,

Inadequate regulation of nanotech in food and farming?

Thursday, July 19, 2007

ABC reported that nano-agrifood industry will be worth more than US$20 billion by 2010, with giant companies like Syngenta, Monsanto, Kraft Foods and Heinz probably investing.

There could be a significant market for "nanopesticide". The emulsion from Nano-sized versions of pesticide molecules are more stable, more toxic to pests and better absorbed into plants, however, at the same time could also pose new risks to humans or the environment.

The ability for nanoparticles to penetrate the surface of plants may mean they also penetrate into edible parts of the crop and their ability to dissolve may create new kinds of contamination in soils, waterways or the food chain.

 

,

Privacy is dead?

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Have a look at Mike Treder's post titled "Is Privacy Overrated?" here:

We agreed with author, scholar, and transparency advocate David Brin, who asserts that we are not required to choose between freedom and security; that, in fact, history shows us that the most open or "transparent" societies -- those with the least emphasis on secrecy and control -- also are the safest.
I have the impression that law and economics scholars tends to restrict privacy uses for economical purposes, hence, privacy is protected insofar as the total outcome of its protection outweighed its costs of protections. Secondly, privacy shall not be protected if it hinders people to commence beneficial economic transactions. Posner said in his blog:
The particular concern I have with defenders of privacy arises when they argue for legal rights to blanket concealment not of communications, and not of embarrassing facts, but of facts that would be material to the willingness of other persons to transact with the concealer on terms favorable to him.
Posner seemed to defend organizational value of privacy (in terms of trade secret, for example) compared to its individual value. (I must put a note here, that I doubted that protecting privacy in organizations is all good, if they are too much protected, then it can also hamper developments.)

From the human rights approach, privacy is also troublesome. Is privacy a sub-right or a fundamental human rights? I think privacy could be an interrelation between the two. Not all concepts under privacy rights are negative rights.

See my previous discussion on this issue here.

 

, ,

Nanotechnology and Transnational Governance, the case of China and US

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

On my other post, we have discussed the idea of establishing an international nanotechnology arms treaty, aimed at reducing negative impacts of nano arms race. There is another article at GMU which also discusses the transnational governance of nanotech, this time by focusing on China and US. Here's a quote:
Though nanotechnology R&D is currently an effort based largely upon chemistry and materials science, the high priority placed on it in both the United States and China will quickly lead nanotechnology to interact with other fields of study—such as biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science—that could further quicken the pace of both basic research and product development. This convergence of technologies could cause an even greater set of governance challenges than nanotechnology alone, further impacting institutions tasked with the responsibility of managing new technological advances. Since developments in nanotechnology are at the forefront of these potentially radical innovations, the United States and China have the chance to think and operate proactively, and work collectively, toward getting the governance system “right” from the start.

The author signaled that Chinese Nanotechnology will be booming, saying that the Chinese government spent $250 million on nanotechnology in 2005 -- when adjusted for purchasing-power parity -- places China’s nanotechnology investment second only to the United States. He stated that the number of scientific papers on nanotech, pubslihed by China is catching up with the US, and that from 2000 to 2002, "China ranked third behind only the United States and Japan in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents held." Given those tendencies, a coordinated risk-research endeavours would be required.

Well... China, together jointly with US discussing the policies of a general purpose technology that could inverted the world's balance of power? Hmmm...what would you do if you were Chinese?

Oh, read the paper yourself here. And a link to my previous post on Chinese nanotech in comparison with India here.

 

, , , ,

Regulating Nanotechnology Wihtin Precautionary Principle

A Report from the Institut fuer oekologische Wirtschaftsforschung for the European Parliament benchmarked precutionary principle embodied in several environmental legislations, from the REACH in EU to TSCA in the US.

From the report, you can tell which side of the world advocates stronger precautionary principle and how it affects future nanotechnology regulation. Read the report here.

 

A Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty?

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Mike Treder's idea for an International Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty (INTACT) is intriguing:
Existing arms treaties may not apply to nanotechnology-based weapons, and there are important intellectual property, commercial confidentiality, and national security issues involved in addressing this challenge. One option is to brief and consult with relevant organizations for the next draft of the White Paper, with the goal of encouraging the eventual creation of an International Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty (INTACT).
History recorded that a revolution on general purpose manufacturing capabilities tends to end in arms race. That's what happened in WWI. Arms limitation would be one interesting alternative for preventing a future nano-war.

But there is a difference: nano is small, conventional weaponries are big. How are we supposed to watch non proliferation of small things such as that? Well, I suppose the future sensors would develop.

There is a second difference. If a weapon is big, it would take a group of people to operate. This is the function of army groups. But if the weapon is small, and its destruction capability is as big as conventional weapons, then it can be operated in small groups. This is likely to be the function of terrorist cells. What I am trying to say is this: smaller weapons makes wars easier. Large scale wars will be obsolete, small scale "terrorism" would be likely. Terrorism requires effective intelligence and policing. Policing is the keyword for future non proliferation treaty.

What is the implication? The INTACT, if it is later designed, should be formed both as an inter-state treaty and as a "policing treaty". The current Nuclear nPT is an inter state treaty, because state is an actor of every nuclear policy. But what about nanotech weaponries? The actors are not only states, but also corporations and individual people. That is why I said above that INTACT should be a "policing treaty". A treaty that lies its emphasis on individual people, as well as the state.

Click here on my previous posts on "Unrestricted Warfare" and "Lawfare".

 

, , , ,

EPA's Nano Program -- open for public comment

Saturday, July 14, 2007

EPA has issued Federal Register (FR) notices seeking public comment on a concept paper and other materials related to its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program.

The debate still hovers around the issue if nanomaterials are to be considered as a 'new' material under the TSCA. J.C. Davies said:
“The agency’s current practice is inadequate to deal with nanotechnology. It is essential that EPA move quickly to recognize the novel biological and ecological characteristics of nanoscale materials. It can do this only by using the ‘new uses’ provisions of TSCA, a subject not mentioned in the EPA’s inventory document. With the approach outlined by EPA and because of the weaknesses in the law, the agency is not even able to identify which substances are nanomaterials, much less determine whether they pose a hazard.”
EPA also issued papers for public comment on Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP)—in order to encourage industry to provide a voluntary scientific information about the risk management practices currently applied.

The EPA's official website on the program is here. Project on Emerging Nanotech website containing a March 2007 Report (titled Nanotech: Oversight for 21st Century) plus a webscast is available here. To get a glimpse on the application of TSCA to nanomaterials, read a March 2007 paper from Lynn L Bergeson here. You might also want to read Scott Deatherage's discussion in his blog on this issue here.

H.T: Gregor Wolbring

 

,

Nanotechnology's Risk Governance

Thursday, July 12, 2007

You might want to read Swiss Re's report on its latest Conference "The Risk Governance of Nanotechnology: Recommendations for Managing a Global Issue" held on the 6th and 7th of July 2006.

Some of the report highlighted the need of differentiating the risk posed by developed vs developing nations.

Download the report yourself here.

(hat tip: Mike Treder, CRN)