These are extraordinary numbers. What people are complaining about here is not that nanotechnology might be dangerous - in fact earlier results from the survey showed that the US public are perhaps not concerned enough about the potential hazards of nanotech. What they are worried about is that it is literally immoral, in the same way that theft and torture are generally thought to be are immoral. But 'nanotech' is simply that - a technology, not an application. How can a technology be inherently immoral?
The guy who organised the survey, Prof Scheufele at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has a hypothesis:
The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion: "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives. The importance of religion in these different countries that shows up in data set after data set parallels exactly the differences we're seeing in terms of moral views. European countries have a much more secular perspective."
The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele.
Yeah right. Aluminium is also a material that doesn't occur in nature. It also enhances human qualities - it lets you fly (and drink carbonated beverages...). Yet the god squad don't have a problem with aluminium (although they do have a problem with fluoride in their precious bodily fluids).
So what's the real deal here? Why does god have a beef with nanotech? It's not simply fear of the new or concern over about mucking around with life (for instance, Americans are not particularly against GMO).
Hat tip: Tangled Up In Blue Guy
Nice article, and thanks for the hat tip.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that bothers me about those who react against GMO is that they ignore the historical aspect of husbandry and hybridising of botanists. GMO is more of a short cut, I think, than it is any sort of revolution in the way we manipulate life.
I think more of the problems with GMO's is that we can rapidly introduce changes in the genome without quite understanding what it is we are doing. A lot of cases it seems alright (goldren rice for one) but other times GMO's contain antimicrobial resistant genes, these wouldn't be so bad since they are in the plant, but the finding of horizontal gene transfer has introduced the possibility that these resistances may find themselves into microbes. This would potentially create problematic antibiotic resistant species such as MRSA.
ReplyDeleteErr...this isn't really a moral or ethical reason against it though, and I doubt the average person knows much about this.
I agree with you that GMOs do have the potential to cause hazards that are different to what you could achieve with conventional breeding. And also that this doesn't really explain why people are for or against it. With most science, only the experts know enough to assess the risks - and because they're insiders they may not be best placed to.
ReplyDeleteI think with most science things people form an opinion based on the level of trust they have in the experts, plus their gut feelings on whether it's 'yucky' or not, and whether it fits with their other beliefs.
Perhaps what Nigel Cameron (Director of the Center on Nanotechnology and Society at the Illinois Institute of Technology) has to say on his blog http://choosingtomorrow.blogspot.com/
ReplyDeletemay have something to do with attitudes about morality and nanotech.
The article is: Tuesday, January 16, 2007, "Choosing Tomorrow: some Problems of "Transhumanist" Approaches to Emerging Technologies"
I have to admit that I am torn two ways on this, part of me is excited about the emerging sciences but another part is very concerned about potentially new forms of pollution that will be hard to counter. The effects of minute particles of plastic from carrier bags in the environment is causing growing concern, what of the "novel" effects from other materials and elements?
I think definitely that new technology is potentially hazardous. We need to be careful what we do with it. But as far as I understand it the problem that these folks have with it is that it is intrinsically immoral. In other words, it doesn't matter if nanotechnology lets you do good things without harm. Their problem is that it's intrinsically immoral to be playing around with the building blocks of the world.
ReplyDeleteThe root - well one root - of the problem here is the very idea that a technology can be moral or immoral in itself. It's fundamental to humanist morality that we judge actions, such as USING a technology in a particular way, by their consequences. Most technologies can be used in both beneficial and damaging ways (consider biofuels). Since assessing the consequences is often difficult and imprecise our moral views are often cautious and qualified. And it takes us effort to reach a final view.
ReplyDeleteReligious moralists often try to categorise a technology as either good or evil. It's a lazy person's shortcut.
This habit isn't limited to the religious, however. Lots of people seek such shortcuts. Condemnation of whole technologies has some advantages. It's quick. It makes sloganising easy. It removes the need to actually understand particular applications. It gives free rein to emotions about, say, the wickedness of pharmaceutical firms.
Its weakness, of course, is that it's disconnected from reality. Policies based on moral shortcuts produce silly results - which are typically unsustainable.