[Platform] GRP on nanotech?

[John Walsh]

This is not a very good debate or set of positions.  First, it has a  
Luddite and anti-scientific tone to it, and it is unbalanced -  
stressing only the drawbacks.
Second, there is nothing preventing debate about all this although  
nanotechnology is so diverse as to be nearly undefinable.
Third, how can you control something that is not yet invented.  Same  
with safety measures.
Fourth, it is wildly impractical.  Research cannot be stopped.
Fifth, some of nanotechnology can be compared to genetic engineering  
(which was opposed once upon a time but is now clearly seen as a boon  
to health and medicine and knowledge.)   But not all of it can e.   
And no nanotechnology will be able in the near future to reproduce as  
well as a bacterium or virus.
Just some thoughts.
jw
p.s. To be Green does not mean to be anti-scientific or backward  
looking or (worse) inward looking.


On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:26 AM, Jamie O'Keefe wrote:

> Your suggestions sound good.  You might add:
>
> 1.  health implications from very small scale particles that plants,
> humans and other animals cannot process and may lead to illnesses.
>
> 2.  should a Nanotech modification get out, as say with certain genes
> in crops, there exists the possibility that rather than having the
> creator pay for the resulting contamination, anyone who gains use of
> such nanotech could actually be sued for unauthorized use.  This has
> happened recently with cross pollination between GMO and non-GMO crops
> and a farmer was sued to unauthorized use.
>
> 3.  should nanotech pan out as the boon its proponents make it out to
> be, there are equity issues as well as the rich gain from life
> extending treatments, for example, that are too expensive for poor and
> the middle class.
>
> Also, the 2004 national party platform said:
>
> Nonotechnology
>
> Nanotechnology - the science of manipulating matter at the molecular
> level - is poised to provide a new industrial revolution with vast
> social and environmental consequences. Like nuclear science and
> biotechnology, nanotechnology is being pursued largely outside of
> public debate, risking great harm and abuse in its use and
> application.
>
> The Green Party calls for a halt to nanotechnology development until
> the following conditions are met:
>
> 11. Development of full and open public debate about the implications
> of nanotechnology and the fusion of nanotech with biological,
> materials and information sciences.
>
> 12. Development of democratic public control mechanisms which would
> regulate the direction of nanotechnology research and development.
>
> 13. Expanded research into the environmental and health consequences
> of exposure to nano-scale materials.
>
> 14. Development of technology to contain and monitor nano-scale  
> materials, and.
>
> 15. Development of precautionary safety measures for the containment
> and control over nano-scale materials.
> _______________________________________________
> Platform mailing list
> Platform at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/platform
>

John V. Walsh, MD
Professor of Physiology
University of Massachusetts Medical School
55 Lake Avenue, N.
Worcester, MA, 01655-0127
Phone (work): 508-856-3360
Phone (cell): 508-868-1653
email: john.walsh at umassmed.edu