Molecular Manufacturing and the Developing World
Looking to Nanotechnology for Answers
What is the purpose of molecular manufacturing, who will create and own it, and what are the risks and impacts on the world? A social scientist believes these questions could best be addressed in an international nanotechnology conference and grassroots events.
Originally published in Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review
of Ultraprecision Engineering and Nanotechnology, Volume 2, No.
2, May 8, 2006. Reprinted with permission on KurzweilAI.net, May
29, 2006.
Despite limited literature discussing the global implications of
molecular manufacturing (MM), the seeds for certain key debates
are starting to be sown. They essentially mirror those presented
for current and near-term nanotechnology2:
for what purposes will the technology be developed and used, by
whom will it be created and owned, what is the nature of the risks
it will bring, and what kind of impact will it have upon the global
economy and developing world?
The realisation of MM's central goals3
would undoubtedly lead to the most concentrated technological 'tsunami'
ever witnessed. The unpredictable nature of such a revolution makes
answering the previous questions all the more difficult. However,
just as biotechnology is commonly used as a yardstick for nanotechnology
evaluations (given the continuity of many social concerns and relationship
between existing biotechnology capabilities and potential to develop
nanotechnology [2]), we argue here that the best way to set up the
MM debate, in terms of its impact on developing countries, may be
to look at developments and trends in nanotechnology. Central to
such analysis is addressing the ways in which nanotechnology creates
new possibilities for developing countries in terms of access to
technology, potential benefits, risks, and shifting views of science
and technology, as well as the imposing of new demands in terms
of infrastructure and approaches to science.
While many of the issues MM faces may be similar to those presently
developing with nanotechnology, MM offers a revolution of a starkly
different magnitude. However, MM still faces an 'identity crisis'
in the developed world, and an 'identity absence' in the developing
world. This has been further hampered by authors and academics who,
in writing articles and papers concerning nanotechnology's impact
upon the developing world, mix the two terms and confuse references
to the relevant potential impacts [3]. Coupled with hype surrounding
'grey goo', a poor foundation for international discussions in which
to include MM has evolved. There need to be consistent efforts by
those writing in the area to distinguish the kind of nanotechnology
to which they are referring.
However, while the scope of potential impact differs greatly between
nanotechnology and MM, history suggests there will be universal
patterns in terms of its distribution. Whether MM is developed to
either a limited or a full capacity, it is more than likely the
majority of the world will never reap its benefits and perhaps even
fewer will know or understand its potential.
The location of MM's initial development will play a key role in
the resolution of suggestions that MM will increase global corporate
control [4], eradicate natural resource markets to the detriment
of developing countries [4, 5] or reduce global inequalities and
allow countries to 'leap-frog' the industrial revolution [1]. Some
suggest that industrialised countries are more fertile ground for
its development [6], while others believe China and India are in
a more likely position than the United States of America and European
Union to be the initial producers4
[7]. However, as McCarthy notes, "just possessing the technology
does not mean that a given state will be able to use it to full
advantage" [6]. Countries will require an ability to integrate and
respond to MM in order to exploit its potential.
In more recent times, debates have extended to consider MM's initial
development by both small and big research groups, within private
and public spheres, by structured and unstructured research groups,
as well as by 'rogue' and 'peaceful' nations.
Assessing nanotechnology, we notice an increasing 'nano-divide'
in terms of national research levels and funding, as much amongst
the developing countries themselves as between the developed and
the developing world [8]. This highlights the limitations of discussing
the developing world as if it was an homogeneous grouping. Emerging
technology affects regions, countries, populations and communities
in vastly disparate ways. Already, 62 countries are engaging with
nanotechnology on a national level. Nineteen of them are classified
as 'developing' but none of these are from the group of countries
classified as 'least developed'. However, via nanotechnology we
may be witness to a new form of inexpensive access to niche R&D
markets, as demonstrated by development of national nanotechnology
programs in countries such as Costa Rica.
Furthermore, when spending is adjusted for purchasing-power parity,
Chinese government nanotechnology funding ranks second, internationally,
behind the United States of America [9]. Nonetheless, funding (on
an absolute basis) remains heavily focussed towards programs in
industrialised countries of the European Union, the United States
of America and Japan.
It appears that smaller national programs will require clear, specific
strategic roadmaps that target niche research and consider significant
international collaboration if they wish to be part of the 'nanotechnology
revolution'.
Initial applications in nanotechnology, such as in cosmetics, sporting
apparatus and clothing, have exposed early indicators as to the
nature of research orientation. Increasing levels of private sector
patent concentration within the developed world [10], promoting
'broadbrush' patents, have added to developing country concerns.
By the time MM arrives, corporate control in areas such as the life
sciences will be so strong and patents and other forms of technological
control5 so all-encompassing,
that the ability to replicate a multi-functional theranostic kit
cheaply and rapidly may have little or no bearing on its ability
to reach those in greatest need.
Some have suggested that 'economic abundance' resulting from the
realisation of MM will negate such a trend. MacGillivray disagrees,
believing that with MM "the economics of production will change…
human nature won't" [11]. History also disagrees. While economic
theory is based on scarcity, the current world is already
one of abundance. We 'solved' the 'production issue' long ago. Given
the world's current population, we do not need greater production
to feed such a number. Rather, we require more equitable distribution
of resources, reductions in consumption and the recognition that
true 'equality' (at Western standards of living) is not sustainable.
As the 2002 United Nations' Human Development report notes, if the
per capita energy consumption of developing countries were to rise
to even half of that of the advanced industrial economies, the energy
reserves of this finite planet soon would be exhausted [12].
Despite the orientation of early applications, a number of groups
remain hopeful that nanotechnology can be 'appropriate' and used
to fulfil the Millennium Development Goals [13-15]. Similarly, 'nanofactories'
have been touted as 'appropriate technology' on the basis of their
potential to reduce skilled labour and supporting infrastructure
requirements [16]. However, it depends whether a nanofactory would
reduce skilled or basic labour. If the latter, then it fails Schumacher's
criteria for an appropriate technology [17].
Furthermore, assessments of appropriateness must include assessments
of risk. As with nanotechnology, suggestions have been made that
MM could promote world peace [6] while others have cautioned that
it may, initially, prove quite dangerous [18]. Consistently, reports
are finding that research into nanotechnology risk is inadequate
and under-funded. With MM offering less chance to both predict and
react to issues of risk, the key must be to focus on global capacity
building in areas of risk assessment and risk management.
The problem with developed country discussions of nanotechnology
for the developing world is that they often don't progress beyond
the identification of so-called 'appropriate' applications. Very
few people have even arrived at an acceptance that there are
'appropriate applications', full stop. MM continues to struggle
for mainstream acceptance and it is, perhaps, more likely that its
fruition will come via a gradual extension of nanoscale capabilities,
rather than an immediate jump to MM.
In terms of capacity requirements, nanotechnology is changing both
the way science is conducted within research teams and promoted
to the public. As we move to a scale unable to be viewed by a standard
microscope, and less likely to be comprehended, environmental and
human health risk become increasingly important issues with which
to engage the public. Early commentators have suggested that nanotechnology
will reinforce the lessons from the GM-debate: that public participation
is crucial to acceptance but 'engineering consent' is not a sustainable
means for widespread acceptance and development. In my experience
with researchers in Thailand, India and Australia, there is a strong
recognition that capacity development in nanotechnology must incorporate
ethicists and legal experts in terms of analysing national regulatory
frameworks, maximising competitive advantage and contributing to
public dialogue. Finally, nanotechnology is demanding and creating
a more interdisciplinary view of science at the research level.
Since MM will most probably enter in a climate shaped by nanotechnology's
legacy in these areas, it is important that such considerations
extend to MM debates.
All these considerations lead me to make two suggestions.
The first suggestion is that we work towards a truly international
nanotechnology conference some time around 2010. Such a conference
would ideally occur within the United Nations framework and involve
official country representatives. It would be of great benefit to
the conference, in terms of productivity, if countries submitted
'white papers' prior to the commencement of the proceedings, outlining
national capacities, strategies and proposed niche markets in nanotechnology.
Such a meeting could also incorporate discussion on the proposed
International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies6
and gauge reception of and progress towards MM. The Global Nanotechnology
Network7 as well as
the Asia Nano Forum8
provide good examples and existing infrastructure for any efforts
to develop international cooperation and consensus.
The second suggestion is that, replicating a method such as the
United Kingdom's Royal Academy of Engineering 'upstreaming' approach9,
civil society groups should seek to increase nanotechnology and
MM exposure at international 'grassroots' events such as the World
Social Forum. Such efforts hopefully would pave the way for greater
developing country engagement in academic writing and scholarship
pertaining to these areas.
Despite significant differences in the potential capabilities of
nanotechnology and MM, nanotechnology may offer the greatest insights
and means by which to influence the future impact of MM with respect
to the developing world. Initially, a clear distinction must be
made between nanotechnology and MM. Current nanotechnology indicators
point towards increasing concern for the developing world in terms
of barriers to technology access, inadequate research into environmental
and human health risks, and significant demands in terms of the
capacity to respond to and develop nanotechnology. Any study of
MM and its potential impacts upon the developing world will gain
from an appreciation of the relevant context and developments surrounding
nanotechnology.
Footnotes
2. Hereafter referred to as 'nanotechnology.'
3. The development of a 'nanofactory'
and the resultant capability of "efficient, low-cost production
of high quality goods" [1].
4. Based on economic, education,
research focus and political support data.
5. See Shand's comments on terminator
technologies [9].
6. Suggested by researchers from
the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Change and University
of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics.
7. More at: www.globalnanotechnologynetwork.org.
8. More at: http://www.asia-nano.org/index.php.
9. See The Royal Society and
Royal Academy of Engineering's 2004 report titled, "Nanoscience
and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties" for greater
explanation
References
1. Drexler K. E., Peterson C. and Pergamit G., Unbounding the
Future, The Nanotechnology Revolution, William Morrow and Company,
Inc., New York 1991.
2. South African Nanotechnology Initiative, "National Nanotechnology
Strategy: Nanowonders - Endless Possibilities, Volume 1, Draft 1.5",
South African Nanotechnology Initiative and the Department of Science
and Technology, Pretoria, 2003.
3. Maclurcan D. C., 2005, "Nanotechnology and Developing
Countries: Part 1 - What Possibilities". Accessed on: October
30, 2005. Available: http://www.azonano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1428.
4. ETC Group, "The Big Down: From Genomes To Atoms",
ETC Group, Winnipeg, 2003.
5. Cascio J., 2005, "WorldChanging Nanotechnology".
Accessed on: September 30, 2005. Available: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003445.html.
6. McCarthy T., 2004, "Molecular Nanotechnology and the World
System". Available: http://www.mccarthy.cx/WorldSystem/intro.htm.
7. Treder M. (Private Communication).
8. Maclurcan D. C., 2005, "Nanotechnology and Developing
Countries: Part 2 - What Realities". Accessed on: October 30,
2005. Available: http://www.azonano.com/Details.asp?ArticleID=1429.
9. Lux Research, "Ranking the Nations: Nanotech's Shifting Global
Leaders", Lux Research Inc., New York, 2005.
10. Shand H., "New Enclosures: Why Civil Societies and Governments
Need to Look Beyond Life Patenting", The New Centennial Review,
3 (2), pp. 187-204, 2003.
11. Regis E., Nano: the emerging science of nanotechnology:
remaking the world - molecule by molecule, Little Brown, Boston,
ed. 1st 1995.
12. UNDP, Human Development Report: Deepening Democracy in
a Fragmented World, Oxford University Press, New York 2002.
13. Court E., Daar A. S., Martin E., Acharya T. and Singer P.
A., 2004, "Will Prince Charles Et Al Diminish the Opportunities
of Developing Countries in Nanotechnology?" Accessed on: February
20, 2004. Available: http://www.nanotechweb.org/articles/society/3/1/1/1.
14. Barker T. et al., 2005, "Nanotechnology and the Poor:
Opportunities and Risks". Accessed on: January 26, 2005. Available:
http://nanotech.dialoguebydesign.net/rp/NanoandPoor2.pdf.
15. UNCTAD, 2004, "Interactive Dialogue on Harnessing Emerging
Technologies to Meet the Millennium Development Goals". Accessed
on: September 3, 2004. Available: http://stdev.unctad.org/unsystem/emerging.htm.
16. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 2002, "Benefits
of Molecular Manufacturing". Accessed on: October 20, 2003.
Available: http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm.
17. Schumacher E. F., Small is Beautiful: a study of economics
as if people mattered, Blond & Briggs, London 1973.
18. Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, "By Whom?"
C-R-Newsletter, no. 19, 2004 (http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/05/by_whom.html)
© 2006 Don Maclurcan
| 
