« Are Canadian Entrepreneurs Risk Averse? | Home | The Carbon Footprint of a Supermodel »

Don’t Burn Nanotechnology At The Stake

By crooky | April 24, 2007

One little note before I get into the meat of my rant/article: I am not writing this thinking that I am the first person to make this connection so that I can look back in a few years’ time and say “Ha! I told you mooks that this was going to happen!” I realize that my peers and betters have made this connection before. I’m just re-raising the issue at this time because I feel like we’re approaching the point where we may turn our backs on a branch of science that is fundamentally important to the future of humanity.

You’ve probably guessed from the title of this entry that I am talking about nanotechnology (which I will refer to as “nano” from here on out to stave off carpal tunnel syndrome as long as possible and DAMMIT! I just canceled out the preventative utility of that truncation by typing this sentence and the one before it). What you might not be aware of is that there is trouble on the horizon for this fledgling and oft misunderstood technology. Nano, by my definition is any man-made technology that has a feature that is less that 100 nanometers (nm) in size. This is the broad definition of nano and probably not what you would imagine if you’ve read Prey or any other pseudo-science claptrap about nano that has about as much foundation in reality as your typical 1960s Showcase comic. Rest assured, “grey goo” is a far-fetched Armageddon scenario on par with The Rapture.

I digress. The point is that there is a lot of ignorance about nano out there. And no, Joe Citizen, I’m not talking about you. I’m talking about the scientists that are working with the bleeding edge of nanotechnology today. I’m no Greenpeace or ETC Group supporter who see conspiracy theories and “the man” behind current nano endeavors. For the past three years, I’ve worked closely with people like David Roughley, Victor Jones and Alan Guest who are heading the nano charge in British Columnia. I’ve met the scientists, the private sector engineers, the government officials that are pumping money into this technology - they do not have a mandate to put a boot on the neck of the third world or delay the development of a truly zero emission vehicle to extend the profitability of “big oil”.

The problem is that however well intentioned “we” are (and include myself in the nanotechnology community), we haven’t spent enough time looking at Nano Ethical, Environmental, Economic, Legal and Social (NE3LS) issues while we race ahead with innovation. This is what killed genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Say what you will about GMOs but from my viewpoint, that technology blew up on the launch pad. Lobbyists learned that not very much research had been done in the E3LS area and leveraged that to their advantage. Part of my undergraduate research found me working on detailed content analysis of the rhetoric used by the lobbyists to sway public opinion. “Frankencorn” and other creative interpretations of science were used. I distinctly remember one campaigner holding up a placard that read “Do you like pizza? How about pizza that can mow your lawn?” Not outside of a Terry Gilliam monologue on “dark energy” had I heard such tripe. I don’t know this for a fact but I would be willing to bet my entire life savings ($10) on the fact that no one, anywhere, was researching genetically-modified anthropromorphic pizzas that could do yard work.

I’m not saying that all of the anti-GMO campaigning was this inane. Far from it. Some lobby groups asked hardball questions for which the GMO community did not have good answers. No one is to blame for their lack of preparation but themselves. The anti-ethical research practices of some private companies such as Monsanto did not help the cause either. These arguments, flawed or otherwise, did not prove that GMOs were bad for humanity. What these arguments did do was scare the sh*t out of Joe and Jane Citizen who - without credible sources to balance the views of the patchouli-sporting, but vocal minority - had no choice but to demonize GMOs.

Lori Sheremeta from the Health Law Institute at the University of Alberta has already highlighted many of these issues and is a big advocate of Canada finding an NE3LS strategy before the lobbyists use our unknowns against us to burn nano at the stake. I use this imagery of witch burning because in my opinion, like witch burning, GMO R&D was killed by public opinion, not reason. I fear that nanotechnology in Canada faces a similar fate if we do not act now to solidify an NE3LS strategy.

Recent mainstream articles on nano have indicated that there might be some risk that nanoparticles can cause DNA damage and exacerbate cancer. This is the kind of thing that, without corroborating research from other scientists (preferably with PhDs - no offense Ms. Pacheco), can provide a lot of leverage for the anti-nano lobbyists.

I intend to work with NanotechBC in the near future to make sure that Canada gets on the right track in this area. I encourage anyone who has any expertise in NE3LS to contact me ASAP. I’m looking for supporters. Lori, if you’re reading this, call me.

Aaron “Crooky” Cruikshank is the Principal and Founder of Friuch Consulting. He has written professionally about science and technology for ten years. He’s a policy analyst, a communications professional and a competitive intelligence consultant. After work, he fancies himself a comedian of sorts.

Share/Save/Bookmark

Topics: Policy, Technology |

Comments