Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology Government Science Politics

UK Establishes Fragmented Nanopolicy 51

Posted by Zonk from the a-young-ladies-illlustrated-primer dept.
hlovy writes "The BBC has a piece on British Science Minister Lord Sainsbury's long-sought reaction to a yearlong Royal Society study on the environmental and societal implications of nanotechnology. I've written ad nauseam on the Royal Society report here, here and even for the Wall Street Journal here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Establishes Fragmented Nanopolicy More

UK Establishes Fragmented Nanopolicy

Comments Filter:

  • Follow the lead of Wall St. (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:40AM (#11801757)
    Rather than actually doing anything with Nanotechnology, the UK should instead follow the lead of many Wall St companies and just put the prefix "Nano" in their name. Nano-Kingdom sounds pretty good to me.

    Once you do this, you can expect all kinds of amazing profits [www.mary.cc]!

  • Just like government... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <bc90021.bc90021@net> on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:43AM (#11801780) Homepage
    ...from the article:

    "The UK government has responded to one major report into nanotechnologies by ordering another review."

    "The Royal Society told the BBC News website it was encouraged by the government's commitment to research, but was disappointed that no extra funding was proposed for it."

    The UK wants to be a world leader in nanotechnology, but they are bogging down the reports with reports on reports, and not providing funding. Looks like things will have to change if they want to reach their world-leadership goal!

    • Re:Just like government... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by millahtime ( 710421 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:48AM (#11801810) Homepage Journal
      The UK wants to be a world leader in nanotechnology, but they are bogging down the reports with reports on reports, and not providing funding. Looks like things will have to change if they want to reach their world-leadership goal!

      This is a product of both boomer society and the fact that they don't want to make the wrong decision on such a big topic. So, they are trying to figure out every angle before they make hasty decisions. Granted, they may not be going about doing this the most productive way but there is good logic behind their thinking. To understand the risks before going down a path.
      • Scientific advancement does not wait for this sort of nonsense.

        If it can be done, it will - reports be damned!

        • Re:Just like government... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:36AM (#11802139) Homepage Journal
          If it can be done, it will - reports be damned!
          While that's certainly true, it doesn't mean that it necessarily *should*.
          The fact that some unregulated doctor in a lawless country can practice eugenics, for example, doesn't mean the UK should, merely to maintain some perceived technological advantage.

          We're should be civilised enough to say "That's advantageous to us, but morally and ethically repugnant, and potentially dangerous. Therefore, we choose not to do it, even though we can."

          • Re:Just like government... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by EvilNight ( 11001 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:13AM (#11803043)
            Problem is, it becomes something of an arms race. Just because you refrain, is no guarantee someone else will hold back. It's the opposite really; if the technology has some value, it'll be researched whereever it is possible to do so. Therefore, we're screwed... any technology that has potential benefits will be explored and realized by whoever can afford to do it, regardless of policy. The technology will simply move to the places where its continued development is not an issue.

            This puts us in the unenviable position of trying to make sure the technologies that could cause the most harm are developed primarily in countries we can trust not to use them unwisely (mostly by fostering an environment that gives benefits to that technology's development that cannot be found elsewhere). It also requires us to not drag our feet on any ethical issues that arise with technology, because the technology will not wait for us to become comfortable with it before being used.

            Nanotech, in particular, has some very lethal potential failure models that could result in world-altering problems (Ecophagy.) The kinds of problems that this failed nanotech could create can only be effectively combatted by equally advanced nanotech, so again we need the technology itself to properly guard against its own use.

            Usually, the argument of "should we" when applied to technology ends up being an ineffective sidebar that has no relevance on its development. We will. We can't stop ourselves. Sometimes the "should we" has beneficial consequences, however. For example, the USA has about a hundred less pressurized/boiling water fission reactors because of it, and this is good, because the modern designs for integral and accelerator driven models are far cleaner and safer than those models; almost to the point of making fusion power irrelevant for the near future. If we build nuclear today, it will be better than if we had done it in the 70's. This is a direct result of the "should we" triggered by three mile island.
          • Since when has eugenics been a "technology", especially one that requires government investment? Killing and sterilising people hardly needs any more research. Nor will eugenics give anyone a technological advantage. A very poor example.

            • Actually, eugenics was a social technology used by several governments to "strengthen" the genetic lines of their populace. The United States, the UK, Italy, and of course Germany all ran quite indepth programs of eugenics, with government funding, from the early 1900s until the 1930s (except Germany who continued a bit longer).

              Also, it wasn't always about "killing and sterilising [sic] people," in the case of the United States and UK in particular it was research into how to prevent the deterioration of

  • Public opinion (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FirienFirien ( 857374 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:49AM (#11801817) Homepage
    It's unfortunate that the reports are so mass-ignored. The summary of conclusions of the report on the report tends to be what gets out to the public (and presumably not far off what most of Parliament think the topic is about), by which time it's so much mush.

    Unless, of course, it's a problematic/slightly dangerous scenario, in which case the papers take it, and distort ("DOOM!") a different summary of conclusion of report, and shout it about for about a day until we get back to who's done what else scandalous.

  • I object! (Score:3, Funny)

    by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMspamgoeshere.calum.org> on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:51AM (#11801827) Homepage
    Hey - what's up?! You're making us sound like incompetent bumbling fools! :) We invented the backtick (`), don't you know?

  • Appropriate (Score:5, Funny)

    by ergo98 ( 9391 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @08:54AM (#11801847) Homepage Journal
    So you could almost say that their nanopolicy is in lots of tiny parts, scattered about, each individually working towards a common goal?

    Sounds appropriate.
    • Right now there's only one nanopolicy. It's 1*10^-9 of a single policy unit. Scaled down, a nanopolicy is stronger and more efficient than a normal-sized policy, but the application is still mostly theory.
  • .. but unfortunately no one could read it cause it was written on a pinhead.

    Prince Charles spent hours having the charter written into his scalp and was said to be "over the moon".
  • He made a mint putting "Nano" into his comedy routine. Shazbot!

  • Beating around the bush again eh? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @09:08AM (#11801928) Journal
    I would prefer they established some much needed policy on the touchy world of biometrics first. At the moment the government (like allot of governments) has this crazy idea that iris and finger print scanning are totally ok and theres absolutely no issue both security and human rights wise. Also with the RFID. bloody hell, nano technology might be an important subject for humanity, but biometrics and stupid wireless policy is here right now and needs attention today. The problem is of course that we didnt tackle this subject 20 years ago so now its too late.

    • Yeah, Wesley Snipes with a scalpel can defeat any biometric security out there.

      Here's my nanotechnology policy based on the books of Greg Bear. "Blood Music"? Not so good. "Queen of Angels"? Pretty good.

      (Yes, I know "Blood Music" wasn't nanotechnology, but it was the same basic idea.)

    • Indeed, Blair himself admitted to being a technophobe.

      Did you know that the new legislation also allows police to scan the database containing all our facial recognition biometrics to correlate CCTV images?

      Is Blair aware of the frightening prospect of collating ALL computerised data held on us through our Unique Identity Numbers?

      Find out how you can help the No2ID [no2id.net] cause.
      • I guess he is unaware how many types of finger-print scanners have been broken already, and how when you're finger print eventually is stolen (if you touch enough things or have it on enough data-bases its GOING to happen) it can't be 'changed' like your pin number. I bet he probably didnt bother thinking about what method of stealing biometrics might emerge - ie stealling your body parts! i havn't heard of a single report recommending that human rights law should give everyone the choice of biometrics or c

  • Nanotech misconceptions (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nasor ( 690345 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @10:28AM (#11802593)
    I am a researcher who is currently working on "nanotechnology"; 2-dimensional films that are a single molecule thick, to be precise. I'm puzzled by exactly what sorts of unique risks people think might be associated with nanotechnology. The BBC article summed it up very well:

    "Nanotech manipulates molecules and even atoms to make novel materials. This precision engineering exploits unusual electrical, optical and other properties."

    That's it. No one is trying to make swarms of tiny robots that devour everything in their path. Even if someone wanted to do that, no one would have even the faintest idea of how to go about doing it. The mere fact that nanotechnology involves very small particles doesn't mean that it poses some sort of unique health risk. The world is already teaming with nanoparticles of all sorts. Specks of dust, tiny flakes of rock or mineral material, all sorts of plant spores, bits of soot from car emissions...we've always been surrounded by nanomaterials.
    • The world is already teaming with nanoparticles of all sorts. Specks of dust, tiny flakes of rock or mineral material, all sorts of plant spores, bits of soot from car emissions...we've always been surrounded by nanomaterials.

      And most of them are harmful to the body. Tiny flakes of rock or minerals like asbestos cause mesophelioma, plant spores cause allergies and some even cause death, soot causes asthma and other breathing difficulties. It's reckless to say nano structures will have no adverse affects
      • Tiny flakes of rock or minerals like asbestos cause mesophelioma, plant spores cause allergies and some even cause death, soot causes asthma and other breathing difficulties.

        You prove the poster's point. After 20,000 years of fire, we better now decide not to burn any more wood until we can discover just how bad all the carbon nanotubes and buckyballs, along with amorphous soot, that are formed in the fireplace really are for people. Studying health problems is a worthy goal, but why do you suddenly wa

    • There are possible risks with nanotechnology, especially since we don't have a full grasp of what the newly engineered particles can do.

      Gunter Oberdorster at University of Rochester http://www2.envmed.rochester.edu/envmed/tox/facult y/oberdoerster.html [rochester.edu] found that fullerenes caused "damage" to the brains of fish. Now a researcher from Rice recently gave a lecture here at the U of South Carolina and called some of that research into question, but still you have to wonder. Also, there is the problem of met

    • apparently scientists can manipulate atoms to make entirely new molecules which could be disasterous in the hands of terrorists, despots, slashdotters etc CHEMISTRY! on an related note all you need to do in the UK get more funding from EPSRC (engineering and physical science research council) is to add nano- to whatever your doing, which can be kind of annoying if you are doing nanotech research rather than just trying to cash in

  • No No (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:19AM (#11803116) Homepage Journal
    As people increase our autonomy and power to affect one another, and become less governable, we're seeing more threats that law can control only by 100% effectiveness. And with the minimal effectiveness of international law, combined with the ease of travel of international capital and information, research can't be effectively banned. The only effective global legislation of science appeals rather to positive reinforcement than to negative enforcement, prohibition.

    Nanotech, cloning and stemcells (nanobiotech), nukes - the cats are out of the bag, and people will find funding and labspace to pursue these techs. Especially if the supply/demand ratio is enhanced for the vendors by prohibition. But if governments instead funnel money and organization to the beneficial, safer applications of these sciences, the resulting brain drain will keep the industries much safer. Why risk working in the profitless, destructive, risky world of "grey goo" research, when there's fun and profit in solarcell paint - and everyone else is doing it? Just as fruitless as telling someone "don't think of a banana", laws can't stop people from researching some of this dangerous tech. But if we tell everyone to "think of an orange", we'll be able to influence development into much more productive channels. Without engaging in the counterproductive and tyrannical futility of science prohibition.

  • I read it as "nanopoly"... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Dave_M_26 ( 773236 ) on Monday February 28, 2005 @11:38AM (#11803337)
    and thought...

    I for one welcome our tiny nanolords.

    and then I hit myself for it, sorry.

    Dave

  • Soon, toner wars will cloud skies over all of us... how cool.
  • The use of nano technology [exitmundi.nl] is one of the doom scenarios of Exit Mundi [exitmundi.nl], a website dedicated how mankind can finish...

Slashdot Top Deals

Real programmers don't bring brown-bag lunches. If the vending machine doesn't sell it, they don't eat it. Vending machines don't sell quiche.

Close