Nanotechnology
- From: "whitesickle@xxxxxxx" <whitesickle@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:59:47 -0500 (EST)
You hear "similar" threats regarding genetic engineering. An important
question "is" not necessarily what the adverse effects of genetic
engineering and nanotechnology will have on human beings "directly" but
how these continuing technological advances will erode and change human
society in a species already mismatched to its ancestral environment
and non-adaptive to its current environment. The Industrial Revolution
while producing beneficial results was forced on the masses but it also
produced tremendous dislocation, anomie, alienation and expoitation. If
the past is prologue than we can expect the Biotechnological and
Nanotechnological Revolutions to be no different. The technology itself
isn't the issue per se but rather how it is used. It seems the only
"revolutions" there are is scientific and technological revolutions and
with human societies in upheaval.
I'm for genetic engineering and nanotechnology but I think an effort
should be made to research what effects it will have on human society
and to introduce these technologies in a way which minimizes the
chances of upheavals. To be sure there were upheavals in our
evolutionary past but the stakes are astronomically higher for self
destruction today.
Michael Ragland
Nanotech moratorium would speed research on invisible threat
BY TALLI NAUMAN
El Universal
December 31, 2005
We´ve become conditioned to accepting invisible threats to our
environment and health. Ever since the Industrial Revolution, we´ve
learned to take for granted that toxic fumes from production will
corrode living tissues and cause cancer deaths, for example. It´s way
past time we wake up to the essential need to prevent the proliferation
of risky materials. This is particularly true now with the advent of
the nanotechnology revolution, possibly the era of most sweeping
innovation in history.
If ever an invisible threat loomed, nanotechnology is it.
Nanotechnology is the science of creating new substances by
manipulating the atoms and molecules of materials. It produces
engineered particles so tiny they amount to no more than 1/80,000th of
the diameter of a human hair.
But it is not splitting hairs to argue that we will be better off if
the effects of these itty bitty inventions are better known before we
allow them to continue being unleashed in the consumer market without
labels.
Some of the nigh-onto-miraculous unmarked stuff in which they already
substitute for natural ingredients are: sporting goods, stain-resistant
fabrics, food packaging, pesticides, sunscreen, and cosmetics. The
problem is that their unprecedented electrical, chemical and physical
properties are so perplexing, more study is needed to understand their
impact.
SCIENTISTS PUSHING FOR CONTROLS
You don´t have to be a rocket scientist to understand the concept of
nanomaterials and the ethical challenges they pose. Yet, interestingly
enough, it is scientists themselves who are leading the campaign to
keep tabs on the spread of products derived through nanotechnology.
Evidence is mounting that the artificial nano-particles can be
hazardous to production workers and to the environment when they break
down in the waste stream. The modified atoms kill both waterborne bugs
and soil-dwelling micro-organisms. They have caused fatalities in lab
rodents and brain damage to fish, as well. They generate free radicals,
which can be precursors of cancer, and also can harm DNA.
Questions are being raised about immune systems´ ability to detect and
react appropriately to the custom-made molecules. Still other gaps in
research must be filled in order for us to grasp the broader
implications of spreading nanomaterials. Their popularity among big
producers could displace farmers and other suppliers of traditional
manufacturing inputs. The connotations of test-tube biodiversity and
intellectual property patenting are among conundrums.
Those are some of the reasons why the week ahead marks the end of a
comment period for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on its
recommendations for nanotechnology policy. An expert review of the
comments will conclude with the release of suggestions for regulatory
measures early in 2006.
´A TECHNOGICAL TSUNAMI´
In Mexico City, award-winning Canadian biotechnology pioneer Pat Mooney
recently drew attention to the issue, saying, "More than a new wave of
technology, nanotechnology is a technological tsunami, unseen until it
is upon us." Her observation seems particularly apt at this juncture,
the first anniversary of the Indian Ocean tidal wave that heralded the
year of 2005.
With 720 nano-engineered products on the market that have no
regulation, Mooney and colleagues at the international Erosion,
Technology and Concentration (ETC) Group advocate public participation
in debate to address the unprecedented panorama.
Along with Mexican and other experts around the world, Mooney advocates
a moratorium on further commercialization of nanomaterials until these
articles can be investigated more. That is just plain good sense and
application of the U.N. precautionary principle.
Mexico should jump on the moratorium bandwagon right now.
Talli Nauman is a founder and co-director of Journalism to Raise
Environmental Awareness, a project initiated with support from the John
D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. She is the Americas Program
Associate at the International Relations Center. (talli@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Name the earliest living thing
- Next by Date: Re: BREAKING THE ESOTERIC BARRIER
- Previous by thread: Re: BREAKING THE ESOTERIC BARRIER
- Next by thread: Natural Selection and the Death Instinct
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
