Guest guest Posted July 30, 2004 Report Share Posted July 30, 2004 > " ETC group " <etc > ETC News: UK Report on Nanotech > Thu, 29 Jul 2004 15:25:22 -0600 > > > ETC Group > News Release > Thursday, 29 July 2004 > www.etcgroup.org > > > UK Report: More Hits than Misses on Nanotech > > > After a year-long investigation, the United > Kingdom's Royal Society and Royal Academy of > Engineering released its final report today > examining the health, safety, environmental, ethical > and societal implications of nano-scale > technologies. The report was commissioned by the UK > government last June. The UK's Trade Union Congress > today supported the Royal Society's report and > called for strong regulations to prevent worker > exposure to manufactured nanoparticles. " There have > been plenty of red flags, but the dollar signs have > blotted out the warnings signs, " said Rory O'Neill, > spokesman for the Trade Union Congress. > > " The report is a good start toward addressing the > potential negative health and environmental impacts > of nano-scale technologies, particularly the use of > nanoparticles, " said Jim Thomas, European Programme > Manager of the ETC Group based in Oxford. " Just one > year ago Lord Sainsbury [uK Science Minister] said > that nanotech was adequately covered by regulations > - he was wrong. We welcome the Royal Society's > precautionary language on the environment and strong > recommendations on nanoparticles. " > > Today's report vindicates many of those, like ETC > Group, who have expressed concerns about the dangers > of nanotechnology for human health and the > environment in the absence of regulatory oversight. > > Importantly, the Royal Society considered many > broader societal issues and seems to have listened > carefully to the key questions raised by Prince > Charles in his July 11 editorial on nanotechnology > appearing in The Independent on Sunday - who > controls nanotechnology and who will benefit from > it? > > " The report is undeniably impressive and > constructive. It raises all the right questions, > even though some of its answers are incomplete and > uneven, " notes Thomas. " While acknowledging the > issues of ownership and control as fundamental, it > fails to adequately address them. There is no > discussion of nanotech monopolies or the > implications of nanotech for the global South. And > despite the UK's colossal controversy over > agbiotech, the report fails to examine the impacts > of nanotech on agriculture and food production. " > > The Royal Society's report also falls short in its > assessment of the potential risks of > nanobiotechnology. It naïvely puts the impacts of > nanobiotech in the distant future (more than 10 > years), and it starts with the premise that > nanobiotech applications will not include the > production and enhancement of biological material > through genetic modification technologies. > Considering genetic modification and nano-scale > technologies as separate spheres of science allows > the authors to dismiss self-replication as an > irrelevant concern. " In reality, nanotech and > biotech are already converging to create hybrid > materials, machines and living organisms, " asserts > Thomas. " The report itself acknowledges hybrid > bio-nano machines and recognizes converging > technologies as a profound issue. The report's > dismissal of the relevance of genetic modification > to nanobiotechnology is contradictory. " > > Health, Safety & Environment: The Royal Society's > report considered but rejected the need for a > moratorium on nanotechnology, which the ETC Group > called for two years ago, but it unambiguously > concludes that uncertainties about the risks of > manufactured nanoparticles " need to be addressed > immediately " to safeguard workers and consumers. The > Royal Society's decision to reject the call for a > moratorium seems to be based more on politics than > science in light of their bold recommendations: > > _ Ingredients in the form of nanoparticles should > undergo full safety assessment (even if the > substance has already been assessed in larger forms) > before being commercialized. [De facto moratorium? > What should be done about nanotech products already > on the shelf?] > > * The use of free manufactured nanoparticles (not > fixed to or within a material) in environmental > applications such as remediation should be > prohibited until appropriate research has been > undertaken. > > * Chemicals in the forms of nanoparticles should be > treated by regulators as new substances (thus > acknowledging that properties of nanoscale particles > may be different from the same chemical substance in > larger forms). > > * Factories and research laboratories should treat > manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as if they > are hazardous and seek to reduce or remove them from > waste streams. > > * Industry should make public all relevant data > related to safety assessments of manufactured > nanoparticles, and demonstrate how they have taken > into account that properties of nanoparticles may be > different from larger forms. > > * Consumer products containing manufactured > nanoparticles should be labeled on ingredients > lists. > > * All relevant regulatory bodies in the UK should > review whether existing regulations are appropriate > to protect humans and the environment from potential > nanotech hazards, and report on how regulatory gaps > will be addressed. > > * With the support of the UK, the European > Commission should review the adequacy of current > regulations with respect to the introduction of > nanoparticles into any consumer products. > > Convergence: The report notes that the future > convergence of nanotech with biotechnology, > information and cognitive sciences could be used for > " radical human enhancement " and that, if realized, > would raise " profound ethical questions " regarding > what we understand to be human, normal and abnormal. > With input from Richard Light, Director of the > Centre for Disability and Human Rights, and from > Gregor Wolbring, Director of the Centre for > Bioethics, Culture and Disability, the report points > to the problematic nature of a " technical fix " to > address " disability. " Clearly, new technologies > can't solve social injustices. > > The Bigger Picture: The report recommends that the > impacts of emerging technologies " be addressed with > some urgency. " Specifically, the Royal Society > recommends the establishment of a multi-stakeholder > group to look at new and emerging technologies and > to identify and advise " at the earliest possible > stage " where potential health, safety, > environmental, social, ethical and regulatory issues > may arise and how to address them. The group's work > " should be made public so that all stakeholders can > be encouraged to engage with the emerging issues. " > The report also recommends that the government > initiate adequately funded public dialogue around > the development of nanotechnologies. > > " We are pleased to see that the Royal Society takes > seriously the need to create a new body that has the > mandate to assess the broader societal impacts of > new technologies, similar to what we have called for > at the intergovernmental level, " said Pat Mooney, > Executive Director of ETC Group. The ETC Group > advocates for the establishment of a United Nations > body, the International Convention on the Evaluation > of New Technologies. > > > For further information: > Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim tel +44 > (0)1865 201719; > mobile: +44 (0)7752 106806 > Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) etc, > (613) 241-2267; > mobile: (613) 222-6214 > Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) > silvia mobile: +52 55 2653 3330 > Hope Shand and Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group (USA) > kjo, hope > tel: +1 919 960-5223 > > > Note to editors: > > The Royal Society's report, " Nanoscience and > nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, " > is available on the Internet: > http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm > > The Trade Union Congress report, " Nanotechnology - > the new asbestos, " is available on the Internet: > http://www.hazards.org/nanotech > > For a basic introduction to nano-scale technologies > and an analysis of their implications, see The Big > Down, From Genomes to Atoms: Technologies Converging > at the Nano-scale > http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf > > For a critique of the strategy of converging > technologies and an analysis of its implications, > see " The Little BANG Theory " > http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/comBANG2003.pdf > > For an introduction to the issues surrounding the > toxicity of engineered nanoparticles, see " No Small > Matter! " and ETC Group's Occasional Paper " Size > Matters! " for a more detailed analysis and a list of > products containing nanoparticles. > http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/Occ.Paper_Nanosafety.pdf > > For a short list of the most worrying scientific > findings involving nano-scale technologies, see Ten > Toxic Warnings in " Nano's Troubled Waters " > http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/GT_TroubledWater_April1.pdf > > > For a brief analysis of nanotech governance, see " 26 > Governments Tiptoe Toward Global Nano Governance " > http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/globalgovfinal.pdf > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.