Reality vs The Nanotech Lynch Mob

On June 8, 2010, in Development Issues, Economy 2.0, Energy Efficiency, Europe, Events, Legal Battles, Nanotech, Products, by Tim

Nanomaterials Producers React To Criticism Of Their Business Models

I don’t like nanomaterials companies very much. In fact they are usually nothing but trouble. If they are not squandering huge amounts of investors money chasing non existent markets then they are having messy legal spats with competitors and suppliers, or even prancing around bringing hugely expensive but ultimately pointless libel suits against anyone who questions their business model. Anyway, not to worry, most of them have either gone bust or found something more useful to do with their nanotech expertise than trying to put carts before horses and good riddance.

I’ll be doing my best to avoid a lynching at tomorrow’s Nanomaterials 2010 conference where I will be talking about “Trends and opportunities in the nanomaterials marketplace” – something I’m pretty sure that I will be able to manage without jumping up and down yelling “nanomaterials are the new gold so give me all your money” (actually as we and the World Gold Council proved a while ago, Gold is the new Gold).

However we do need to make use of nanomaterials to address a number of pressing issues caused by rising populations and declining resources unless we all want to go back to the Dark Ages, and this is where I think the opportunities lie, and perhaps this time it won’t be just large chemical producers who can take advantage.

If we look at most of our current crop of ‘sustainable’ technologies, from hybrid vehicles to wind turbines and solar arrays they are rubbish. There is absolutely no comparison with the elegance of nature’s solutions, almost all of which are built from the bottom up and which I often refer to as ‘materials by design’, a subject of eternal debate with my nanoclastic colleague Dexter Johnson. We need to start thinking seriously about how we can use our new found control over the properties of materials to address resource issues, create clean water and of course double food production in the next forty years, not producing tons of stuff that no one will ever want just because we can.

Tagged with:
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Redesigning Technologies For Risk Avoidance With The World Economic Forum

On June 4, 2010, in Development Issues, Economy 2.0, Events, Nanotech, Renewable Energy, Social and Ethical, Sustainability, geoengineering, by Tim

I spent last weekend in a rather hot Doha (Qatar), surrounded by Emirs, Queens, Princes and Prime Ministers at the World Economic Forums Global Redesign Initiative meeting. It’s an organization I have been involved with for the past six years, through both the Technology Pioneers program and the Global Redesign Initiative.

As the world changes at an ever increasing pace, with new challenges from the financial, technology and natural worlds coming thick and fast, there have been questions over whether international institutions, from the United Nationals to the International Monetary Fund are able to cope.

“Today’s institutions are organized to solve yesterday’s problems” – Mark Malloch Brown, World Economic Forum Global Redesign Meeting, Doha, May 2010

A large part of the change, from the time when most institutions were set up in the aftermath of the second word war has been the explosive growth in communication. When the UN was founded television was only available to a very few people, whereas in 2010 almost five billion people have access to the Internet. The proliferation of Internet enabled devices from iPhones to sensors and the expanding use of social networking such as Twitter and Facebook would have been unimaginable even thirty years ago when the Internet was still an emerging technology.

But technology can present a hazard as well as a risk. While presenting many opportunities that benefit the planet such as raising awareness of global issues and encouraging international cooperation, the Internet can also be used for identity theft and spreading pornography, or even challenging the legitimacy and authority of governments.

With all emerging technologies to date, from the Internet to genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the understanding of the implications by governments and international institutions has lagged way behind the deployment of the technology.

The same is true for the emerging technologies of the 21st Century. Nanotechnologies, synthetic biology and geoengineering have undoubted potential for good, especially in proactively addressing the issues which will inevitably arise in a world where nine billion people face increasing competition for resources, from food and water to power and natural resources. But equally inevitable is the potential for misuse, from home brew bioterrorism to environmental pollution, and in the case of geoengineering the potential for global disaster even though technologies may have been deployed with the best of intentions.

These emerging technologies, and their inter-linkages with civil society have the potential to shape and reshape our world even more profoundly than the Internet, and the ease of access to information and computing power means that in the 21st century world changing breakthroughs are as likely to come from the mind of student as from a large multinational corporation.

The reactive nature of institutions is inherent in their nature, and we are proposing the creation of a mechanism to support faster, more fact based decision-making, and to provide the knowledge which would enable a proactive approach to be taken to both the risks and the opportunities arising from 21st Century emerging technologies.

The full proposal for the Centre for Emerging Technology Intelligence is contained in the WEFs Global Redesign Initiative report, and you can also download a copy here.

I’m happy to say that the idea is receiving increasingly strong support from both Governments and companies who are increasingly realizing that in today’s world, taking a passive and reactive approach to global issues will be always more expensive than developing risk avoidance technologies in advance.

You can see (and hear) more about the WEF Global Redesign Initiative below

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Technology Diffusion as the Ultimate Democratic Process

On April 27, 2010, in Development Issues, Economy 2.0, Sustainability, by Tim

The Guardian follows up on the Nature article last week which indicated that most applications of GM crops have been successful.

It’s sad to see the the first reaction of many of the anti GM side of the debate is to attempt to portray the writer of he Guardian article as biased or beholden to big GM business in some way. If that’s not sufficient then another commenter raises the oft cited ‘ethical’ objections along the lines of

- Agro-chemical companies work for profit
- That profit has to come out of someone’s pocket
- That someone is first and foremost the farmer, and always has been.

I’m often shocked by the naivety of the anti technology arguments, especially that if someone makes a profit it then the technology must automatically be bad. Profits means that people are employed and taxes get paid which pays for all the wonderful services we take for granted. If there wasn’t any money in it, then we wouldn’t have most modern crops, drugs, electricity. computes, mobile phones…

Unless the farmer has a lower IQ than the seeds he is planting, it will be simple economics which determine whether he uses GM or non GM seed. Feed your familay and sell your surplus.

That’s all there is to technology diffusion, whether GM, nanotech or anything else. It is the ultimate form of democracy, because it is us, the people, who eventually get to choose whether a technology is used or not, not politicians, companies or single issue campaign groups.

Tagged with:
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

It’s Up To Scientists To Save The World, Not Politicians – Or Maybe The Cat In The Hat

On December 21, 2009, in Development Issues, Economy 2.0, Nanotech, geoengineering, by Tim

Time For Plans B, C and D?

The vehemence with which Nigel Lawson has been attacked following todays article in the Wall Street Journal is hardly surprising, but I found the attacks from the scientific community surprisingly short sighted and naive.

The thrust of Lawson’s article, that adaptation may be a better strategy than the futile search for a global agreement has enraged many, but the human race has been so successful precisely because it is adaptable – from Kalahari Bushmen to Eskimos there are few environments where our race hasn’t been able to scratch out some kind of existence. However it also seems clear that the world pins its hopes on getting the major global governments to agree on anything then we are doomed anyway.

Finding a mechanism to limit the emissions of greenhouse gasses must be a priority, but in the absence of a global agreement then its up to the scientific community to come up with the solutions, something even Lawson acknowledges.

And beyond adaptation, plan B should involve a relatively modest increased government investment in technological research and development—in energy, in adaptation and in geoengineering.

I think the Cat in the Hat got it right, when clearing up the snow he tried little cats A to Y, but little cat Z was the one with the VOOOM under his hat that cleared up the mess. The greatest danger is that we stick to some kind of idealistic and utopian dream of a low carbon world without considering any other options, and then we one day find that it is too late. I’m a little concerned that many in the scientific community are so unworldly as to believe that the worlds major economies will hobble their economic growth and fork over a big chunk of GDP to various dodgy and corrupt regimes in order to attempt to maintain the climate in its current state – something the planet can’t even do in the absence of humans.

Given the track record of the UN over the last sixty years it’s hard to pin any hope of Copenhagen, Mexico or wherever the next jamboree will be. It is only sensible we should also look at the alternatives, adaptation and geoengineering as prominent among them as being boiled alive. I’d fork over a more than modest chunk of GDP towards science, and not only in the hope of averting environmental disaster, but in the hope of making sure that we have the economic growth to be able to do something about an ever growing list of global problems.

Issues as important as this are far too important to be left to politicians.

 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Long Term Prosperity is an an Ozymandian Dream Without Technology

On November 26, 2009, in Asia, Development Issues, Economy 2.0, Finance, Nanotech, Renewable Energy, Social and Ethical, Sustainability, credit crunched, by Tim

The recent news about the debt problems in Dubai contrast with the glitzy no expense spared hotels and conference centres where I spent last weekend with the World Economic Forum, but probably do more to highlight the importance of a diverse technology enabled economy than any amount of lobbying we could do.

While Dubai has led the way for the emergence of the Gulf as a major economic centre, most of my technology work has been done in the neighbouring states, Abu Dhabi, Qatar and Saudi Arabia who, while perhaps being slightly envious of Dubai’s dash to pre eminence in the region with the worlds tallest tower and an indoor ski slope have been taking a more measured approach to development. Most of these countries have been playing the property game too, but also backing this up with major investments in science and technology, and that doesn’t just mean taking stakes in AMD or IBM but making sure that technology fits into the local economy.

The reasons to do this are all the more obvious this week, and in a region with tiny but fast expending populations, ensuring that jobs are created for locals rather than overseas labourers is of increasing importance. It is estimated that Saudi Arabia has 25% youth unemployment, and in a country where 40% of the population is under 15 the petrochemical industry isn’t going to provide all the jobs that will be needed to prevent social unrest.

What is? Increasing the size of the manufacturing sector is a key policy goal in many states, and Mubadala, one of Abu Dhabi’s investment agencies has already announced plans to build an AMD fab in the emirate but this is only the start. The longer term goal, and the financial and political situation in many of the the Gulf states allows the luxury of long term planning, is to develop new technology based industries in materials, aerospace, semiconductors, renewable energy and pharmaceuticals but based on a whole host of new and emerging technologies such as nanotech, industrial biotech and regenerative medicine.

While Dubai may in the eye of a storm right now, the longer term prospects for the region look as bright as the desert sun.

Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away”.

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

IBM Double Dips With Nanotech Centres

On June 2, 2009, in Development Issues, Nanotech, US & Canada, by Tim

It’s interesting that IBM seems to be the partner of choice for a number of nanotechnology in emerging economies such as Bulgaria and Egypt, (where there are large number of vacancies, including the post of “Centre Director.”)

IBM, as we all know, was responsible for the STM/AFM and holds a wide variety of nanotechnology related patents, including some fairly fundamental ones on carbon nanotubes. Partnering with these new centers allows IBM to double dip by providing services (now the core business) and encourage the exploitation of its patents – something that looks like a pretty smart strategy to me.

Tagged with: •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Technology or Simplicity?

On February 9, 2009, in Development Issues, Energy Efficiency, Europe, Events, Health & Safety, Nanotech, Sustainability, by Tim
Living The Simple Life?

Living The Simple Life?

In a change from the usual run of nanotech and investing conferences, I’ll be at the “Ideas For A Greener Living” exhibition at Olympia (London) on 18th April. I’m taking part in a debate with ‘eco expert’ Penney Poyzer, organised by the 21st Century Technology Network. At the core of this is whether we should rely on technology to try to solve our problems – the counter argument is of course that that technology has caused a few problems too.

I’m interested to hear the opposing view. Is it that we should live in a simpler way, as do the beasts in the fields, or perhaps as rural villagers in India, or do we just live in cities and recycle our rubbish and save bits of old soap?

The great conundrum my my point of view is whether sitting around a dung fire in a hut is any more environmentally neutral than using renewable energy – which of course requires technology for its production and distribution. Is it possible to reject some parts of technology but choose to make use of others when it suits you – such as being rushed to a modern hospital in an ambulance rather than being treated by a grizzled old hippie with a bag of herbs and some Tibetan beads?

I have no idea, but it will be interesting to find out the opposing view and see if there are some solutions that we can all agree on.

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Nanotechnology in Food (again)

On February 5, 2009, in Development Issues, Europe, Health & Safety, Nanotech, Products, by Tim

The House of Lords Science & technology committee (or more accurately a sub committee) has started to investigate the use of nanotechnologies in the food sector and is calling for evidence.There’s plenty of it here.

Certainly if our experience of running a  few Nanofood confernces and producing a number of reports on the subject is typical, the committee could find it hard to gather firm evidence. Richard Jones gave a nice overview of the difficulties of even defiing the subject last year, but the marriage of nanotechnology and food is such an emotive and sensitive issue that it is hard to get anyone from major food company to stick their neck above the parapet.

My colleague Dexter Johnson who was the organiser of most of our food events has a few words to say on the subject, and I have to say I agree 100%. What the world needs is a joined up and sustainable food policy that makes the best, and most appropriate use of the technologies at our disposal, whether replacing horses with tractors or pesticides with GMOs. Many of the hard line groups advocating veganism or organic agriculture are in societies where that is an affordable lifestyle choice, whereas to most of the world food is just food – when it is available.

Banning a particular subsection of food, whether nanotechnology, chemistry (artificial fertilizers for instance) or physics (mechanised agriculture) is a pretty silly thing to do. However, it does work as a campaigning tactic as we have seen in the past. As most of the population is scientifically illiterate, it is very easy to make a convincing arguments by adding two bits of plausible science together and then coming to an implausible conclusion.

If some people want to live in a field eating a diet of grass and weeds fertilized by their own poo then they are quite at liberty to do so (although not in my garden!), and if the use of nanomaterials in packaging is shown to be safe then that is also fine. But just because we are wealthy enough to have a choice doesn’t mean that choice should be denied to the rest of the world – that is just selfish.


Tagged with: • • •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Ethical Dilemmas – Nanotech or a Smoke?

On January 27, 2009, in Development Issues, Health & Safety, Nanotech, US & Canada, credit crunched, by Tim

The hyperactive boffins at the Project for Emerging nanotechnologies have a new report out written by Ronald Sandler looking at the Social and Ethical issues, which always caused me a problem. Half of me instinctively goes “oh no, not another report looking at the ethical issues of stuff that hasn’t been invented or has little to do with nanotechnology (i.e. Radical Human Enhancement), but the inner scientist usually forces me to take a look anyway.

It’s heavy going for non ethicists and philosophers, and you cannot expect philosophers to get the science spot on all the time but worth taking a look at for the broader pointers it gives to dealing with emerging technologies in general. What I find particularly fascinating is the way that social scientists tend to see the world from a quite different perspective to those of us in business or in the lab and this is reflected in the breakdown of issues addressed in the report (see below).

Some good questions are asked, and here is my ethical poser.

In a world where pension black holes are popping up like mushrooms, should governments spend money on (nano)technologies with the potential to dramatically lengthen human lifespans, or should they be encouraging people to eat, drink and smoke more in order to fill the public coffers?

1. Social Context Issues: Social context issues arise from the interaction of nanotechnologies with problematic features of the social or institutional contexts into which the nanotechnologies are emerging. Examples of social context issues include unequal access to health care, inequalities in education, unequal access to technology, inadequate information security/privacy protection, inefficiencies in intellectual property systems, unequal exposure to environmental hazards and inadequate consumer safety protection.

2. Contested Moral Issues: Contested moral issues arise from nanotechnology’s interaction with or instantiation of morally controversial practices or activities—i.e., those that a substantial number of citizens believe should be prohibited. Examples of contested moral practices and activities in which nanoscale science and technology are, or are likely to be, involved include synthetic biology, construction of artificial organisms, biological weapons development, stem cell research and genetic modification of human beings.

3. Technoculture Issues: Technoculture issues arise from problematic aspects of the role of technology within the social systems and structures from which, and into which, nanotechnologies are emerging. Examples of technoculture issues include an overreliance on technological fixes to manage problematic effects (rather than addressing underlying causes of those effects), overestimation of our capacity to predict and control technologies (particularly within complex and dynamic biological systems) and technological mediation of our relationship with and experience of nature (and associated marginalization of natural values).

4. Form of Life Issues: Form of life issues arise from nanotechnology’s synergistic impacts on aspects of the human situation on which social standards, practices and institutions are predicated. For example, if nanomedicine helps extend the average human life span even five or ten healthful years, norms of human flourishing will need to be reconsidered and there are likely to be significant impacts on family norms and structures (e.g., care responsibilities), life plans or trajectories (e.g., when people marry) and social and political institutions (e.g., Medicare).

5. Transformational Issues: Transformational issues arise from nanotechnology’s potential (particularly in combination with other emerging technologies, such as biotechnology, information technology, computer science, cognitive science and robotics) to transform aspects of the human situation. This might be accomplished by significantly altering the kind of creatures that we are, reconstituting our relationship to the natural environment or creating self-aware and autonomous artificial intelligences (i.e., artifactual persons). In such cases, some prominent aspect of our ethical landscape would need to be reconfigured—for example, what it means to be human, personal identity or the moral status of some artifacts.

Of course no report would be complete without the obligatory conclusion that this represents a great opportunity for the Government to spend more money looking at social and ethical issues.

Tagged with: • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Pearls Before Swine?

On December 8, 2008, in Development Issues, Nanotech, Publications, Social and Ethical, US & Canada, education, by Tim

Nanotech as a religion has been a common thread on this blog for years, especially when connected to the Drexlerites and their belief in the book (see comments here). I’ve also been involved with a number of  debates with philosophers where the subject of religion has come up, and as with many technologies there is a fear among some that technology is intruding into areas where God should be the final arbiter.

Of course the logical extension of that argument is that all medicine is playing God, and some sects such as Jehovah’s Witnesses even refuse blood transfusions on these grounds while others prance around the increasingly fine line between accepting the benefits of modern technology while keeping their moral compasses more or less correctly aligned, although in an often rather bigoted way.  Moreover there is a growing tendency to accept only the elements of science which are directly beneficial and reject the rest.

A typical example is the dozens of hippies who travelled to Stansted airport this morning in order to protest against carbon emissions, none of whom presumably walked or travelled by home made wooden bicycle, or protesters who feel morally comfortable with beating up someone who works at an animal testing lab while happily using the drugs produced as a result.

Perhaps the problem is that the whole of science is just too big for people to make the connections between its constituent parts, and that some people are just too bigoted to listen to reason, which puts environmental protesters and terrorists rather too morally close for comfort – after all everyone claims that they were just doing what they believed was right.

The BBC makes its usual pigs ear of science reporting on today’s study of links between religiosity and scientific attitudes with the headline ‘Religious Shun Nanotechnology’ – perhaps they should listen to their own broadcasts – and misses the point by a mile. Asking a question such as “is nanotechnology morally acceptable will give the same answer as whether chemistry is morally acceptable. It might be a straight ‘no’, a heart ‘yes’ or a more educated “what part of chemistry are we talking about – weapons or pharmaceuticals?’

The survey is fortunately discussed in more detail by Dietram Scheufele who authored the study here) and his conclusion is both worrying to scientists and blindingly obvious to anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about marketing:

In other words, we may be wasting valuable time and resources by focusing our efforts on putting more and more information in front of an unaware public, without first developing a better understanding of how different groups will filter or reinterpret this information when it reaches them, given their personal value systems and beliefs

So what can we conclude from this? Probably nothing that we didn’t already know, that some people are blinded by prejudice and bigotry; rather more people have no interest in anything abstract that doesn’t affect their daily existence (so don’t bother discussing Schopenhauer with them and stick to Top Gear); a few people are very interested in nanotechnology, philosophy, the arts and everything else under the sun (the Melvyn Bragg’s of the world) and others will simply punch you in the face whatever you try to discuss with them (the Live and Let Live pub in Wood End used to be a popular place to try this).

Oh, and whether a Drexlerite or one camping on the runway of your local airport, never trust a hippie!

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
1 Comments
Leave A Response

Page 1 of 71234567
Go To Top »