nanotech file

7/27/2019 NanoTech File

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/nanotech-file 1/37

Space 2011-12 Nanotech DA

NANOTECHNOLOGY!

2NC Impacts...........................................................................................................................................................2

Nanotech Bad - War...............................................................................................................................................4

Nanotech Bad - Nuclear Proliferation..................................................................................................................5

Nanotech bad – Militar !a"eo#er........................................................................................................................$

Nanotech Bad – %&W Nu"e War............................................................................................................................'

Nanotech Bad – !errorism.....................................................................................................................................(

Nanotech Bad – !error ) *n#ironment..............................................................................................................++

Nanotech Bad – *n#ironment..............................................................................................................................+2

Nanotech Bad - Pollutants...................................................................................................................................+,

Nanotech Bad – *tinction..................................................................................................................................+4

Nanotech Bad - enocide.....................................................................................................................................+$ Nanotech Bad – *conom....................................................................................................................................+'

Nanotech Bad – Imperialism...............................................................................................................................+/

0*conom1.............................................................................................................................................................+/

Nanotech Bad – Biosphere...................................................................................................................................+(

Nanotech Bad – isease.......................................................................................................................................23

Nanotech Bad – Middle *ast................................................................................................................................2+

Nanotech Bad – Biopoer...................................................................................................................................22

Nanotech Bad – rms 6ace.................................................................................................................................2,

!7 Nano rms ill be controlled.......................................................................................................................25

!7 No 6eplication...............................................................................................................................................2$

!7 *port Controls 8ol#e ..................................................................................................................................2'

!7 9at 9in:ers....................................................................................................................................................2/

!7 8tic" 9in:ers................................................................................................................................................2(

!7 8malle 08tic" fin:ers1................................................................................................................................,+

!7 6e:ulations 8ol#e..........................................................................................................................................,2

,. 9ederal incenti#es don;t include re:ulations..................................................................................................,,

!7 Nano-8hields.................................................................................................................................................,4

Nanotech Bad – Must 6e<ect s Polic Ma"er...................................................................................................,$

CPHS 1




2NC Impacts

1. Deeopment o" nanotech ea#s to the c$eat%on o" se"-$ep%cat%n& nano'ots( )h%ch )% $ep%cate o*to" cont$o

Sean Ho)a$#, British political scientist and editor of Disarmament Diplomacy, 2002. “Nanotechnology and Mass Destruction: he

Need for an !nner Space reaty," Disarmament Diplomacy, !ssue #$

%rocesses of se"-$ep%cat%on( se"-$epa%$ an# se"-assem'+ a$e an %mpo$tant &oa o" ma%nst$eamnanotechnoo&%ca $esea$ch. &ither accidentally or 'y design, precisely such processes could act to rapidly and drastically alter

en(ironments, structures and li(ing 'eings from )ithin. !n e*tremis, such alteration could de(elop into a +doomsday scenario+, thenanotechnological eui(alent of a nuclear chain-reaction - an uncontrolla'le, e*ponential, self-replicating proliferation of+nanode(ices+ che)ing up the atmosphere, poisoning the oceans, etc. hile accidental mass-destruction, e(en glo'al destruction, isgenerally regarded as unli/ely -eui(alent to fears that a nuclear e*plosion could ignite the atmosphere, a prospect seriouslyin(estigated during the Manhattan %roect - a deli'erately malicious programming of nanosystems, )ith de(astating results, seemshard to rule out. s ay 3ur4)eil points out, if the potential for atomic self-replication is a pipedream, so is nanotechnology, 'ut if the

potential is real, so is the ris/: 5 ,%tho*t se"-$ep%cat%on( nanotechnoo&+ %s ne%the$ p$act%ca no$ econom%ca+"eas%'e. An# the$e%n %es the $*'. ,hat happens %" a %tte so"t)a$e p$o'em %na#e$tent o$ othe$)%se

"a%s to hat the se"-$ep%cat%on 6 e may ha(e more nano'ots than )e )ant. hey could eat up e(erything in sight. ... ! 'elie(ethat it )ill 'e possi'le to engineer self-replicating nano'ots in such a )ay that an inad(ertent, undesired population e*plosion )ould

'e unli/ely. ... But the 'igger danger is the intentional hostile use of nanotechnology. Once the 'as%c technoo&+ %s aa%a'e(%t )o*# not 'e #%""%c*t to a#apt it as an instrument of )ar or terrorism. ... Nuclear )eapons, for all their destructi(e

potential, are at least relati(ely local in their effects. The se"-$ep%cat%n& nat*$e o" nanotechnoo&+ ma/es %t a "a$&$eate$ #an&e$.1

2. Se"-$ep%cat%n& nanotech #est$o+s the ent%$e *n%e$se o*t)e%&hs a othe$ et%nct%on %mpacts!

7o)ard 3he%n&o#, 8ppointed lecturer at Stanford, &ditor &meritus of hole &arth e(ie), 9tne Maga4ine !ndependent%ress )ard, )idely recogni4ed as a leading authority on social implications of technology, ;all, 1<42, hole &arth e(ie),

))).findarticles.com=p=articles=mi>m1$10=is>n?#=ai>12#@$???

!t loo/s as if something e(en more po)erful than thermonuclear )eaponry is emanating from that same, strangely fated corner of Ne)Me*ico )here nuclear physicists first /ne) sin. hose )ho follo) the progress of artificial-life research /no) that the effects of

messing )ith the engines of e(olution might lead to forces e(en more regretta'le than the demons unleashed at lamogordo. Ateast n*cea$ )eapon$+ an# '%oc%#a technoo&%es on+ th$eaten %"e on Ea$th( an# #on5t th$eaten tocontam%nate the $est o" the *n%e$se.hat+s the larger ethical pro'lem of a-life. The technoo&+ o" se"-$ep%cat%n& mach%nes that co*# eme$&e %n "*t*$e#eca#es "$om to#a+5s a-life $esea$ch m%&ht escape "$om h*man o$ een te$$est$%a cont$o( %n"est the soa$s+stem, and, gi(en time, '$ea/ o*t %nto the &aa+. I" the$e a$e othe$ %nte%&ent spec%es o*t the$e, theym%&ht not $eact 'eneoent+ to e%#ence that h*mans hae #%spe$se# %nte$stea$ st$%p-m%n%n& $o'ots that

'reed, multiply, and e(ol(e. !f there are no other intelligent species in e*istence, may'e )e )ill end up creating Aod, or the De(il,

depending on ho) our minds+ children e(ol(e a 'illion years from no). he entire story of life on earth thus far might 'e ust the)et)are prologue to a longer, larger, drier tale, etched in silicon rather than car'on, and 'lasted to the stars -- purposi(e spores programmed to see/, gro), e(ol(e, e*pand. hat+s )hat a fe) people thin/ they are on the (erge of in(enting.

Scena$%os %/e that ma/e the potent%a "o$ &o'a the$mon*cea$ )a$ o$ #est$*ct%on o" the '%osphe$e oo/%/e a $eat%e+ oca p$o'em. 6%oc%#e o" a "e) h*n#$e# tho*san# spec%es %nc*#%n& o*$sees %s one/%n# o" eth%ca p$o'em7 t*$n%n& someth%n& %/e the A%en oose on the cosmos %s a )hoe ne) ee o"eth%ca apse.

CPHS 2




8. Nanotech can cons*me the )o$# %n ess than th$ee #a+s

ohn o'ert 9a$o), freelance ournalist, nanotech author, mem'er of the Scientific d(isory Board, pril 0: 8“Nanosecurity andthe ;uture 8if ny" NanoNe)s No) Monthly eport, http:==))).ohnro'ertmarlo).com=sa>>art--nanosecurityC20andC20theC20futureC20ifC20any.html

)orld-threatening scenario could come a'out as the result of an accidentmost li/ely an accident in(ol(ing)eaponi4ed nanites already programmed to destroy things. hate(er its origin, the progress of a nanoe(ent could 'e

incredi'ly rapid. o'ert . ;reitas, r., author of the landmar/ four-(olume Nanomedicine series, lays out some grim possi'ilities inhis paper Some Eimits to Alo'al &cophagy 'y Bio(orous Nanoreplicators, )ith %u'lic %olicy ecommendations. hough )idely 'elie(ed to 'e a statement of the ma*imum possi'le speed at )hich a nanoe(ent could progress, this paper largely concerns itself )ithintentionally-limited e*pansion rates specifically designed to prolong detection a(oidance. !t does ho)e(er allo) for more rapidly-

progressing scenarios. !n fact, ;reitas+ calculations, )hich fe) )ould dispute, demonstrate that the 'iosphere could 'e completely and irre(oca'ly annihilated 'y a gray goo-type nanoe(ent in 2.FF days. nd it gets )orse... he2.FF day timeframe is conser(ati(e in itselfG ;reitas+ paper suggests the possi'ility of e*pansion rates orders ofmagnitude greater. nd, as Hhris %hoeni* pointed out during recent discussions of the supers)arm concept8summari4ed 'elo) 5if )e reach the 2C goo stage glo'ally, or e(en the 0.02C stage, )e+re pro'a'ly alreadydoomed5 'ecause 5the 'iosphere )ould already 'e near-'oiling, and the damage )e care a'out )ould already 'e done.5

I21J he 2.FF day figure, it should 'e mentioned, refers to the 100C goo stage.

CPHS @




Nanotech 6a# - ,a$

Nanotech #est$o+s t$a#e an# econom%c sec*$%t+( ca*s%n& chaos an# )a$ compet%t%on 'et)een *nsta'eco*nt$%es

Mar/ (ram G*'$*#, Superconducti(ity esearcher K 9ni(ersity of Maryland, 1<4;. “Nanotechnology and !nternational Security,"

;oresight !nstitute, http:==))).foresight.org=Honferences=MN0$=%apers=Au'rud=

L ,%th moec*a$ man*"act*$%n&( %nte$nat%ona t$a#e %n 'oth $a) mate$%as an# "%n%she# &oo#s can 'e$epace# '+ #ecent$a%<e# p$o#*ct%on for local consumption, *s%n& oca+ aa%a'e mate$%as. The #ec%ne o"%nte$nat%ona t$a#e )% *n#e$m%ne a po)e$"* so*$ce o" common %nte$est. ;urther, a$t%"%c%a %nte%&ence )%#%space s/illed as )ell as uns/illed a'o$. A )o$# s+stem 'ase# on )a&e a'o$( t$ansnat%ona cap%ta%sm an#&o'a ma$/ets )% necessa$%+ &%e )a+. e imagine that a golden age is possi'le, 'ut )e don+t /no) ho) to organi4e one . As &o'acap%ta%sm $et$eats( %t )% eae 'eh%n# a )o$# #om%nate# '+ po%t%cs( an# poss%'+ "e*#a concent$at%onso" )eath an# po)e$. Econom%c %nsec*$%t+( an# "ea$s "o$ the mate$%a an# mo$a "*t*$e o" h*man/%n#ma+ ea# to the $%se o" #ema&o&%c an# %ntempe$ate nat%ona ea#e$s.,%th amost t)o h*n#$e# soe$e%&nnat%ons( each st$*&&%n& to c$eate a ne) econom%c an# soc%a o$#e$( pe$haps the most p$e#%cta'e o*tcome

%s chaos= sh%"t%n& a%&nments( #%space# pop*at%ons( po)e$ st$*&&es( ethn%c con"%cts %n"ame# '+#ema&o&*es( cass con"%cts( an# #%sp*tes( etc. Small and underde(eloped nations )ill 'e more than e(er dependent on the

maor po)ers for access to technology, and more than e(er (ulnera'le to sophisticated forms of control or su'(ersion, or to outright

domination. Compet%t%on amon& the ea#%n& technoo&%ca po)e$s "o$ the po%t%ca o+at+ o" c%ents m%&ht%mp+ $ee$s%on to some "o$m o" nat%ona%st%c %mpe$%a%sm. Compet%t%on "o$ cont$o o" ne)+-epo%ta'e$eso*$ces on Ea$th an# %n space ma+ &ene$ate #%ssens%on an# host%%t+ een 'et)een #emoc$ac%es(e$st)h%e "$%en#s an# a%es( )h%e p$o%#%n& an oe$t $at%onae "o$ #epo+%n& compet%t%e m%%ta$+ "o$ces.

Nanotech ma/es co*nt$%es mo$e %/e+ to st$%/e the+ "ea$ the h*&e amo*nt o" po)e$ nanotech )eaponspossess

Mar/ (ram G*'$*#, Superconducti(ity esearcher K 9ni(ersity of Maryland, 1<4;. “Nanotechnology and !nternational Security,"

;oresight !nstitute, http:==))).foresight.org=Honferences=MN0$=%apers=Au'rud=

o ;irst stri/e insta'ility. Een %" t)o s%#es a$e een+ matche#( h%&h ees o" #epo+e# a$maments ma+ 'em%%ta$%+ *nsta'e( %n that a s*$p$%se attac/ co*# pe$haps #ec%mate the oppos%n& "o$ce 'e"o$e %t co*#$espon#. his is especially li/ely in co-occupied en(ironments, i.e. space, the oceans, and along land lines of confrontation. ;orces

'ased in protected areas may remain sur(i(a'le, '*t se$%o*s compet%to$s )o*# not ce#e ast st$etches o" no man5san# to enem+ cont$o %n a#ance o" a "%&ht( an# )hoee$ st$%/es "%$st %n the co-occ*p%e# en%$onmentsma+ &a%n an %$$ee$s%'e a#anta&e. The &$eate$ the #ens%t+ o" %nte$penet$at%n& "o$ces( the sho$te$ thest$%/e t%me. Th*s a c$%s%s 'ecomes p$o&$ess%e+ ess sta'e as a '*%#*p p$ocee#s. perfect 'alance of technical and material resources is unrealistic in any case, )hich leads to a ne) type of strategic insta'ility:

&arly ad(antage insta'ility. !f one has an early lead in a replicator-'ased crisis arms 'uildup, the "act that a compet%to$ ma+hae some)hat "aste$ $ep%cato$s o$ s*pe$%o$ )eapon$+( o$ ma+ hae access to a a$&e$ p$%ma$+ $eso*$ce'ase( p$o%#es anothe$ st$on& st%m**s to an ea$+ "%$st st$%/e. Moreo(er, it is unli/ely that one actually /no)s the

performance of an enemy+s )eapons or production 'ase, particularly after a long peace

CPHS F




Nanotech 6a# - N*cea$ P$o%"e$at%onA Nanotech a$ms $ace aso ea#s to n*cea$ p$o%"e$at%on

Mar/ (rum G*'$*#, Superconducti(ity esearcher at 9 of MD. 1<4;. >Nanotechnoo&+ an# Inte$nat%onaSec*$%t+(? @o$es%&ht th Con"e$ence Pape$. http:==))).csr.umd.edu=mgu'rud=nanosec1.html

Ia/umi MurayamaJ

n increase of nuclear arsenals, deployment in more secure, co(ert 'asing modes, and de(elopment of ne) deli(ery systemsdesigned to penetrate defenses, )ould prolong the reign of nuclear deterrence and postpone the day of possi'le (ulnera'ility to

nanotechnic aggression. hus a n*cea$ po)e$ o$ potent%a n*cea$ po)e$( espec%a+ one that )as 'eh%n#%n the technoo&+ $ace( m%&ht )ant to $eta%n %ts n*cea$ opt%ons o$ een epan# %ts n*cea$ a$sena.A#ance# nanotechnoo&+ sho*# aso "ac%%tate a poss%'e n*cea$ $ea$mament to ees man+"o#h%&he$ than those o" the Co# ,a$. Th*s %t %s poss%'e that the $es*t o" a nanotechn%c a$ms $ace )%'e $ampant n*cea$ p$o%"e$at%on an# the epans%on o" maBo$ n*cea$ a$senas to )a$hea# co*nts %nthe h*n#$e# tho*san#s o$ m%%ons A ne) 'aance o" te$$o$( '*t note that a 'aance %s notnecessa$%+ sta'e.

CPHS $

http://www.csr.umd.edu/~mgubrud/nanosec1.html





Nanotech bad – Military Takeover

9%%ta$+ nanotech ao)s m%%ta$+ pe$sonne to #o )hatee$ the+ )ant

ohn o'ert 9a$o), freelance ournalist, nanotech author, mem'er of the Scientific d(isory Board, pril 0: 8“Nanosecurity andthe ;uture 8if ny" NanoNe)s No) Monthly eport, http:==))).ohnro'ertmarlo).com=sa>>art--nanosecurityC20andC20the

C20futureC20ifC20any.html

lready, says orld ranshumanist ssociation Secretary ames 7ughes, 5a ot o" enhancement $esea$ch %s 'e%n& #one'+ the m%%ta$+( an# )e )o*# a 'e 'ette$ o"" %" that 'as%c $esea$ch )as #one %n the p*'%c( non-classified,

ust as )e are 'etter off )ith other forms of research 'eing done in the open-source, non-proprietary and non-classified domain.57ughes, )hose 'oo/ Hiti4en Hy'org: hy Democratic Societies Must espond to the edesigned 7uman of the ;uture )ill 'e pu'lished 'y est(ie) %ress in cto'er 200F, is concerned a'out 5the potential (iolation of the rights of soldiers 'eing used asguinea pigs, as )e+(e seen )ith the multi-(accine-related immune disorders.5

nother, perhaps greater concern arises o(er the issue of the rights (iolations )hich )ill 'ecome possi'le %" nanoenhance# police

or m%%ta$+ "o$ces a$e $en#e$e# so ast+ com'at-s*pe$%o$ to o$#%na$+ c%t%<ens that no $es%stance to the%$)% %s poss%'e )hether that )ill is acting in accord )ith 8hopefully 'enign go(ernment policy or 8as is the case )ith today+s

South merican death suads, )hich operate in an en(ironment of unarmed ci(ilians s%mp+ $e"ects the sa#%st%c ten#enc%es

o" oca comman#e$s.

CPHS #




Nanotech Bad – O/W Nuke War

Nano'ots a$e mo$e %/e+ to /% *s a than n*cea$ )a$ eas%e$ to en&%nee$ '+ sma &$o*ps

Bill o+, cochair of the presidential commission on the future of ! research, 2000. “hy the ;uture doesnOt Need 9s," iredMaga4ine. http:==))).)ired.com=)ired=archi(e=P.0F=oy>pr.html

hat )as different in the 20th century6 Hertainly, the technologies underlying the )eapons of mass destruction 8MD - nuclear,

'iological, and chemical 8NBH - )ere po)erful, and the )eapons an enormous threat. But '*%#%n& n*cea$ )eapons$e*%$e#, at least for a time, access to 'oth $a$e - indeed, effecti(ely una(aila'le - ra) mate$%as an# h%&h+p$otecte# %n"o$mat%on7 '%oo&%ca an# chem%ca )eapons p$o&$ams aso ten#e# to $e*%$e a$&e-scaeact%%t%es.he 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnoo&+( and ro'otics 8AN - a$e so po)e$"* that the+can spa)n )hoe ne) casses o" acc%#ents an# a'*ses. Most dangerously, "o$ the "%$st t%me( these acc%#entsan# a'*ses a$e )%#e+ )%th%n the $each o" %n#%%#*as o$ sma &$o*ps. The+ )% not $e*%$e a$&e"ac%%t%es o$ $a$e $a) mate$%as. Fno)e#&e aone )% ena'e the *se o" them.hus )e ha(e the possi'ilitynot ust of )eapons of mass destruction 'ut of /no)ledge-ena'led mass destruction 83MD, this

destructi(eness hugely amplified 'y the po)er of self-replication.! thin/ it is no e*aggeration to say )e a$e onthe c*sp o" the "*$the$ pe$"ect%on o" et$eme e%( an e% )hose poss%'%%t+ sp$ea#s )e 'e+on# that)h%ch )eapons o" mass #est$*ct%on 'e*eathe# to the nat%on-states( on to a s*$p$%s%n& an# te$$%'eempo)e$ment o" et$eme %n#%%#*as.

3ep%cato$s an# AI hae mo$e #est$*ct%e capa'%%t+ than an a-o*t n*cea$ )a$ )% #est$o+ a %"e

&ric D$ee$, %hD - Molecular Nanotechnology, M!, 1<. “&ngines of Hreation: he Homing &ra of Nanotechnology"http:==))).e-dre*ler.com=d=0#=00=&H=&H>a'le>of>Hontents.html

States could use ad(anced ! systems to similar ends. utomated engineering systems )ill facilitate design-ahead and speedassem'ler de(elopment. l systems a'le to 'uild 'etter ! systems )ill allo) an e*plosion of capa'ility )ith effects hard to

anticipate. Both AI s+stems an# $ep%cat%n& assem'e$s )% ena'e states to epan# the%$ m%%ta$+ capa'%%t%es'+ o$#e$s o" ma&n%t*#e %n a '$%e" t%me.3ep%cato$s can 'e mo$e potent than n*cea$ )eapons= to#eastate Ea$th )%th 'om's )o*# $e*%$e masses o" eot%c ha$#)a$e an# $a$e %sotopes( '*t to #est$o+a %"e )%th $ep%cato$s )o*# $e*%$e on+ a s%n&e spec/ ma#e o" o$#%na$+ eements. 3ep%cato$s &%en*cea$ )a$ some compan+ as a potent%a ca*se o" et%nct%on , gi(ing a 'roader conte*t to e*tinction as a moral

concern.Despite their potential as engines of destruction, nanotechnology and ! systems )ill lend themsel(es to more su'tle uses than do

nuclear )eapons. 'om' can on+ 'ast th%n&s( '*t nanomach%nes an# AI s+stems co*# 'e *se# to %n"%t$ate(se%<e( chan&e( an# &oe$n a te$$%to$+ o$ a )o$#. &(en the most ruthless police ha(e no use for nuclear )eapons, 'ut they

do ha(e use for 'ugs, drugs, assassins, and other fle*i'le engines of po)er. ith ad(anced technology, states )ill 'e a'le toconsolidate their po)er o(er people.

CPHS ?



Space 2011-12 Nanotech DASe"-$ep%cat%n& nano'ots o*t)e%&h n*cea$ )a$ cant 'e cae# 'ac/

Damien Cae, Ne) Qor/ imes eporter, F=10=00. “3illoy," Salon. http:==archi(e.salon.com=tech=(ie)=2000=0F=10=oy=inde*.html

he first thing is that e(erything+s happening so fast. Moore+s la) is happening so fast. e don+t thin/ things are possi'le, 'ut in fact

they+re already going to happen, for sure. he second is this amplification, )here se"-$ep%cat%on ets an %n#%%#*a #osometh%n& that has a )%#e %mpact. ;or e*ample, Iin ;e'ruary+s denial of ser(ice attac/sJ one person pro'a'ly 'rought do)n

the e'G that+s an e*ample of replicated code. hen there+s the irre(ersi'ility of the actions. Een %" +o* c$eate a n*cea$J)a$K )%nne$ )ho 'o)s *p the c%t%es( %t5s not the en# Jo" a %"e on Ea$thK. 6*t %" +o* $eease someth%n&#ea#+ %nto the en%$onment( +o* p$o'a'+ can5t ca %t 'ac/. An# the+ a$e comme$c%a technoo&%es( notm%%ta$+( so the+5$e $ea+ oose %n the comme$c%a secto$( and they ha(e enormous (alue. hese things are going to

create millions of dollars in )ealth. !t+s no surprise that the NSDR is going cra4y. he technologies are (ery democratic: !f it+s

information, all you need to design it is a %H -- may'e one that+s 10,000 or a 100,000 times faster than )e ha(e today. But %t5s not%/e ha%n& a n*cea$, plutonium and uranium $e"%n%n& "ac%%t+ -- that5s not someth%n& ee$+one5s &o%n& to hae.

he information re(olution fundamentally democrati4es access to the tools.

CPHS P




Nanotech Bad – Terrorism

Nanotech ca*ses '%ote$$o$%smohn Ca$$o, Small imes Horrespondent, 11=2=01. “NN&H7+S D3 S!D& D&B&D !N 7& ;&S7H3 ; S&%.11," Small imes. http:==))).smalltimes.com=document>display.cfm6document>id2FP$

But %n %&ht o" the terrorist attac/s of Sept. 11 and the daily drum'eat of anthra* headlines, nanotech epe$ts a$e"%n#%n& themsees &$app%n& )%th a t$o*'%n& %st o" )hat %"s. ith fingers pointed in all directions in the

de'ate o(er possi'le state-sponsored 'ioterrorism, %ts not ha$# "o$ some to %ma&%ne a n%&htma$e scena$%o%no%n& a ne) &ene$at%on o" te$$o$%sts a'e to o'ta%n %n"%n%te+ mo$e po)e$"* nano)eapons .Nanotechnoo&+ %n the )$on& han#s %s a "$%&hten%n& p$ospect ,5 says Alenn eynolds, a la) professor and

longtime nanotech e*pert at the 9ni(ersity of ennessee. 5hereOs no uestion that %" Osama '%n La#en ha# accessto nano)eapons that he# *se them. Nanotech epe$ts co*# c$eate a ne) '%ote$$o$ th$eat that )aspotent%a+ to*&he$ an# sma$te$ than the #*$a'e anth$a spores causing so much concern today, says

Hhristine %eterson, president of the ;oresight !nstitute, a nonprofit organi4ation that focuses on nanotechnology.

Te$$o$%sts can en&%nee$ a*tonomo*s $ep%cato$s as )eapons

Neil aco'ste%n( Hhairman of the !nstitute for Molecular Manufacturing, F=0. “;oresight Auidelines for esponsi'le

Nanotechnology De(elopment," ;oresight !nstitute, http:==))).foresight.org=guidelines=;oresightAuidelinesT#.pdf

!t is important to note that molecular nanotechnology not specifically de(eloped for manufacturing could 'e implemented as nonautonomous replicating systems that ha(e many layers of security controls and designed-in physical limitations. his class of systemcould potentially 'e used under controlled circumstances for nanomedicine, en(ironmental monitoring, and speciali4ed securityapplications. here are good reasons to 'elie(e that )hen designed and operated 'y responsi'le organi4ations )ith the appropriateuality control, these non autonomous systems could 'e made ar'itrarily safe to operate. 7o)e(er, a determined and sophisticated

group of te$$o$%sts o$ >non state ent%t%es? co*# potentially, )ith considera'le difficulty( spec%"%ca+ en&%nee$s+stems to 'ecome a*tonomo*s $ep%cato$s a'e to p$o%"e$ate %n the nat*$a en%$onment( e%the$ as a

n*%sance( a spec%"%ca+ ta$&ete# )eapon( o$ %n the )o$st case( a )eapon o" mass #est$*ct%on. Bothcon(entional nanoscale technology and manufacturing ena'led 'y producti(e nanosystems can 'e implemented 'y responsi'le partiesuite effecti(ely )ithout these ris/s, 'ut as )ith other technologies, the ris/ of a'use must 'e considered seriously. hus, in additionto the need for professional ethics and multiple layers of em'edded industrial controls, there )ill also 'e a need for thoughtfulregulation, monitoring, and potentially the de(elopment of “immune responses" to e*ternal threats.

Nanotech can 'e *se# '+ te$$o$%sts to ma/e ne) )eapons eas%+ man*"act*$e#

Einda 3othste%n, editor of he Bulletin, 12=0:. “Bulletin of the tomic Scientists,"http:==))).forecastingprinciples.com=Honflicts=%D;C20files=ethin/ingC20Doomsday.pdf

s )ith 'iotechnology, the potent%a "o$ the m%s*se o" nanotechnoo&+ &$o)s )hen esote$%c technoo&%ca

epe$t%se %s co*pe# )%th access to soph%st%cate# toos. A &$eate$ nanotech th$eat than se"-$ep%cat%n&nano'ots, according to Dre*ler ( %s the potent%a that a po)e$"* an# conen%ent man*"act*$%n& capac%t+ co*#'e *se# to ma/e po)e$"* non-$ep%cat%n& )eapons %n *np$ece#ente# *ant%t+( ea#%n& to an a$ms $ace()a$( te$$o$%sm( o$ opp$ess%on. esearchers at Ea)rence Ber/eley National Ea'oratory are already ma/ing strides to)ard

the mass production of nanostructures. !n pril, they announced that they had designed a )ay to transform a car'on nanotu'e into a5con(eyor 'elt5 capa'le of transporting a stream of atom-si4ed particles to a 5construction site,5 )here they could hypothetically 'ecom'ined )ith other materials to create larger structures.

he scenario imagined 'y Dre*ler appears similar to those en(isioned 'y 3osal, )here nanotechnoo&+ co*# 'e *se# toenhance the e""ect%eness o" e%st%n& chem%ca o$ '%oo&%ca )eapons( o$ to c$eate ent%$e+ ne) )eapons.Cons%#e$%n& the a$%o*s "acto$s that p$esent+ comp%cate the #e%e$+ o" chem%ca an# '%oo&%ca

CPHS <



Space 2011-12 Nanotech DA)eapons( o$ the c$eat%on o" m%n%at*$e n*cea$ "*s%on 'om's( th%s %s pe$haps one aen*e )he$enanotechnoo&+ has the potent%a to pa+ mo$e than a )%#-ca$# $oe.

CPHS 10




Nanotech Bad – Terror & Environment

Nanotech ca*ses - 'a# heath( Death o" the en%$onment( an# te$$o$%sm.

The Nanoeth%cs G$o*p 0; 8he Nanoethics Aroup, research U education organi4ation for nanotechnology, “he Bad,"http:==))).nanoethics.org='ad.html

No one disputes that there )ill 'e many positi(e 'enefits from nanotech, 'ut )hat a'out the 'ad6 !s nanotech ultimately )orth thecosts, li/e electricity and pro'a'ly nuclear energy6 r is the price too high, as in the case of as'estos and DD6 !f it is too high, )eneed to /no) no), not )hen itOs too late and already unleashed upon our )orld. 8e 'elie(e that a )holesale moratorium onnanotechnology research or products is li/ely to 'e 'oth premature and an o(erreactionG 'ut that doesn+t mean that there are nonegati(e effects that )e can )or/ to mitigate. 7ereOs a uic/ loo/ at some of the negati(e conseuences predicted for

nanotechnology: 7ealth: Nanopa$t%ces hae 'een sho)n to 'e a'so$'e# %n the %e$s o" $esea$ch an%mas an# eenca*se '$a%n #ama&e %n "%sh e*posed to them after ust FP hours. !f they can 'e ta/en up 'y cells, then the+ can ente$ o*$"oo# cha%n th$o*&h 'acte$%a an# pose a heath th$eat %/e me$c*$+ %n "%sh( pest%c%#es %n e&eta'es o$ho$mones %n meat. he increasingly-popular ca$'on nanot*'e 820* stronger and lighter than steel oo/s e$+ m*ch%/e an as'estos "%'e$ )hat happens %" the+ &et $eease# %nto the a%$ Being car'on-'ased, they )ouldnOt set off

the usual alarms in our 'odies, ma/ing them difficult to detect. &n(ironmental: I" nanomate$%as $ea+ a$e as st$on& as

#%amon#s( ho) #ecomposa'e o$ pe$s%stent a$e the+ ,% the+ %tte$ o*$ en%$onment "*$the$ o$ p$esentanothe$ #%sposa p$o'em %/e n*cea$ )aste o$ space %tte$ In the #%stant "*t*$e( )% se"-$ep%cat%n&nano'ots K necessary to create the trillions of nanoassem'lers needed to 'uild any /ind of product K $*n amo/( spreading as

uic/ly as a (irus, %n the %n"amo*s >&$a+ &oo? scena$%o %ri(acy: s products shrin/ in si4e, eaes#$opp%n& #e%cestoo can 'ecome %n%s%'e to the na/e# e+e an# mo$e mo'%e( ma/%n& %t eas%e$ to %na#e o*$ p$%ac+. Small

enough to plant into our 'odies, m%n#-cont$o%n& nano#e%ces ma+ 'e a'e to a""ect o*$ tho*&hts '+man%p*at%n& '$a%n-p$ocesses. errorism: Capa'%%t%es o" te$$o$%sts &o han# %n han# )%th m%%ta$+ a#ances(so as )eapons 'ecome mo$e po)e$"* an# po$ta'e( these #e%ces can aso 'e t*$ne# a&a%nst *s.Nanotech ma+ c$eate ne)( *n%ma&%na'e "o$ms o" to$t*$e #%sassem'%n& a pe$son at the moec*a$ eeo$ )o$se. 3a#%ca &$o*ps co*# et oose nano#e%ces ta$&et%n& to /% an+one )%th a ce$ta%n s/%n coo$ o$een a spec%"%c pe$son. Society: ith all the potential a'uses of nanotech, many e*perts ad(ocate a strong system to regulate

and monitor nanotech de(elopments. But 'eca*se nanotech a'o$ato$%es can 'e sma an# mo'%e( s*$e%ancenee#s to 'e p$act%ca+ ee$+)he$e #eo%n& a "$ee soc%et+ %nto a 6%& 6$othe$ scena$%o. lso, )hat is the

impact on the economy6 !f nations can ma/e anything they )ant, )ill they lose all incenti(e to trade6 hat a'out morality K should)e 'e playing )ith god-li/e po)ers6

CPHS 11




Nanotech Bad – Environment

Nanotech %s #est$*ct%e to a*at%c o$&an%smsEE T%mes. 0:M10M200. Nanopa$t%ces each%n& %nto en%$onment.http=MM))).eet%mes.comMne)sMatestMsho)A$t%ce.Bhtma$t%ceID20;1004

S%e$ nanopa$t%ces *se# %n "a'$%cs )e$e "o*n# '+ $esea$che$s to each o*t a"te$ B*st a "e) )ash%n&s($eeas%n& ha$m"* to%ns sho)n to ha$m a*at%c %"e. hile the effects of sil(er nanoparticles on humans ha(e yet to

'e esta'lished, the researchers recommended that the &n(ironmental %rotection gency 8&% reuire manufacturers to 'ind sil(ernanoparticles to fa'rics to pre(ent leaching during )ashing. hey also recommended la'eling products as containing potentially

harmful nanoparticles. 5Nanos%e$ %s *se# %n p$o#*cts 'eca*se %t p$o#*ces %on%c s%e$ )hen epose# tomo%st*$e--%t %s th%s %on%c s%e$ that %s )e /no)n to hae ant%m%c$o'%a e""ects as )e as #et$%mentae""ects to a*at%c o$&an%sms,5 said+roy Benn, an en(ironmental engineer and dotoral candidate at ri4ona State 9ni(ersity

8S9.

Nanotech %nhe$ent+ to%c "o$ )%#%"eSa"e Nano. 0;M08M200. Nanoparticles affect pollutant to*icity. http:==))).safenano.org=SingleNe)s.asp*6Ne)s!d@$0

study into the to*icity of H#0 nanoparticles 'y researchers at the echnical 9ni(ersity of Denmar/ and the 9ni(ersity of

Hopenhagen, Denmar/ has further indicated that pollutant to*icity is affected 'y particle si4e. Ca$'on 'ase# o$&an%cchem%cas a$e /no)n to a""ect to%c%t+ o" po*tants to pant an# an%ma %"e. Ho)ee$( nanopa$t%ces%/e C0 hae the ate$e# p$ope$t%es compa$e# to the%$ a$&e$ co*nte$pa$ts an# th*s the%$ *n%*estan#%n& ma+ mean the+ hae a e$+ #%""e$ent e""ect on the to%c%t+ an# aa%a'%%t+ o" po*tantmoec*es. In a##%t%on( the nanopa$t%ces themsees ma+ aso 'e %nhe$ent+ to%c.

Nanopa$t%ces #est$o+ the en%$nonment /% c$*c%a 'acte$%a

A<oNano F=2<=200 http:==))).a4onano.com=ne)s.asp6ne)s!D#@$1, F=2<

Too m*ch o" a &oo# th%n& co*# 'e ha$m"* to the en%$onment. @o$ +ea$s( sc%ent%sts hae /no)na'o*t s%e$s a'%%t+ to /% ha$m"* 'acte$%a an#( $ecent+( hae *se# th%s /no)e#&e to c$eatecons*me$ p$o#*cts conta%n%n& s%e$ nanopa$t%ces. No), a 9ni(ersity of Missouri researcher has found thatsil(er nanoparticles also may destroy 'enign 'acteria that are used to remo(e ammonia from )aste)atertreatment systems. he study )as funded 'y a grant from the National Science ;oundation. Se(eral productscontaining sil(er nanoparticles already are on the mar/et, including soc/s containing sil(er nanoparticlesdesigned to inhi'it odor-causing 'acteria and high-tech, energy-efficient )ashing machines that disinfectclothes 'y generating the tiny particles. The pos%t%e e""ects o" that technoo&+ ma+ 'e oe$sha#o)e# '+

the potent%a ne&at%e en%$onmenta %mpact.“Because of the increasing use of sil(er nanoparticles inconsumer products, the $%s/ that th%s mate$%a )% 'e $eease# %nto se)a&e %nes( )aste)ate$ t$eatment"ac%%t%es( an#( eent*a+( to $%e$s( st$eams an# a/es %s o" conce$n(? said Vhiiang 7u, assistant professor of ci(il and en(ironmental engineering in M9Os Hollege of &ngineering. “e found that sil(ernanoparticles are e*tremely to*ic. The nanopa$t%ces #est$o+ the 'en%&n spec%es o" 'acte$%a that a$e *se#"o$ )aste)ate$ t$eatment. It 'as%ca+ hats the $ep$o#*ct%on act%%t+ o" the &oo# 'acte$%a.?

CPHS 12

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100889

http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199701799




http://www.safenano.org/SingleNews.aspx?NewsId=350

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=6351


http://www.missouri.edu/

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100889




http://www.safenano.org/SingleNews.aspx?NewsId=350


http://www.missouri.edu/




Nanotech Bad - Pollutants

Nanotech ha$ms atmosphe$e mo$e than c*$$ent po*tantsSc%enceDa%+ Ap$. 12( 200 Nanotechnology !n he &n(ironment: Ma/ing Sure onder Materials Don+t Become

onder %ollutants. http:==))).sciencedaily.com=releases=200P=0F=0P0F0P1@212<.htm

Pata "o*n# that the ten #%""e$ent ca$'on nanot*'es ha# ast+ #%""e$ent compos%t%onsG most pre(ious

to*icity studies ha(e generally assumed that all nanotu'es are the same. his di(ersity of chemical signatures )ill ma/e it

harder to trace the impacts of car'on nanotu'es in the en(ironment. !n pre(ious )or/ 8first presented last fall, Pata an#coea&*es "o*n# that the p$ocess o" nanot*'e man*"act*$%n& p$o#*ce# em%ss%ons o" at east 1a$omat%c h+#$oca$'ons( %nc*#%n& "o*$ #%""e$ent /%n#s o" to%c po+c+c%c a$omat%c h+#$oca$'onsPAHs s%m%a$ to those "o*n# %n c%&a$ette smo/e an# a*tomo'%e ta%p%pe em%ss%ons. The+ aso"o*n# that the p$ocess )as a$&e+ %ne""%c%ent= m*ch o" the $a) ca$'on )ent *ncons*me# an# )asente# %nto the atmosphe$e . he ne) research 'y %lata et al )as pu'lished pril @ on the )e' site of the ournal

Nanotechnology.

CPHS 1@

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408132129.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408132129.htm




Nanotech Bad – Extinction

Dest$*ct%e nanotechnoo&+ %s eas+ to p$o#*ce an# ha$# to $e&*ate cont%n*e# nanotech#eeopment )% "ac%%tate m*t%pe scena$%os "o$ &o'a et%nct%on

Nic/ 6ost$om, %hD and %rofessor at *ford 9ni(ersity, @=02, ournal of &(olution and echnology, (ol <,http:==))).nic/'ostrom.com=e*istential=ris/s.html

!n a mat*$e form, molecular nanotechnoo&+ )% ena'e the const$*ct%on o" 'acterium-scalese"-$ep%cat%n& mechan%ca $o'ots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter I22-2$J. S*ch$ep%cato$s co*# eat *p the '%osphe$e o$ #est$o+ %t '+ other means such as 'y po%son%n& %t('*$n%n& %t( o$ 'oc/%n& o*t s*n%&ht. person of malicious intent in possess%on o" th%stechnoo&+ m%&ht ca*se the et%nct%on o" %nte%&ent %"e on Ea$th 'y releasing such nano'ots into the

en(ironment.I<J The technoo&+ to p$o#*ce a #est$*ct%e nano'ot seems considera'ly eas%e$ to#eeop than the technoo&+ to c$eate an e""ect%e #e"ense a&a%nst s*ch an attac/ 8a glo'al

nanotech immune system, an “acti(e shield" I2@J. !t is therefore li/ely that the$e )% 'e a pe$%o# o" *ne$a'%%t+ during )hich this technology must 'e pre(ented from coming into the )rong hands. Qet the technoo&+ co*#p$oe ha$# to $e&*ate( s%nce %t #oesnt $e*%$e rare radioacti(e isotopes or large, eas%+%#ent%"%a'e man*"act*$%n& pants, as does production of nuclear )eapons I2@J. Een %" e""ect%e#e"enses against a limited nanotech attac/ a$e #eeope# 'efore dangerous replicators are designed and

acuired 'y suicidal regimes or terrorists, there )ill still 'e the danger of an arms race 'et)een states possessing nanotechnology. !t has 'een argued I2#J that moec*a$ man*"act*$%n& )o*# ea# to'oth a$ms $ace %nsta'%%t+ an# c$%s%s %nsta'%%t+( to a h%&he$ #e&$ee than )as the case )%thn*cea$ )eapons. rms race insta'ility means that the$e )o*# 'e #om%nant %ncent%es "o$each compet%to$ to escaate %ts a$maments, ea#%n& to a $*na)a+ a$ms $ace. C$%s%s%nsta'%%t+ means that the$e )o*# 'e #om%nant %ncent%es "o$ st$%/%n& "%$st . )o roughly'aance# $%as ac*%$%n& nanotechnoo&+ )o*#, on this (ie), 'e&%n a mass%e '*%#*p o"a$maments an# )eapons #eeopment programs that )ould continue *nt% a c$%s%s occ*$san# )a$ '$ea/s o*t, potentially ca*s%n& &o'a te$m%na #est$*ct%on. hat the arms race could

ha(e 'een predicted is no guarantee that an international security system )ill 'e created ahead of time to pre(entthis disaster from happening. he nuclear arms race 'et)een the 9S and the 9SS )as predicted 'ut occurredne(ertheless.

CPHS 1F

http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html#_ftn9%23_ftn9






The most %/e+ scena$%o "o$ et%nct%on %s nano-a$ms $ace.ohn 3o'e$t 9a$o)( Nanotech Co*mn%st( nom%nate# "o$ the 200: @o$es%&ht Inst%t*te P$%<e %n

Comm*n%cat%on( @e'$*a$+( 200:( Inte$%e) '+ 3oc/+ 3a)ste$n( e#%to$ o" Nanotechnoo&+ No)(http=MM))).nanotech-no).comMohn-9a$o)-S*pe$s)a$m-%nte$%e)-@e'0:.htm

NN: !n your opinion, )hat %s the most %/e+ scena$%o that ea#s to the s*$%a o" h*man%t+ oncea the nano-p%eces a$e %n pace an# a$t%"%c%a $ep%cato$s a$e no on&e$ techno-"%ct%on

M: hat+s an interesting uestion 'ecause 5the most li/ely scenario5 and the 5scenario that leads to the sur(i(al of

humanity5 may )ell 'e different things. s ! say in the author+s after)ord to Nano, the most %/e+ scena$%o %sp$o'a'+ a nanoa$ms $ace )h%ch ea#s to et%nct%on . Honsider: "$om the moment %t )as $ea%<e#that n*cea$ )eapons )e$e poss%'e( the%$ c$eat%on 'ecame %ne%ta'e 'eca*se no maBo$ pa+e$ co*# $%s/ente$%n& the "*t*$e )%tho*t them. !t+s a situation that dri(es all to see/ the creation of something )hich none really

)ant. oday, &o'a econom%cs %s a )a$ a %ts o)n( an# )hen +o* a## the %ncompa$a'ecomme$c%a 'ene"%ts o" nanotech to the *nassa%a'e m%%ta$+ s*pe$%o$%t+ cone+e# '+nano)eapon$+-the on+ poss%'e $es*t %s a &o'a $ace to the "%n%sh %ne . hich, unfortunately, may

really be the finish-for all of us. 8See 5Marlo)+s Second %arado*5 in the side-'ar he scenario )ith the 'est chance ofleading to our sur(i(al )ould 'e one in )hich )e all 'eha(e rationally, peacefully, and cautiously. Qou can see )hy !hesitate to call this a li/ely scenario. Nonetheless, the (ery nature of this particular 'east presents another, intriguing possi'ility, and one )hich the lead character in Nano pursues: regardless of the num'er of players at the nanota'le,Man/ind+s future can 'e assured if ust one player does this right-and that player )ins. gain o)ing to the nature ofthis technology, that player need not 'e a nation or e(en a large organi4ationG it could 'e an indi(idual.

CPHS 1$




Nanotech 6a# - Genoc%#eIne%ta'e e%t%st cont$o o" nanotech ca*ses mass ete$m%nat%onh*man%t+s $e#*ce# tonoth%n& '*t a petBill o+, Hofounder U chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, pril 2000. “hy the future doesnOt need us" ired

Maga4inehttp:==))).)ired.com=)ired=archi(e=P.0F=oy.html

n the other hand it is possi'le that human control o(er the machines may 'e retained. !n that case the a(erageman may ha(e control o(er certain pri(ate machines of his o)n, such as his car or his personal computer, 'ut

cont$o oe$ a$&e s+stems o" mach%nes )% 'e %n the han#s o" a t%n+ e%te - ust as it istoday, 'ut )ith t)o differences. Due to impro(ed techniues the e%te )% hae &$eate$cont$o oe$ the masses7 an# 'eca*se h*man )o$/ )% no on&e$ 'e necessa$+ themasses )% 'e s*pe$"*o*s( a *seess '*$#en on the s+stem . !f the e%te is ruthless theyma+ s%mp+ #ec%#e to ete$m%nate the mass o" h*man%t+. !f they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or 'iological techniues to reduce the 'irth rate until themass of humanity 'ecomes e*tinct, lea(ing the )orld to the elite. O$, if the e%te consists of

soft-hearted li'erals, they ma+ #ec%#e to pa+ the $oe o" &oo# shephe$#s to the $est o" theh*man $ace. hey )ill see to it that e(eryone+s physical needs are satisfied, that all childrenare raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that e(eryone has a )holesome ho''y to /eep him

'usy, and that anyone )ho may 'ecome dissatisfied undergoes 5treatment5 to cure his 5pro'lem.5 f course,

%"e )% 'e so p*$poseess that peope )% hae to 'e '%oo&%ca+ o$ ps+choo&%ca+en&%nee$e# e%the$ to $emoe the%$ nee# "o$ the po)e$ p$ocess o$ ma/e thems*'%mate the%$ #$%e "o$ po)e$ %nto some ha$mess ho''+ . hese en&%nee$e# h*man'e%n&s may 'e happy in such a society, 'ut they )ill most certainly not 'e free. hey )%hae 'een $e#*ce# to the stat*s o" #omest%c an%mas.

Nanotech ma/es genocide simplehomas 9cCa$th+, ohn H. Shaffer Distinguished %rofessor of the 7umanities. %h.D. Notre Dame , 2000 “Molecularechnologies and the orld Systems" http:==))).mccarthy.c*=orldSystem=intro.htm

6%oo&%ca an# chem%ca )eapons hae, and deser(e, an ignominious reputation. !t is hard to

thin/ of them as tools of honest )arfare 'ecause they cannot 'e controlled once they are released. hey tra(el)ith the )ind, /illing e(erything they come in contact )ith, soldier and citi4en ali/eG one cannot surrender 'efore them, and they ta/e no prisoners. hey do not e(en discriminate 'et)een 5enemy5 and 5friend.5 hey

ha(e on+ one p*$pose= to /%. Most other )eapons can also 'e used to 'ring )ars to end through means

other than /illing: factories can 'e shelled or 'om'ed, tan/s can 'e crippled, 'ridges can 'e 'rought do)n )ith

dynamite, missile silos can 'e 'lo)n from the ground. But chem%ca an# '%oo&%ca )eapons $ee/ o"

&enoc%#e( o" )%p%n& an enem+ "$om e%stence $athe$ than s%mp+ #e"eat%n& h%m.9NT ma+ eten# the capa'%%t%es o" s*ch #%$t+ )eapons( ma/%n& tota &enoc%#e amatte$ o" p$o&$amm%n&, rather than fa(ora'le )ind conditions. he possi'ilities for genocidal )eapons

are not hard to concei(e. !t may 'e possi'le, for e*ample, to program a release of nano)eapons to mo(esteadily from all sides of the 'order of an enemy country to the center 8ta/ing positional readings from Alo'al%ositioning satellites, /illing e(erything they come in contact )ith, and thus effecting the elimination of anentire nation.

CPHS 1#

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

http://www.mccarthy.cx/WorldSystem/intro.htm


http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html





Nanotech Bad – Economy

Nanotechnoo&+ )o*# coapse m*t%pe maBo$ secto$s o" the econom+

Mi/e T$e#e$, Henter for esponsi'le Nanotechnology, 1-1?-200http:==crnano.typepad.com=crn'log=)hat>)e>'elie(e=inde*.html

osh olfe of Eu* Hapital, editor of the ;or'es=olfe Nanotech eport, says, 5Ruite simply, the )orld is a'out to 'ere'uilt 8and impro(ed from the atom up. hat means tens of trillions of dollars to 'e spent on e(erything: clothing,food, cars, housing, medicine, the de(ices )e use to communicate and recreate, the uality of the air )e 'reathe, andthe )ater )e drin/all are a'out to undergo profound and fundamental change. nd as a result, so )ill the socio and

economic structure of the )orld. Nanotechnoo&+ )% sha/e *p B*st a'o*t ee$+ '*s%ness on thepanet.5 Lo)-cost oca man*"act*$%n& an# #*p%cat%on o" #es%&ns co*# ea# to econom%c*pheaa, as maor economic sectors contract or e(en collapse . o gi(e one e*ample, the &o'astee %n#*st$+ %s )o$th oe$ ;00 '%%on. ,hat )% happen to the millions of o's associated)ith that industry -- and to the capital supporting it -- )hen mate$%as man+ t%mes st$on&e$ than

stee can 'e p$o#*ce# *%c/+ an# cheap+ )he$ee$ the+ a$e nee#e#6 d(anced nanotechnologycould ma/e solar po)er a realistic and prefera'le alternati(e to traditional energy sources. round the )orld,indi(idual energy consumers pay o(er W#00 'illion a year for utility 'ills and fuel supplies. Hommercial and industrialuse dri(es the figures higher still. hen much of this spending can 'e permanently replaced )ith off-grid solar energy,

many more o's )ill 'e displaced. The )o$#)%#e sem%con#*cto$ %n#*st$+ p$o#*ces ann*a '%%n&so" oe$ 10 '%%on. he 9.S. Bureau of Ea'or Statistics reports that the industry employs adomestic )or/force of nearly @00,000 people. dditionally, .S. $eta% #%st$%'*t%on o"eect$on%cs p$o#*cts amo*nts to amost 800 '%%on ann*a+ . A o" these a$eas )% 'es%&n%"%cant+ %mpacte# if customi4ed electronics products can 'e produced at home for a'outdollar a pound, the li/ely cost of ra) materials. !f molecular manufacturing allo)s any indi(idualto ma/e products containing computing po)er a million times greater than todayOs %Hs, )here )illthose o's go6 Othe$ nat%ons )% 'e a""ecte# as )e. ;or e*ample, the Hhinese go(ernment may )elcome

the ad(ent of e*ponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing for se(eral reasons, including its potential toradically reduce po(erty and reduce catastrophic en(ironmental pro'lems. But at the same time, Ch%na $e%es on"o$e%&n #%$ect %nestment 8;D! of o(er WF0 'illion annually "o$ m*ch o" %ts c*$$ent econom%cst$en&th. hen those dollars to purchase Hhinese manufactured goods stop flo)ing in, the reuired adustments

may not 'e easy and could result in (iolent struggles.

CPHS 1?

http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/index.html





Nanotech Bad – Imerialism

!Economy"

Econom%c %nsec*$%t+ ea#s to nat%ona%st%c %mpe$%a%sm

Mar/ (rum G*'$*#, Superconducti(ity esearcher at 9 of MD. 1<4;. >Nanotechnoo&+ an#Inte$nat%ona Sec*$%t+(? @o$es%&ht th Con"e$ence Pape$.http:==))).csr.umd.edu=mgu'rud=nanosec1.html Ia/umiMurayamaJ

7o) )ill the )elfare of former )age-earners 'e organi4ed6 hat (isions of the future )ill nations stri(e for6!n democratic countries, assuming democracy is not undermined 'y ineuality, the ans)ers )ill 'e reached

through mass politics. 7o)e(er, econom%c %nsec*$%t+( an# "ea$s "o$ the mate$%a an# mo$a"*t*$e o" h*man/%n# ma+ ea# to the $%se o" #ema&o&*es. n#emoc$at%c states( o$"e*#a concent$at%ons o" )eath %n the han#s o" techno%n#*st$%a%sts( s*&&est &$%mme$poss%'%%t%es= mass #epo$tat%ons( &enoc%#e( o$ %$onhan#e# pate$na%sm to)a$# s*$p*spop*at%ons( an# #om%nat%on '+ c%*es o" *n'aance# e&oman%acs +%n& "o$ a'so*tepo)e$.ith almost t)o hundred so(ereign nations, each struggling to create a ne) economic and social

order, perhaps the most p$e#%cta'e o*tcome %s chaos= sh%"t%n& a%&nments( #%space#pop*at%ons( po)e$ st$*&&es( ethn%c con"%cts %n"ame# '+ #ema&o&*es( cass con"%cts(an# #%sp*tes( etc. Hhaos in less-de(eloped and smaller countries that ha(e traditionally relied on the (alue

of their la'or or ra) materials on the )orld mar/et )ill pro(ide opportunities for e*ploitation 'y the leading

po)ers. Co*nt$%es that cannot #eeop a#ance# technoo&+ %n#%&eno*s+, and that facethe loss of their role in the glo'al economy, )% 'e mo$e than ee$ #epen#ent on mo$ea#ance# nat%ons "o$ access to technoo&+( an# mo$e than ee$ *ne$a'e tosoph%st%cate# "o$ms o" cont$o o$ s*'e$s%on. !f the decision to pro(ide technology is a

political one, the price could 'e political as )ell. !ronically, then, the s*ccesso$ to &o'acap%ta%sm co*# 'e a pa$t%a $ee$s%on to nat%ona%st%c %mpe$%a%sm( as maBo$ po)e$scompete "o$ the o+at+ o" c%ents %n the "o$me$ th%$# )o$#.

CPHS 1P






Nanotech Bad – Bioshere

One acc%#ent co*# *neash $ampant nanotech that )% $e#*ce the '%osphe$e to #*st

ohn o'ert 9a$o), freelance ournalist, nanotech author, mem'er of the Scientific d(isory Board, pril 0: 8“Nanosecurity and the ;uture 8if ny" NanoNe)s No) Monthly eport,http:==))).ohnro'ertmarlo).com=sa>>art--nanosecurityC20andC20theC20futureC20ifC20any.html

s Dre*ler pointed out in &ngines of Destruction 8Hhapter 11 of &ngines of Hreation, )e cannota""o$# ce$ta%n /%n#s o" acc%#ents )%th $ep%cat%n& assem'e$s.5 7e e*plains )hy: 5The ea$+t$ans%sto$%<e# comp*te$s soon 'eat the most a#ance# ac**m-t*'e comp*te$s 'eca*se the+)e$e 'ase# on s*pe$%o$ #e%ces. ;or the same reason, ea$+ assem'e$-'ase# $ep%cato$s co*#'eat the most a#ance# mo#e$n o$&an%sms. 5%lants5 )ith 5lea(es5 no more efficient thantoday+s solar cells could out-compete real plants, cro)ding the 'iosphere )ith an inedi'le foliage.To*&h( omni(orous 5'acte$%a co*# o*t-compete $ea 'acte$%a= the+ co*# sp$ea# %/e'o)%n& poen( $ep%cate s)%"t+( an# $e#*ce the '%osphe$e to #*st %n a matte$ o" #a+s.

Dan&e$o*s $ep%cato$s co*# eas%+ 'e too to*&h( sma( an# $ap%#+ sp$ea#%n& to stop atleast if )e made no preparation. ,e hae t$o*'e eno*&h cont$oon& %$*ses an# "$*%t "%es .mong the cognoscenti of nanotechnology, this threat has 'ecome /no)n as the 5gray goo pro'lem.5 5

CPHS 1<




Nanotech Bad – Disease

Nanotech ca*ses #%sease can '+pass the %mm*ne s+stem *nnot%ce#

Erosion, Technology and Concentration G$o*p, 2002. “No Small MatterX Nanotech %articles %enetrate Ei(ing Hellsand ccumulate in nimal rgans," !ssue ?#. http:==online.sfsu.edu=C?&rone=Nanotech=nosmallmatter.html

gain, )hatOs the 'ig deal6 he 'ig deal is uncertainty, '*t sc%ent%sts see t)o potent%a p$o'ems spec%"%cto these "o$ms o" ca$'on Kone pro'lem has to do )ith their shape and one, apparently, has to do)ith their si4e. !t turns out that Dr. iesnerOs compa$%son o" ca$'on nanot*'es )%th as'estos %snot me$e+ $heto$%ca( highlighting the need to assess the dangers of a material 'efore it 'ecomesu'iuitous. Ca$'on nanot*'es $esem'e as'estos "%'e$s %n shape: they are long and needle-li/e.

ccording to Dr. iesner, car'on nanotu'es cannot pose much of a threat at present 'ecause, in our en(ironment, theytend to clump together rather than e*ist as single fi'ers 8)hich ha(e the potential to cause serious respiratory pro'lemsas as'estos fi'ers ha(e. 7o)e(er, an intensi(e area of research is to figure out a )ay to solu'ili4e nanotu'esKineffect, to de-clump themKso that they can 'e more easily used as single, detached fi'ers.2@. )o patents on methods ofsolu'ili4ing nanotu'es in organic solutions ha(e issued in the last year to the 9ni(ersity of 3entuc/y 89S.2F. Tery

fe) studies ha(e 'een done to learn )hat might happen if nanotu'e fi'ers )ere 'reathed in or if they )ere used indrug deli(ery or disease diagnoses or as 'iosensors.2$. !mmunologist Sil(ana ;iorito has disco(ered in preliminary

research that )hen a 1 m%c$omete$-)%#e pa$t%ce o" p*$e ca$'on 8in the form of graphite %s%nt$o#*ce# %nto a ce( the ce $espon#s '+ p$o#*c%n& n%t$%c o%#e( )h%ch %n#%cates that the%mm*ne s+stem %s )o$/%n& an# the 'o#+ %s "%&ht%n& 'ac/ a&a%nst an %na#%n& "o$e%&ns*'stance.2#. hen a nano-si4ed particle of the same su'stance pure car'on is added to cells 8in the

form of either nanotu'es or fullerenes, the cells fail to produce an immune responseKthey )elcome the

alien car'on li/e a long lost relati(e. The a'%%t+ to s%p past the %mm*ne s+stem ma+ 'e #es%$a'e"o$ #$*& #e%e$+( '*t )hat happens )hen *n%n%te# nanopa$t%ces come ca%n&6 !n other )ords,

once nanotechnologists ha(e figured out ho) to distract the 'ouncer guarding the door, ho) can you 'e sure youOrestill /eeping out the riff-raff6

CPHS 20




Nanotech Bad – Middle East

Nanotech #esta'%%<es the 9%##e East ca*s%n& $eta%at%on

homas 9cCa$th+( ssistant Director of Araduate dmissions at Boston 9ni(ersity+s AraduateSchool of Management 2000. “Molecular echnology and the orld System."http:==))).mccarthy.c*=orldSystem=intro.htm IBapodraJ

,e can epect moec*a$ nanotechnoo&+ to 'e oppose#( )hethe$ open+ o$ sec$et+( '+ an+state that epects to s*""e$ a oss o" $eat%e po)e$. Pe$haps no oss o" $eat%e po)e$ amon&states )% 'e &$eate$ than that s*""e$e# '+ the o%-p$o#*c%n& states o" the 9%##e East.9oec*a$ nanotechnoo&+ poses a chaen&e to the p$%mac+ o" "oss% "*e as an ene$&+ so*$ceon see$a "$onts. ;or one thing, manufacturing on a molecular scale should 'e e*tremely efficient,

)ithout the )asteful processing associated )ith 'ul/ manufacturing techniues. his alone )ould lo)er the(alue of oil 'y lo)ering energy reuirements for manufacturing a gi(en product. 7o)e(er, the efficiency of

manufacturing has 'een increasing since oil started to 'ecome )idely used in industry, and the )orld+sappetite for energy has only continued to gro), so greater energy efficiency alone )ill not ma/e oilo'solete. But )hat might do it is the fact that molecular nanotechnology may lo)er the le(el of energy needin manufacturing to a point lo) enough that solar po)er, e(en if collected 'y the inefficient cells )e use

today rather than a nanotechnological (ersion, )ould 'e sufficient. I" moec*a$ nanotechnoo&+ can#o th%s( an# %t appea$s %/e+ that %t can( then o% )o*# no on&e$ 'e %n #eman# %n an+ &$eat*ant%t+( an# that )o*# mean a &$eat oss o" po)e$ "o$ the 9%##e East.gain, it is not a'solute po)er that is the only concern. Molecular nanotechnology, if adopted 'y Middle&astern states, could ma/e e(eryone in the region far richer than today+s richest shei/, )ith choices that are

not a(aila'le today at any price, such as e*tremely long lifespans. Nonetheess( %t ma+ 'e act%e+oppose# '+ man+ %n the 9%##e East 'eca*se %t )% ea# to a oss o" $eat%e po)e$( %n th%scase cont$o o" the )o$#5s s*pp+ o" ene$&+. As OPEC #emonst$ate# #*$%n& the 14;0s( th%s %s

an %mpo$tant ee$ to hae one5s han# on7 '+ #ec$eas%n& the s*pp+ o" c$*#e %n 14;8( theOPEC nat%ons )e$e a'e to th$o) the econom%es o" a the %n#*st$%a%<e# )o$# %nto #eep$ecess%on( ca*s%n& mass%e oss o" Bo's an# o)e$e# stan#a$#s o" %%n& "o$ m%%ons o" peope.

he dependency of North merica, apan, &urope and most of the rest of the )orld on a resource that isonly found in a'undance in one region of the planet and is controlled 'y a handful of decision-ma/ers is anincredi'le )ea/ness, and one that )as easily e*ploited. lthough %&H is no longer a force, the

dependency is real, and in some states 8such as the 9.S. has e(en gro)n deeper. Depen#enc+ means*ne$a'%%t+( *ne$a'%%t+ to the #ec%s%ons o" othe$s( an# %t #eman#s that attent%on 'e pa%#to a $e&%on o" the )o$# that othe$)%se )o*# ho# %tte s%&n%"%cance. ,e$e %t not "o$ o%( the9%##e East )o*# &o most+ *nnot%ce# '+ m*ch o" the )o$#. The o%-p$o#*c%n& states a$e)e a)a$e o" the so*$ce o" the%$ po)e$( ha%n& a$ea#+ "ee# the%$ m*sce once. 9oec*a$

nanotechnoo&+ %s not %/e+ to $ece%e a )a$m )ecome "$om these states( an# man+ o" themnota'+ I$an( I$a an# L%'+a a$e p$act%t%one$s o" the o)est "o$m o" %oence= te$$o$%sm.The se$%o*sness o" an ant%-nanotech te$$o$%sm( espec%a+ %n a )o$# )he$e n*cea$ mate$%asa$e 'ecom%n& eas%e$ to o'ta%n( sho*# not 'e ost on an+one.

CPHS 21






Nanotech Bad – Bioo#er

Nanotech ao)s states to mon%to$ an# #%sca$# sect%ons o" the%$ pop*at%on technoo&+ can#o an+th%n&

&ric D$ee$, %hD - Molecular Nanotechnology, M!, 1<. “&ngines of Hreation: he Homing &ra of Nanotechnology" http:==))).e-dre*ler.com=d=0#=00=&H=&H>a'le>of>Hontents.html

States co*# 'ecome mo$e %/e o$&an%sms '+ #om%nat%n& the%$ pa$ts mo$e compete+. 9singreplicating assem'lers, states co*# "% the h*man en%$onment )%th m%n%at*$e s*$e%ance#e%ces. 9sing an a'undance of speech-understanding ! systems, they could listen to e(eryone)ithout employing half the population as listeners. s%n& nanotechnoo&+ %/e that p$opose# "o$ce $epa%$ mach%nes( the+ co*# cheap+ t$an*%%<e( o'otom%<e( o$ othe$)%se mo#%"+ ent%$epop*at%ons. his )ould simply e*tend an all too familiar pattern. he )orld already holdsgo(ernments that spy, torture, and drugG ad(anced technology )ill merely e*tend the possi'ilities.6*t )%th a#ance# technoo&+( states nee# not cont$o peope - the+ co*# %nstea#s%mp+ #%sca$# peope. 9ost peope %n most states, after all, "*nct%on either as )o$/e$s , lar(al)or/ers, or )or/er-rearers, an# most o" these )o$/e$s ma/e( moe( o$ &$o) th%n&s. A state)%th $ep%cat%n& assem'e$s )o*# not nee# s*ch )o$/. hat is more, a#ance# AI s+stemsco*# $epace en&%nee$s( sc%ent%sts( a#m%n%st$ato$s( an# een ea#e$s. he com'ination of

nanotechnology and ad(anced ! )ill ma/e possi'le intelligent, effecti(e ro'otsG )ith such ro'ots, a state could prosper )hile discarding anyone, or e(en 8in principle e(eryone.

CPHS 22




Nanotech 6a# A$ms 3aceNanotechnoo&+ $%s/s &o'a a$ms $aces an# )a$s

Mi/e T$e#e$, Henter for esponsi'le Nanotechnology, 1-1P-200

http:==crnano.typepad.com=crn'log=)hat>)e>'elie(e=inde*.html

!n todayOs )orld, e(en though each nation is politically independent, they all rely to some degree on other nations

for trade or security, or 'oth. No nat%on -- at least no nation of e(en minimal significance -- e%sts"$ee "$om this %nte$#epen#ence. But moec*a$ man*"act*$%n& has the potent%a to chan&e all that( an# not for the 'etter . ,hen %n#%%#*a co*nt$%es a$e a'e to p$o%#e a the%$ o)n&oo#s an# se$%ces, and no longer ha(e need for import or e*port trade, the+ )% hae ess%ncent%e to ma%nta%n &oo# $eat%ons )ith others. hen economic security is no longer anissue, the on+ $ema%n%n& sec*$%t+ conce$n )% 'e m%%ta$+. No) )e hae a the ma/%n&s o"a te$$%'e ne) a$ms $ace. Ee$+ co*nt$+ possessing unrestricted molecular manufacturingcapa'ility )% hae the a'%%t+ to design, test, and stoc/p%e mass%e amo*nts o" small, cheap,"$%&hten%n&+ po)e$"* )eapons. ssuming nanotechnology de(elopment is allo)ed to

proliferate, )e can e*pect that man+ co*nt$%es )% ach%ee econom%c %n#epen#ence an#*np$ece#ente# m%%ta$+ p$o)ess. ,% )e then see a sta'e e*%%'$%*m , a tenuous 'alanceof po)er s%m%a$ to the 5mutually assured destruction5 of the Co# ,a$ Not %/e+ . N*cea$)eapons reuire massi(e research effort and industrial #eeopment, )hich can 'e t$ac/e#"a$ mo$e eas%+ than nanotech )eapons #eeopment. Molecular manufacturing )ill ena'lenanotech )eapons to 'e de(eloped much more rapidly due to faster, cheaper prototyping. It )%'e nearly %mposs%'e to /no) )ith any certainty ho) m*ch )a$-ma/%n& capa'%%t+ +o*$enem+( o$ your ne%&h'o$( possesses. Less $esponse t%me to an attac/, an# 'ette$-ta$&ete##est$*ct%on o" the enem+5s $eso*$ces during an attac/, )% ma/e these ne) a$ms $aceshighly unsta'le. 9nless nanotechnology is tightly controlled, the n*m'e$ o" nanotech-possess%n& nat%ons %n the )o$# co*# 'e m*ch h%&he$ than the n*m'e$ o" n*cea$ nat%ons(

increasing the chance of a regional conflict 'lo)ing up. G$eate$ *nce$ta%nt+ of the capa'ilitiesof the ad(ersary could promote caution -- 'ut co*# aso %nc$ease the temptat%on "o$p$eempt%e st$%/es to pre(ent proliferation. orse still, th%s opens the #oo$ "o$ the #eeopment o"$%a &$o*ps )%th%n co*nt$%es. ,e m%&ht see $epeate# m%%ta$+ co*ps( #eastat%n& c%%)a$s( an# #%sso*t%on o" nat%ons %nto a$&e n*m'e$s o" host%e( *np$e#%cta'e( %mmense+po)e$"* t$%'es. nother concern is that radical transnational groups 'ound 'y religious, cultural, or

ideological e*tremism might ma/e use of molecular manufacturing to)ard terrorist ends.

3ap%# nanotech #eeopment ea#s to an *ncont$oe# a$ms $ace c$eates a c+ce o"compet%t%on an# con"$ontat%on

Mar/ (ram G*'$*#, Superconducti(ity esearcher K 9ni(ersity of Maryland, 1<4;. “Nanotechnology and!nternational Security," ;oresight !nstitute, http:==))).foresight.org=Honferences=MN0$=%apers=Au'rud=

L he prospect of re(olutionary ad(ances in military capa'ilities )ill stimulate competition tode(elop and apply the ne) technologies to)ard )ar preparations, as falling 'ehind )ould imply anintolera'le security ris/. !ndeed, %t %s pa*s%'e that a nat%on )h%ch &a%ne# a s*""%c%ent ea# %nmoec*a$ nanotechnoo&+ )o*# at some po%nt 'e %n a pos%t%on to s%mp+ #%sa$m an+potent%a compet%to$s.

CPHS 2@


http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm

http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm

http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#arms



http://www.crnano.org/overview.htm

http://www.crnano.org/whatis.htm





L !f t)o or more technologically ad(anced nations or 'locs e*ist in de facto confrontation,regardless of political differences or other su'stantial conflicts of interest, then compet%t%on toapp+ the a#ance# technoo&%es co*# se&*e #%$ect+ %nto an *ncont$oe# a$ms $ace unless restraints ha(e 'een put in place 'efore the ne) technologies can 'e applied. L A $ace to #eeop ea$+ m%%ta$+ app%cat%ons o" moec*a$ man*"act*$%n& co*# +%e#

s*##en '$ea/th$o*&hs( ea#%n& to the a'$*pt eme$&ence o" ne) an# *n"am%%a$ th$eats( an#p$oo/%n& po%t%ca an# m%%ta$+ $eact%ons )h%ch "*$the$ $e%n"o$ce a c+ce o" compet%t%on an#con"$ontat%on.

CPHS 2F




$T% Nano $rms #ill be controlled

Nano)eapon sp$ea# cannot 'e conta%ne# 'eca*se the$e %s no &o'a a*tho$%t+

homas 9cCa$th+( ssistant Director of Araduate dmissions at Boston 9ni(ersity+s AraduateSchool of Management 2000. “Molecular echnology and the orld System."http:==))).mccarthy.c*=orldSystem=intro.htm IBapodraJ

9NT )% aso '$%n& states cose$ to the con#%t%on o" %n#%%#*as %n the state o" nat*$e '+c$eat%n& a &ene$a e*a%t+ %n #est$*ct%e capac%t+. Th%s %s a p$ocess a$ea#+ *n#e$)a+ to#a+(%n the p$o%"e$at%on o" n*cea$ )eapons technoo&+. Since 1<F$, the nuclear clu' has gro)nfrom ust one 8the 9.S. to ? 8the 9S, ussia, Hhina, ;rance, Britain, !ndia, and !srael. See$amo$e nat%ons a$e /no)n o$ s*specte# to 'e p*$s*%n& n*cea$ )eapons #eeopment 8North3orea, %a/istan, !ran, some ha(e possessed them at one time 8South frica, 9/raine, an# most%/e+ othe$s )% Bo%n %n the $ace. N*cea$ technoo&+ %s ha$# to conta%n( #esp%te the "act that

m*ch o" the e*%pment nee#e# to p$o#*ce 'om'-&$a#e mate$%a %s epens%e( spec%a%<e# an#hea+( ma/%n& %t #%""%c*t to p*$chase an# t$anspo$t sec$et+. I" ens*$%n& n*cea$ non-p$o%"e$at%on %s p$o%n& #%""%c*t( then )e can epect m*ch mo$e #%""%c*t+ %n conta%n%n& thetoos an# /no)e#&e necessa$+ to %mpement a nanotechnoo&+ #eeopment p$o&$am. his isespecially true 'ecause of the high-le(el of dual-use technology that )ould ma/e up ananotechnology la'oratory: Scanning unneling Microscopes 8used in materials science and in thesemiconductor industry, high-po)ered molecular modeling soft)are and computers to run it on8used in scientific (isuali4ation and in pharmaceutical research, and common materials. As 9NTsp$ea#s( so )% the a'%%t+ to c$eate et$eme+ po)e$"* an# #ea#+ )eapons( an# the a'%%t+to $e'*%# an %n#*st$%a 'ase %n a sho$t t%me. These t)o conse*ences o" the sp$ea# o" 9NT)% ma/e each state mo$e o" a th$eat to %ts ne%&h'o$s '+ ma/%n& %t mo$e #ea#+ 8due to the

)eapons an# mo$e #%""%c*t to #e"eat 8as opposed to destroy %n case o" )a$ 8due to the self-replicating industrial 'ase.The th%$# con#%t%on s*""e$e# '+ the %n#%%#*a %n the state o" nat*$e a$ea#+ e%sts to#a+( an#that %s the ac/ o" a*tho$%t+. *st as %n#%%#*as can $e+ on no one '*t themsees( so too a$estates #epen#ent on+ on the%$ o)n a'%%t+ to #e"en# themsees. 8 The$e %s no h%&he$a*tho$%t+ to )hom a state can appea %" %t has 'een )$on&e#( the$e %s no %nte$nat%ona po%ce"o$ce that )% p*n%sh the o""en#%n& state( an# the$e %s no &o'a e&%sat*$e to set the a)s o"state 'eha%o$. hat is lac/ing is go(ernment, and in the past this has not 'een as large a pro'lemas it )ould 'e for indi(iduals 'ecause of the special characteristics of states mentioned a'o(e. 6*t%" states 'ecome 'oth mo$ta an# e*a %n po)e$ #*e to the #%ssem%nat%on o" 9NT( then theac/ o" &o'a a*tho$%t+ )% ta/e on the same *$&enc+ that %t has %n the state o" nat*$e.

CPHS 2$






AT= No 3ep%cat%onEen )%tho*t $ep%cat%on( nanotech %nc$eases the $%s/ o" a te$$o$%st attac/ an# %oenceEinda 3othste%n, editor of he Bulletin, 12=0:. “Bulletin of the tomic Scientists,"http:==))).forecastingprinciples.com=Honflicts=%D;C20files=ethin/ingC20Doomsday.pdf

s )ith 'iotechnology, the potent%a "o$ the m%s*se o" nanotechnoo&+ &$o)s )hen esote$%ctechnoo&%ca epe$t%se %s co*pe# )%th access to soph%st%cate# toos. greater nanotechthreat than self-replicating nano'ots, according to Dre*ler, is the potential that 5a po)e$"*an# conen%ent man*"act*$%n& capac%t+ co*# 'e *se# to ma/e po)e$"* non-$ep%cat%n& )eapons %n *np$ece#ente# *ant%t+( ea#%n& to an a$ms $ace( )a$(te$$o$%sm( o$ opp$ess%on.5 esearchers at Ea)rence Ber/eley National Ea'oratory are already ma/ing

strides to)ard the mass production of nanostructures. !n pril, they announced that they had designed a )ayto transform a car'on nanotu'e into a 5con(eyor 'elt5 capa'le of transporting a stream of atom-si4ed particlesto a 5construction site,5 )here they could hypothetically 'e com'ined )ith other materials to create largerstructures. he scenario imagined 'y Dre*ler appears similar to those en(isioned 'y 3osal, )here

nanotechnoo&+ co*# 'e *se# to enhance the e""ect%eness o" e%st%n& chem%ca o$

'%oo&%ca )eapons( o$ to c$eate ent%$e+ ne) )eapons. Honsidering the (arious factorsthat presently complicate the deli(ery of chemical and 'iological )eapons, or the c$eat%ono" m%n%at*$e n*cea$ "*s%on 'om's( th%s %s pe$haps one aen*e )he$e nanotechnoo&+has the potent%a to pa+ mo$e than a )%#-ca$# $oe.

CPHS 2#




AT= Epo$t Cont$os Soe

Goe$nment epo$t cont$os a$e %ne""ect%e an# h*$t %nnoat%on e""o$tsason ,eBne$t, la)yer at Brin/s, 7ofer, Ailson U Eione, associate at the !ntellectual %ropertyAroup, 200:, “egulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology"

9nfortunately, the po$ta'e nat*$e o" 9NT an# the %nc$eas%n&+ po$o*s %nte$nat%ona 'o$#e$s)% p$o'a'+ not ao) the s*pp$ess%on o" nanotechnoo&+. It has 'een &ene$a+ac/no)e#&e# that epo$t cont$os hae #one %tte to p$eent the p$o%"e$at%on o" st$on&enc$+pt%on )hen %t can 'e eas%+ sto$e# on a #%s/ an# t$anspo$te# )o$#)%#e o$ oe$ theInte$net. 4 In a##%t%on( ITA3 $est$%ct%ons ma+ hae %mpe#e# enc$+pt%on $esea$ch %n then%te# States( )h%e compet%n& nat%ons( *n$est$a%ne# '+ s*ch $est$%ct%ons( #eeope# an#%mpemente# st$on& enc$+pt%on )%tho*t the p$e#%cte# c$%m%na %mpementat%on o" the sametechnoo&+

CPHS 2?




AT= @at @%n&e$s

@at "%n&e$s #ont stop se"-$ep%cat%on Smae+s a$&*ment %s "ase

I.9.9, he !nstitute for Molecular Manufacturing, O01 8“De'ate 'out ssem'lers Smalley e'uttal" 3. &ricDre*ler, %h.D.G Da(id ;orrest, ScD.G o'ert . ;reitas r., .D.G . Storrs 7all, %h.D.G Neil aco'stein, M.S.G omMc3endree %h.D.G alph Mer/le %h.D.G Hhristine %eterson K contri'utedhttp:==))).imm.org=pu'lications=sciamde'ate2=smalley=

Smalley has pre(iously stated I2J that: “Hhemistry is the concerted motion of at least 10 atoms." s this e*cluded alarge part of )ell-/no)n chemistry, it is not surprising that he no) more circumspectly I1J says: “!n an ordinarychemical reaction fi(e to 1$ atoms near the reaction site engage in an intricate three-dimensional )alt4 that is carriedout in a cramped region of space measuring no more than a nanometer on each side."he importance of the num'er of reactants lies in SmalleyOs argument I1J that “here ust isnOt enough room in thenanometer-si4e reaction region to accommodate all the fingers of all the manipulators necessary to ha(e complete

control of the chemistry." 7a(ing trimmed the reuired num'er of fat fingers from ten to fi(e, SmalleyOs argumentis still on sha/y ground. he argument collapses )hen )e o'ser(e that chemical reactions often

in(ol(e t)o reactants, such as in the controlled (acuum conditions used 'y the scanning tunnelingmicroscope 8SM. )o reactants can 'e 'rought together )ith controlled traectories if onereactant is 'ound to a su'strate and the second reactant is positioned and mo(ed 'y a single“finger" as has already 'een done e*perimentally. ;or e*ample, 7o and Eee I@J physically 'ound a H

molecule to an iron atom on a sil(er su'strate using an SM. ther approaches are also possi'le, Brenner et al. I<J pro(ided a molecular dynamics simulation of the hydrogen a'straction reaction from a diamond su'strate.

s noted else)here IFJ, if steric constraints near the tool tip ma/e it une*pectedly difficult tomanipulate particular indi(idual atoms or small molecules )ith sufficient relia'ility, a simplealternati(e is to rely upon con(entional solution or gas phase chemistry for the 'ul/ synthesis ofnanoparts consisting of 10-100 atoms. hese much larger nanoparts can then 'e 'ound to a positional de(ice and assem'led into larger 8molecularly precise structures )ithout furthersignificant steric constraints. his is the approach ta/en 'y the ri'osome in the synthesis of proteins. !ndi(idual amino acids are seuentially assem'led into an atomically precise polypeptide )ithout

the need to manipulate indi(idual atoms. “tomically precise" is a description of the precision of the final product, not

a description of the manufacturing method. Homplete control of e(ery aspect of a chemical reaction is notactually reuired to 'uild a nanoro'ot. &ffecti(e control that deli(ers a precise product is )hat isnecessary. he “fat fingers" pro'lem is not a fundamental 'arrier to the de(elopment of molecularassem'lers or the nanoro'ots they ena'le.

CPHS 2P




AT= St%c/+ @%n&e$s

Smae+ #oesnt /no) )hat he %s ta/%n& a'o*t &$e+-&oo #oesnt nee# >"%n&e$s? to 'ec$eate#

3. &ric D$ee$, doctorate in Molecular Nanotechnology from M!, and Hhairman, ;oresight !nstitute, F-1#-08 8“npen Eetter to ichard Smalley" http:==)))./ur4)eilai.net=articles=art0$#0.html6printa'le1

Qou ha(e attempted to dismiss my )or/ in this field 'y misrepresenting it. ;rom )hat ! hear of a press conference at

the recent NN! conference, you continue to do so. !n particular, +ou ha(e descri'ed molecular assem'lers asha(ing multiple 5fingers5 that manipulate indi(idual atoms and suffer from so-called 5fat finger5and 5stic/y finger5 pro'lems, and you ha(e dismissed their feasi'ility on this 'asis I1J. ! find this pu44ling 'ecause, li/e en4ymes and ri'osomes, proposed assem'lers neither ha(e nor need these5Smalley fingers5 I2J. he tas/ of positioning reacti(e molecules simply doesn+t reuire them.!ha(e a t)enty year history of technical pu'lications in this area I@ - 12J and consistently descri'esystems uite unli/e the stra) man you attac/. My proposal is, and al)ays has 'een, to guide the

chemical synthesis of comple* structures 'y mechanically positioning reacti(e molecules, not 'ymanipulating indi(idual atoms. his proposal has 'een defended successfully again and again, in ournal articles, in my M! doctoral thesis, and 'efore scientific audiences around the )orld. !trests on )ell-esta'lished physical principles.he impossi'ility of 5Smalley fingers5 has raised noconcern in the research community 'ecause these fingers sol(e no pro'lems and thus appear in no proposals. Qour reliance on this stra)-man attac/ might lead a thoughtful o'ser(er to suspect that no one has

identified a (alid criticism of my )or/. ;or this ! should, perhaps, than/ you. Qou apparently fear that my )arnings oflong-term dangers I1@J )ill hinder funding of current research, stating that 5e should not let this fu44y-minded

nightmare dream scare us a)ay from nanotechnology....NN! should go for)ard5 I1FJ. 7o)e(er, ! ha(efrom the 'eginning argued that the potential for a'use of ad(anced nanotechnologies ma/es(igorous research 'y the 9.S and its allies imperati(e I1@J. Many ha(e found these arguments persuasi(e. !n

an open discussion, ! 'elie(e they )ill pre(ail. !n contrast, your attempt to calm the pu'lic through false claims ofimpossi'ility )ill ine(ita'ly fail, placing your colleagues at ris/ of a destructi(e 'ac/lash.

St%c/+ "%n&e$s a$e p$oen "ase '+ '%oo&%ca assem'e$s

I.9.9, he !nstitute for Molecular Manufacturing, O01 8“De'ate 'out ssem'lers Smalley e'uttal" 3. &ricDre*ler, %h.D.G Da(id ;orrest, ScD.G o'ert . ;reitas r., .D.G . Storrs 7all, %h.D.G Neil aco'stein, M.S.G omMc3endree %h.D.G alph Mer/le %h.D.G Hhristine %eterson K contri'utedhttp:==))).imm.org=pu'lications=sciamde'ate2=smalley=

Smalley also ad(ances the “stic/y fingers" pro'lem I1J, )hich is the claim that: “Ythe atoms ofthe manipulator hands )ill adhere to the atom that is 'eing mo(ed. So it )ill often 'e impossi'le torelease this minuscule 'uilding 'loc/ in precisely the right spotY.these pro'lems arefundamentalY." he e*istence of some reactions that donOt )or/ still lea(es plenty of room forreactions that do. o argue that the “stic/y fingers" pro'lem is a fundamental 'arrier to 'uildingmechanical assem'lers and nanoro'ots, Smalley must sho) that no set of reactions e*ists )hichallo)s the synthesis of a useful range of precise molecular structures. o consider 'ut oneapproach, application of a (oltage 'et)een a manipulator tool and the )or/piece can cause the

CPHS 2<




target atom or moiety to mo(e to the desired position. gain, 7o and Eee I@J ha(e pro(ided an e*perimental

e*istence proof.

;or a 'iological e*ample, consider the ri'osome. his u'iuitous 'iological molecular assem'lersuffers from neither the “fat finger" nor the “stic/y finger" pro'lem. !f, as Smalley argues, 'oth pro'lems are “fundamental," then )hy )ould they pre(ent the de(elopment of mechanicalassem'lers and not 'iological assem'lers6 !f the class of molecular structures /no)n as proteins can 'e

synthesi4ed using positional techniues, then )hy )ould )e e*pect there to 'e no other classes of molecular structuresthat can 'e synthesi4ed using positional techniues6 9pon o'ser(ing e*perimentally that polymers such as proteinscan 'e synthesi4ed under programmatic control, )hat con(incing e(idence do )e ha(e that the programmaticsynthesis of stiffer polycyclic structures such as diamond is “fundamentally" impossi'le, and that mechanicalassem'lers )ill ne(er 'e 'uilt6More directly, )e can e*amine 'oth those reactions that ha(e 'een proposed specifically for use in a mechanicalassem'ler and those reactions that ta/e place using an S%M 8Scanning %ro'e Microscope. Nanosystems IFJ discussesthe mechanosynthetic reactions that might 'e used to synthesi4e some diamondoid structures of interest. Aenerally,these in(ol(e a single “finger," i.e., a pro'e tip )ith a functionali4ed end that )ould cause a site-specific reaction on agro)ing molecular )or/-piece. Mer/le I$J discusses se(eral reactions )hich in(ol(e t)o, three, and e(en fourreactants 'ound to the tips of molecular tools. large and gro)ing literature of research )or/ )ith S%Ms 'oththeoretical IF-12J and e*perimental I@, 1@-1#J supports the feasi'ility of site specific reactions in(ol(ing a reacti(e

tip structure interacting )ith a surface or )ith a molecule on a surface. !n addition, S%Ms are ust the 'eginningof a gro)ing list of tools for manipulating atoms and molecules.

CPHS @0




AT= Smae+ St%c/+ "%n&e$s

Smae+ %s )$on& he has no sc%ent%"%c 'as%s "o$ h%s a$&*ments een %" he %s co$$ect nano)eapons can st% 'e'*%t )%tho*t %t

ohn o'ert 9a$o), freelance ournalist, nanotech author, mem'er of the Scientific d(isory Board, pril 0: 8“Nanosecurity and the ;uture 8if ny" NanoNe)s No) Monthly eport,http:==))).ohnro'ertmarlo).com=sa>>art--nanosecurityC20andC20theC20futureC20ifC20any.html

But, as Dre*ler )ent on to say, 5! ha(e from the 'eginning argued that the potential for a'use ofad(anced nanotechnologies ma/es (igorous research 'y the 9.S. and its allies imperati(e. Manyha(e found these arguments persuasi(e. !n an open discussion, ! 'elie(e they )ill pre(ail. !ncontrast, your attempt to calm the pu'lic through false claims of impossi'ility )ill ine(ita'ly fail, placing your colleagues at ris/ of a destructi(e 'ac/lash. Qour misdirected arguments ha(eneedlessly confused pu'lic discussion of genuine long-term security concerns. !f you (alue theaccuracy of information used in decisions of importance to national and glo'al security, ! urge you

to see/ some )ay to help set the record straight. &ndorsing calls for an independent scientificre(ie) of molecular manufacturing concepts )ould 'e constructi(e.5

Smalley+s response )as more of the samefull of colorful turns of phrase 85fat fingers,5 5scaredour children,5 5pretend )orld,5 5monster,5 etc., #eo%# of any a%# scientific argument . Surely,in a pu'lished de'ate, someone of Smalley+s intelligence )ould cite any scientific argument )hichsupported his claimsif such arguments e*isted. &(en the de'ate+s host felt mo(ed to say:5Smalley+s o'ections to molecular assem'lers go 'eyond the scientific. 7e 'elie(es thatspeculation a'out the potential dangers of nanotechnology threatens pu'lic support for it.5 I?aJ

Hhris %hoeni*, co-founder and research director of the Henter for esponsi'le Nanotechnology8HN, in his paper on this de'ate, f Hhemistry, Nano'ots, and %olicy, 5concludes that Smalleyhas failed to support his opinion that MN Imolecular nanotechnologyJ cannot )or/ as Dre*lerasserts. Much of Smalley+s discussion is off-topic, and his assertions a'out the limitations ofen4yme chemistry are factually incorrecta fatal )ea/ness in his argument. 7e therefore does not pro(ide a useful criticism of MN.5

nd, indeed, Dre*ler points out that regardless of the feasi'ility of nanites=nanoro'ots, 5molecularmanufacturing does not reuire that nano'ugs of any sort 'e 'uilt, and a more pressing concern isthat an ad(ersary )ill 'uild something li/e a )eapon system.5

CPHS @1




AT= 3e&*at%ons Soe1. I" the pan ea#s to &oe$nment $e&*at%ons %t )% 'e co$$*pte# an# %ne""%c%ent.No$ma means )o*# 'e *s%n& the @DA )h%ch #oesnt /no) ho) to han#e nanotechason ,eBne$t, la)yer at Brin/s, 7ofer, Ailson U Eione, associate at the !ntellectual %roperty

Aroup, 200:, “egulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology"

he negati(es of controlling MN de(ices through a federal regulatory 'ody include thetraditional laments of the 'ureaucratic agency: lac/ of efficiency, duplication of effort, andsu'ection to Hongressional and udicial reuirements in enacting regulations. !n addition, the ;D primarily regulates consumer products. hile ;D regulation might 'e useful as MNapplications proliferate, the initial research and de(elopment poses many ris/s )hich cannot 'eaccounted for or controlled 'y the ;D , ris/s that are ust as great as end-use applications. Some proposals for handling this interim research are discussed 'elo). hen MN is in(ol(ed, perhapsa more secreti(e operation might 'e needed to maintain control o(er the proliferation of thetechnology. s discussed later, perhaps a secret application and protocol for testing and research

could 'e com' ined )ith a “need to /no)" re(ie) of MN applications. his )ould in(ol(e adramatic departure from the traditional model of administrati(e la) 'ut might 'e )arranted forregulating molecular nanotechnology.

2. The &oe$nment cant han#e nanotech %t )% sc$e) *p %ts so-cae# >$e&*at%ons?ason ,eBne$t , la)yer at Brin/s, 7ofer, Ailson U Eione, associate at the !ntellectual %ropertyAroup, 200:, “egulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology"

s in the case of international control con(entions, MN creates ne) contingencies and dangers thattraditional models of go(ernment regulation are not euipped to address. hile Hongressional po)ers e*ist to regulate MN in a traditional manner, the intellectual property aspect of MNma/es any tangi'le controls su'ect to e(asion as the intangi'le aspect of MN de(elops. &*portcontrols )ill 'e of little assistance )hen the “source code" for a nano de(ice can 'e transmittedany)here )orld)ide instantaneously to a “uni(ersal assem'ler." Ei/e)ise, control of MNthrough administrati(e agenciesli/e the ;D pro(ides a frame)or/ for ho) MN could 'eapproached from a definitional perspecti(e, 'ut administrati(e agencies do not currently ha(e thecapa'ilities to suppress the dangerous possi'ilities of unrestrained M N. he analysis ma/esclear that current go(ernmental po)ers are inadeuate to ensure secure, confidential, and effecti(eregulation of MN applications.

CPHS @2




8. @e#e$a %ncent%es #ont %nc*#e $e&*at%ons

ason ,eBne$t, la)yer at Brin/s, 7ofer, Ailson U Eione, associate at the !ntellectual %ropertyAroup, 200:, “egulatory Mechanisms for Molecular Nanotechnology"

Econom%c %ncent%es li/e pri4es and competitions )ill li/ely spur MN de(elopment, 'ut these path)a+sac/ the c$%t%ca eement o" cont$o oe$ #eeopment that %s so emphat%ca+ st$esse# '+ 'othp$oponents an# s/ept%cs a%/e. I" conce$n a'o*t a #an&e$o*s $eease %s o" pa$amo*ntconce$n( ea%n& the #eeopment $ace open to an+ p$%ate ent*$e that see/s a comme$c%as*ccess )% p$o'a'+ not sat%s"+ th%s conce$n. his option may 'e open only for a short period in the early

history of MN , as the initial useless, 'ut essential 'uilding 'loc/s are esta'lished. fter that point, )hen practical M N de(ices are )ithin reach, other mechanisms )ill need to 'e asserted. Some of these options include ointgo(ernment (entures, )here pri(ate companies )or/ in cooperation )ith each other or directly )ith the go(ernment aso(erseer and e(entually controller of the technology, or the outright e*ercise of eminent domain o(er the technologyas a last resort. %ractical e*amples, li/e the approaches used 'y the national la's 8Ea)rence Ei(ermore, Sandia, andEos lamos, e*ist for defining ho) a successful colla'oration )ith pri(ate entitiescan 'e accomplished to de(elop topsecret technologies in nuclear )eapons de(elopment and aerospace. !n addition, as an intermediate step, thego(ernment can promote technological controls o(er MN de(elopment )ith e*tensions of the ;oresight Specific

Design Auidelines discussed earlier

:. 3e&*at%ons a$ent en"o$ce# stat*s *o p$oes3atharine San#e$son, staff)riter for Nature Ne)s, ?=2$=0, “Hloc/ tic/ing for 9S nanotech companies"

http:==))).nature.com=ne)s=200P=0P0?2$=full=ne)s.200P.<[email protected]

The EPAs $esponse to s*ch cas )as the Nanoscae 9ate$%as Ste)a$#sh%p P$o&$amN9SP( )h%ch )as a*nche# %n an*a$+ to &athe$ #ata a'o*t the nanomate$%as 'e%n& ma#ean# *se# %n the n%te# States( to &*%#e "*t*$e heath an# sa"et+ &*%#e%nes. The t)o-t%e$s+stem "%$st coects #ata on the ph+s%ca an# chem%ca cha$acte$%st%cs o" the mate$%as( as )eas %n"o$mat%on a'o*t ha<a$#s( $%s/ mana&ement( an# )ho comes %nto contact )%th themate$%a. The secon#( %n-#epth pa$t o" the p$ocess as/s compan%es to $*n eten#e# tests onthe mate$%as to o'ta%n et$a #eta%s( s*ch as to%coo&+ assessments.6*t so "a$ on+ n%ne compan%es hae s*'m%tte# to the 'as%c p$o&$amme , )ith a further ele(en

promising to do so. ust t)o companies ha(e signed up to the in-depth programme 8see 5Better nanosafe than sorry5

CPHS @@




$T% Nano'hields

Nano sh%e#s sta$t attac/%n& *s.6% o+( Ap$% 2F. Co"o*n#e$( ch%e" sc%ent%st o" S*n 9%c$os+stems. >,h+ the "*t*$e #oesnt nee# *s? ,%$e#

9a&a<%ne. http=MM))).)%$e#.comM)%$e#Ma$ch%eM.0:MBo+.htm

!n Engines of Creation, &ric Dre*ler proposed that )e 'uild an acti(e nanotechnological shield - aform of immune system for the 'iosphere - to defend against dangerous replicators of all /inds thatmight escape from la'oratories or other)ise 'e maliciously created. But the shield he proposed)ould itself 'e e*tremely dangerous - nothing could pre(ent it from de(eloping autoimmune pro'lems and attac/ing the 'iosphere itself. 11Similar difficulties apply to the construction of shields against ro'otics and genetic engineering.hese technologies are too po)erful to 'e shielded against in the time frame of interestG e(en if it)ere possi'le to implement defensi(e shields, the side effects of their de(elopment )ould 'e atleast as dangerous as the technologies )e are trying to protect against.hese possi'ilities are all thus either undesira'le or unachie(a'le or 'oth. he only realisticalternati(e ! see is relinuishment: to limit de(elopment of the technologies that are too dangerous, 'y limiting our pursuit of certain /inds of /no)ledge.Qes, ! /no), /no)ledge is good, as is the search for ne) truths. e ha(e 'een see/ing /no)ledgesince ancient times. ristotle opened his Metaphysics )ith the simple statement: 5ll men 'ynature desire to /no).5 e ha(e, as a 'edroc/ (alue in our society, long agreed on the (alue ofopen access to information, and recogni4e the pro'lems that arise )ith attempts to restrict access toand de(elopment of /no)ledge. !n recent times, )e ha(e come to re(ere scientific /no)ledge.But despite the strong historical precedents, if open access to and unlimited de(elopment of/no)ledge henceforth puts us all in clear danger of e*tinction, then common sense demands that)e ree*amine e(en these 'asic, long-held 'eliefs.!t )as Niet4sche )ho )arned us, at the end of the 1<th century, not only that Aod is dead 'ut that5faith in science, )hich after all e*ists undenia'ly, cannot o)e its origin to a calculus of utilityG itmust ha(e originated in spite of the fact that the disutility and dangerousness of the +)ill to truth,+of +truth at any price+ is pro(ed to it constantly.5 !t is this further danger that )e no) fully face - theconseuences of our truth-see/ing. he truth that science see/s can certainly 'e considered adangerous su'stitute for Aod if it is li/ely to lead to our e*tinction.!f )e could agree, as a species, )hat )e )anted, )here )e )ere headed, and )hy, then )e )ouldma/e our future much less dangerous - then )e might understand )hat )e can and shouldrelinuish. ther)ise, )e can easily imagine an arms race de(eloping o(er AN technologies, as it did )ith the

NBH technologies in the 20th century. his is perhaps the greatest ris/, for once such a race 'egins, it+s (ery

hard to end it. his time - unli/e during the Manhattan %roect - )e aren+t in a )ar, facing animplaca'le enemy that is threatening our ci(ili4ationG )e are dri(en, instead, 'y our ha'its, ourdesires, our economic system, and our competiti(e need to /no).

Its too eas+ to c$eate /%e$ 'ots an# too ha$# to ma/e a nanosh%e# ca*ses p$e-empt%on.N%c/ 6ost$om( PhD( @ac*t+ o" Ph%osoph+ at O"o$#. o*$na o" Eo*t%on an# Technoo&+( Qo. 4( 9a$ch

2002. R>E%stent%a 3%s/s= Ana+<%n& H*man Et%nct%on Scena$%os an# 3eate# Ha<a$#s.R?))).n%c/'ost$om.comMe%stent%aM$%s/s.htm

he technology to produce a destructi(e nano'ot seems considera'ly easier to de(elop than thetechnology to create an effecti(e defense against such an attac/ 8a glo'al nanotech immunesystem, an “acti(e shield" I2@J. !t is therefore li/ely that there )ill 'e a period of (ulnera'ility during

)hich this technology must 'e pre(ented from coming into the )rong hands. Qet the technology could pro(e

CPHS @F

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=8&topic=&topic_set=#11

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html?pg=8&topic=&topic_set=#11




hard to regulate, since it doesnOt reuire rare radioacti(e isotopes or large, easily identifia'lemanufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear )eapons I2@J.&(en if effecti(e defenses against a limited nanotech attac/ are de(eloped 'efore dangerousreplicators are designed and acuired 'y suicidal regimes or terrorists, there )ill still 'e the danger of an

arms race 'et)een states possessing nanotechnology. !t has 'een argued I2#J that molecular manufacturing

)ould lead to 'oth arms race insta'ility and crisis insta'ility, to a higher degree than )as the case )ithnuclear )eapons. rms race insta'ility means that there )ould 'e dominant incenti(es for eachcompetitor to escalate its armaments, leading to a runa)ay arms race. Hrisis insta'ility means thatthere )ould 'e dominant incenti(es for stri/ing first. )o roughly 'alanced ri(als acuiringnanotechnology )ould, on this (ie), 'egin a massi(e 'uildup of armaments and )eaponsde(elopment programs that )ould continue until a crisis occurs and )ar 'rea/s out, potentiallycausing glo'al terminal destruction. hat the arms race could ha(e 'een predicted is no guaranteethat an international security system )ill 'e created ahead of time to pre(ent this disaster fromhappening. he nuclear arms race 'et)een the 9S and the 9SS )as predicted 'ut occurredne(ertheless.

CPHS @$




Nanotech 6a# 9*st 3eBect As Po%c+ 9a/e$

As po%c+ma/e$s )e m*st #%sm%ss nanotechnoo&+ %" the$e %s a'so*te+ an+ $%s/ o" %t 'e%n&'a# past tech p$oes

Michael 6e$&e$, author for Nano)er/, nanotech ne)s, ;M22=0P, “Eate lessons from early )arningsfor nanotechnology" http:==))).nano)er/.com=spotlight=spotid#F#?.php8Nano)er/ Spotlight ne term you hear uite often in discussion a'out the potential ris/s ofnanotechnology is +precautionary principle+. his moral and political principle, as commonlydefined, states that if an action or policy might cause se(ere or irre(ersi'le harm to the pu'lic or tothe en(ironment, in the a'sence of a scientific consensus that harm )ould not ensue, the 'urden of proof falls on those )ho )ould ad(ocate ta/ing the action. he principle aims to pro(ide guidancefor protecting pu'lic health and the en(ironment in the face of uncertain ris/s, stating that thea'sence of full scientific certainty shall not 'e used as a reason to postpone measures )here thereis a ris/ of serious or irre(ersi'le harm to pu'lic health or the en(ironment. !n 2001, an e*pert panel commissioned 'y the &uropean &n(ironment gency 8&& pu'lished a report, Eate

Eessons from &arly arnings: he %recautionary %rinciple 1P<#K2000 8pdf do)nload, 1.P MB,)hich e*plored 1F case studies, all of )hich demonstrated ho) not heeding early )arnings had ledto a failure to protect human health and the en(ironment. his report+s stated goal )as to gather5information on the ha4ards raised 'y human economic acti(ities and its use in ta/ing action to protect 'etter the en(ironment and the health of the species and ecosystems that are dependent onit5. !t loo/ed at contro(ersial topics such as as'estos, Mad Ho) Disease, gro)th hormones, %HBsand radiation K all of )hich demonstrated ho) not heeding early )arnings had led to a failure to protect human health and the en(ironment. he e*pert group that compiled the && reportidentified 12 +late lessons+ on ho) to a(oid past mista/es as ne) technologies are de(eloped.5hese lessons 'ear an uncanny resem'lance to many of the concerns no) 'eing raised a'out(arious forms of nanotechnology5 Steffen ;oss 7ansen tells Nano)er/. 5 comparison 'et)een

the && recommendations and )here )e are )ith nanotechnology sho)s )e are doing somethings right, 'ut )e are still in danger of repeating old, and potentially costly, mista/es.5 7ansen, aresearcher in the Department of &n(ironmental &ngineering and NanoD9 &n(ironment atechnical 9ni(ersity of Denmar/ 8D9, together )ith nders Baun from D9, ndre)Maynard from the %roect on &merging Nanotechnologies and oel . ic/ner from theDepartment of Hommunity 7ealth and Sustaina'ility at the 9ni(ersity of Massachusetts, ust pu'lished a commentary in Nature Nanotechnology in )hich they e*plore these 12 lessons in theconte*t of nanotechnology 85Eate lessons from early )arnings for nanotechnology5. hese are the12 lessons outlined 'y the &&:(oid Zparalysis 'y analysisO 'y acting to reduce potential harm )hen there are reasona'legrounds for concern. 7ansen, Baun, Maynard and ic/ner argue that the uestion seems not to 'e

)hether )e ha(e learnt the lessons K as outlined 'y the && report K 'ut )hether )e are applyingthem effecti(ely enough to pre(ent nanotechnology 'eing one more future case study on ho) notto introduce a ne) technology. !n their commentary, the scientists go through the 12 && lessonsand, )here appropriate, apply them to the current issues, regulatory and commercial acti(ities, andscientific /no)ledge surrounding current nanotechnology de(elopments. 7ansen summari4es hisand his colleagues concerns in three /ey points: 1 e seem to ignore some (alua'le lessons fromthe past and thus are in danger of repeating old, and potentially costly, mista/es. 2 he glo'alresponse to these )arning signs has 'een patchy. lthough )e ha(e gotten the early )arning signs,

CPHS @#

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6467.php

http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6467.php




)e ris/ putting off future commercial and social 'enefits of nanotechnology 'y not addressing the&7S- and regulatory issues fullheartedly and efficiently @ Many go(ernments still call for moreinformation as a su'stitute for action. !n an ideal )orld, politicians and regulators )ould loo/ toscientists as the ultimate authorities )hen it comes to ma/ing regulatory decisions a'outtechnology ris/s and science )ould 'e a'le to pro(ide useful and unam'iguous ans)ers 8for the

sa/e of this argument, let+s ignore for a moment the tremendous influence of industry lo''ies andthe distorting effects of political ideology. 7ere, the article pro(ides a stri/ing e*ample of )hat itcalls +institutional ignorance+ K instances )here research thro)s up useful information )hich thenis ignored and o(erloo/ed 'y the regulators: 5hey Ithe authors of the && reportJ cite cases)here regulators made inappropriate appraisals 'ecause of the 'lin/ers imposed 'y their specificdisciplines K such as the preoccupation of medical clinicians )ith acute effects )hen dealing )ithradiation and as'estos. here is a real danger of similar errors 'eing made )ith nanotechnology,)hich crosses many fields of e*pertise. ne needs to dra) on physics, chemistry, computersciences, health and en(ironmental sciences to understand nanomaterial properties and ris/s.Honseuently, a num'er of multidisciplinary centers for nanoscience and nanomanufacturing ha(e 'een esta'lished around the )orld, 'ut only a fe) of these address health, en(ironmental, and

social aspects. Setting aside resources to create an infrastructure that gets people )or/ing togetheracross disciplines is critical.5 7ansen and his co-authors argue that, 5despite a good start5, it seemsthat )e ha(e 'ecome distracted 'ecause 5!n part this is attri'uta'le to 'ureaucratic inertia5 says7ansen, 5'ut comments from some uarters K such as +ris/ research eopardi4es inno(ation+ or+regulation is 'ad for 'usiness+ K only cloud the )aters )hen clarity of thought and action areneeded.5 he authors concede that the picture is not as 'lea/ as it could 'e: 5lthough progressto)ards de(eloping sustaina'le nanotechnologies is slo), )e do seem to ha(e learnt some ne)tric/s: as/ing more critical uestions early onG de(eloping colla'orations that cross discipline,department and international 'oundariesG 'eginning the process of targeting research to de(elopingrele(ant /no)ledgeG engaging sta/eholdersG and as/ing )hether e*isting o(ersight mechanisms arefit for purpose. But are )e doing enough65 !nterestingly, they conclude their commentary )ith acautionary and fee'le +perhaps+: 5!f )e are to reali4e the commercial and social 'enefits ofnanotechnology )ithout lea(ing a legacy of harm, and pre(ent nanotechnology from 'ecoming alesson in )hat not to do for future generations, perhaps it is time to go 'ac/ to the classroom andrelearn those late lessons from early )arnings.5 Shouldn+t it 'e a 'asic reuirement for ourregulators and science community to heed lessons from the past6

nanotech file

Documents