Donate
Donate

Gaming the Future: The Book!

Results for "Nanotechnology policy"

We found 255 results for your search.

Brainstorming to prevent nanotech-based terrorism

from the Applied-group-genius dept.
In his weekly column on technology and public policy for Tech Central Station, University of Tennessee law professor and Foresight Director Glenn Reynolds calls 2001 "the year that people started to get serious about the promises and dangers of nanotechnology" ("Preventing Nanoterror Now", 27 December 2001). Reynolds lauds recent efforts to envision ñ and therefore prevent — possible dangers from and misuse of molecular nanotechnology, such as the recent AAAS symposium that included a panel discussion on nanotech dangers that included Eric Drexler, and points to efforts such as the Foresight Guidelines for the safe development of nanotechnology.

But Reynolds goes on to suggest that policy makers need to do much more to develop a broad vision of potential nanotech threats. One possibility: "get together technical experts, leading science fiction writers, experts on terrorism, and some people who have thought about the social impacts of nanotechnology, and have them brainstorm on the kinds of threats that might emerge. From this, we could then move to a consideration of how to prevent those threats from becoming realities. . . . To broaden the idea base, we might also solicit suggestions from the general public", perhaps from web-based forums such as here on Nanodot. "I imagine that such an effort would yield thousands of ideas, from which experts could evaluate the best", says Reynolds. And he concludes:

"Where this powerful technology is concerned, a nanogram of prevention is worth a kilogram of cure. Letís start thinking about nanoterrorism now, while we have the luxury of time. Itís a luxury that wonít last forever."

Historical Interest: Transcript of 1999 U.S. House hearing

from the Blast-from-the-past dept.
Those of you with an interest in history may be interested in the transcript of the hearing held by the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science on 22 June 1993. The transcript is available from the U.S. Government Printing Office website as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file. Caution: it weighs in at a whopping 5.7 Mb.

These hearings, titled "Nanotechnology: The State of Nano-Science and Its Prospects for the Next Decade", included testimony by Nobel laureate Richard Smalley of Rice University and nanotechnologist Ralph Merkle, then at Xerox PARC and now a researcher at Zyvex Corporation. The House hearings were held in response to an interagency workshop that called for establishment of an integrated federal program to support nanotech-oriented research and development efforts, and were important in solidifying support for the proposed U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which was then under consideration by the Clinton Administration. The NNI was formally presented as part of U.S. federal policy in February 2000 with the FY2001 budget request. NNI is now being funded at about $US 500 million annually.

Newt Gingrich Joins NanoBusiness Alliance

KPalmquist writes "Newt Gingrich announced today that he will be honorary chair of the NanoBusiness Alliance. F. Mark Modzelewski, head of the Alliance, says: "Newt Gingrich has long been the strongest voice in nanotechnology among America's policy and governmental leaders. The emerging nanotechnology sector has gained a brilliant and tested leader.""

Silicon Valley should expect nanotech boom

from the jostling-for-nano-position dept.
An article in the San Francisco Chronicle (Dec. 7) reports that Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network, a nonpartisan public policy group, is advising Silicon Valley to prepare for the next boom, described as being based on biotech, infotech, and of course nanotech. "Nanotechnology, the development of ultra-small mechanical components is another research area poised to take off. But Silicon Valley is competing with such places as Boston and San Diego to establish itself as the commercial center for these emerging technologies." The "mechanical" slant here reflects Foresight's main interest area of molecular manufacturing, as opposed to the mainstream which currently focuses more on nanoelectronics.

Finding a rational approach to nanotech opportunities and dangers

Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and a Foresight Board member, comments on the recent attention from both policy makers and the media to the potential opportunities and dangers of nanotechnology in an article on the TechCentral Station website ("Donít Be Afraid. Donít Be Very Afraid: Nanotechnology Worries Are Overblown", 6 December 2001). His conclusion:
"Overall, the best defense against the abuse of nanotechnology by terrorists, rogue governments, or anyone else is a combination: reasonable regulations to foster responsibility and safety, governments willing to police abuses by terrorists or other governments, and a world order in which such acts are discouraged in general. Weíre quite a distance from these factors, but fortunately we have at least a couple of decades to get there. Itís time to start working."

Reynolds' comments about facing the potential dangers of nanotechnology without undue fear and loathing were also reported in a piece on the Wired website ("Don't Fear Science You Can't See"). Reynolds also had a similar discussion in Ad Astra, the magazine of the National Space Society ("Space, Nanotechnology and Techno-Worries", Jan/Feb 2001; available as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file).
"Rather than too much technology," he writes, "perhaps the problem is that we have too little. In the early days of nanotechnology, dangerous technologies may enjoy an advantage. Once the technology matures, it is likely that dangerous uses can be contained. The real danger of the sort of limits Joy proposes is that they may retard the development of constructive technologies, thus actually lengthening the window of vulnerability." Reynolds concludes that Bill Joy may have done a service by drawing greater attention to both the dangers and the opportunities of nanotechnology, but: "If the debate is to accomplish anything, however, it will have to proceed on a more informed level."

Business groups expressing interest, caution on nanotech

from the nanobusiness dept.
Advances in nanoscience research and development are spurring intense interest among investors and corporations, but many are also wary of "nano-hype" in the wake of the dot-com meltdown. An article describing these mixed views appeared in Red Herring magazine ("Nano a nano", S. Herrera, 31 August 2001). The article also describes the efforts of Mark Modzelewski in creating the NanoBusiness Alliance, an international nanotechnology trade association to lobby congress, commission white papers, and conduct symposia. Similar coverage appeared in The Boston Globe ("Nanotechnology emerges as the next new frontier", by Beth Healy, 3 September 2001

The first symposium sponsored by the NanoBusiness Alliance will be held in New York City on 3 October 2001, and will bring together researchers, entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, policy makers, journalists and the public at large to examine the emerging ìbusinessî of nanotechnology.

Chapter topic list for Engines of Creation 2001

from the please-comment dept.
It's been fifteen years since Engines of Creation (or see free online version) came out — time for a new book looking at coming technologies. Read More for an initial chapter topic list, target readership, and a list of specific items requested from those wishing to help with the book. Comment by posting here on nanodot in the usual way, or you can use Foresight's annotation tool Crit.org to insert comments at specific locations in the text.

Paper Analyzes Human Extinction Scenarios

from the broad-scale-thinking dept.
Nick Bostrom writes "This is a beefed-up version of the presenation I gave in a SIG meeting at the recent Foresight gathering. Comments and suggestions would be welcome. Maybe it can develop into a FI white paper?

The aim is to try to get a better view of the threat picture of what I call "existential risks" – ways in which humankind could go extinct or have its potential permanently destroyed. The paper provides a classification of these risks and argues that they have a cluster of features that make ordinary risk management unworkable. It also argues that there is a substantial probability that we will fall victim to one of these risks. The point, of course, is not to welter in gloom and doom, but to understand where the pitfalls are so we can create better strategies for avoiding falling into them. The paper discusses several implications for policy and ethics, and the potential for destructive uses of nanotechnology is given particular attention.

The text is available in two formats: on the web and as an MS Word document. (Footnotes and formatting are nicer in the M$-version.)"

Bush Proposes Increase for Nanotech Funding

from the gathering-momentum dept.
An article on the web site of MITís Technology Review Magazine ("Nano Gets Boost from Bush," by A. Leo, 13 April 2001) reports that the Bush Administrationís proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2002 for the U.S. federal government would significantly boost research and development funding for nantechnology-related efforts. According to the TR report, in his budget proposal released last week, Bush requested $485 million for nanotechnology research in fiscal year 2002, a fifteen percent increase from the $422 million Congress granted last year. This is still less than the $495 million the Clinton Adminstration originally requested for the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) for FY2001.
Analysts with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) R&D Budget and Policy Program put the nanotech funding for FY2002 at $482 million, and note in their preliminary analysis of the budget proposal that nanotech is one of the few areas that receives an increase in research and development funds.

The TR article also contains this interesting teaser: The NNI has also begun "to address how nanotechnology will affect society. This month, the National Science Foundation will publish a 400-page report, authored by Roco, on those implications. In that report, Roco predicts that in ten to fifteen years the entire semiconductor industry, as well as half the pharmaceutical industry, will rely on nanotechnology."

A brief report from Washington, D.C.

from the bordering-the-beltway dept.
A quick look of nanotechnology activity in and around the U.S. capital can be found in this short article in Washington Techway ("Nanotechnology: The tiny world of atoms," by A. Daniels, April 9, 2001). The article presents a regional view of nanotech policy and research in Washington, D.C. and nearby academic and government research centers in Virginia and Maryland. The article quotes Senior Associate Richard Smith, director of forecasts in science, technology, and engineering for Coates & Jarratt, Inc., in Washington, as well as officials from NSF, NIST, and MITRE.

Note: in the accompanying illustration of Drexlerís design for a fine-motion controller, the caption erroneously states "Drexler . . . has constructed a detailed molecular manipulator". This is incorrect. The FMC has only been modeled, not constructed . . . yet.

Facebook Twitter Youtube Linkedin Podcast Spotify
0
    0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop
    Continue Shopping

      Search Foresight Institute