Nanotech Fear Peddlers Are Back, Insisting ‘Here Be Monsters’
I was going to make this a 2011 nanotech year-in-review column, but then I got to thinking about one of the biggest threats that could face nanotech in 2012. The nanotech Luddites are back with their “precautionary principle” — a philosophy that says whatever fears environmental fringe groups concoct must surely be true because there have been no studies to contradict them. Therefore, here be monsters.
“Friends of the Earth” (quotation marks are mine, since their actions call into question whether they are, indeed, allies of my home planet) is one such group.
Just because they say they are friends of the earth, does not make it so. In fact, they have an anti-technology agenda, the same kinds of folks who ensured that “genetically modified foods” is a dirty phrase in some parts of the world, contributing further to world hunger. Many people have suffered due to lack of access to technology based on the say-so of groups with this kind of agenda. They are not environmentalists, as many in the mainstream media say. They are environmental activists. I would even take the environmental out of it. They are one-issue Luddites who take the hammer to anything that they consider “unnatural.”
They tried to bait the FDA into some kind of action back in 2006. I covered it here. Friends of the Earth told me that they are calling “for a moratorium on the release of cosmetics and personal care products that contain nanomaterials until we have regulatory oversight and comprehensive toxicological testing.”
Now, they’re back with a coalition of self-proclaimed “consumer advocacy” groups trying to get the FDA to ban nano-sized ingredients because these groups think that something sounds just icky about them.
They’re suing based on a danger for which there is no evidence, but maybe there will be, so we’d better ban it just in case
One topic that is discussed endlessly by the activists involves sunscreen with nanoparticles in them that make it go on clear. Anti-nanotech activists like to talk about “uncertainty” regarding nanoparticles in sunscreen. Well, a new study makes it a bit more certain that no harm is actually done. “Nanoparticles did not penetrate beneath the outermost layer of cells …” This undercuts one of the main objections to nanotech in consumer products. But, unfortunately, facts rarely interfere with the agendas of those who peddle fear.
In Mexico recently, nanotech researchers have been targeted and and letter-bombed by anti-nanotech hit squads who spout out the same half-baked garbage as Friends of the Earth, mixed in with the old “gray goo” scenario that no legitimate scientist actually believes in.
I am not particularly in favor of those—usually on the Left and usually scientifically illiterate–who view and proclaim themselves as the “defenders and custodians” of the environment when, in fact, they are, in large part, piggybacking on environmental concerns for political and financial reasons i.e. they stand to gain the ability to dictate to and to control other people, and to grow ever more wealthy in the process.
The most recent obvious example being the whole Global Warming/Climategate scam which, supposedly in the service of “Mother Earth,” was, in fact, a gigantic far Left scheme by various elites around the world—supposed “scientists,” the UN, ex-Communists newly minted as “environmentalists,” bureaucrats, politicians, organizations and “activists”–to gain almost total control of the people of this Earth and their wealth, to “de-develop” and destroy the technological civilization of the West, and to “redistribute” the wealth of the West as part of the far Left’s schemes of “social justice,” not coincidentally giving enormous power and control to and enriching the elites involved.
Then, there is the example of Rachel Carson’s very successful crusade against DDT—Eagles 1, people 0–the absence of which insecticide has apparently caused the deaths in Africa from Malaria (which used to be controlled using DDT) of countless millions of those most vulnerable to this mosquito borne disease–children and the elderly, and also to things like the current, rising tide of lice and bedbug infestations.
However, it does seem to me that there can be and are legitimate concerns about the rise, pace of development and spread, and the applications of what appears likely to eventually be an extremely wide-spread and powerful nanotechnology. This does appear to me to be a technology with the potential for both very great good and—if mishandled– for very great harm, and very careful thought and care must be given to its development, to its application, and to its spread; it must be very carefully handled and it must be very tightly controlled, for it appears that one mistake—say in the use of nanotechnology in medical applications–could lead to widespread and deadly consequences.
I also point to the many instances of the introduction of this or that drug or procedure, that initially appear harmless and beneficial but which prove, after some experience over time, to have very serious or even life-threatening complications or side-effects that were not at first apparent, experience which would argue for caution and for measured as opposed to headlong development of this potentially revolutionary technology.
Seth, I agree with you. But we need to make sure we’re reacting to scientifically valid concerns rather than halting nanotech research based on the testimony of interest groups like Friends of the Earth. And, yes, the DDT example you give is a good one. It is tragic, since Africans are dying in the millions of malaria today. I am all in favor of making sure the FDA and EPA can separate fact from myth about nanotech. This lawsuit against the FDA is based on pure fiction and fear.
Let’s buy an island with a lot of caves and put all these Luddites on them. Heck, I’ll even pay to supply them with bicycles. Then they can all get away from fossil fuels and all the modern conveniences that they provide. No, nanotech, no fossil fuels, no GMO foods. I’m sure that they would live in peace and harmony with justice for all while growing their own argula. But leave the rest of us alone.
I don’t think there’s an island big enough, but I can find a peninsula. Or part of one. Check out the satellite view.
It’s called Tasmania where I’m from.
This article makes me feel pretty ‘icky’about the anti-nanotech luddites
The people of the West, who had any choice about it, heard their pitch and generally rejected Communism during the period around WWII, and the Left’s response was two-pronged.
First, to “reframe”– to try to repackage Communism as a more acceptable Liberalism/Progressivism and second, to, through a generalized, generation’s long Gramscian attack against the West and all its main institutions and values—through subverting, destroying, or capturing the Academy, the Church, the Family, Popular Culture, Law, Politics, Government, Business, and to an increasing extent Science, Social and Community organizations, the prevailing ethos and morality, and the Leadership “Hegemony” in each nation of the West— to skew, decrease, and degrade the citizenry’s level of awareness, their knowledge, their competence, to change their ethos and values, and to “transform” the composition of future generations/audiences, so that these “transformed” audiences would be more receptive to the argument of the Left, and the Left has largely succeeded in this task.
This general skewing, dumbing down, and blinkering of the citizenry effects all aspects of our lives today, but what this means for the battle over the development of nanotechnology is that “public policy” has to be decided—on the one hand– by a public, many of whose members are ill-informed (if heavily propagandized), functionally illiterate, and mostly scientifically illiterate as well, and who are—on the other hand—to ideally be served by, informed, and guided by a theoretically highly competent, disinterested, and objective scientific elite, many of whom, as the Global Warming scam has proven to us, are corrupt, and have put ideology, profit, and propaganda above science, put their thumbs on the scale, and turned the street signs to deliberately lead us off in the wrong direction.
We are in a pickle. Policy has to be made, and a way to safely navigate through the very promising but hazardous minefield presented by new scientific breakthroughs to be found. But, I sure as hell don’t trust either most of today’s public or many of the current crop of “scientists” to do it right; to apply real, honest, objective, dispassionate science, scientific standards and correct information, to exercise some rationality and common sense—economically, in terms of what will really work and be a net benefit to individuals and society, politically, and in terms of the environment — and to make the fairest and best decisions.
Yes (mostly) and no. First some background. Nanotechnology involves making things at a scale of one nanometer, about three atoms in length. Man has never been able to work this small, controlled manufacture at the atomic level. This is smaller than viruses, infinitesimal compared to bacteria, and smaller than crystals or solid grains. It requires ordered “brick by brick ” (atom by atom) construction of disordered matter. We can expect revolutions in most branches of technology as controlled applications emerge. Some are killer apps, the military studies the dual use aspects, the weaponization of nanotechnology. Example: it holds the promise of medicines which can pass through the blood – brain barrier, a basic biological defense. It is thought (I am no longer current) that medicines would be applied as lotions, which would readily pass through the skin and throughout the body. This would work for both medicines and poisons. There is a dark side which requires societal control.
However, our regulatory organizations, and political factions have used the “precautionary principle” as a naked power struggle: I, on the moral high ground, can force you to do my will, normally to do nothing, lest you screw up. This is rampart in any conduct associated with a profit motive. Hence pure regulators, in government, control all private sector technology. It has been a litigious non productive mess, with few exceptions.
The solution is power sharing, separation of power, and trust no one entity, e.g. GE, EPA, NRC, BP, Halliburton, the UN IPPC, or some holy nanodictator. This must result in the lessening of the power of lawyers, and government regulators, and the ascendancy of the power of professional bodies over corporate financial types. In every modern technological disaster, there was one technical employee who comprehended reality, the lethal risk, but who did not have the authority to turn a dumb/crooked boss around. Examples of preknown accidents: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Bopal, Challenger, New Orleans levees, or BP oil well blow out. With the exception of Chernobyl, no private sector executive, or government employee went to jail for gross, criminal, job performance. (The same result exists in our financial collapse but is beyond the scope of this discussion.)
Nanotechnolgy must not follow prior dysfunctional power sharing schemes, or it too will die off. We must not listen to self appointed good guys, with pure hearts and empty brains.
“….there was one technical employee….”
And how many times was “one technical employee” wrong, and would have prevented a technological advance if listened to?
So you are recommending that “professional bodies”, established to control technology, operate on the principle that a single dissenting vote would kill implementation of an invention?
Accidents can never be prevented. We live with risk every day. Look at the auto industry and all of the recalls. Look at the drug industry. How many times were drugs banned because of negative side effects vs. their benefits. Who should decide where to draw the line between the harm to the few and benefits to the many?
You miss my point. In every technical disaster, there has been one knowledgeable person (normally an employee) who knew, with a very high degree of certainty, that what was to transpire, would cause organizational tragedy, gross failure. The risk was almost infinite. The point I make is how to raise this knowledge of actual risk high enough in the organizational chain of command so as to avoid epic disasters. You are correct that risk is always present and no one should have the unilateral power to “pull the emergency brake”. However American society has a history of repeated “I did not know” positions from higher management, who took stupid risks, destroyed lives and fortunes, and were never legally sanctioned. The Chernobyl plant manager served ten years in a Soviet jail. No one in charge of erecting the lethal levees in New Orleans has been called to account for the readily foreseen destruction of a major city. Criminal charges is the BP disaster are pending, but not for the government over viewers who were served booze and broads, then pleaded technical stupidity after the fact.
Reviewing historical facts, I propose a small elite technical committee, funded by the project, who publish a contact number, from traceable but sealed sources. They would have direct links to notify top management of a coming action which carried risk, with either shut down authority, or formal notice of harsh civil or possibly criminal consequences of failure. Whistle blowers would need protection, if they were correct. I have seen what happens with one ice cold phone call.
Capitalism succeeds on real risk management, not ignorance. We have a too common disconnect between technocrats and management. Moreover our existing regulators fail to protect, they just delay.
They alarmed us with “population explosion”, “global cooling”, then “global warming”. Now the AGW-cow is milked dried, the professional alarmists have to move on to the next fun project so they could sponge on the progressives’ fear, our tax money, and never have to ever work for a living.
You can call them Luddites and mock them, but the concern that Friends of the Earth has about nanotechnology is not unwarranted.
First: Atoms are tiny, but atomic bombs killed thousands. Obviously, we are right to fear all very, very small things that we can’t see.
Second: There was an episode of Star Trek where nanites got loose and almost destroyed the whole ship.
If those two points don’t prove the dangers of nanotechnology, I don’t know what would.
Good point. I just got into the “Doctor Who” reboot and watched one where “nano-genes” from the future landed in London during the Blitz and rearranged everybody’s faces so that gas masks were a permanent part of their bone structures.
So, yeah. There you go.
Paul from Hamburg: You did not read the article before you trolled your post did you? You cite an episode of Star Trek to proclaim the evils of nanotech without even understanding what it might be.
Then that silly quote about atoms and atomic bombs. I hate to bring out your fear but you are made of those atoms you are so fearful of and not only that, there is radioactive potassium in your body.
It’s pretty obvious to me that you, Paul from Hamburg, are one of those “Luddites” the article bespoke of.
I mock you. Gladly too.
I did read the article, but I probably didn’t understand it all. We had a difficult Christmas at my house: the neighbors’ bloodhounds stole our Christmas and we had to go out for Chinese food.
“A Christmas Story.” Classic.
^^^
Someone needs to have their ACME Deluxe Sarcasm and Satire Detector recalibrated.
Yeah, I guess deadpan, dry humor does not always work in writing. Hell, it rarely works for me in speech, either.
Oh, for heaven freakin’ blippin’ sake! Star Trek is FICTION!!! Authors of FICTION can say anything they want! This is especially specious when those authors make up monsters out of whole cloth based on their political persuasions. Should we ban the wearing of gold rings because Sauron has the One Ring that controls them all? Get a grip!
Lets ban everything whatsoever because “atoms” are really dangerous bombs!
Government involvement MUST be based on evidence gathered by the scientific method, not some science-fiction plot!
“Should we ban the wearing of gold rings because Sauron has the One Ring that controls them all?” If we can prove with the scientific method that the gold rings are on the pinky fingers of middle-aged men, then yes, they should be banned.
Bill N,
That was a satirical comment…
Voltaire once tried to skewer that arch hypocrite and Romantic Jean Jacque Rousseau by writing to the effect that Voltaire was so impressed by the argument for the “Natural” that he almost started going around on all fours. Of course nobody got it either.
On an engineering note:
* “World’s smallest car fuels nanotech advance” http://articles.cnn.com/2011-11-18/tech/tech_innovation_nano-car-electric_1_molecule-nanotech-nano-sized?_s=PM:TECH
* “New virus-built battery could power cars, electronic devices” http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/virus-battery-0402.html, also http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/virus-battery.html (this is true nanoassembly)
* Nanotech in medicine: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/medicine/
* Nanotech in commercial products: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
Nanotech is here, folks. Right now it’s mostly used by the industrial and scientific sides, but it’s much more than mere speculation. For a good idea of where this is going, check out Vernor Vinge’s “Rainbows End” from your library, read it, and then realize that everything described in that book is either currently available or is under development (including the contact lens computer displays – http://nasahackspace.com/2011/11/contact-lens-computer-displays.html).
The legitimate dangers of nanotech are twofold:
(“nano”, BTW, refers to things that have a scale between 0.1 and 100 nanometers, or on the order of the wavelength of visible light; “nanotechnology” refers to being able to manipulate things on this scale.)
First, there are the dangers inherent in nano-powders particularly (see, for instance, http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/nano-powder.html). The chemical effects of various powders often depend on the ratio of their surface area to their volume and the smaller something is, the higher this ratio is. That this has important effects is illustrated vividly by aluminum: on the macro scale, it is quite stable-the surface oxides formed in reaction with the air protect the bare metal from further corrosion. On the micro- and nano-scale, aluminum powder is highly reactive and is the basis for many rocket propellants, most notably the Space Shuttle Solid Boosters. The fear is that as these powders become more widespread, they could have long-term biological effects that are not apparent on other scales, especially if released inadvertently.
The other has to do with the abilities that nanotech gives manufacturers. Right now, there are several highly dangerous viruses (such as smallpox) that have had their genetic sequences completely determined, and consideration is being given to destroying the actual viruses completely with the knowledge that they could be reconstituted from the database if necessary. Nano-manipulation technology could easily give terrorists, criminals, or less technologically advanced countries the ability to produce such viruses or other nasties without an expensive biological lab.
See also the “Foresight Guidelines for Responsible Nanotechnology Development”: http://www.foresight.org/guidelines/current.html