve discovered a new way to create materials that may enable a whole new range of products. Harkening back to The Graduate, the phrase "I just want to say one word to you -just one word. ‘Plastics’" comes to mind, only this time with a nanotech twist. Our understanding of the nanoscale, and the often-unique phenomena found there, is looking more and more likely to enable a new generation of plastics. This news bit is just one of many recent articles that supports that assumption.
From:
Plastic and Moldable Metals by Self-Assembly of Sticky Nanoparticle Aggregates
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21888
The stretching alignment technique is applicable to a broad range of SWNT experiments where orientation is important, particularly in optics. The work should further our current understanding of how nanotubes interact with light, with important practical applications in optical sensing and the manipulation of individual nanotubes using electromagnetic fields.
RR: Getting nanotubes to do what we want remains one of the main logjams in commercializing products that incorporate them.
From: Stretching exercises shed new light on nanotubes
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21886
NCR Corp. is spinning off a new company that is developing a technology capable of combating the counterfeiting of cash, pharmaceuticals and military parts, the new company's CEO said Thursday.
Prime is developing a nano-technology that has its origins in NCR labs, Ricci said. Essentially, the process — known as LumID or luminescent identifier — creates very tiny glass beads with "chemical tags" allowing whatever has been embedded with the beads to be accurately identified, he said.
RR: Anti-counterfeiting may prove to be one of the nanotechnologies that brings greater public acceptance to an often contentious yet unrelated group of advanced technologies. Several stridently vocal anti-technology groups have been tarring all nanotechnologies with the same brush, effectively and unfairly equating those that may have downsides to all others.
From: NCR spins off company to combat counterfeit cash
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21883
Civil Society-Labor Coalition issues an open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large:To All Interested Parties:We, the undersigned, submit this open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large. We are a coalition of public interest, non-profit and labor organizations that actively work on nanotechnology issues, including workplace safety, consumer health, environmental welfare, and broader societal impacts.
RR: The Civil Society-Labor Coalition weighs in on the latest proposal by DuPont Chemical Company (DuPont) and Environmental Defense (ED) for "a voluntary ‘risk assessment’ framework for nanotechnology." Yes, they do make some good points, such as "Nanotechnology’s rapid commercialization requires focused environmental, health and safety research, meaningful and open discussion of broader societal impacts." However, saying "We strongly object to any process in which broad public participation in government oversight of nanotech policy is usurped by industry and its allies" is putting the cart before the horse; why does the DuPont/ED framework necessarily mean that broad public participation will go by the wayside? Of course it doesn’t, and there are efforts, here and abroad, to engage the public (visit www.nanotech-now.com/preparing-for-nanotechnology.htm to read about some of them). Are those efforts enough? I don’t know, and neither (I suspect) does the Civil Society-Labor Coalition.
From: Activist groups reject DuPont-ED nanotechnology risk framework
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21875
Mihail Roco, the National Science Foundation's senior advisor for nanotechnology and key architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, visited Rice's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) this spring for a three-day conference on nanotechnology-enabled water treatment. During his visit, Roco discussed the conference, CBEN and the future of U.S. nanotechnology with Rice News' Science Editor Jade Boyd.
RR: This bit goes to illustrate a beneficial use of one nanotechnology; the treatment of water. I recommend this article be read in full. Roco doesn’t sugar-coat the need to prepare for potentially negative environmental effects, and in fact, he’s speaking at the leading R&D center that was created just for that purpose, and talks about the need to prepare.
From: The future of nanotechnology
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=9459&SnID=193827417
The year is 2027 and you're feeling decidedly unwell. Suspecting something a little more sinister than a common cold, your GP takes a sample of your saliva with a small dipstick-shaped implement coated in sensitive high-tech nanoparticles.
The colour change of the nano-particles instantly identifies the nature of the problem. The bad news is that you have a potentially debilitating genetic disease. The good news is that your doctor can quickly prescribe a customized treatment: several billion specialized nanoparticles which will enter your bloodstream and modify the offending gene at the molecular level.
RR: This ties in nicely with my "Interview with NanoTumor Center" – see (1), and "Nanomedicine at Johns Hopkins" – see (2), and "Nanomedicine Today" – see (3). And don’t be surprised to see these and other "nanomedicines" well before 2027.
From: Nano scientists make huge advances
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21853
(1) http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2007/03/interview-with-nanotumor-center.html
(2) http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2007/03/nanomedicine-at-johns-hopkins.html
(3) http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2007/01/nanomedicine-today.html
In order to assist high school students to think about the future with nanotechnology the Clarion University nanotechnology program and the art department are sponsoring a digital art contest, "Nanotechnology and the Environment for High School Students."
"The contest asks students to digitally illustrate what they think the future of nanotechnology and the environment hold. What will the effect of nanotechnology be on the environment? Will it solve our pollution and climate change problems or create environmental disasters undreamed of before? Only student creativity can tell us."
RR: This is one way to gauge public perceptions regarding nanotech.
From: Clarion University sponsors nanotechnology digital art contest
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21796
Venture capitalist, scientist and newsletter advisor, Josh Wolfe - in The Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report - looks at two favorite buys in the sector. In this case, he is selecting stocks that make the high-tech tools needed by researchers involved in nanotech.
RR: Who is making money in nanotech in these early days? Tool makers, of course.
From: A trio of experts looks at nanotech
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21791
Starpharma Holdings Limited makes and develops its products using nanotechnology. Its main drug is called VivaGel, a gel-based microbicide designed to protect women from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. The gel has made it through Phase 1 clinical trials, and the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has even granted the drug fast-track status — and fast-track designation is nothing to scoff at.
RR: Great news, both in terms of a product that holds huge potential, and for the fact that it has received fast-tract status (meaning that the approval process could take a decade or more less time).
From: Starpharma Holdings Limited’s VivaGel on the Fast Track to the Market
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21785
The Deal's Tech Confidential was released last week and profiled five clean technologies that venture capitalists are showing increased interest in. Here's a quick rundown on those technologies and some venture-funded startups working in each area…
RR: Another positive indicator that clean technologies are starting (finally!) to garner the investment attention they deserve. Does anyone really not understand that we need more than one solution to all the problems generated by our use of and addiction to foreign oil?
From: 5 clean technologies drawing intense VC interest
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21770
For custom reports on nanotech and cleantech news and developments, please contact me at rocky at access-nanotechnology.com
Contact me at the same address to discuss a complimentary evaluation of your project needs. Or visit http://access-nanotechnology.com/
Students from the competition's NanoFresh group had their own innovative ideas. The team presented a water purifying mechanism designed for backpackers, travelers and commercial facilities such as schools and offices. According to team member Lyle Kaplan-Reinig, a fourth-year chemical engineering major, the group's goal for the product was for it be an easy-to-use household mechanism that eliminates harmful carcinogenic compounds found in tap water.
The first-place winner of the final competition will receive $10,000 to start up their business. Another $23,000 will be given out for the various other prizes.
RR: This is a great way to generate the next batch of technologies and products. Enable our country’s best and brightest young minds with a little cash incentive. While the dollar amounts are low, they do serve as an incentive, and are, at the very least, a step in the right direction. Anything we (the previous batches of "young minds") can do that serves to set free these young minds will be to our benefit.
From: Contest Finalists Display Inventions
http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=13762
It’s a big feat of the tiniest proportions. Simon Fraser University’s Nano Imaging Lab has produced the world’s smallest published book. At 0.07 mm X 0.10 mm, Teeny Ted from Turnip Town is a tinier read than the two smallest books currently cited by the Guinness Book of World Records.
RR: This latest nanotrek (an adventure into the nanoscale) serves to illustrate our ever-expanding ability to control the nanoscale.
From: Nano lab produces world’s smallest book
http://www.sfu.ca/mediapr/news_releases/archives/news04110701.htm
image here: http://www.nanowerk.com/news/newsid=1773.php
Deformable, spherical aggregates of metal nanoparticles connected by long-chain dithiol ligands self-assemble into nanostructured materials of macroscopic dimensions. These materials are plastic and moldable against arbitrarily shaped masters and can be thermally hardened into polycrystalline metal structures of controllable porosity. In addition, in both plastic and hardened states, the assemblies are electrically conductive and exhibit Ohmic characteristics down to 20 volts per meter. The self-assembly method leading to such materials is applicable both to pure metals and to bimetallic structures of various elemental compositions.
RR: Yes, I know, that paragraph is a mouthful. What it means to me is that once again we’ve discovered a new way to create materials that may enable a whole new range of products. Harkening back to The Graduate, the phrase "I just want to say one word to you -just one word. ‘Plastics’" comes to mind, only this time with a nanotech twist. Our understanding of the nanoscale, and the often-unique phenomena found there, is looking more and more likely to enable a new generation of plastics. This news bit is just one of many recent articles that supports that assumption.
From:
Plastic and Moldable Metals by Self-Assembly of Sticky Nanoparticle Aggregates
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21888
The stretching alignment technique is applicable to a broad range of SWNT experiments where orientation is important, particularly in optics. The work should further our current understanding of how nanotubes interact with light, with important practical applications in optical sensing and the manipulation of individual nanotubes using electromagnetic fields.
RR: Getting nanotubes to do what we want remains one of the main logjams in commercializing products that incorporate them.
From: Stretching exercises shed new light on nanotubes
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21886
NCR Corp. is spinning off a new company that is developing a technology capable of combating the counterfeiting of cash, pharmaceuticals and military parts, the new company's CEO said Thursday.
Prime is developing a nano-technology that has its origins in NCR labs, Ricci said. Essentially, the process — known as LumID or luminescent identifier — creates very tiny glass beads with "chemical tags" allowing whatever has been embedded with the beads to be accurately identified, he said.
RR: Anti-counterfeiting may prove to be one of the nanotechnologies that brings greater public acceptance to an often contentious yet unrelated group of advanced technologies. Several stridently vocal anti-technology groups have been tarring all nanotechnologies with the same brush, effectively and unfairly equating those that may have downsides to all others.
From: NCR spins off company to combat counterfeit cash
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21883
Civil Society-Labor Coalition issues an open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large:To All Interested Parties:We, the undersigned, submit this open letter to the international nanotechnology community at large. We are a coalition of public interest, non-profit and labor organizations that actively work on nanotechnology issues, including workplace safety, consumer health, environmental welfare, and broader societal impacts.
RR: The Civil Society-Labor Coalition weighs in on the latest proposal by DuPont Chemical Company (DuPont) and Environmental Defense (ED) for "a voluntary ‘risk assessment’ framework for nanotechnology." Yes, they do make some good points, such as "Nanotechnology’s rapid commercialization requires focused environmental, health and safety research, meaningful and open discussion of broader societal impacts." However, saying "We strongly object to any process in which broad public participation in government oversight of nanotech policy is usurped by industry and its allies" is putting the cart before the horse; why does the DuPont/ED framework necessarily mean that broad public participation will go by the wayside? Of course it doesn’t, and there are efforts, here and abroad, to engage the public (visit www.nanotech-now.com/preparing-for-nanotechnology.htm to read about some of them). Are those efforts enough? I don’t know, and neither (I suspect) does the Civil Society-Labor Coalition.
From: Activist groups reject DuPont-ED nanotechnology risk framework
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21875
Mihail Roco, the National Science Foundation's senior advisor for nanotechnology and key architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, visited Rice's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) this spring for a three-day conference on nanotechnology-enabled water treatment. During his visit, Roco discussed the conference, CBEN and the future of U.S. nanotechnology with Rice News' Science Editor Jade Boyd.
RR: This bit goes to illustrate a beneficial use of one nanotechnology; the treatment of water. I recommend this article be read in full. Roco doesn’t sugar-coat the need to prepare for potentially negative environmental effects, and in fact, he’s speaking at the leading R&D center that was created just for that purpose, and talks about the need to prepare.
From: The future of nanotechnology
http://www.media.rice.edu/media/NewsBot.asp?MODE=VIEW&ID=9459&SnID=193827417
The year is 2027 and you're feeling decidedly unwell. Suspecting something a little more sinister than a common cold, your GP takes a sample of your saliva with a small dipstick-shaped implement coated in sensitive high-tech nanoparticles.
The colour change of the nano-particles instantly identifies the nature of the problem. The bad news is that you have a potentially debilitating genetic disease. The good news is that your doctor can quickly prescribe a customized treatment: several billion specialized nanoparticles which will enter your bloodstream and modify the offending gene at the molecular level.
RR: This ties in nicely with my "Interview with NanoTumor Center" – see (1), and "Nanomedicine at Johns Hopkins" – see (2), and "Nanomedicine Today" – see (3). And don’t be surprised to see these and other "nanomedicines" well before 2027.
From: Nano scientists make huge advances
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21853
(1) http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2007/03/interview-with-nanotumor-center.html
(2) http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2007/03/nanomedicine-at-johns-hopkins.html
(3) http://nanoscale-materials-and-nanotechnolog.blogspot.com/2007/01/nanomedicine-today.html
In order to assist high school students to think about the future with nanotechnology the Clarion University nanotechnology program and the art department are sponsoring a digital art contest, "Nanotechnology and the Environment for High School Students."
"The contest asks students to digitally illustrate what they think the future of nanotechnology and the environment hold. What will the effect of nanotechnology be on the environment? Will it solve our pollution and climate change problems or create environmental disasters undreamed of before? Only student creativity can tell us."
RR: This is one way to gauge public perceptions regarding nanotech.
From: Clarion University sponsors nanotechnology digital art contest
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21796
Venture capitalist, scientist and newsletter advisor, Josh Wolfe - in The Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report - looks at two favorite buys in the sector. In this case, he is selecting stocks that make the high-tech tools needed by researchers involved in nanotech.
RR: Who is making money in nanotech in these early days? Tool makers, of course.
From: A trio of experts looks at nanotech
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21791
Starpharma Holdings Limited makes and develops its products using nanotechnology. Its main drug is called VivaGel, a gel-based microbicide designed to protect women from sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. The gel has made it through Phase 1 clinical trials, and the United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has even granted the drug fast-track status — and fast-track designation is nothing to scoff at.
RR: Great news, both in terms of a product that holds huge potential, and for the fact that it has received fast-tract status (meaning that the approval process could take a decade or more less time).
From: Starpharma Holdings Limited’s VivaGel on the Fast Track to the Market
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21785
The Deal's Tech Confidential was released last week and profiled five clean technologies that venture capitalists are showing increased interest in. Here's a quick rundown on those technologies and some venture-funded startups working in each area…
RR: Another positive indicator that clean technologies are starting (finally!) to garner the investment attention they deserve. Does anyone really not understand that we need more than one solution to all the problems generated by our use of and addiction to foreign oil?
From: 5 clean technologies drawing intense VC interest
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21770
For custom reports on nanotech and cleantech news and developments, please contact me at rocky at access-nanotechnology.com
Contact me at the same address to discuss a complimentary evaluation of your project needs. Or visit http://access-nanotechnology.com/
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Nanotechnology Predictions
Today I thought I’d hit you with a few of my favorite predictions and statistics. While I do not necessarily agree with them all, I do respect the groups and individuals that produced them, and therefore believe that we need to pay attention to them. When taken as a whole, I believe they indicate that great deal of expedient thought needs to be given the field of nanotechnology. If there is one “for sure” you can take away from this, it is that nanotechnologies have the potential to impact society in ways both profound and unfathomable. The time to start planning for the consequent disruptive change is now.
"This technology (nanotechnology) also holds the promise of broad societal implications. By 2015, products in which nanotechnology plays a key role will require more than 2 million workers and produce about $1 trillion in products annually. These estimates are from leading experts in large companies with related nanotechnology programs in the United States, Japan and Europe."
~Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor, NSF and Chair, U.S. National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060205/OPINION/602050382/1002
"Nanotechnology is approaching a phase change that will see it spread exponentially across manufactured goods in the next 10 years. In 2004, $13 billion worth of products will incorporate emerging nanotechnology, less than one-tenth of 1% of global manufacturing output. In 2014, we project that this figure will rise to $2.6 trillion -- 15% of manufacturing output in that year."
From: Sizing Nanotechnology's Value Chain
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=1248
“Energy is the largest business in the world. The growing thirst for fossil-fuel based energy by developing economies in Asia, compounded by political strife in energy-rich areas of the world, has created an unprecedented demand and a volatile supply. Solar energy has long been recognized as a potential solution - 175,000 terawatts of solar energy hit the earth every day, three-thousand times the amount we would need to power the entire world. Nanotechnology is at the forefront of solar cell development from the mechanism from capturing light to the means to convert it into electricity and conduct the power to the devices that need it.”
From: NanoBusiness 2007 to Focus on CleanTech, Highlighting Nanotechnology’s Role in Improving the Environment
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070321005760&newsLang=en
“U.S. demand for nanotechnology medical products will increase over 17 percent per year to $53 billion in 2011, says The Freedonia Group, Inc., a Cleveland-based industry research firm. Afterwards, the increasing flow of new nanomedicines, nanodiagnostics, and nanotech-based medical supplies and devices into the US market will boost demand to more than $110 billion in 2016.”
From: Demand for nanotech-based medicine grows
http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ONART&C=Bio&ARTICLE_ID=287462&p=109
To view more worthwhile quotes, visit the Quotes page at my consulting team site.
"This technology (nanotechnology) also holds the promise of broad societal implications. By 2015, products in which nanotechnology plays a key role will require more than 2 million workers and produce about $1 trillion in products annually. These estimates are from leading experts in large companies with related nanotechnology programs in the United States, Japan and Europe."
~Mihail C. Roco, Senior Advisor, NSF and Chair, U.S. National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology. http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060205/OPINION/602050382/1002
"Nanotechnology is approaching a phase change that will see it spread exponentially across manufactured goods in the next 10 years. In 2004, $13 billion worth of products will incorporate emerging nanotechnology, less than one-tenth of 1% of global manufacturing output. In 2014, we project that this figure will rise to $2.6 trillion -- 15% of manufacturing output in that year."
From: Sizing Nanotechnology's Value Chain
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=1248
“Energy is the largest business in the world. The growing thirst for fossil-fuel based energy by developing economies in Asia, compounded by political strife in energy-rich areas of the world, has created an unprecedented demand and a volatile supply. Solar energy has long been recognized as a potential solution - 175,000 terawatts of solar energy hit the earth every day, three-thousand times the amount we would need to power the entire world. Nanotechnology is at the forefront of solar cell development from the mechanism from capturing light to the means to convert it into electricity and conduct the power to the devices that need it.”
From: NanoBusiness 2007 to Focus on CleanTech, Highlighting Nanotechnology’s Role in Improving the Environment
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070321005760&newsLang=en
“U.S. demand for nanotechnology medical products will increase over 17 percent per year to $53 billion in 2011, says The Freedonia Group, Inc., a Cleveland-based industry research firm. Afterwards, the increasing flow of new nanomedicines, nanodiagnostics, and nanotech-based medical supplies and devices into the US market will boost demand to more than $110 billion in 2016.”
From: Demand for nanotech-based medicine grows
http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display.cfm?Section=ONART&C=Bio&ARTICLE_ID=287462&p=109
To view more worthwhile quotes, visit the Quotes page at my consulting team site.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
NanoEthics today
My friend and colleague Patrick Lin is the Research Director for The Nanoethics Group. Quoting from their website:
"The Nanoethics Group is a non-partisan and independent organization that studies the ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology. We also engage the public as well as collaborate with nanotech ventures and research institutes on related issues that will impact the industry. By proactively opening a dialogue about the possible misuses and unintended consequences of nanotechnology, the industry can avoid the mistakes that others have made repeatedly in business, most recently in the biotech sector - ignoring the issues, reacting too late and losing the critical battle of public opinion."
From my point of view, Patrick is an intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable speaker for his cause; one which I fully support. So it was a great pleasure to hear that TNG has recently spoken at the Cal/EPA Nanotechnology Symposium, where Patrick presented "Understanding the Debate: A Critical Look at Reasons For and Against More Regulation in Nanotechnology."
And now quoting from their press release regarding (1) the symposium:
"Dr. Lin will explain the overarching argument for stricter laws and regulations in nanotechnology as well as evaluate its initial plausibility. He will then provide analysis for five main objections to the argument, with a focus on the two strongest objections: 1) the Self-Regulation objection that it is better for the nano-industry to regulate itself, rather than have new rules imposed by government agencies less familiar with the industry or nanotech; and 2) the Other Harms objection that new rules would stunt the growth of a nascent nano-industry, causing economic damage and other harms."
As a follow-up to the symposium, TNG produced a PDF (2) covering Patrick’s slide show. You will get a nice overview of TNG’s positions regarding the crucial issues surrounding nanotechnology. One of the points that I take away from the PDF is their statement that "We’re not activists, advocates or watchdogs," which I find to be both factual and a policy that makes them a bit more credible than those with an ax to grind.
I encourage you to read through the material provided by TNG (links below). Once you have read it, you will be a great deal more informed regarding why we need to pay attention to nanotechnologies. You will also be better able to take part in the debate; a debate that all stakeholders (anyone who has a vested interest in a goal; that’s you and I and everyone else who lives on Planet Earth) need to pay attention to.
(1) http://www.nanoethics.org/rls022007.html
(2) http://www.nanoethics.org/slides.pdf
"The Nanoethics Group is a non-partisan and independent organization that studies the ethical and societal implications of nanotechnology. We also engage the public as well as collaborate with nanotech ventures and research institutes on related issues that will impact the industry. By proactively opening a dialogue about the possible misuses and unintended consequences of nanotechnology, the industry can avoid the mistakes that others have made repeatedly in business, most recently in the biotech sector - ignoring the issues, reacting too late and losing the critical battle of public opinion."
From my point of view, Patrick is an intelligent, articulate and knowledgeable speaker for his cause; one which I fully support. So it was a great pleasure to hear that TNG has recently spoken at the Cal/EPA Nanotechnology Symposium, where Patrick presented "Understanding the Debate: A Critical Look at Reasons For and Against More Regulation in Nanotechnology."
And now quoting from their press release regarding (1) the symposium:
"Dr. Lin will explain the overarching argument for stricter laws and regulations in nanotechnology as well as evaluate its initial plausibility. He will then provide analysis for five main objections to the argument, with a focus on the two strongest objections: 1) the Self-Regulation objection that it is better for the nano-industry to regulate itself, rather than have new rules imposed by government agencies less familiar with the industry or nanotech; and 2) the Other Harms objection that new rules would stunt the growth of a nascent nano-industry, causing economic damage and other harms."
As a follow-up to the symposium, TNG produced a PDF (2) covering Patrick’s slide show. You will get a nice overview of TNG’s positions regarding the crucial issues surrounding nanotechnology. One of the points that I take away from the PDF is their statement that "We’re not activists, advocates or watchdogs," which I find to be both factual and a policy that makes them a bit more credible than those with an ax to grind.
I encourage you to read through the material provided by TNG (links below). Once you have read it, you will be a great deal more informed regarding why we need to pay attention to nanotechnologies. You will also be better able to take part in the debate; a debate that all stakeholders (anyone who has a vested interest in a goal; that’s you and I and everyone else who lives on Planet Earth) need to pay attention to.
(1) http://www.nanoethics.org/rls022007.html
(2) http://www.nanoethics.org/slides.pdf
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Regulation, risk management, safety and ethics
Following on the theme of "perceptions" from yesterday’s post, today I would like to cover more on regulation, risk management, safety and ethics. These are topics that I will cover on a regular basis.
The following are excerpts from the first week of February, 2007.
"Nanotechnology—the so-called "science of the small"—is raising some really big questions about the adequacy of the current federal oversight system. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is grappling with understanding the jurisdiction and applicability of major laws, like the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), with respect to nanotechnology. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating the effectiveness of the agency's regulatory approaches and authorities to meet the potential unique challenges presented by the use of nanomaterials in FDA-regulated products, and the agency expects to issue its findings in July 2007."
(From: Nanotechnology: Thinking Big About Things Small http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21015)
"A Swiss firm is offering the first process risk management and safety certification for pharma companies working with nanoparticles and technologies. A Swiss firm is offering the first process risk management and safety certification for pharma companies working with nanoparticles and technologies."
(From: World's first nanospecific safety label http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?n=74792-the-innovation-society-cenarios-nanotechnology-safety-drug-delivery)
"Despite the potential benefits to agrifood producers, retailers and consumers, nanotechnology’s applications in the food industry are a reason for concern for many. Stone points out that privacy and control issues associated with agrifood and nanotechnology are likely to be among several hot-button issues."
(From: Old food meets new technologies, leaves food for thought
http://msutoday.msu.edu/research/index.php3?article=02Mar2007-5)
"A greater understanding of the interaction of nanomaterials with biological systems, especially of the interaction of nanomaterials with cell membranes, will enable scientists to take full advantage of the unique properties of nanomaterials while minimizing their adverse effects."
(From: The challenge of designing nanomaterials with reduced toxicity http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=20890)
"The NEW Precise(TM) HEPA-Filtered Glove Boxes provide a physical barrier to protect the operator form hazardous airborne particulates and powders. These economical boxes have uses in pharmaceutical research, nanotechnology and biochemistry applications."
(From: Glove Boxes protect user from hazardous particulates http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/509859/1424)
"There are two kinds of ethicists. The first kind makes you think about what it is you want, and why. The second kind tells you what you should want. The first kind of ethicist is very valuable. The second can be damaging."
(From: Exploring Nano-Ethics http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/phoenix20070227/)
For custom reports in your areas of interest, contact me at rocky at bir-consulting.com
The following are excerpts from the first week of February, 2007.
"Nanotechnology—the so-called "science of the small"—is raising some really big questions about the adequacy of the current federal oversight system. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is grappling with understanding the jurisdiction and applicability of major laws, like the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), with respect to nanotechnology. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is evaluating the effectiveness of the agency's regulatory approaches and authorities to meet the potential unique challenges presented by the use of nanomaterials in FDA-regulated products, and the agency expects to issue its findings in July 2007."
(From: Nanotechnology: Thinking Big About Things Small http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=21015)
"A Swiss firm is offering the first process risk management and safety certification for pharma companies working with nanoparticles and technologies. A Swiss firm is offering the first process risk management and safety certification for pharma companies working with nanoparticles and technologies."
(From: World's first nanospecific safety label http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?n=74792-the-innovation-society-cenarios-nanotechnology-safety-drug-delivery)
"Despite the potential benefits to agrifood producers, retailers and consumers, nanotechnology’s applications in the food industry are a reason for concern for many. Stone points out that privacy and control issues associated with agrifood and nanotechnology are likely to be among several hot-button issues."
(From: Old food meets new technologies, leaves food for thought
http://msutoday.msu.edu/research/index.php3?article=02Mar2007-5)
"A greater understanding of the interaction of nanomaterials with biological systems, especially of the interaction of nanomaterials with cell membranes, will enable scientists to take full advantage of the unique properties of nanomaterials while minimizing their adverse effects."
(From: The challenge of designing nanomaterials with reduced toxicity http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=20890)
"The NEW Precise(TM) HEPA-Filtered Glove Boxes provide a physical barrier to protect the operator form hazardous airborne particulates and powders. These economical boxes have uses in pharmaceutical research, nanotechnology and biochemistry applications."
(From: Glove Boxes protect user from hazardous particulates http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/509859/1424)
"There are two kinds of ethicists. The first kind makes you think about what it is you want, and why. The second kind tells you what you should want. The first kind of ethicist is very valuable. The second can be damaging."
(From: Exploring Nano-Ethics http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/phoenix20070227/)
For custom reports in your areas of interest, contact me at rocky at bir-consulting.com
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
How is nanotechnology perceived?
Several articles on how nanotechnology is perceived by the public crossed my desk this morning, so I thought I would pass along a few pertinent excerpts.
"According to a recent Eurobarometer, Europeans do not perceive nanotech as risky; rather, they support its development, perceive it as being useful to society and morally acceptable and have far greater confidence in regulation than for example their transatlantic counterparts in the US or Canada.
Everybody agrees that more research on the health and environmental risks posed by nanoparticles is needed to be sure that asbestos-type disasters will not come back to haunt nanotech companies in the future.
Consumer confidence and public trust in nanotech are also directly linked with access to understandable information on the technology. Such information will allow people to understand what nanotechnology is, how it will be applied and its implications for society. Involving citizens with science policymaking through an open debate and analysis of benefits and risks (both real and perceived) of nanotech have been highlighted as one way forward in regulating nanotech."
(From Nanotechnology and consumer confidence http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotechnology-consumer-confidence/article-161268
"The U.S. public's perception of nanotechnology is up for grabs," said Yale University Professor Dan Kahan, one of the online survey's investigators. "It could divide along the lines of nuclear power, global warming and other contentious environmental issues, absent a major public education and engagement effort by industry, government, civic groups and scientists."
(From Survey finds nanotechnology attitudes vary http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070307-10034000-bc-us-nanotechnology.xml
"As the emerging field of nanotechnology enters the public consciousness, mass media play an important role in shaping public attitudes about the new science. …newspapers and the Internet help people better understand nanotechnology research, but television news accounts have a more emotional effect."
(From Media effects on public attitudes toward nanotechnology
http://www.news.wisc.edu/13534.html)
"…when it comes to nanotechnology, Lakhtakia and his colleagues found most people aren't paying much attention. Or, if they are aware of the field, their reactions are too often overly enthusiastic, uninformed or alarmist."
(From Most people nanotechnology ignorant
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070122-15323700-bc-us-nanotechnology.xml)
"Control and tighter regulations are required to make nanotechnology safer, proclaimed the U.N. on 5th February 2007. UNEP (U.N.'s Environment Program) in its yearly report on global environment said, swift action from the policy makers was the need of the hour so as to allow the proper evaluation of new science."
(From Nanotechnology Needs Tighter Control
http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/14937/)
And listen to the debate points as they are being considered by our cousins down under at:
The Implications for Health, Safety and the Environment of the Nanotech Revolution
Total running time 33 mins, File size: 13.4Mb, File Type: mp3 (www.azonano.com/podcasts/nano.mp3)
I also recommend the magazine Nanotechnology Perceptions - A Review of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology. See http://pages.unibas.ch/colbas/ntp/ for details.
"According to a recent Eurobarometer, Europeans do not perceive nanotech as risky; rather, they support its development, perceive it as being useful to society and morally acceptable and have far greater confidence in regulation than for example their transatlantic counterparts in the US or Canada.
Everybody agrees that more research on the health and environmental risks posed by nanoparticles is needed to be sure that asbestos-type disasters will not come back to haunt nanotech companies in the future.
Consumer confidence and public trust in nanotech are also directly linked with access to understandable information on the technology. Such information will allow people to understand what nanotechnology is, how it will be applied and its implications for society. Involving citizens with science policymaking through an open debate and analysis of benefits and risks (both real and perceived) of nanotech have been highlighted as one way forward in regulating nanotech."
(From Nanotechnology and consumer confidence http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/nanotechnology-consumer-confidence/article-161268
"The U.S. public's perception of nanotechnology is up for grabs," said Yale University Professor Dan Kahan, one of the online survey's investigators. "It could divide along the lines of nuclear power, global warming and other contentious environmental issues, absent a major public education and engagement effort by industry, government, civic groups and scientists."
(From Survey finds nanotechnology attitudes vary http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070307-10034000-bc-us-nanotechnology.xml
"As the emerging field of nanotechnology enters the public consciousness, mass media play an important role in shaping public attitudes about the new science. …newspapers and the Internet help people better understand nanotechnology research, but television news accounts have a more emotional effect."
(From Media effects on public attitudes toward nanotechnology
http://www.news.wisc.edu/13534.html)
"…when it comes to nanotechnology, Lakhtakia and his colleagues found most people aren't paying much attention. Or, if they are aware of the field, their reactions are too often overly enthusiastic, uninformed or alarmist."
(From Most people nanotechnology ignorant
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Science&article=UPI-1-20070122-15323700-bc-us-nanotechnology.xml)
"Control and tighter regulations are required to make nanotechnology safer, proclaimed the U.N. on 5th February 2007. UNEP (U.N.'s Environment Program) in its yearly report on global environment said, swift action from the policy makers was the need of the hour so as to allow the proper evaluation of new science."
(From Nanotechnology Needs Tighter Control
http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/14937/)
And listen to the debate points as they are being considered by our cousins down under at:
The Implications for Health, Safety and the Environment of the Nanotech Revolution
Total running time 33 mins, File size: 13.4Mb, File Type: mp3 (www.azonano.com/podcasts/nano.mp3)
I also recommend the magazine Nanotechnology Perceptions - A Review of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology. See http://pages.unibas.ch/colbas/ntp/ for details.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
A Transparent Society, Maybe
“The new Smart Nanobattery architecture promises an energy source that can be packaged in various configurations, with shelf life lasting decades, yet still able to be activated almost instantaneously on demand. Various battery designs based on this technology may deliver a new and unique component for system design across many fields, including defense, industrial and consumer electronics.” link
“…'next generation' computer chips which will see processors with mind-boggling memories the size of a grain of sand.”
“The new technology will have military uses with tiny spy planes the size of flies able to collect and send back information over hundreds of miles.” link
OK, those were some semi-random headlines gleaned from recent nanotech news. Semi-random since I was looking for technologies that will enable ubiquitous surveillance, but picked from amongst dozens of others that fit the “nano” mold. And keep in mind that there have been literally hundreds of similar improvements in various supporting technologies in the past few years. It seems probable that improvements along these lines will continue, and the rate at which these advances become part of “today’s technologies” will continue to increase.
So, we’ve got technologies that reduce the size of sensors, technologies that reduce the size of sensor batteries, and technologies that reduce the size and increase the capacity of memory modules. What does it all mean? It means that sometime in the not-to-distant future, perhaps 5 to 10 years from now, we will have the ability to construct cheap (nearly free) sensors that will be difficult if not impossible for the human eye to detect. These sensors will have the ability to detect everything from conversations to chemicals, and send their findings hundreds, if not thousands of miles (using satellite uplinks) to whoever is monitoring them.
What do we do about it? I don’t know. What I do know is that this “possible future” will be an issue, and probably one of the most socially disruptive of all the near term “nanotechnologies.” (A better term is “nanotechnology-enabled technology”)
In closing, I’d like to refer back to a note I made earlier about David Brin’s compelling argument in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? Brin argues for a more open society; “one in which those in power would be required to adhere to the same "openness" standards as their constituents, where the authorities are monitored as well as monitoring.” Maybe this is the answer; I don’t know, but it is a place to start the debate; a debate that needs to begin soon, and needs to include all stakeholders.
“…'next generation' computer chips which will see processors with mind-boggling memories the size of a grain of sand.”
“The new technology will have military uses with tiny spy planes the size of flies able to collect and send back information over hundreds of miles.” link
OK, those were some semi-random headlines gleaned from recent nanotech news. Semi-random since I was looking for technologies that will enable ubiquitous surveillance, but picked from amongst dozens of others that fit the “nano” mold. And keep in mind that there have been literally hundreds of similar improvements in various supporting technologies in the past few years. It seems probable that improvements along these lines will continue, and the rate at which these advances become part of “today’s technologies” will continue to increase.
So, we’ve got technologies that reduce the size of sensors, technologies that reduce the size of sensor batteries, and technologies that reduce the size and increase the capacity of memory modules. What does it all mean? It means that sometime in the not-to-distant future, perhaps 5 to 10 years from now, we will have the ability to construct cheap (nearly free) sensors that will be difficult if not impossible for the human eye to detect. These sensors will have the ability to detect everything from conversations to chemicals, and send their findings hundreds, if not thousands of miles (using satellite uplinks) to whoever is monitoring them.
What do we do about it? I don’t know. What I do know is that this “possible future” will be an issue, and probably one of the most socially disruptive of all the near term “nanotechnologies.” (A better term is “nanotechnology-enabled technology”)
In closing, I’d like to refer back to a note I made earlier about David Brin’s compelling argument in The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom? Brin argues for a more open society; “one in which those in power would be required to adhere to the same "openness" standards as their constituents, where the authorities are monitored as well as monitoring.” Maybe this is the answer; I don’t know, but it is a place to start the debate; a debate that needs to begin soon, and needs to include all stakeholders.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Interview with Judith Light Feather
RR: What is your vision regarding the changes that nanotechnology will bring to society?
The long-term vision involves programmable matter and molecular assembly of products whereby humans will move from their 'wage slave' survival mode to a more creative lifestyle that allows them time to learn and create. Everyone should have the same learning opportunities to develop skills and talents to their maximum ability, sharing the results with their neighbors and families. Intellectual property developed from humanity will have the value for exchange now given to mundane products. The properties of nanomaterials which repel dirt and grime, when put into building materials, flooring, glass, appliances and automobiles, will finally free mankind from many of the time consuming chores that take up their precious few leisure hours. Improved clothing and recreation equipment will enhance the lifestyles of society, along with more time to learn new skills and create new ideas for culture benefits.
RR: How can government and educational institutions address the need for significantly larger numbers of nano-educated college grads?
The problems in the universities, regarding the lack of students interested in science reflects back to our main education issues in elementary schools. Until our government leaders realize that the Department of Education was created with no authority to mandate curriculum on a national level, but are permitted to mandate National Testing on the sub-standard curriculum which local schools boards make the decisions to accept, nothing will change.
RR: If you could sit down with the leaders of every country and talk to them about the development of nanotechnology, what issues would you focus on?
We recently had this conversation with the leaders of Thailand and Vietnam concerning development of courses for education and the future technology. The first issue we focused on was types of education modules that would reach all ages and develop into a lifelong learning situation. Education is always first, then the research, then the technology. Culture was an important issue as each country strives to preserve their identity while becoming competitive in a global society. Communication between scientific disciplines and each other was also top on the list. The ability to form relationships and share information in friendship and trust was the result of this first effort.
To read the entire interview, visit:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/Judith-LightFeather-interview.htm
The long-term vision involves programmable matter and molecular assembly of products whereby humans will move from their 'wage slave' survival mode to a more creative lifestyle that allows them time to learn and create. Everyone should have the same learning opportunities to develop skills and talents to their maximum ability, sharing the results with their neighbors and families. Intellectual property developed from humanity will have the value for exchange now given to mundane products. The properties of nanomaterials which repel dirt and grime, when put into building materials, flooring, glass, appliances and automobiles, will finally free mankind from many of the time consuming chores that take up their precious few leisure hours. Improved clothing and recreation equipment will enhance the lifestyles of society, along with more time to learn new skills and create new ideas for culture benefits.
RR: How can government and educational institutions address the need for significantly larger numbers of nano-educated college grads?
The problems in the universities, regarding the lack of students interested in science reflects back to our main education issues in elementary schools. Until our government leaders realize that the Department of Education was created with no authority to mandate curriculum on a national level, but are permitted to mandate National Testing on the sub-standard curriculum which local schools boards make the decisions to accept, nothing will change.
RR: If you could sit down with the leaders of every country and talk to them about the development of nanotechnology, what issues would you focus on?
We recently had this conversation with the leaders of Thailand and Vietnam concerning development of courses for education and the future technology. The first issue we focused on was types of education modules that would reach all ages and develop into a lifelong learning situation. Education is always first, then the research, then the technology. Culture was an important issue as each country strives to preserve their identity while becoming competitive in a global society. Communication between scientific disciplines and each other was also top on the list. The ability to form relationships and share information in friendship and trust was the result of this first effort.
To read the entire interview, visit:
http://www.nanotech-now.com/Judith-LightFeather-interview.htm
Monday, February 5, 2007
2057 – A Review
Why I liked the series, or “What they got right”
First and foremost, LIFE WILL BE DIFFERENT! Nearly everything we do, nearly every experience we have, will be shaped by paradigm-shifting new technologies. Materials will be lighter, stronger, and functionalized. The way we work with information will be exponentially enhanced. Many things will be automated, including health monitoring and tracking. Should you choose, it will be an always-on interconnected society.
They also got right that privacy will be an issue. With the ever-decreasing size (and cost) and increasing functionality of sensors, it is absolutely believable that in 2057 we’ll be constantly surveiled, at home, at work, and in public. Is this a good or bad thing? I don’t know, although I tend to think it is something we should spend time considering, starting now. (1)
Screening, diagnosis, monitoring, treatment of disease, and emergency care will undergo a radical change in the next 50 years. Given the very rapid advances in the use of nanoparticles for medicine, I would be very surprised if by 2057 if cancers were not simple-to-treat short-term illnesses, like the common cold is today. In fact, I’d be surprised if this were not the case by 2020, given the pace of advances being made. (2)
What they got wrong
There was no mention of molecular manufacturing. My guess is they left it out because there is controversy surrounding the idea that we will soon be able to construct common objects using individual molecules (controversy which seems unreasonable given advances in nanoscale science). Omitting the likelihood that in 50 years we won’t have molecular manufacturing seems to suggest that they were avoiding the topic; there is ample science to support the idea that among the other advances depicted, molecular manufacturing should have been included.
Holographic pets: My friend (and futurist) Brian Wang says it this way: “I thought the holographic sharks would be visual pollution. They should have those only visible to the user. Feed the image to the retina or via some non-invasive communication feed to the brain. I also failed to see the economic benefits.” I agree. Can you imagine walking through a packed mall (will we still have them?) and everyone around you has a holographic projection following them?
Conspicuous by its absence was quantum computing (QC). As Brian Wang goes to great lengths to point out (in his blog) QC is happening now. When I asked him to speculate on near-future advances, he said “I think on the low end they should have thousands of qubits able to simulate thousands of quantum molecules (in the 3 to 5 year timeframe) against simulations of 50-100 molecules with similar precision.”
Hyper-efficient solar panels: This one seems pretty obvious to anyone tracking advances in this area. There are several technologies currently on the drawing board (or more precisely, in university and business labs) that look very promising. By promising I mean likely to achieve huge improvements in their sunlight-to-energy conversion rate. Today’s technologies allow for conversion rates that are almost good enough to compete toe to toe with coal, nuclear, and other traditional energy generation technologies. Were I a betting man, I’d place a large percentage of my dollars on photovoltaics (PV). In fact, of all the nanotechnologies, solar/PV is one of the areas where I will be placing my bets.
What I hope to see, or “wouldn’t it be nice, if?”
(And just as important, I also believe that these are likely, many of them earlier than 2057)
The Hand-comp (the 2057-version of the personal computer/cell phone/PDA)
Self-guided, networked cars
Custom-built organs from scratch
Space Elevator and tethered research stations
Smart Houses
Information transfer at predictable increases
Artificial blood
Things I am leery of, or “can’t we have all the rest, without this?”
An oil shortage that brings the US and China to the brink of war (and possibly beyond). How about, instead, we start funding alternate energy technologies at a rate equal to or exceeding that which goes towards supporting oil? As I said in my last post, can you imagine being free from the idiocy surrounding the use of petroleum?
In Closing
The last sentence on the 2057 “About the Show” page states: “This series is all about opening the window of our future based on science fact, not science fiction.”
Mostly I’d agree.
My bottom line in regards to this series: it was well worth the 3-hour watch. At worst, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted; stimulating the debate by adding more stakeholders is a good idea. At best, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted…
To learn more about possible futures, visit:
2005 BT Technology Timeline
And a nice collection at DMOZ http://dmoz.org/Society/Future/Predictions/
(1) David Brin presents an interesting and compelling argument with
The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom (I highly recommend this book.)
Synopsis: David Brin, in The Transparent Society, acknowledges that privacy, as we know it, is being slowly eaten away day by day. Entire cities are falling under the watch of surveillance cameras; "nanny monitors" that allow parents to keep an eye on the people who are watching their children are becoming more common in households with children. However, instead of calling for restrictions on this surveillance, he argues for a more open society from both sides -- one in which those in power would be required to adhere to the same "openness" standards as their constituents, where the authorities are monitored as well as monitoring.
(2) According to the National Vital Statistics Report (Vol. 53, No. 15, February 28, 2005), 13 of the top 15 killers in the US are medical related. I would be very surprised to see any of the 13 medical reasons in the top 10 in 2057 as anything other than a minor contributing factor. See http://origin.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf
First and foremost, LIFE WILL BE DIFFERENT! Nearly everything we do, nearly every experience we have, will be shaped by paradigm-shifting new technologies. Materials will be lighter, stronger, and functionalized. The way we work with information will be exponentially enhanced. Many things will be automated, including health monitoring and tracking. Should you choose, it will be an always-on interconnected society.
They also got right that privacy will be an issue. With the ever-decreasing size (and cost) and increasing functionality of sensors, it is absolutely believable that in 2057 we’ll be constantly surveiled, at home, at work, and in public. Is this a good or bad thing? I don’t know, although I tend to think it is something we should spend time considering, starting now. (1)
Screening, diagnosis, monitoring, treatment of disease, and emergency care will undergo a radical change in the next 50 years. Given the very rapid advances in the use of nanoparticles for medicine, I would be very surprised if by 2057 if cancers were not simple-to-treat short-term illnesses, like the common cold is today. In fact, I’d be surprised if this were not the case by 2020, given the pace of advances being made. (2)
What they got wrong
There was no mention of molecular manufacturing. My guess is they left it out because there is controversy surrounding the idea that we will soon be able to construct common objects using individual molecules (controversy which seems unreasonable given advances in nanoscale science). Omitting the likelihood that in 50 years we won’t have molecular manufacturing seems to suggest that they were avoiding the topic; there is ample science to support the idea that among the other advances depicted, molecular manufacturing should have been included.
Holographic pets: My friend (and futurist) Brian Wang says it this way: “I thought the holographic sharks would be visual pollution. They should have those only visible to the user. Feed the image to the retina or via some non-invasive communication feed to the brain. I also failed to see the economic benefits.” I agree. Can you imagine walking through a packed mall (will we still have them?) and everyone around you has a holographic projection following them?
Conspicuous by its absence was quantum computing (QC). As Brian Wang goes to great lengths to point out (in his blog) QC is happening now. When I asked him to speculate on near-future advances, he said “I think on the low end they should have thousands of qubits able to simulate thousands of quantum molecules (in the 3 to 5 year timeframe) against simulations of 50-100 molecules with similar precision.”
Hyper-efficient solar panels: This one seems pretty obvious to anyone tracking advances in this area. There are several technologies currently on the drawing board (or more precisely, in university and business labs) that look very promising. By promising I mean likely to achieve huge improvements in their sunlight-to-energy conversion rate. Today’s technologies allow for conversion rates that are almost good enough to compete toe to toe with coal, nuclear, and other traditional energy generation technologies. Were I a betting man, I’d place a large percentage of my dollars on photovoltaics (PV). In fact, of all the nanotechnologies, solar/PV is one of the areas where I will be placing my bets.
What I hope to see, or “wouldn’t it be nice, if?”
(And just as important, I also believe that these are likely, many of them earlier than 2057)
The Hand-comp (the 2057-version of the personal computer/cell phone/PDA)
Self-guided, networked cars
Custom-built organs from scratch
Space Elevator and tethered research stations
Smart Houses
Information transfer at predictable increases
Artificial blood
Things I am leery of, or “can’t we have all the rest, without this?”
An oil shortage that brings the US and China to the brink of war (and possibly beyond). How about, instead, we start funding alternate energy technologies at a rate equal to or exceeding that which goes towards supporting oil? As I said in my last post, can you imagine being free from the idiocy surrounding the use of petroleum?
In Closing
The last sentence on the 2057 “About the Show” page states: “This series is all about opening the window of our future based on science fact, not science fiction.”
Mostly I’d agree.
My bottom line in regards to this series: it was well worth the 3-hour watch. At worst, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted; stimulating the debate by adding more stakeholders is a good idea. At best, it will get more people asking questions about the technologies depicted…
To learn more about possible futures, visit:
2005 BT Technology Timeline
And a nice collection at DMOZ http://dmoz.org/Society/Future/Predictions/
(1) David Brin presents an interesting and compelling argument with
The Transparent Society: Will Technology Force Us to Choose Between Privacy and Freedom (I highly recommend this book.)
Synopsis: David Brin, in The Transparent Society, acknowledges that privacy, as we know it, is being slowly eaten away day by day. Entire cities are falling under the watch of surveillance cameras; "nanny monitors" that allow parents to keep an eye on the people who are watching their children are becoming more common in households with children. However, instead of calling for restrictions on this surveillance, he argues for a more open society from both sides -- one in which those in power would be required to adhere to the same "openness" standards as their constituents, where the authorities are monitored as well as monitoring.
(2) According to the National Vital Statistics Report (Vol. 53, No. 15, February 28, 2005), 13 of the top 15 killers in the US are medical related. I would be very surprised to see any of the 13 medical reasons in the top 10 in 2057 as anything other than a minor contributing factor. See http://origin.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_15.pdf
Thursday, February 1, 2007
2057 - The Body
Last night I watched 2057 – The Body. See yesterday’s post on The City, and Tuesday’s bit on The World for more on the series.
The theme for this production could be titled "A Day In The Life Of A Regular Guy" or "How Falling Out A Window Can Save Your Life."
As were the first two in the series, The Body is the highest-grade of educational production. The CGI is flawless, and the acting quite good. The science is plausible, and the near-future technologies promising.
Covered here: Intelligent homes, city-wide ‘net, privacy concerns, flying cars, artificial blood products, very advanced diagnosis, treatment, imagery, and printed organs, robotic sentries, robotic surgery, and remote surgery (teleoperation).
Again, I highly recommend this production. In fact, I will be talking it up every chance I get, and will write a blog note on the series as a whole, shortly.
Michio Kaku once again makes a very pertinent statement: "One thing we know for sure, hold onto your hats because, in the next 50 years, its gonna be a wild ride!"
To learn more about this program, visit:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/about/about.html
The theme for this production could be titled "A Day In The Life Of A Regular Guy" or "How Falling Out A Window Can Save Your Life."
As were the first two in the series, The Body is the highest-grade of educational production. The CGI is flawless, and the acting quite good. The science is plausible, and the near-future technologies promising.
Covered here: Intelligent homes, city-wide ‘net, privacy concerns, flying cars, artificial blood products, very advanced diagnosis, treatment, imagery, and printed organs, robotic sentries, robotic surgery, and remote surgery (teleoperation).
Again, I highly recommend this production. In fact, I will be talking it up every chance I get, and will write a blog note on the series as a whole, shortly.
Michio Kaku once again makes a very pertinent statement: "One thing we know for sure, hold onto your hats because, in the next 50 years, its gonna be a wild ride!"
To learn more about this program, visit:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/about/about.html
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
2057 - The City
Last night I watched 2057 – The City. See yesterday’s post on The World for more on the series.
The theme for this production could be titled "A Boy and His Holo-Pet" or possibly "Boy Crashes City ‘Net." Without giving away too much detail, I’ll say that this production was as good overall as The World. Covered here: holographic pets, self-guided networked cars, smart homes, robotics, police force technologies, intelligent surveillance, and holographic data storage.
Michio Kaku makes one very pertinent statement: "As we become more dependent on technology, just remember …computers can crash, technology can fail."
I highly recommend that you add this one to your list to watch.
In a future blog note I’ll review the other program in the series: The Body.
To learn more about this program, visit:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/about/about.html
The theme for this production could be titled "A Boy and His Holo-Pet" or possibly "Boy Crashes City ‘Net." Without giving away too much detail, I’ll say that this production was as good overall as The World. Covered here: holographic pets, self-guided networked cars, smart homes, robotics, police force technologies, intelligent surveillance, and holographic data storage.
Michio Kaku makes one very pertinent statement: "As we become more dependent on technology, just remember …computers can crash, technology can fail."
I highly recommend that you add this one to your list to watch.
In a future blog note I’ll review the other program in the series: The Body.
To learn more about this program, visit:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/about/about.html
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Muddying the waters
The History channel is rerunning a 2004 episode titled “Doomsday Tech” in which they profile 4 scenarios, including gray goo.
If you want to learn about nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing, don’t count on this program for instruction; it is both confusing and incomplete.
If, however, you want to learn more about global warming, peak oil, nuclear Armageddon, a new ice age, this looks like a good program to watch.
They point out that the “stunning level of technological progress human beings have achieved in a very short time” has a dark side “we’ve reached a pivotal moment in human history when we as a species possess technologies that could destroy us.”
Yes, gloom and doom; but what did you expect with that title?
Not all of it though: they also discuss alternate energy in the forms of wind power, solar power, tidal (wave) power, hybrid cars, geothermal and hydrogen (fuel cells), so it’s not all a bad trip.
My earlier point about not counting on this program to learn about nanotech starts with scenario #4: Gray Goo. Everybody that has paid attention to this issue knows that gray goo is more of a public perception issue rather than a scientific one. My friends at the Center for Responsible talk about this issue in depth at Grey Goo is a Small Issue (www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm). To put it in plain terms, molecular manufacturing doesn’t need self-replicating nanorobots (a.k.a. free-floating autonomous assemblers, as was highlighted in the program).
If you want to learn about nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing, don’t count on this program for instruction; it is both confusing and incomplete.
If, however, you want to learn more about global warming, peak oil, nuclear Armageddon, a new ice age, this looks like a good program to watch.
They point out that the “stunning level of technological progress human beings have achieved in a very short time” has a dark side “we’ve reached a pivotal moment in human history when we as a species possess technologies that could destroy us.”
Yes, gloom and doom; but what did you expect with that title?
Not all of it though: they also discuss alternate energy in the forms of wind power, solar power, tidal (wave) power, hybrid cars, geothermal and hydrogen (fuel cells), so it’s not all a bad trip.
My earlier point about not counting on this program to learn about nanotech starts with scenario #4: Gray Goo. Everybody that has paid attention to this issue knows that gray goo is more of a public perception issue rather than a scientific one. My friends at the Center for Responsible talk about this issue in depth at Grey Goo is a Small Issue (www.crnano.org/BD-Goo.htm). To put it in plain terms, molecular manufacturing doesn’t need self-replicating nanorobots (a.k.a. free-floating autonomous assemblers, as was highlighted in the program).
Much more important and likely molecular manufacturing "bad news" scenarios include (but are not limited to) this list, compiled by CRN:
Economic disruption from an abundance of cheap products
Economic oppression from artificially inflated prices
Personal risk from criminal or terrorist use
Personal or social risk from abusive restrictions
Social disruption from new products/lifestyles
Unstable arms race
Collective environmental damage from unregulated products
Black market in nanotech (increases other risks)
Competing nanotech programs (increases other risks)
Attempted relinquishment (increases other risks)
Back to the program. I also find fault in the way they use “nanotechnology” and “molecular manufacturing” interchangeably, as if the terms meant the same thing. At one time they did, but the day is long since past when old-school scientists and industry co-opted the term “nanotechnology” and rewrote its definition to mean “materials in the .1 nm to 100 nm range, which often exhibit unique properties.” Whereas “molecular manufacturing” means “the building of complex structures by mechanochemical processes.”
Their descriptions (backed by background images of a nanofactory) serve only to further confuse an already confusing subject. At one moment they talk about tiny robots, and at another about super strong materials.
And not once do they talk about the nanofactory, which is featured prominently as background animations.
All in all, a very confusing portrayal of a very important topic; one which left me disappointed with an organization known for its unbiased and accurate programs.
Don’t get me wrong, I did like the information about the first three scenarios. They seem to follow conventional wisdom, and present it in no scarier terms than other portrayals I have seen and read.
One thing I took away from the program, which I watched three times, was a closing quote by Sir Martin Rees:
What we’re seeing in this century is new technologies, which produce greater risk and greater opportunities. We have to insure that we can harness the opportunities and avoid the risks of misuse.
His quote absolutely applies to molecular manufacturing.
To learn more about nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing, visit:
What is Nanotechnology? - http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm
What are the benefits? - http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm
What are the dangers? - http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm
You can buy the video here http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=74178 or watch your listings for a repeat of the program.
Monday, January 8, 2007
The ethics of advanced technologies
Today, I had an email conversation with The NanoEthics Group Research Director, Patrick Lin. Patrick informed me of an upcoming nanoethics symposium (*) for the International Journal of Applied Philosophy. "Comprised of papers from some of the most respected thinkers in the field, the symposium is the first in nanoethics to appear in a leading academic philosophy journal - highlighting the increasing urgency and attention surrounding nanotechnology's ethical and societal implications."
The following is an abstract from their paper that introduces the symposium:
Nanoethics is a contentious field for several reasons. Some believe it should not be recognized as a proper area of study, because they believe that nanotechnology itself is not a true category but rather an amalgamation of other sciences, such as chemistry, physics and engineering. Critics also allege that nanoethics does not raise any new issues but rather revisits familiar ones such as privacy. This paper answers such criticisms and sets the context for the papers that follow in this nanoethics symposium.
Here is my reply to Patrick regarding the abstract:
Is your justification for the study of nanoethics that nanotechnologies will have such huge impact that they deserve study in their own rights? It seems to me that you could turn the critic’s complaint of "not a true category but rather an amalgamation of other sciences" around and say "it is precisely because nanotechnologies will broadly impact all these old-school categories that we need to study it."
And here is Patrick’s reply:
Actually, my justification for the pursuit of nanoethics is a three-pronged argument, in which what you mentioned might only be part of it. Basically:
(1) There's no reason for us to accept the litmus test that "in order for X to be a category/field in its own right, it must pick out unique issues not already covered elsewhere." Under this litmus test, we might have to collapse chemistry and biology into the single field of physics (which governs the interactions of all physical matter, including chemical elements and emergent biological processes), but that doesn't seem right. Also, if this litmus test were right, we could also perhaps argue that "bioethics" should not be recognized as a proper field of study, since its questions could be reduced to familiar ones in the pre-existing fields of privacy (patient rights), autonomy (right to die), theology (abortion), etc.
(2) Even if that were a good litmus test before, nanotechnology - and its ethics - seems to break the old rules insofar that nanotech itself is an amalgamation of other fields (unless you want to bite the bullet and argue that nanotechnology itself should not be recognized as a field of its own; but this seems to be a losing fight given the amount of money being poured into nanotech as its own area of research...nanotech already has a life of its own).
(3) Nanoethics does in fact raise unique issues not found elsewhere (e.g., the invisibility cloak, molecular manufacturing) or at least adds a significantly new dimension to related debates (e.g., privacy, economic justice).
Also, my argument above is more a semantic one and not so much a call to action. I'm not sure that many people would argue that we do not need to study the possible impacts of the set of technologies that make up "nanotechnology"; the need to worry about our future should be more or less clear already. Rather, their argument is more that we don't need to create a new field of study called "nanoethics" because those questions are already being investigated in bioethics, computer ethics, etc.
However, I would disagree with their argument: by neatly categorizing those questions under the umbrella of "nanoethics," we highlight the fact that nanotechnology is so far-reaching and will be directly responsible for profound changes to our world. Perhaps those who argue otherwise are trying to slip nanotechnology "under the radar" by not giving it or its ethics a name, i.e., "you don't need to worry about nanotech; it's really just a repackaging of familiar sciences and issues"…but I don't buy that - nanotech/ethics appears to be greater than the sum of its parts...
(*) For more information about the journal or its latest symposium on nanoethics, see www.pdcnet.org/ijap.html
For the introductory paper by The Nanoethics Group, see www.nanoethics.org/paper10807.html
To read the entire announcement, visit the Nanotechnology Now Press Release section www.nanotech-now.com/current-months-press.htm
The following is an abstract from their paper that introduces the symposium:
Nanoethics is a contentious field for several reasons. Some believe it should not be recognized as a proper area of study, because they believe that nanotechnology itself is not a true category but rather an amalgamation of other sciences, such as chemistry, physics and engineering. Critics also allege that nanoethics does not raise any new issues but rather revisits familiar ones such as privacy. This paper answers such criticisms and sets the context for the papers that follow in this nanoethics symposium.
Here is my reply to Patrick regarding the abstract:
Is your justification for the study of nanoethics that nanotechnologies will have such huge impact that they deserve study in their own rights? It seems to me that you could turn the critic’s complaint of "not a true category but rather an amalgamation of other sciences" around and say "it is precisely because nanotechnologies will broadly impact all these old-school categories that we need to study it."
And here is Patrick’s reply:
Actually, my justification for the pursuit of nanoethics is a three-pronged argument, in which what you mentioned might only be part of it. Basically:
(1) There's no reason for us to accept the litmus test that "in order for X to be a category/field in its own right, it must pick out unique issues not already covered elsewhere." Under this litmus test, we might have to collapse chemistry and biology into the single field of physics (which governs the interactions of all physical matter, including chemical elements and emergent biological processes), but that doesn't seem right. Also, if this litmus test were right, we could also perhaps argue that "bioethics" should not be recognized as a proper field of study, since its questions could be reduced to familiar ones in the pre-existing fields of privacy (patient rights), autonomy (right to die), theology (abortion), etc.
(2) Even if that were a good litmus test before, nanotechnology - and its ethics - seems to break the old rules insofar that nanotech itself is an amalgamation of other fields (unless you want to bite the bullet and argue that nanotechnology itself should not be recognized as a field of its own; but this seems to be a losing fight given the amount of money being poured into nanotech as its own area of research...nanotech already has a life of its own).
(3) Nanoethics does in fact raise unique issues not found elsewhere (e.g., the invisibility cloak, molecular manufacturing) or at least adds a significantly new dimension to related debates (e.g., privacy, economic justice).
Also, my argument above is more a semantic one and not so much a call to action. I'm not sure that many people would argue that we do not need to study the possible impacts of the set of technologies that make up "nanotechnology"; the need to worry about our future should be more or less clear already. Rather, their argument is more that we don't need to create a new field of study called "nanoethics" because those questions are already being investigated in bioethics, computer ethics, etc.
However, I would disagree with their argument: by neatly categorizing those questions under the umbrella of "nanoethics," we highlight the fact that nanotechnology is so far-reaching and will be directly responsible for profound changes to our world. Perhaps those who argue otherwise are trying to slip nanotechnology "under the radar" by not giving it or its ethics a name, i.e., "you don't need to worry about nanotech; it's really just a repackaging of familiar sciences and issues"…but I don't buy that - nanotech/ethics appears to be greater than the sum of its parts...
(*) For more information about the journal or its latest symposium on nanoethics, see www.pdcnet.org/ijap.html
For the introductory paper by The Nanoethics Group, see www.nanoethics.org/paper10807.html
To read the entire announcement, visit the Nanotechnology Now Press Release section www.nanotech-now.com/current-months-press.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
