Congressional hearing addresses public concerns about nanotech
Concerns about the possible negative consequences of nanotech may stifle vital nanotech research that could otherwise result in medical and other important breakthroughs. Expert witnesses at a congressional hearing recommended wider public debate, greater resources to develop defensive technology, and funding of societal, ethical, and environmental impact studies along with technology forecasting and basic science studies.
Published on KurzweilAI.net April 14, 2003.
The convergence of information technology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology
could result in self-replicating, nanoscale robots with potentially
destructive consequences, according to computer-scientist Bill Joy,
writing in Wired magazine, and others. These concerns led
the U.S. House Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives
to hold a hearing on April 9, 2003 to "examine the societal
implications of nanotechnology and H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act of 2002."
The hearing was also motivated by Michael Crichton's science-fiction
novel Prey, which "brought Bill Joy's concerns to a
wider public and reinvigorated the debate over the possible negative
consequences of future developments in information technology, biotechnology,
and nanotechnology," stated the hearing's charter. Committee
Chairman Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) kicked off the hearing by
warning that the debate about nanotechnology itself "could
turn into 'gray goo.'"
The committee invited four expert witnesses to recommend ways to
address these concerns: Ray Kurzweil, Founder, Chairman and CEO
of Kurzweil Technologies, Inc.; Dr. Vicki Colvin, Executive Director
of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology and
Associate Professor of Chemistry at Rice University; Dr. Langdon
Winner, Professor of Political Science in the Department of Science
and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; and
Christine Peterson, cofounder and President of Foresight Institute.
Kurzweil, Colvin, Winner, Peterson: beyond gray goo
The real controversy, Kurzweil pointed out, is over "self-replication,
which is needed to scale up for molecular manufacturing in the future.
We are already facing the possibility of self-replication gone awry
with with bioengineered pathogens," he pointed out.
Peterson agreed, warning that the fear of long-term nanotech is
"spilling over to the short term." Winner also noted that
European Union nations have refused to buy genetically modified
foods, reflecting a "failure to provide attention to broader
social, political and cultural context."
"European funding agencies take near-term possibilities seriously,"
added Colvin. They are "ramping up significant funding in environmental
health impacts" and will be paying close attention to nanotechnology.
Kurzweil and Committee Chairman Boehlert discuss the
future of nanotech
Some of the panel's key recommendations:
- Kurzweil: "Put far greater resources to develop defensive
technology." For example, "we are on the threshold of
self-replicating biotechnology," but research is "slowed
down by the regulatory process." "Bioterrorists don't
have to follow those regulations. We're going to have to put explicit
resources. We're not going to be able to invent an antidote for
each new bio peril that comes along. We need some general broad
tools and to streamline the regulatory processes. A similar problem
could hamper nanotech research, he warned. However, information
that is "particularly dangerous should be regulated,"
such as how to modify pathogens.
- Cole: Invest five percent of the total nanotech research dollars
in "societal, ethical, and environmental impact studies…to
ensure nanotech develops responsibly and with strong public support.
We should "put money in broad public discussion instead of
social scientists."
- Peterson: Conduct open international development to deal with
terrorism, do technology forecasting, and fund a basic feasibility
review of nanotech's long term (molecular manufacturing) by unbiased
physicists.
- Winner: Don't place questions solely in the hands of science,
technology, and business. "We need to include the public
early on" and create "small panels or ordinary disinterested
citizens to examine important issues about nanotechnology."
A forum for nuts?
But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) warned that such panels could
"give a forum to the very nuts that you are trying to overcome
in Europe." He also warned about "putting sociology and
literature majors in charge of defining the goals and engineering
of the science majors. Injecting bureaucracy is the most effective
method of turning pure energy into solid waste."
Agreeing with this position, Kurzweil summed up the consensus views
of the witnesses and the committee, recommending "substantial
forums and analysis, debate and dialogue and review of these issues
by interdisciplinary groups of people and funding to do that. Not
bureaucracy and regulation, but open dialogue and exploration to
really avoid some of the irrational and emotional reactions that
have stymied GMO [genetically modified foods]."
The discussion also turned to longer-range concerns. Winner warned
that nanotech and science and technology in general are "plowing
onward to create a successor species to the human being. When word
gets out about this to the general public, they will be profoundly
distressed. And why should public money be spent to produce an eventual
race of posthumans?"
"We already have people walking around who have computers
in their brains," replied Kurzweil. For example, those who
have Parkinson's disease or hearing disabilities. "There are
already a dozen different neural implants. We have artificial augmentations
and replacements of almost every body system. The ultimate implication
of these technologies will not be so much a successor species, but
really an enhancement of our human species. I would define the human
species as that species that inherently extends our own horizons.
We didn't stay on the ground, we didn't stay on the planet, and
we're not staying with the limitations of our biology."
"I hope you're free for lunch," added Rep. Boehlert.
Amara D. Angelica
is Editor of KurzweilAI.net.
References
Full
Science Committee Hearing on The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology
Hearing
Charter: The Societal Implications of Nanotechnology
Testimony
of Ray Kurzweil on the Societal Implications of Nanotechnology
Molecular
Manufacturing: Societal Implications of Advanced Nanotechnology
Archived
webcast for the hearing
Molecular
Manufacturing: Societal Implications of Advanced Nanotechnology
by Christine Peterson
| 
