NanoEthics

A better nanotech discussion, please

2008-07-16T12:40:00.000-05:00

For a project I worked on several years ago addressing nanotechnology and water availability issues, I wrote the following:

Scarcity of clean water in many regions creates problems and conflict for large numbers of the world's population. This is a remarkable time, when understanding our dependence on the planet's fresh-water resources and our demands on these resources are both at an all-time high. The connections between water policy and foreign policy are stronger than they have ever been,though the tools and practices of politics, negotiation, diplomacy and international cooperation are often inadequately applied to water problems. This issue is, no doubt, related to global poverty, but it is probably better to look at it as a resource issue. In some ways, it is more pressing than the oil supply problem.

I went on to discuss how the access to *clean* water is key and implies that there is a need for effective and cheap filtration systems. One approach that a group member of mine was working on was very similar to the one describe in this report (exerpted here).

For example, researchers at Rice University have been working on the use of nanoparticles to absorb arsenic from drinking water supplies.
Nanoscale iron oxide absorbs arsenic efficiently, but in many countries implementing the process is either too expensive or technically impossible. The Rice researchers realized they could use magnetic filtration for nanosorbents, which, at the small-size range, could pull out unsafe particles with a handheld magnet…
The “recipe” to make nanoscale magnetite can be posted on the Web, allowing the technique to be distributed to many villages and used by any individual with modest means in a regular kitchen setting.
This solution might be called “open-source nanotechnology”…

Christine (at the exerpted link) wonders if the recipe actually has been posted on the web. I have another question. First, clean water is probably most needed in places where there are currently no "regular kitchen" settings, even no running water. Certainly, water filtration in the West could be made cheaper and better (I'm all in favor of it), but it is really needed in developing regions where water is supplied from watering holes or town wells.
Second, can we please stop speaking about nanotechnology in these u(dys)topian terms? Nanotechnology seems to have two extremes to approaching it when it comes to written literature. Either it is overhyped and is seen as the solution to all of mankind's problems without regard to practical manufacturing or productive issues or it is attacked as being too dangerous to pursue. Both of these approaches are pretty foolish. It's time to stop looking at nanotechnology as the Next Frontier of Technology and start recognizing that it is here on our doorstep and we need to develop a responsible approach toward technology development, improvement, and transfer. The last point, transfer, is especially important if we areto use nanotechnology as a tool for soft power diplomacy. This needs to be done in a cost-effective manner that encourages investment into nanotechnology for developing world problems. Not in pie-in-the-sky terms.

(Sorry for mixing metaphors)

The sticky fingers problem all over again

2007-05-20T21:20:00.000-05:00

"Sticky fingers" all over again:

Inexpensive 'nanoglue' can bond nearly anything together from PhysOrg.com

Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have developed a new method to bond materials that don’t normally stick together. The team’s adhesive, which is based on self-assembling nanoscale chains, could impact everything from next-generation computer chip manufacturing to energy production.[...]

The research article is here

P.S. Yes, I know that this isn't actually the "sticky fingers" problem.

Nanotechnology - one of the oldest technologies

2007-03-26T20:50:00.000-05:00

Nanotechnology and medieval technology: Nanotubes in Damascus Blades.

The new introduction to Engines

2007-02-15T12:15:00.000-05:00

Well, I promised a comment when I had read the introduction to the 20th Anniversary edition of Engines of Creation a little more in depth. I don't feel much of a need to reread the entire book, though I will probably scan through it from time to time.

My feeling of the introduction is first that it detracts from the rest of the book. It reads like someone who is upset that the government didn't fund his ideas and instead funded someone else's. As a non-casual reader (someone who has been involved in nanotechnology development), I'm not sure I really care all that much. I'm pretty sure a more casual reader won't really care at all. The description of Dr. Drexler's exchange with Prof. Smalley is also lacking. Dr. Drexler writes that Prof. Smalley had failed to refute his ideas (therefore, I suppose we are to assume, Dr. Drexler's ideas on molecular manufacturing must be true). I've never seen science to work this way. It seems to me that impetus of proof is on the developer of the new idea. And, besides, when I read the exchange when it first came out in 2003 it struck me that Prof. Smalley made some very valid points that need to be answered and accounted for if molecular manufacturing is ever going to gain much traction.

Towards the end of the non-"Looking Forward" section of the introduction, Drexler also makes this criticism of the modern world: "readers of a controversial document can’t easily see the best-rated criticisms, and so critics can’t respond where it would matter most. And so the Web presents knowledge and nonsense almost as equals, and amplifies both. At both the surface and depths of the computational world, there’s a need for new structures." Users of Technorati and countless other current and developing Web services would disagree with this criticism. And besides, it is out of place. This complaint is the same one that Prof. Cass Sunstein lays down in Republic.com. It's useful, but not related to nanotechnology (or molecular manufacturing).

Anyway, those are my brief thoughts on the introduction to the 20th Anniversary edition of Engines of Creation.

Engines of Creation 2.0

2007-02-11T22:41:00.000-05:00

WOWIO is offering Engines of Creation 2.0 for free download. I read the book (1.0 in paperback) about 6 years ago when I first got to grad school. It's definitely worth reading if you are interested in Nanotechnology and the implications of it. It you haven't read it, get it for free and read it from the PDF (you have to have an email address from a .edu, .mil, .gov, or .us address).

I have my own issues with molecular manufacturing and focusing on it (basically, I'm skeptical, it isn't what nanotechnology researchers actually do in the lab, and some of the predictions that are made on the effect to things like international relations, economics, and other fields completely out of the realm of science are pretty unsubstantiated and are wild speculation). But the book is important in understanding a lot of the discussion that goes on in discussing the future of nanotechnology (particularly where the Foresight Institute is involved).

Also, Ray Kurzweil's endorsement of the book, putting it on par with Newton's Principia is an extreme exageration of the impact of the book on science and the world. Furthermore (and of course I realize that they're trying to push the book), the book description also says that "Engines of Creation laid the theoretical foundation for the modern field of nanotechnology." Ummm... see my above comment about how nanotechnology as it is researched today is pretty far from what is laid out in the book. It probably doesn't help in educating the public about technology in general and nanotechnology in particular to use these types of hyperbole.

[Update] - I should note that I haven't yet read the introduction to the new edition but I've skimmed it and I will definitely have comments on it soon

Review of Nanofuture

2007-01-20T12:41:00.000-05:00

My review in the journal Nanotechnology Law & Business of the book Nanofuture is out. You can't access it online unless you have a login, but here's a link on this site to the review (pdf).

The rest of the journal is interesting as well. This issue has a decent amount of carbon nanotube information in it (as the most developed section of nanomaterials, who can blame them? It is a Law and Business journal). Enjoy.

Nanotechnology and Societal Transformation

2006-02-22T07:58:00.000-05:00

This paper (pdf) by Michael Crow and Daniel Sarewitz contains this gem:

Three observations are particularly relevant here. First, the impact of rapid technological innovation on people’s lives is usually not consensual. Second, in the short term at least, the social changes induced by new technologies usually create both winners and losers (where what is lost may range from a job to an entire community). Third, rapid technological change can threaten the social structure, economic stability, and spiritual meaning that people strive in their lives to achieve. As the nanotechnology revolution begins to unfold in all its promise and diversity, such issues are bound to express themselves. They should not be viewed as threats, or as manifestations of intellectual weakness or repugnant ideology. Rather, they need to be recognized as a central part of the human context for technological change.

Technology development for the 3rd world

2006-02-13T08:54:00.000-05:00

Think this method could be applied to nanotech:

Under an advance market commitment plan, the G-8 nations would promise to subsidize the purchase of new vaccines -- for between $800 million and $6 billion -- if pharmaceuticals companies develop ones that meet standards of efficacy and safety. Once the G-8 spends the pledged amount, the drug companies would sell the vaccine at a set discount in the developing world.

The idea is to ensure that companies get a substantial, upfront, government-backed financial incentive to develop the drugs, even if they ultimately have to sell them at a low price. "By restoring appropriate incentives," advance market commitments "can stimulate private research and investment, accelerate the discovery of new vaccines, save lives and contribute to economic development in a cost-effective way," Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti wrote in a report to his G-8 colleagues in December.

Probably. It sounds like a good idea. Let the market do the work, but guide the market.

Nano and the ELSI

2006-02-09T10:53:00.000-05:00

The Bioethics Blog asks about Nanoethics - is there a there there?

But it is clear from reading just the 10% or so of the dozens of blogs and hundreds of articles that cross my desk in this area that there are interesting social issues here, and that they deserve serious consideration, whether they are special or not. They are there and even if the money devoted to "nanoethics" becomes much like that devoted to ELSI in its formative years at NHGRI, it is easy to see that careers built around the early study of the very small could yield very big scholarship, and new ways of communicating with the public. Even if at the end of the day the work these people do isn't primarily about nanotechnology.

And it seems clear too that the crowd who do nanoscience are just at the beginning of the curve when it comes to understanding the risks associated with making utopian projections for the future of bionanotechnology - projections whose analog in gene therapy resulted in huge misconceptions among research subjects. Just look to South Korea to see what happens when people believe that technology is earth shaking long before it can even shake the building.

SoTU Nanotech

2006-02-01T13:35:00.000-05:00

Nanotechnology got a SoTU mention (of course, it's the most exciting of the research fields and the most bipartisanly supported so it was definitely going to):

First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.

And Science Magazine seems pretty excited:

On the energy front, Bush took an unexpected, strident turn toward clean fuels. Declaring that "America is addicted to oil," Bush said, "the best way to break this addiction is through technology." To do this, he proposed a 22% increase in funding for clean energy science, including an accelerated plan to spend $281 million for clean coal, $65 million in new funds for solar energy, $5 million in new wind power spending, and roughly $120 million in new funding on automobile research.

Science lobbyists are thrilled with the announcements. "[I'm] delighted," says Dan Reed, the Vice Chancellor of Information Technology and Chief Information Officer for the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and long a leader among scientists pushing for funding for computer science. "This is something a lot of us have been working for a long time." Now the challenge, he said, is getting an enthusiastic Congress to make the money available in spending bills due in the fall.

Isn't that the truth...

Nanotalk

2006-01-30T20:30:00.000-05:00

My advisor lent me this book today - Nanotalk:

Nanotalk is a book of conversations and explorations with thirty five such nano-research scientists and engineers who share their ideas, experiences, perceptions, and beliefs about their work, humanity, nature, change, and the future of the world with nanotechnology. Precisely because of the unknowable nature of nanotechnology research and development, conscientious foresight and ethical reflection are warranted every step of the way. Not only do nanotechnology research and development represent enormous financial commitments, but they also require a profound leap of faith regarding its possible outcomes. Using these conversations as the basis of reflection and deliberation, the author explores the possible significance of nanotechnology to humanity and how it might be pursued conscientiously and ethically.

I'm excited to check it out.

Small ROI?

2006-01-28T13:07:00.000-05:00

Nanotech and Commerciability:

In 2005 global government spending on nanotechnologies totalled $4.8 billion, according to the Cientifica researchers.

They say government nanotechnology funding takes an average of two to three years before it even reaches the lab, and consequently the impact of nanotechnology will only start to be felt from 2007 onwards.

It also warns that much of the government spending is concentrated on research areas with little immediate commercial impact.

Nanoethics Advisory Board

2006-01-23T11:03:00.000-05:00

This morning the Nanoethics Group announced its advisory board:

The Nanoethics Group today announced appointing a distinguished list of members to its Advisory Board, as public interest grows concerning nanotechnology’s impact on ethics and society. These new members represent many diverse fields – such as business, education, science, economics, law, medicine, ethics, and more – to provide guidance on an equally-broad range of important issues.

I'm on it, though I am certainly made nano by some of the other distinguished names.

Science podcasts

2006-01-13T11:56:00.000-05:00

While I'm on the subject, it would be good to note some very interesting science-related podcasts.

The first is Nature's weekly podcast that covers some hot topics in science. This week: Cosmic collisions, frogs feel the heat, why plants aren't so green, and ant school: the first example of animal teaching.

The second is the Naked Scientists, which is a little more like a high school science class in that it explains a lot of every day things and the science behind them. Plus, there's a nice experiment that you can do at home.

Other science podcasts include Science Friday, The New Scientist, Science@NASA (xml), and Nova ScienceNOW.

This might be the best reason yet to buy a portable mp3 player.

Nano-Hype by David Berube

2006-01-04T10:50:00.000-05:00

There is an interesting new book by communications professor (and associate director of Nanoscience and Technology Studies at the USC Nanocenter) David Berube evaluating the hype of nanotech.

In an effort to set the record straight, professor of communication studies David M. Berube has written this thoroughly researched, accessible overview of nanotechnology in contemporary culture. He evaluates the claims and counterclaims about nanotechnology by a broad range of interested parties including government officials and bureaucrats, industry leaders and entrepreneurs, scientists, journalists, and other persons in the media. Berube appraises programs and grand initiatives here and abroad, and he examines the environmental concerns raised by opponents, as well as the government and private responses to these concerns. With so much argumentation on both sides, it is difficult for anyone to determine what is true. Nano-Hype provides up-to-date, objective information to inform the public.

Berube also has a blog associated with the book and that just makes it all the better, so go visit.

Nanolog

2006-01-02T09:52:00.000-05:00

Again, I'm late to notice things, but Nanolog is relatively new (and a very welcome addition to the discussion!)

The STS Program at UT Austin is launching an online forum for informed public discussion on nanotechnology, where people from all walks of life and perspectives can share their insights, opinions, questions, and answers about the impacts of nanotechnology.

STS Nanolog will be an interactive online magazine where both scientists and non-scientists can discuss the dynamic and profound effects of nanotechnology on society. It was designed by Takao Inoue, a student at UT-Austin.

Okay, so now I have yet another reason to actually start writing articles out of all the outlines I have.

ACS RSS Feeds

2006-01-02T09:43:00.000-05:00

It should also be noted that all ACS journals now have RSS feeds for their ASAP articles. I do wish they provided an OPML file for the journals instead of having to enter each one individually in to my reader, but beggars can't be choosers...

Update - Nicely, the American Institute of Physics also divides its journals into subcategories. Take this APL RSS feeds page for an example.

Nanotech Environmental, Health and Safety database

2006-01-02T09:39:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I'm a little late coming across these things, but eventually I do.

The ICON Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) database contains summaries (abstracts) and citations for research papers related to the EHS implications of nanoscale materials... This database includes only abstracts or summaries of the papers. Some entries have links to full papers, although site registration or payment may be required to access the full content of many of these articles.

A useful resource for those who are interested.

Nanoparticle risk

2005-12-12T10:35:00.000-05:00

More research is being called for on the risks of nanoparticles

Scientists manipulating matter at the molecular level have improved on hundreds of everyday products in recent years and are promising dramatic breakthroughs in medicine and other industries as billions of dollars a year are pumped into the nascent sector.

But relatively little is known about the potential health and environmental effects of the tiny particles — just atoms wide and small enough to easily penetrate cells in lungs, brains and other organs.

While governments and businesses have begun pumping millions of dollars into researching such effects, scientists and others say nowhere near enough is being spent to determine whether nanomaterials pose a danger to human health.

Crichton's "Prey" makes an appearance in the article, of course, but let me just say one thing -

Admit it, this frightens you:

A Method?

2005-12-11T20:24:00.000-05:00

The NYTimes Magazine had an excellent short piece today about the nature of science. The best part was this paragraph:

Among philosophers of science, there is a perfectly respectable (if minority) view called "instrumentalism." According to this view, scientific theories do not yield a true picture of a mind-independent reality; they are merely useful tools that enable us to predict our experience and have a measure of control over it. History provides some support for instrumentalism. Scientific progress, it has been observed, takes place by funerals. Since past scientific theories have invariably proved false - phlogiston, anyone? - we can expect the same of our present and future theories. That does not take away from their utility as engines for turning out cures and weapons and gadgets, or at their most picturesque, as abstract stories to keep us in awe before the cosmos.

Though I'm not so sure it's a minority view among philosophers of science, it is one that I think is a more useful view than the one that says that science is the "Truth." It's a very post-modern view but it is also one that enables scientists to use any means necessary to solve problems, so long as they work. Instead of talking about Truth, better scientists should say both that a certain theory does the best job of explaining the current data and predicting new data in a field and that it asks the questions most likely to create new and interesting data. After all, isn't that what is really important in science.

In the context of nanotechnology

2005-12-08T05:49:00.000-05:00

In The Scientist:

Nanotechnology can learn much from history. As the biotechnology industry recently discovered, ignoring public policy and social issues – namely, possible heath and environmental hazards from genetically modified foods – invites a public backlash that crippled progress and sent corporate stocks plummeting. If nanotechnology is billed as the "Next Industrial Revolution", then it also must raise a host of important social and ethical questions that we need to consider now.

The following are some of issues in "nanoethics." Many of them are familiar to philosophy and ethics, but considering them in the context of nanotechnology is important and can reveal new insights.

It's by Patrick Lin, of the Nanoethics Group.

Societal Implications

2005-11-15T10:38:00.000-05:00

Added to my reading: "Nanotechnology: Societal Implications—New Report published by NSET, NSF"

A report exploring potential societal impacts of nanotechnology and identifying key areas for related research. Edited by Mihail C. Roco and William S. Bainbridge of the National Science Foundation, Nanotechnology: Societal Implications—Maximizing Benefits for Humanity reflects the views of experts who gathered at a workshop in December 2003 to discuss likely impacts of current and future advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology on the economy, quality of life, national security, education, public policy and society at large.

2005-11-04T08:06:00.000-05:00

Also, the Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcome at ASU received some funds from NSF for a "Center for Nanotechnology in Society", and they have job offerings:

Required qualifications for the post-doctoral fellowship include: a doctorate in a related area; demonstrated interest at the intersection of scientific and technological advance and societal implications in general and nanotechnology in particular; and evidence of achievement in both research and teaching. Desired qualifications: interest in policy, public engagement, or technology assessment.

The deadline already passed (10/28), but give me a year and that's me.

UCSB also.

More Nanoethics organizations

2005-11-04T08:02:00.000-05:00

About a month ago, the Center on Nanotechnology and Society (a joint IIT and Chicago's Kent School of Law) had its inaugural event.

The Center on Nantechnology and Society (CONAS) is an affiliate of the Institute on Biotechnology and the Human Future (IBHF), at Chicago-Kent College of Law in the Illinois Institute of Technology. The goal of the Center is to catalyze informed, inter-disciplinary research and education on the implications of nanoscale science and technology for ethical, legal, policy, business, and wider social issues, and with a special focus on the human condition. Drawing on the resources of IBHF, including its wide network of fellows that represent diverse sectors of society (see www.thehumanfuture.org), CONAS hosts consultations through the Chicago Nano Forum, and sponsors national symposia.

Nanoethics Group: Press Release

2005-10-03T14:08:00.000-05:00

The Nanoethics Group (with which I am affiliated) has released its first press release. It's an existence announcement - strange because it has been in existence for some time. But to get a good idea of its mission, check it out.

Nanoenvironmentalism

2005-09-13T09:12:00.000-05:00

Hearings coming soon:

The debate over potential health and environment risks of nanomaterials may heat up further when the Environmental Protection Agency holds a public hearing in Washington on Sept. 29 on recommendations for voluntary nanotechnology safety guidelines scheduled to take effect in 2006. A group of 17 advocacy groups -- including Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club -- say the agency's proposal for voluntary self-regulation will not provide enough protection against potentially toxic nanomaterials.

Politics and Science

2005-08-15T10:29:00.000-05:00

AAAS is defending scientific integrity:

Leshner told Barton the AAAS appreciates the committee's interest in the important field of climate change studies. "While we fully understand that the policy-making functions of Congress require integrating the best available understanding of relevant science with other considerations," Leshner wrote, "we think it would be unfortunate if Congress tried to become a participant in the scientific review-process itself."

I couldn't agree more. Look, ethics and politics are very useful in determining what paths technology should pursue and what paths society ought to fund. It is really awful in determining what the science is and being directly involved with it. Politics and Technological development may mix. Politics and scientific review? Not so much.

More on stem cells

2005-08-15T10:21:00.000-05:00

Glenn Reynolds writes, in linking to a promising, ethical method of doing stem cell research:

I certainly hope that this pans out. But before the anti-embryonic-stem-cell crowd rushes to say "so it's okay to ban research on embryonic stem cells!" I think I should add a cautionary note: We don't know if this will pan out yet, and making it work may well depend on, or be sped by, research on embryonic cells.

I'm sure that there are some people who think that research on embryonic stem cells ought to be banned outright, but this is not what the current debate is about. The current debate is about whether or not the federal government should fund it or whether it should be left to private citizens, companies, and local governments to work out what is best for the community. Prof. Reynolds knows this, but refuses to (or just doesn't) acknowledge it because, you know, it might cloud up his whole "Leon Kass is a luddite who must be stopped" theme.

Journal RSS feed

2005-08-02T15:20:00.000-05:00

IOP's journal, Nanotechnology, now has an RSS feed. This is so to minimize the time it takes to look through papers in the morning. Grad students everywhere should rejoice!

Nanotoxicology

2005-08-01T12:02:00.000-05:00

Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles

Abstract: Although humans have been exposed to airborne nanosized particles (NSPs; < 100 nm) throughout their evolutionary stages, such exposure has increased dramatically over the last century due to anthropogenic sources. The rapidly developing field of nanotechnology is likely to become yet another source through inhalation, ingestion, skin uptake, and injection of engineered nanomaterials. Information about safety and potential hazards is urgently needed.

Why nanoethics II

2005-07-31T11:19:00.000-05:00

By moving individual atoms around, we can improve just about everything - from designing stronger, lighter materials to smaller computing chips to more effective drugs to toxin-eating nanomachines to other things we haven't begun to imagine.

But that's exactly the problem. We haven't imagined enough of the implications of nanotechnology, both good and bad. And when you're talking about manipulating things on the atomic scale, things can get very bad. Just ask Robert Oppenheimer - see what he had to say on the left.

Oppenheimer's quote: Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. - quoting Hindu scripture upon witnessing the first atomic explosion.

This is from the Nanoethics Group based in Santa Barbara. Their approach to looking at the good and bad of nanotech seems promising

Nanopedia

2005-05-26T09:28:00.000-05:00

From the Nanopedia:

The possibility that nanotechnology will impact so many corners of society so radically automatically causes us to consider the ethical implications of the field.

Or something like that. Their "key areas" are a little lacking. "Humanity" (as in "fundamental nature of") needs to be added. As does environment (it's listed elsewhere on the site, but it really needs to be emphasized and considered along with the other ethical implications).

News from the Bottom

2005-05-11T15:51:00.000-05:00

The Online Student Journal of Nanotechnology, focusing on societal impacts, not hard research, is online. I must have missed the launch of it (not quite sure), but they're already through accepting submissions for the third issue. It's too bad because they were looking for articles "about the images used by nanotechnology" and I'm a microscopist and could have submitted a pretty good article.

Anyway, I'm just getting around to reading some of the articles and will definitely have some thoughts on them.

A note though - the Issue page doesn't look that good in Firefox.

Nanotechnology Patents

2005-05-10T17:53:00.000-05:00

New classifications for nanotechnology in the Patent Office:

Searching: A new cross-reference classification (977) will likely include search areas for (i) nanostructures; (ii) computer software for nanostructure modeling; (iii) manufacturing, treatment, or detection of nanostructures; and (iv) specific uses of nanostructures. The new classification system is intended to both ease examination and inform applicants and the public of the ‘state of the art.’

Somehow, I don't think that this really fits with Foresight's vision of nanotech...

Steroids in Sports

2005-04-25T09:24:00.000-05:00

PEA Soup has a good post on whether the use of steroids in sports is morally permissible:

So, these are some standard arguments against the use of anabolic steroids. I think the responses to these objections are actually convincing, but I confess that I don't really want to go where the argument leads: use of anabolic steroids in professional and world-class athletics is morally permissible.

Perhaps there is a reason why he doesn't really want to go there.

Nanoethics Survey

2005-04-21T05:52:00.000-05:00

A nanoethics survey - go help out!

It's short - only 4 questions long.

A good morning joke

2005-04-11T07:21:00.000-05:00

It's not even worth commenting on the ethics of having such a device exist, because the company description of how it "works" is just so darn laughably implausible.

This patch is non-transdermal - no chemicals or substances are transferred while wearing this patch. They claim to use nanotechnology and nanoantennas that communicate with your body "like a cell phone" telling it to create "more energy, please." This is their description as to how the patches work:

"...the patches interact with the body’s magnetic field to produce specific bioelectrical frequencies that resonantly transfer energy to turn on certain chemical processes in the body such as accelerating the body’s ability to burn fat as a fuel source for energy."

"The organic materials in the patches have been specifically selected to match the resonant and sympathetic frequencies of biological components involved in mitochondrial energy production, while not interfering with the other primary objective of the technology, namely assisting in the flow of calcium ions into muscle cells to increase recruitment of muscle fibers during exertion."

Slippery slope

2005-04-05T08:45:00.000-05:00

(via Howard)
Church against technology to create human master race

If only everyone was. The real problem is that the piecewise steps towards a technology to "create [a] human master race" are so minute and have other uses. It seems okay to genetically screen for certain diseases or to have nanoscale machines and devices enter diseased cells to remove the disease. But where does that stop? Is it okay to change the color of eyes? What about the strength of muscle? What about enhancing brain power? When cosmetic surgery first appeared, proponents promoted it for uses such as removing horrible scars or accident reconstruction (note: I've had plastic surgery on my nose after a doberman took a chunk out of it). But does that justify in some sense breast implants? What if I wanted to attach another arm?

'Obviously'

2005-04-01T11:16:00.000-05:00

The emerging fields of nanoscience and nanoengineering are leading to unprecedented understanding and control over the fundamental building blocks of all physical things. This is likely to change the way almost everything—from vaccines to computers to automobile tires to objects not yet imagined—is designed and made.

Obviously, any activity with such huge potential raises a host of ethical and social questions.

I thought so, of course but apparently it is not so obvious to everyone. See this strange article.

Definition of 'nano'

2005-03-30T15:00:00.000-05:00

from here (which I'll have more substantial things to say about):

Later, as funding appeared and researchers flocked under the banner of nanotechnology it came to mean far larger systems. A bit cynically, one could say that any kind of material technology, chemistry or physics can be called nanotechnology if at least some part can be measured in nanometers - even if it is by the hundreds of them. If funding is made more likely by adding the prefix nano- to one's research, the temptation is great to do it. There is also the positive side: by seeing many diverse fields as converging into nanoscience, great synergies and interdisciplinary adventures can be started. But the N-word still gets diluted.

As a researcher, I've never heard "nano" to be used where the smallest dimension was greater than 100 nm. It's always used for less than that, not when it can be measured "by the hundreds of [nanometers]".

Formulation of pain/pleasure/pleasure in hardship paradox

2005-03-29T12:14:00.000-05:00

PEA Soup has a good formulation of the paradox

Suppose that A’s life contains more pain than pleasure, so that his life has intrinsic value of –15 (pending what else happens). A then takes pleasure to degree 10 in the fact that he’s had a bad life. Call this pleasure P. Is P a true pleasure or a false pleasure? If it’s a true pleasure, then its intrinsic value is +20, which means A’s life has intrinsic value of +5, which means P is not a true pleasure after all. If P is a false pleasure, then P has intrinsic value of +10, which means A’s life has intrinsic value of –5, which means P was in fact a true pleasure. Paradox.

Call for papers

2005-03-25T11:12:00.000-05:00

I'm not entirely sure how I missed this when it first came out, but this seems like an interesting call for papers

CALL FOR PAPERS:
News from the Bottom:
The Online Student Journal of Nanotechnology

Now accepting papers from graduate and undergraduate students on epistemological, societal, ethical & legal implications of nanotechnology, and its convergence with other technologies.
Articles, reviews, and papers of any length will be considered.

Possible areas for papers include (but are not limited to): Reviews of nanotech in popular media; Historical Aspects (Feynman’s speech, Drexler’s influence, origins of the term ‘nanotechnology’, etc.); Overviews of areas of concern (like nanoparticle toxicity); Implications of the technologies (like self-replication); business community’s role in nanotechnology; how nanotech changes traditional hierarchy of the sciences

Email submissions as attachments to the editors (NanoEditors@gmail.com); include author’s name and area of study, title of paper, & brief abstract. We ask that all the submissions please include a bibliography for all references at the end of the paper and be formatted as Word documents. Questions may be directed to: NanoEditors@gmail.com

It looks like there isn't a due date, but I could just be missing something.

Technoman

2005-03-25T10:57:00.000-05:00

I finally finished Kass's book the other day and was duly moved by it. I recommend to anyone who is going to consider or wonder about the implications that technology can have on society and on the nature of humanity. It is, of course, more geared towards bioethics (cloning, stem cell research, "right to die"), but the general theme of looking at technology with the dignity of the human life in mind is a useful idea to gain and develop. Technology has a huge impact on how we look at the world and knowing how it changes us is important in deciding how useful/desirable it really is.

People looking for a book that probably takes the complete opposite viewpoint as Kass (and probably doesn't address any of the questions he raises about the relationship of man and technology) ought to check out "More Than Human" - I intend to.

I'm working on some thoughts now on nanotechnology and humanity leaving the evolution regime behind that I'll have some preliminary thoughts on in a couple of days.

Delay

2005-03-07T15:28:00.000-05:00

I know I've been neglecting the nanoethics blog for a little while, but I'm starting to get back to it. I've been doing some actual nanoscience work pretty steadily now and trying to work out some other projects. I'm starting to get back to it though, so watch this to become more regular from now on...

Nanoneurons

2005-02-01T07:54:00.000-05:00

Reprogramming the nervous system?

Injured nerves do not regenerate easily, and the little healing that does occur is often inhibited by scar tissue formation. Samuel Stupp and John Kessler at Northwestern University in Chicago are using nanotechnology to overcome those hurdles.
They made tiny rod-like molecules called amphiphiles, each of which is capped by a cluster of amino acids known to spur the growth of neurons and prevent scar tissue formation. The molecules are designed to remain suspended in a few drops of liquid until they come in contact with living cells. At that point they spontaneously arrange themselves like spokes in a wheel, and then further assemble into spaghetti-like nanofibers a few thousandths the thickness of a human hair. The nerve-healing amino acids end up arranged nicely on the fibers' surface.
The nanofibers turn the liquid in which they are suspended into a therapeutic gel, which in experiments with cultured cells spurred neuron growth and inhibited scar formation. Moreover, rats and mice that got injections of the liquid a day after spinal cord injuries were more likely to recover the ability to walk than untreated animals.

It's growing new nerves. Reprogramming the system. I love how the only hurdle mentioned is the scientific one.

Heh.

2005-01-19T10:38:00.000-05:00

IT'S A LUCKY THING FOR STEM-CELL RESEARCH THAT THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES AREN'T IN THE BIBLE.

The petri plate is the work of Satan. How does God know what a petri plate is in this ancient time before the advent of scientific achievement? It is because he's God, which is really handy for that sort of thing.

Go forth my children and use the word "embryo" whenever you can. It is a very pleasant-sounding word—say it as often as possible. In fact, my children, try this: point to anything and everything and say, "That's an embryo."

Mary tells us, "When a sperm and an egg come together, it represents the ultimate act of compassion and love. Therefore, it is a grievous sin to do studies on this type of thing. Plus, it's also kind of private."

The Lord says that our precious hearts and minds represent flesh of enormous piety. They should never be regenerated, regardless of the circumstances. While we're at it, we should also never regenerate eyebrows, nosehairs, or nipples—although the Lord figures that that is a given anyway.

For people who have had an accident and have lost the use of their legs, it is not the way of the Lord to try to fix this pain. Instead, God will tell them, "That's too bad." Then he will likely tell them a good joke to make them feel better.

And Jesus said, "Liquid nitrogen is evil. Once, while playing with it, I froze my finger solid and it actually broke off. Lucky for me I'm the Son of God, and I can just grow another one."

Why nanoethics?

2005-01-14T07:54:00.000-05:00

I was having a conversation tonight and was asked what was the big deal about considering the ethical implications of nanotechnology and I thought that I would publish my answer here.

Why nanoethics? Well, for all of history, man has been defined by both who he is (what is a human) and what he does. Indeed, many have suggested that the term homo sapiens ought to be replaced homo faciens. Over the years, from ancient Greece and Rome with water clocks and catapults to current day, our technology has acted upon us and changed what it is that humans do and what it is that humans are. It is important to care about what man will be. We need to recognize that there is more at stake in technology than just improving life. We must strive to protect and preserve human dignity and the ideas and practices that make us human.

We face two interlocking and interplaying revolutions in technology nowadays. There is the biotech revolution (with stem cells leading the debate) and there is the nanotech revolution. It is important to consider these two together as they are enablers of each other. Their development has and will continue to occur in parallel. In one, we are changing and impacting life and humanity in very new ways and changing the very DNA that makes us up.We need to recognize that there is more at stake in technology than just improving life. We must strive to protect and preserve human dignity and the ideas and practices that make us human.

There is also the nanotech revolution. It's development is focused on impacting nature and technology on the order of an individual atom, one of the most fundamental building blocks of nature (and, surely, one of the most basic ones that can with reasonable energy that is available on Earth). Using and developing this technology changes directly how man interacts with the world and thus man himself. We need to recognize that there is more at stake in technology than just improving life. We must strive to protect and preserve human dignity and the ideas and practices that make us human.

So, in a nutshell, that is why nanoethics.

The Ethics of Genetics Screening

2005-01-09T13:35:00.000-05:00

Ignoring some of the aesthetic issues, Dr. Daniel Eisenberg provides a very interesting look into the Jewish ethical perspective on issues related to screening for Tay-Sachs disease

Genetic screening for recessive traits is a great boon to the Jewish community (and the rest of the world). Whether done confidentially or publicly, the information gained provides the opportunity to make wise and informed decisions about the future. There are no health ramifications for the person being tested, but by utilizing such means, we can look forward to a future filled with more hope and less disease.

It's important to note that this evaluation applies to recessive traits that have large health detriments to the person who has the trait implemented in them (that is, not just a carrier).

Book to read

2005-01-07T09:33:00.000-05:00

I picked up a copy of my ex-professor Leon Kass's "Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics". It focuses more on bioethics than on nanoethics (though the two are intertwined), but I'm sure it will be a wonderful read. This title is more important, but it's too much on Amazon and I've yet to see it in the store.

On misinterpretation of dangerous ideas

2005-01-05T10:47:00.000-05:00

Here are some interesting notes at a coffee talk session at Emory I wish I'd been at.
Some of the more interesting points (Italics are my comments)

Communication is a key issue in all situations involving "dangerous ideas"
An ethical argument can be made: Scientists should not be held responsible for other people misusing their research. There are moral objections, however, to scientists carrying out research, and NOT CARING how this research is used. Note that there can also be made an argument, one that I think is stronger, that Scientists ought to be held responsible for other people misusing their research in foreseeable manners. See the next major point for more on this.

Even innocent, curiosity-based research can stumble into areas that can be misconstrued or misused

All people should be able to think through decisions ethically

Scientists should be trained to think about ethical implications of research - Before they partake in the research itself. Ignorance of ethical obligations is no excuse for shirking them off. This goes together with scientists foreseeing the misuse of their research. Training ought to begin in basic ethics and how it relates to science before the undergraduate level. And ought to intensify as the scientist progresses.

Superficial consideration of nanoethics

2005-01-01T10:28:00.000-05:00

I suppose that it is a good thing that it is being discussed, but this report on nanoethics by Bert Gordijn sponsored by UNESCO (called “Nanoethics: From Utopian Dreams and Apocalyptic Nightmares towards a more Balanced View”) is particularly superficial and shows a very minimal desire actually to pursue the ethical issues behind nanotechnology. The claim in the introduction of the report is that “the focus of the paper is on the methodology and not on normative analysis.” However, an objective reading of the report reveals significant normative analysis and minimal concern for studying actual ethical issues.

The sections on the definition of nanotechnology (entitled “Terminology and basic idea,” “Practical development,” “Theoretical development,” and “State of the field at present”) are full of a strong biases in favor of both a Drexlerian view of nanotechnology and in distinct favor of the “utopian dreams” over a more balanced view. In section 2.2, “Practical development,” Gordijn seems to find that the only practical development worth talking about in nanotechnology was the scanning probe microscope (and the atomic force microscope – a type of SPM) and that the seminal achievement with the scanning probe microscope was the pushing around of 35 xenon atoms to write “IBM.” There is no doubt that this was a major achievement. But the development of SPMs and the writing of ‘I-B-M’ occurred twenty years ago. Are we to believe that there have been no practical developments in nanotechnology that have ethical implications? Furthermore, Gordijn footnotes this section by saying that “Feynman already pointed out the importance of better microscopes for the further development of nanotechnology.” Though Richard Feynman did point out this importance, he was discussing making electron microscopes better. In actuality SPMs are not microscopes in any sense that Feynman was talking about. For viewing applications, SPMs are a lot like Braille. They see by feeling and with molecules and atomically precise materials this can be a very destructive process.

The “theoretical development” section focuses exclusively on Drexler’s books and the “theory” that he developed in them. Unfortunately, the vast majority of nanotechnology research that goes on is not developed from Drexler’s theories. Also, let’s not pretend that this paragraph isn’t slightly (just slightly) biased towards the “utopian dreams” of Drexlerian nanotech

According to Drexler, the development of universally applicable assemblers is essential for the further development of nanotechnology. Assemblers could obviously also be programmed to replicate themselves. From a commercial point of view, this would have the interesting advantage of being able to manufacture products in a feasible time frame. After all, if accomplished by only one assembler, constructing a car in a molecule-by-molecule way could take ages. If, on the other hand, millions or billions of assemblers could work together, things would look far more optimistic

The “State of the field at present” section discusses some of the actual non-Drexlerian nanotech work – but only in the footnote.

Finally, we come to the part where the utopian dreams of nanotechnology are mentioned. I was heartened to read the following - “It is even expected that it will contribute to the enhancement of man. Not only will it be possible to overcome contemporary diseases, pain and other unpleasant bodily symptoms. Over and above, nanotechnology will enable us to enhance all our human capabilities and properties” – as I assumed that it foreshadowed later looking in to what it means to be human and the impact nanotechnology will have on it (i.e. a discussion on what changes to humanity nanotechnology will cause).

But we do not get any such discussion – or any real mention of these types of issues at all. Instead we get a list of questions masked as steps.

Step one: what specific field of nanotechnology is to be assessed? Though there are many different parts of nanotechnology and it spans many different concerns of research (though from the introduction we got in this report you wouldn’t know it), to separate them from each other in the cookie-cutter manner that Gordijn suggest is going to succeed in diluting the central issues that occur when we can alter atomic and genetic structures through nanotechnology.

Step two: what are the objectives of that specific field of nanotechnology? See what I said about the previous step. Also, as if only the objectives of technology are its responsibility. What of the unintended “side-effects?” Are those not to be considered?

Step three: are these objectives ethically desirable? This strikes me as the sort of question that ought to be answered long before we even get to step one. No?

Step four: will further development of the field of research contribute to the realization of these objectives? Because otherwise why would we even do it? But this isn’t really an ethical question so much as it’s a logistics question.

Step five: what are the ethical problems connected with further development of the field of research? So finally we get to the meat of the matter. The only question really worth answering and it gets treated as one in a list of six. Unfortunately, nowhere in Gordijn’s discussion this question do we see that he has any concerns over the nature of man and the impact that nanotechnology will have on that. Instead mainly we get the Rawlsian issues over global justice. Important, yes, but somewhat superficial and obvious.

Step six: are these ethical problems surmountable? Sigh. In other words, how do we skirt by ethical issues. This is the completely wrong way to think about ethical issues. Ethics are not something to get around in order to pursue other goals. Ethics can help guide the way.

Though I am happy that people are actually considering some of the ethical issues that go along with the development of nanotechnology, it seems that the ones that are being considered are only the very superficial ones and not any of the deeper questions that need to be considered.