Fwd: ETC: Nanotech and the Precautionary Prince

[Guest guest]

ETC group - Mailing List

ETC: Nanotech and the Precautionary Prince

 

ETC Group

Genotype

May 2, 2003

www.etcgroup.org

 

 

Nanotech and the Precautionary Prince

Tiny tech's biggest woe may be anger management.

 

Public row over princely cautions exposes nanotech's

not-so-small problem - green goo:

 

Prince Charles' concerns about the emerging revolution in nanotechnology (what

ETC group prefers to call Atomtechnology) have catapulted tabloid headlines

about " grey goo " (and impending doom) onto front pages around the world.(1)

Industry fears that the great GMO (genetically modified organisms) debate is

about to go down to the nanoscale inhabited by atoms and molecules. Despite

being one of the world's best-funded new technologies, nanotech is still little

known or understood outside scientific and business circles - and even less

regulated by governments. While grey goo makes great headlines, many are

probably still scratching their own grey goo wondering what the fuss is about.

 

The Precautionary Prince: According to news reports, Prince Charles' concerns

stem in part from his reading of The Big Down, an ETC Group report on nanoscale

technologies (see www.etcgroup.org for the full text and related studies). Only

four pages of the 80-page study discuss the prospect of molecular manufacturing

(which, if possible and allowed out of control, could lead to the grey goo

scenario). Jim Thomas of the ETC Group's UK office explains,

" Although Prince Charles hasn't talked with us, he did order several copies of

The Big Down. It seems reasonable to assume that he is aware of the full range

of issues addressed in the study. These include the health and environmental

implications of nanoparticle manufacture, the implications for national

economies and employment, the potential for technology monopolies as well as the

future of molecular self-assembly. In fact, these are the same issues we will be

discussing at a seminar in the European Parliament in Brussels on June 11th 2003

[see box below]. " In so doing, the Prince is simply observing the precautionary

approach for environmental safety that has been recognised by governments

through the United Nations. News of the Prince's interest has galvanized

industry (and some scientists) to try to marginalise St. James' Palace by

arguing that the Prince's concerns are either non-existent, centuries distant,

or exist only in pulp fiction. But the virulent attacks against the Prince may

only be the latest of a series of technical and tactical mistakes made by

nanotech's over-eager proponents.

 

The first mistake: Prince Charles has grounds for caution. Despite a

quarter-century of lab work on nanoparticles, scientists worldwide have failed

to establish agreed laboratory protocols to safeguard workers. Moreover,

governments have allowed nanoparticles into consumer products in the absence of

regulatory mechanisms. Particles that have been approved for consumer use at the

micro or macro scale have not been re-tested when introduced into the same

products at the nanoscale. Indeed, some nano companies pooh-poohed the notion

that nanoparticles need to be evaluated for their health and environmental

impact - even though the quantum characteristics of elements in the Periodic

Table change radically and nanoparticles can run undetected past immune systems

and can even slip through the blood-brain barrier. Over the past year, ETC Group

has brought forward a series of reports showing that real risks exist. (See, for

example, " No Small Matter " and " Size Matters, " www.etcgroup.org.) Partly because

of this research, a growing number of scientists are acknowledging that

nanoparticles could pose significant risks for the environment and human health.

 

The second mistake: In an ill-conceived campaign to paint critics - and now

Prince Charles - as paranoid, industry has implied that concerns about nanotech

come from either Luddites or science fiction fans who believe it is possible for

scientists to construct nanoscale robots (nanobots). Such nanobots would

self-replicate and be capable of atom-by-atom construction of everything from a

Big Mac to a Mac Apple to the Big Apple. " The image is a fanciful combination of

invisible sci-fi robots stacking atoms mixed with the Sorcerer's Apprentice, "

says Jim Thomas in Oxford. " This is hardly what we mean by molecular

self-assembly. "

 

Green goo: " It's not grey goo but green goo that makes molecular self-assembly

worthy of serious study and plausible in the not-too-distant-future, " says Pat

Mooney, ETC Group's Executive Director. " Molecular self-assembly is what living

materials do best. You don't need tiny tin robots. Science is merging

biotechnology and nanotechnology into nanobiotechnology in order to fashion

unique amino acids, proteins, molecules and cells. These will be organized in

new manufacturing processes that could replace conventional machines and

workers. " ETC Group believes that rapid developments in this field warrant

concern.

 

Life matters: Through the nanoscale manipulation of biological materials it is

now possible (or scientists believe it soon will be possible) to:

* Craft synthetic DNA from the blueprint provided by a natural organism;

* Use the synthetic DNA to create unique living organisms; (2)

* Construct new artificial amino acids that can be built into unique proteins;

* Add a fifth letter to DNA (A, C, T, G and now " F " ) thus increasing the

potential diversity (or destructiveness) of life. (3)

* " Write " DNA code in much the same way programmers write software;(4)

* Use DNA to build nano machines capable of exponential self-assembly;

* Design exponentially self-assembling nanomachines that can become motors,

pistons, tweezers, etc. in manufacturing processes.

 

Time matters: While the prospects for molecular self-assembly as a major

manufacturing process remain hypothetical, it would be a dangerous mistake to

consider it unlikely or far-off. " Consider how the pace of scientific progress

is already impacting nanobiotechnology, " Pat Mooney suggests. " In 1996, after

ten years, 1,000 scientists decoded the yeast genome. This year, a SARS genome

was decoded in eight days. At the outset of the Human Genome Project, it took

two months to sequence 150 nucleotides. Now we can sequence 11 million

nucleotides in a few hours, " said Mooney. " In the last ten years, " Jim Thomas

points out, " the number of screened drug candidates has increased by three

orders of magnitude from 500,000 compounds to 1.5 billion. "

 

Anger management: As funding and research in nanotech have grown dramatically in

recent years, its proponents have been warning one another that they dare not

make the same mistakes the agbiotech companies made when GM crops were

introduced in the mid-1990s. Yet, when critics of nanotech pointed out that

industry had introduced nanoscale particles into consumer products without

adequate testing for health and environmental impacts, the industry resorted to

diversionary tactics. The recent attacks on the Prince of Wales by nanotech

proponents are reminiscent of the worst blunders of biotech's boosters. By

characterizing all legitimate concerns as hysterical and grey goo-related,

industry is desperately seeking to silence all voices of caution. In doing so,

they risk making ever larger mistakes.

 

Seminar in European Parliament: Together with The European Greens, The

Ecologist, Greenpeace, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Genewatch UK, Clean

Production Action and a cross-party group of MEPs, ETC Group will hold a seminar

on nanotechnology in the European Parliament in Brussels on June 11th 2003. Led

by international experts, the seminar will look at both the issues related to

nanoparticle safety and the potential for molecular self-assembly with a view to

consider appropriate steps for societal discourse and government regulation.

Speakers include physicist Dr. Vandana Shiva and toxicologist Dr. Vyvyan Howard.

The seminar will be followed, on June 12th by a discussion among civil society

organizations in Europe on strategies to address the issues involved in

nanotechnology. For further information please see ETC Group's website,

www.etcgroup.org.

 

 

1 Jonathan Oliver, " Charles: 'Grey Goo' Threat To the World, " The Mail on

Sunday, April 27, 2003, p1. For responses, see: Japer Gerard, " Charles gets in a

wee tizz over nanotechnology, " Sunday Times (London), April 27, 2003 and Anon.,

" MP's anti-science slur on the Prince, " Norwich Evening News, April 28, 2003.

2 Alexander Goho, " Life Made to Order, " Technology Review, April 2003. Available

on the Internet: www.technnologyreview.com

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

 

 

ETC Group will release a new Communiqué related to this subject in May, 2003.

 

 

 

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an

international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC group

is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human

rights. www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member of the Community

Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC). The CBDC is a

collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society organizations and

public research institutions in 14 countries. The CBDC is dedicated to the

exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen the conservation and

enhancement of agricultural biodiversity. The CBDC website is

www.cbdcprogram.org .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.