[Fwd: NYT: Nanotech Sidelines---warning]

From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 00:09:35 MST

  • Next message: Max M: "Re: Time.com asks you to vote for most dangerous country"

    FROM NANOTECHNOLOGY'S SIDELINES, ONE MORE WARNING

    February 3, 2003
    By BARNABY J. FEDER

      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/03/technology/03NANO.html?ex=1045299506&ei=1.33
    &en=dc4c6b06081c0f81

    The ETC group releases nervous commentary on nanotechnology
    in the same way a lot of companies update their software:
    each version is compatible with what was said before but
    adds new features.

    The latest effort by ETC - which pronounces its name "et
    cetera" - is an 80-page illustrated manifesto called "The
    Big Down," its most elaborate effort yet to generate alarm
    among the global network of social, labor and environmental
    groups.

    Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter at the
    scale of atoms and molecules to create novel forms of
    common materials, like carbon molecules arranged in
    nanotubes, which are 100 times as strong as steel but much
    lighter. Proponents describe a future in which
    nanotechnology will lead to other wonders, like minute
    diagnostic systems to detect cancers when they are no more
    than a few cells in size, or data-storage systems that
    could contain the Library of Congress in a device the size
    of a sugar cube.

    But "The Big Down" warns of the risks of allowing big
    business to pursue and promote technologies whose health
    and environmental consequences may not be fully understood.

    The rhetoric is hardly dispassionate. "Today," it warns,
    "mighty Goliath (industrial corporations) has learned his
    lesson and is exploiting the power of small to become
    mightier still, while little David (society) cannot even
    see his opponent."

    That might all seem like ignorable fringe-group ranting if
    ETC and its executive director, Pat Roy Mooney, did not
    already have a reputation for successfully stirring things
    up. During the 1990's, they faced down Monsanto and other
    chemical giants in a public debate over the ethics of
    creating genetically modified plants whose seeds were
    sterile.

    And like the manifesto, Mr. Mooney is more often cautiously
    earnest than shrill. "We are not assuming this is an evil,
    awful technology," Mr. Mooney said last week. "I suspect
    quite a bit can be done that's useful." The danger, he
    said, is that governments and public interest groups do not
    have enough control over assessing risks and setting
    priorities.

    Mr. Mooney began distributing the report 10 days ago in
    Porto Alegre, Brazil, at the World Social Forum, a
    gathering held annually to coincide with the far more
    well-heeled World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland. It
    is also posted on ETC's Web site (www.etcgroup.org).

    ETC consists of just seven employees in Winnipeg, Manitoba,
    its headquarters, and in Carrboro, N.C.; Mexico City; and
    Oxford, England. Its annual budget is roughly $525,000,
    most of it raised from donors, like the Rockefeller
    Foundation, that have long been involved with the needs of
    developing countries.

    Mr. Mooney, 55, who has been legally blind since the age of
    12, is a native of the prairies near Winnipeg. He
    cheerfully admits that he dropped out of high school
    shortly before he would have been kicked out for ignoring
    his studies.

    His résumé includes working as a consultant for the United
    Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization as a young man
    and subsequent involvement in a wide range of development
    projects in Asia, Africa and Latin America. But he has no
    credentials as a researcher in nanotechnology, a field that
    takes its name from the word nanometer - one-billionth of a
    meter.

    In a telephone interview last week, Mihail C. Roco, the
    head of the United States government's National
    Nanotechnology Initiative, dismissed ETC as "nonscientific"
    and "a group that fights against technology." In fact,
    though, Mr. Mooney agrees completely with authorities like
    Mr. Roco that nanotechnology is the next big thing.

    But Mr. Mooney has trouble setting aside his fears that the
    new technology will go awry. He is not particularly worried
    about tiny robots creating copies of themselves until they
    crowd out human life - the "gray goo" catastrophe posited
    by some scientists and popularized in Michael Crichton's
    recent novel, "Prey."

    Instead, Mr. Mooney fears what he calls green goo:
    microorganisms that have been manipulated through
    nanotechnology to take over the function of machines but
    that begin reproducing out of control. He worries about
    environmental damage and diseases driven by unexpected
    responses of people and other living things to the
    accumulation in their systems of artificial particles the
    Earth has never seen before.

    Nanotechnology experts who have been paying closer
    attention to ETC and Mr. Mooney are less dismissive than
    Mr. Roco. "Making fun of Pat Mooney is not the way to go
    here," said Christine Peterson, co-founder and president of
    the Foresight Institute, nanotechnology's leading forum for
    discussion. "This is a sincere, smart man who doesn't have
    any trouble with logic."

    Another expert who voices at least grudging respect is
    Kevin D. Ausman, executive director for operations at the
    Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at
    Rice University, a new federally financed research center.
    "ETC is the first nonscientific group to start to address
    the issue of toxic impact of nanomaterials," Mr. Ausman
    said. But he expressed dismay that ETC is warning of risks
    he considers to be in the realm of science fiction, like
    green goo.

    Putting Mr. Mooney most at odds with the nanotechnology
    community is his call for a moratorium on research and
    commercialization until international agreements have been
    reached on ways to assess and monitor nanotechnology's
    risks. Mr. Roco and others say that such problems are
    already being addressed and that a research moratorium
    would impede scientists' understanding of nanoparticles -
    natural and artificial - that already exist, while delaying
    the potential health and environmental benefits of new
    nanoproducts and systems.

    But Ms. Peterson, of the Foresight Institute, recalls Mr.
    Mooney's response when she questioned his strategy of
    calling for a moratorium: "It gets people's attention."



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 00:13:19 MST