Dan Sarewitz has a rather provocative commentary in Nature this morning, where he suggests that proposals to increase basic research may be good politics, but questionable policy.

The headline alone is probably enough to get some science-advocates’ blood boiling, whether they go on to read the piece or not: “Double trouble? To throw cash at science is a mistake” does nothing if not throw down the gauntlet to an already sensitive science community.

Beyond the provoking banner, Dan raises  serious if uncomfortable issues – there must come a point where investment in science is balanced within a much broader social context, and the consequences of not allocating funds elsewhere are weighed against the benefits of supporting research – especially blue skies research.  But reading the piece reminded me of an associated debate which seems to get rather less air time – the personal responsibility that comes with government research funding.

It’s an inescapable fact that, for every dollar, pound or Euro that governments invest in research, someone, somewhere is getting less money to spend on what they think is important.  In some cases, re-allocations may have minor social consequences.  In others, reduced spending elsewhere in favor of science may be profound impacts on the lives of individuals – especially those at the margins of society.

This delicate and never-perfect balance of limited resources between competing needs is at the heart of policy making.  Resource allocation is never simple, always contentious and more often than not a compromise between equally worthy needs.  But this means that in a socially responsive society, every hard-won government dollar comes with a burden of responsibility – to use it as effectively as possible to improve the lives of the the people who the government was elected to serve.

Which means that government-funded researchers should be probably be asking themselves (repeatedly): “How does my work benefit the society that is supporting it?”  Or, of they are brave, “Are people suffering because government dollars are supporting my research rather than going elsewhere?  And if so, what should I do about this?”

The answers may be as metaphysical as “my research provides insight into the nature of reality” to as broad as “the new knowledge I generate enriches the human experience” or as practical as “my work will help cure cancer.”  But the important thing surely is to ask the questions – and to act on the answers that come back.

I’m an ardent supporter of government-funded science, and I strongly believe (I use the word advisedly) that basic research is critical.  But it is not a right.  Every hard-earned dollar spent on research is a dollar less for someone else to do some good with.  Which means that we need to be prepared as scientists to ask the hard questions, and to grapple with uncomfortable answers.

If we do, the result will surely be science that plays a stronger, more integrated role within society – irrespective of absolute funding levels.

A guest blog by Hilary Sutcliffe, Director of MATTER, a UK think tank which explores how new technologies can work for us all.

The other day, I wrote a piece on the implications of synthetic biology where I  suggested that we “need to place discussions on a science basis, and not get over-distracted by ethical hand-wringing.”  It was a bit of a provocative statement – intentionally so – so I was pleased to see Hilary Sutcliffe pick up on it in the comments and push back against the implication that the ethics of synbio might not be as important as some think.  Given the relevance of her comments, I thought they deserved their own guest blog – so here they are – AM.

“Ethical hand-wringing”?  Hmm, I don’t think you were quite meaning this as I have interpreted it Andrew, but I have to disagree with your point in your Synthetic Biology Blog on the ethical hand-wringing, I think we should be distracting ourselves quite a lot with Ethical Hand-Wringing while the scientists are getting on with creating their new organisms, especially considering ‘what we understand is secondary to what we can do’, as you said.

I was at the Royal Society’s Synthetic Biology Stakeholder meeting which was shown by BBC Newsnight last week, (my Mum and I spotted me fleetingly in the corner!) and this and other recent synbio events gave me many a déjà vu moment – had I accidentally gone to a nano meeting?

There are many similarities between the development of genetic modification (GM) and nanotechnologies which can be learned in the development of synthetic biology.  Time is of the essence – GM and nano were pretty much already in the shops when we started to take action, but here perhaps we can get our act together a bit sooner.

Here are quick observations on my déjà vu moments and lessons from nano and GM that may apply.  This is not an exhaustive list, just my quick on-the-hoof thoughts in response to the limited information I have:

• This is just an evolution of….. what’s all the fuss about? – ‘But it’s just an extension of GM’, ‘it’s just an extension of systems biology’, ‘it’s not actually anything really different’, ‘it’s an evolution of what we have been doing for years’.  Hello?!  Whether that is true or not from a scientific point of view, much like nano when you are close to it, that is not the point.  As the The Economist points out in its editorial this week, ‘…whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence’.  That has always been the line from nano scientists too, perhaps with even more validity. But to the lay person, or the sceptic, it looks dismissive and rather suspicious.  So though it is perhaps reasonable from a scientific point of view, I would suggest that synthetic biologists kill that ‘line of defence’, it won’t work and it never worked for nano either. Instead of calming fears, in fact it often has the opposite effect of raising further concern in the non-expert.

• ‘But first we need a definition’: Aaaahhhhh, nnnnoooooo!  Guess what, there is no definition, and I had a big déjà vu moment here – the conversation was IDENTICAL to the many I have had about nano over the years!  Standards makers, regulators, synbiologists, whoever – get this sorted. This has been a very divisive issue for nano – some say deliberately engineered – so pleeeeese address this question as soon as possible.  I may be wrong, but there doesn’t seem to be a concerted international effort on this at the moment, there needs to be, now.  An idea – call up some of the nano people and find out how they did it (as slowly and tortuously as possible) and then do it differently!

• Governance – this does seem to be considered of real importance and there is work going on worldwide on this, though it appears in academia, rather than a concerted international effort – though I may be wrong. Five Academies – sister/brother orgs to the Royal Society – are meeting soon to discuss synbio, and this will be top of the list.  Obviously we need to do much better with this than we have on nano. The Venter Institute/MIT/CSIS prepared a interesting paper on Options for Governance; in the UK, Imperial/LSE/BIOS have a Center for Synthetic Biology and Innovation group which is doing some work sponsored by the Royal Society which looks interesting; and there are other experts in universities across the world doing their own work. But the BIG lesson for me from nano, which, with the potential for serious ‘bioerrors and bioterrors’, is even more important for synbio, is to get an international effort underway, ASAP, coordinated by a group such as the UN or OECD.  I have a vision of a UN/World Economic Forum/World Social Forum joint effort.  How unlikely is that, but perhaps worth a try?  Our Responsible Nano Code was the right document, but the wrong process.  Too British (despite the fact that all our businesses on the Working Group were multinational).  A very credible international process is very important here!

• ‘The current regulation is fit for purpose, we don’t need any more’.  This may actually be the case in this instance, but the time spent arguing about definitions with nano has slowed down the potential evaluation of the need for regulation and, some argue, given us some regulation which is not really fit for purpose. Again, an authoritative, multi-stakeholder process of regulatory evaluation needs to be underway now as part of the governance development process.

• Get business and science working together from the start.  In nano there were and still are parallel discussions going on with businesses and scientists in separate silos.  We really need to do things differently for synbio.  It is at the application end where the health, safety and environment impacts and social and ethical issues really hit, and business and science need both need to understand and participate in this.  If the governance area gets done by the Science Academies alone, this is unlikely to happen.  We need to find ways of making those connections with business early and making them stick.

• Ethical Hand-Wringing and public engagement. I have been encouraged by the calls on all sides for ethical debate, public engagement and what I think of as Ethical Hand-Wringing!  The ethical dilemmas in this are quite complicated, with vested interests on all sides and we need a serious commitment from governments, scientists and businesses to communicate clearly at all stages and engage all citizens in this discussion.  However, we do need more than the usual useful and interesting sets of focus groups reaching a few hundred people.  That is not really a debate on synthetic biology, it’s market research. Obviously synbioandme.org (yes I have bagged the domain) would be a start!  But I have come to the conclusion that we need to have mass communication and mass engagement if we are to allow citizens to understand and participate in this discussion.  This is tricky and we need to be much more innovative this time round.  And I don’t see much sign of that at the moment, though it is early days.  We made some inroads with nano, (fingers crossed for Nano&me being funded!) and the Dutch are doing a very interesting mass communication/engagement job on nano (check out the Nano Podium website).  Though of course as we are all broke, it won’t be happening anytime soon!

• But what do we want it for – where’s the overarching vision? A participant at the RS meeting made a very important point, which for me is the really big question.  We in the UK do these Big Important Inquiries (e.g. the recent Bioengineering report) where the government explores the potential for a technology with experts from the field in question and lo and behold, they say it is really important and should be given lots more funding! But where is the top level independent vision and strategy which explores the UK’s approach to its big issues – energy, health, poverty, the economy, for example – and looks at which technologies could be used to solve which problems?  Synbio, nano, GM, irradiation, IT, nano/bio/info/cogno may or may not be solutions to some of our most pressing problems, but unless applied research funding, economic incentives and commercial R&D is looked at in the context of other solutions, including non-technical ones, we can’t really be confident that we have got the right solutions to the right problems.   In addition, this is the very best time and place to anchor the Ethical Hand-Wringing, it would make public debate mean something, influential and galvanise everyone – from scientists to businesses, NGOs to governments – to engage better about the benefits of their work and debate real issues which will be relevant now and in the future.

Other countries do it – this must be an important priority for the new UK government. We have time with synthetic biology to get this right, we just need to get going now.

This piece also appears on the MATTER blog

By Jim Thomas, ETC Group

A guest blog in the Alternative Perspectives on Technology Innovation series

For a fresh perspective on how to do technology governance consider starting somewhere else. I suggest York Castle in Northern England – a stark stone tower from the thirteenth century.

It was here in 1812 that the English state first executed fifteen men for the newly established crime of machine-breaking. They were Luddites – the original kind: artisan weavers who saw the factory system as an assault on their livelihoods and communities. At the time England was convulsed by the ‘machine question’ – with fiery debates in parliament and hundreds of fiery attacks on cloth mills by followers of the mythical Ned Ludd. As the first industrial revolution gathered steam, literally, the political class made a deliberate decision to side with the new industrialists. 12,000 Soldiers were deployed to quell the Luddite uprising – more than were abroad fighting Napoleon. The Frame Breaking Act made Luddism punishable by death and in time the word Luddite itself was transformed into a term of contempt and abuse that lasted all the way to 21^st century science debates. Its fair to say the Luddites lost – big time.

I should admit right now that I’m a big fan of the Luddites – Not that its much fun supporting an extinct political movement. Unlike sports teams there’s neither merchandise to buy nor Facebook groups to join (not unless you count this: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Ye-Luddites/121981285761?v=info ). But I like Ned Ludd and his gang for two reasons.

Firstly I think they were right in ways they didn’t even know at the time. Our contemporary crises of climate change, overproduction and industrial pollution trace back in obvious ways to the industrial revolution as do the emergence of  urban and labour problems that flowed from the factory system and the urbanization that it gave rise to. The new cloth factories made possible a level of demand that justified establishing cotton plantations and a vicious slave trade setting in motion cycles of violence and racism that still persist today. Did the industrial revolution also bring benefits to society – of course it did although those benefits remain very unevenly distributed. Did the Luddites know they were fighting the roots of future racism. No – but their instincts were good.

Secondly I admire the Luddites for their success (albeit brief) in creating  a large-scale truly popular debate about emerging technologies. The widespread uprising of 1811-16 was more than just a wave of hysterics. Popular geek culture casts a ‘Luddite’ as a technologically inept dunce, fearful of change. Historical accounts reveal nothing of the sort. Real Luddites were adept users of complex hand weaving looms. They often espoused nuanced views on the technological revolution happening around them. They were not uniformly anti-technology: Their grievances, as recorded in song and declarations , were specifically with technologies that were “harmful to the common good” – as good a standard as any against which to asses technological appropriateness.  In their night time raids they would break some mechanical frames that they considered unjust while leaving others untouched that they considered benign. They recognised technological power as political, entwined with monopoly power and responsible for a lowering of standards and production of shoddy goods. They even practiced a radical form of democratic  technology assessment that we haven’t seen the like of since: dragging bulky mechanical looms to the market place to hold public trials in which all the community could pass judgement on the new machines – a public consultation process of the most inclusive kind.

I was once involved in organizing such a Luddite-style technology trial – at York Castle no less. A group of fellow activists dragged a motor car to the old stone tower and we set up public court, inviting bystanders to testify for or against the impact of the internal combustion engine on all our lives. Road kill, asthma, community destruction and climate change were weighed against the increased mobility and economic opportunities provided by four fast wheels. Everyone who happened to pass by became the jury.  On balance the car was found guilty of being ‘harmful to the common good’ but received a lighter sentence than the Luddites had on the same spot. This symbolic exercise in popular assessment of technology was exactly 100 years too late to influence the relevant innovation policy. Nonetheless it set me thinking: What if we weren’t too late? What if we could drag emerging technologies into a modern court of public deliberation and democratic oversight. What might that look like?

I’ve been turning over that question for about 15 years now while active in global debates on emerging technologies –  particularly GM Crops, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  Geo-engineering – Debates in which I’ve encountered the term Luddite, meant as a slur, more times than I care to count. Language like this tumbles carelessly out of history .. but I find the parallels striking. Once again we are in the early phases of a new industrial revolution. Once again powerful technologies (Converging Technologies ) are physically remaking and sometimes disintegrating our societies. Those  of us in civil society carrying out bit-part campaigns, issuing press releases and launching legal challenges are in a sense attempting to drag technology governance away from the darkness of narrow expert committees and into the sunny court of public deliberation for a broader hearing.. It seems a perfectly reasonable and democratic urge. But there’s got to be a better and more systematic way to do that?

So far I’ve found three sets of proposals that might begin to put technology oversight into the open and back in the hands of a wider public:

• Public Engagement: Citizens Juries, Knowledge exchanges, People’s Commissions.

No don’t yawn. I grant you that science policy types (and the rest of us) have every reason to groan when they hear the term “Public engagement in Science”. Like other  empty buzz phrases (“sustainable development” and “corporate social responsibility” come to mind) its too easily appropriated – but there is still (just about) some value in imagining and practicing what actual involvement mechanisms we could craft to enable a more democratic form of innovation governance.  Citizen’s Juries in places as diverse as Andra Pradesh, Mali and Brazil have enabled marginalized groups such as farmers to at least take a place alongside seed companies and biotech giants in policy processes. While People’s Commissions (investigation processes run by citizens groups) may get short shrift from a condescending political establishment yet can often exhibit excellent foresight, drawing on sources of grassroots knowledge  that closetted self-referential science committees might never open up to. These days my faith in public engagement  is waning having watched several governments employ such processes as a thinly disguised public relations ploy or to tie up the energies of civil society. Unless a public engagement process has a clear promise by those in power that they will listen, respond and demonstrably act on reccomendations its likely to lose the interest of the participants too.

• Global Oversight: ICENT.

ICENT stands for the International Convention for the Evaluation of New Technologies – a UN level body for foresighting emerging technology trends and then applying a wide-ranging assessment process that will consider the social, environmental and justice implications of the innovation being scrutinised. It doesn’t exist yet and maybe it never will but at ETC Group we have dedicated a lot of time to imagining what such a body could look like (we even have some nifty organagrams – see pg 36-40 of this) For example there would be bodies scanning the technological horizon and others making a rough reckoning of whether a new technology needed a strong oversight framework or not. Others tasked with bringing in a broad range of knowledge (what do the indigenous folks say?) or identifying exactly the right place in the system of global governance to begin regulatory moves. At a time when tech governance is several decades late each time we find a new platform emerging (Nanotech? Synthetic Biology? Geoengineering?) An ICENT–like body could maybe get international machinery in gear a bit quicker – ideally before industrial interests have already written those technologies into next quarter’s earning sheets and are shipping them to market.

• Popular assessment : Technopedia?

The only governance and regulations that work are those where somebody is paying attention – so  rather than hide technology assessment in rarefied committees why not hand it to the wisdom of the crowds. Wikipedia may not be the most perfectly accurate source of all knowledge but it is comprehensive, up to date and flexible and provides an interesting model. Actually Wikipedia entries are often not a bad place to start if you want to suss out the societal and environmental issues raised by the zeitgeist regarding new technologies. How about a dedicated wiki site for collaborative monitoring and judging of emerging technologies? Such a site could be structured so that, unlike the halls of power, marginal voices have a space and are welcome. A grassroots army of  volunteer technology assessors could help fill out the questions that Brussels or Washington never asks: What is the feminist take on this technology? How does it impact indigenous or disabled groups? What livelihood issues does this raise for the poor? Will the global commodities trade be affected? Perhaps an extended social media approach to technology assessment could convene online juries, host global conference calls and draft peoples reports for input into policy deliberations.

Don’t get me wrong.. approaches like these are not panaceas .. Adopt them all and some of us in civil society  might still feel there are a few metaphorical mechanical frames that would still need breaking. For example I’m not sure a modern day Ned Ludd would be content to spend his whole time writing wiki entries.

Then again, at least he might participate in his own facebook group…

______________________________

Jim Thomas is a Research Programme Manager and Writer with the ETC Group based in Montreal, Canada. His background is in communications, writing on emerging technologies and international campaigning.

Formerly an organiser with grassroots direct action movements in Europe and North America, Jim spent seven years with  Greenpeace International as a campaigner on food and genetic  engineering issues before joining ETC Group in 2002. Jim organised the  first international meeting on the societal impacts of Nanotechnology (held in the European Parliament), speaks around the world on  emerging technology issues and has authored several reports, chapters and press  articles on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, Synthetic Biology and  GeoEngineering.  He writes a regular ‘Tech Reckoning’ column for The Ecologist Magazine exploring the  politics of next generation technologies.

Trained as a historian to look back at the history of technology, Jim is now proccupied with the future of technology. Once upon a time he was an award winning slam poet but then he had children…

ETC Group have a blog too…

Given the recent surge in 2020science readers (thanks to Lon S. Cohen at Mashable), I thought it about time I did a short retrospective—a taster for the type of stuff you can expect to read here.  So here are five pieces from the past year that cover everything from nanotechnology to synthetic biology, and ethics to the trials of being on the scientific meeting circuit—all from the perspective of emerging technologies.

Enjoy!

Asbestos-like nanomaterials – should we be concerned? It seems that when the possible downsides of nanotechnology are broached, it doesn’t take long for the “A” word to surface.  But what is the truth—if any—behind comparisons between nanomaterials and asbestos?  From January 2009.

.

Nanotechnology—In bed with Madonna? How do you squeeze Madonna, John Kerry, nanotechnology and Elle magazine into the same blog?  With difficulty is the correct answer I think, but somehow they all managed to appear together in this piece from April 2008.

.

.

Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture. What the heck is synthetic biology, is “biopunk” a real word, and are the 21st century equivalents of computer hackers going to reconfigure life as we know it?  I can’t promise any easy answers, but hopefully this post from June 2008 helps set the scene.

.

Geoengineering: Does it need a dose of geoethics? We’ve all heard of bioethics, but if the earth can be treated like one massive complex organism, do we need the planetary equivalent of bioethics—“geoethics” perhaps?  From January 2009.

.

.

Enough meetings already! Ever get jealous of the scientific jet-set, swanning between “prestigious” speaking engagements in exotic places?  Don’t bother—the reality is far from glamorous, as this post from May last year tries to capture.  Fortunately, there are occasional compensations, albeit in unlikely forms!

.

Looking back to chart a course to the future

This coming lunchtime*, former New York Times columnist Denise Caruso will discuss the promise and pit-falls of synthetic biology with Center for American Progress senior fellow and former Washington Post science reporter Rick Weiss.  Given the track record of both participants, I’m anticipating a stimulating and spirited discussion, which will draw on Caruso’s just-published article on an overview and recommendations for anticipating and addressing emerging risks from synthetic biology.

But rather than focus on Denise’s piece [which as you would expect from a talented writer, speaks quite eloquently enough for itself], I thought I would provide a slice of back-story to synthetic biology.  And to do this, I want to use a rather good paper published last year by Brian Yeh and Wendell Lim (of the University of California San Francisco)…

The paper—which is an engaging and easy read for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of chemistry and biology—was published in Nature Chemical Biology back in September 2007.  Freely available here, it looks at the parallels between synthetic biology and synthetic chemistry, and considers how these might inform the development of synbio.

The story goes something like this:

The mid-1900’s saw a radical shakeup in chemistry:  Instead of simply analyzing existing chemicals, scientists learnt the tricks of making them.  And as their skills grew, they started to add new molecules to the list of those they could synthesize—including some molecules that did not occur naturally.  This shift from observing chemicals to making them led to a profound change in chemistry—one we are still seeing the ramifications of today.  It’s hard to find an area of life that isn’t affected in some way by the products of synthetic chemistry.

Synthetic chemistry came about as new ideas, experimental techniques and measurement abilities coalesced together.  It’s early champions didn’t understand everything about how and why atoms and molecules behave, but they were sharp enough to see the utility of what they were achieving, and how things could be improved by systematic experimentation.  And unconstrained by more recent distinctions between pure and applied science, their results-driven research ended up leading to a more fundamental understanding of chemical structure and reactivity.

Now, holding this image of the transition between analytical and synthetic chemistry in your mind, go back to biology.  Until recently, biology was largely an observational science.  But the development of new tools, techniques and ideas in recent years has opened the door to changing and manipulating what we could previously only observe—particularly at the molecular level.  Advances in biotechnology are now allowing scientists to not only map out functional sequences of DNA, but to design and build their own sequences.  In effect, there is a move towards being able to make—to synthesize—the basic components of living organisms.  And this in turn is opening up biology to systematic manipulation and control.

In effect, biology at the beginning of the twenty first century is where chemistry was one hundred and fifty years ago.  And by inference, the shift from analytical to synthetic biology is poised to have a profound impact on our understanding of biology, and how it can be used.

This analogy between synthetic chemistry and synthetic biology is both comforting and concerning.

Comforting, because it suggests that the development of synthetic biology can be guided by historic precedent—the future is not as foreign as we at first thought.  And the analogy also helps place synbio in a continuum of technological development.  Just as synthetic chemistry built on analytical chemistry, synthetic biology builds on our understanding of what makes life work.

In fact what sets synthetic biology apart from biotechnology up to this point is not so much a shift in basic understanding, as the application of new ideas about how that understanding can be used (augmented by rapidly developing techniques for analyzing and manipulating biological molecules).  This is remarkably close to what sparked the rise of synthetic chemistry.

[As an aside, I was intrigued to read that the parallels between synbio and “synchem” are so close that there were some that feared the advances of synthetic chemistry could lead to the creation of living beings—sound familiar?]

But the analogy is also concerning.  While synthetic chemistry has had a profound impact on society, it has not always been a positive impact.  The “suck it and see” approach to chemistry has led to some notable disasters, and chemicals regulations are still trying to play catch-up.  And while I would defy anyone to deny that the products of synthetic chemistry make their lives better, there is the rather philosophical question of whether we are reliant on these products because we needed them, or because their use fosters dependence?

In addressing these questions, synthetic chemistry provides a useful basis to ask what has worked in the past, what has gone wrong, and what needs to be done better.  But in doing so, we must be careful not to loose sight of two things:

First, the ideas and abilities currently being thrown into the synthetic biology melting pot are primed to lead to a radical—and largely unpredictable—shift in what is possible.  And while we might be able to gain some comfort in the thought that this step-change in technological ability isn’t anything new, I’m pretty sure the consequences will be.  No two ways about it—synthetic biology will bring with it with challenges as unique as the opportunities it presents.

And second, synthetic biology gets into the very heart of what makes the biological world go round.  While the synthetic chemistry revolution allowed us to tinker around with the “hardware,” we are now getting into the “software” of life itself.  This raises a number of ethical questions as well as purely practical questions—just because we can alter the code that determines biological identity, should we?  And if something goes wrong, can we “reboot?”

However synthetic biology pans out, we can be sure of an exciting few years ahead of us.  Given major challenges facing global communities like hunger, disease and energy shortages, it’s hard to justify not embracing this technology—it promises to open the way to solutions unachievable through other routes.

But the challenges to using it wisely will be immense.  Yeh and Lim suggest that synthetic biology will require sociological reorganization of how biologists work on problems—I suspect the reorganization will need to extend far beyond the bounds of biology if sustainable synbio solutions are to emerge.

The good news is that the successes and failures of synthetic chemistry at least give us a taster of what we are in for, and what we need to think about if synthetic biology is to reach its potential.

_______________________________________________________________________
*For those of you unfortunate enough to be reading this after 12:30 PM (Eastern Time) on Friday November 14, the conversation between Weiss and Caruso can re-lived here.

Bookmark at: | del.icio.us | Digg it | Google | StumbleUpon |

With apologies to Arundhati Roi for “borrowing” the title of her moving book, what—if anything—has nanotechnology got to do with religion?

Barnaby Feder of the New York Times takes on this issue in his latest posting to the Bits blog:

“There may not be a lot of agreement among the world’s religions on exactly what constitutes humans “playing God,” but you never hear a preacher or rabbi suggesting such behavior is wise or laudable. So you would think they might have a lot to say about nanotechnology. After all, nanotech involves rearranging not just DNA and the other building blocks of life — already a source of controversy in biotechnology — but the very atoms and molecules that make up all matter. If that is not messing around in God’s closet, what is?”

The big issue it seems is transhumanism—the use of existing and emerging technologies, including nanotechnology, to extend and change what it means to be human.  Will nanotechnology give us the ability to do what only God should?  Can we somehow thwart God’s plans, and take control of our own destiny?  Or is there nano-knowledge that should be forbidden?

Looking far into the nanotechnology future, it is not hard to imagine that nanotechnology will provide the ability to profoundly change how long we live, and the quality of that life.  Many of the breakthroughs will come through fusing nanotech know-how with other fields of advance, especially biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science.

But as Chris Toumey points out in the January edition of Nature Nanotechnology, there are more interesting—and probably more relevant—questions to discuss.  In what he calls an “unnecessarily troublesome way to view nanotechnology,” Toumey warns against overlooking short-term nanotech developments that may do great good:

“if religious writers think about nanotechnology only in terms of enhancement and immortality, they fall into a trap and become systematically hostile to a very broad technology. This is both a strategic blunder and a regrettable approach to knowledge. Nanotechnology in the present, the near-future, and indeed the far-future is much more interesting than the question of enhancement and immortality alone.”

As nanotechnologies become increasingly sophisticated, they will raise increasingly challenging questions that differentiate between what we can do, and what we should do.  So far, we have had to deal with relatively crude nanotechnologies—first generation nanotechnologies that are based on passive and simple structures.  But more complex nanotechnologies are on the way—multifunctional nanodevices; integrated nanotech-biotech system; new tools for transforming synthetic biology from a dream to reality; possibly even nanodevices that mimic biology.

Looking at where nanotechnology could be heading, I find it hard to pinpoint where the nano-religion debate will eventually find a home.  I suspect it is only when nanotechnology begins to challenge fundamental beliefs such as the existence of the human soul, or strays into what some might consider the exclusive realms of the divine, that the debate will begin to heat up.  What I find more interesting—and relevant—is the question of nanotechnology and ethics.

Many religions are somewhat ambivalent on the subject of developing “forbidden knowledge”, and throughout history religious conviction and scientific curiosity have often gone hand in hand.  But religions have plenty to say on how our hard-earned knowledge should be used.

So perhaps the religious debate should not be about whether nanotechnology challenges God’s existence and authority, but rather how our new-found nano-knowledge can be used ethically.  These decisions will naturally encompass the implications of future nanotechnologies, but they also apply to the nanotechnologies that are here already. As we develop the latest, greatest nano-product, how much are we thinking about doing good, doing no harm, ensuring autonomy and justice, and protecting privacy?

Despite a slow start, I suspect that issues surrounding nanotechnology and religion will be debated with increasing fervour over the coming years. So whether your “God of Small Things” is a deity or humanity, perhaps it is time to start thinking about how you will account for your actions—or your inactions!

________________________________________________________________

This post first appeared on the SAFENANO blog in January 2008

In July 2007, a specially convened task force of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) concluded that size does in fact matter (FDA 2007).  The focus of the task force was not on the importance of “largeness”, but rather on the technology of the unimaginably small—nanotechnology.

Nanotechnology is the technology of manipulating matter at near-atomic levels; typically, but not exclusively, within the size range of 1 – 100 nanometers.  Working at this scale, it becomes possible to combine materials in ways and forms unimaginable more than a few decades ago.  Imagine the contrast between eighteenth century surgery and modern microsurgery, and you begin to get an idea of what this emerging technology offers.

According to the FDA task force, “properties of a material relevant to the safety and (as applicable) effectiveness of FDA-regulated products might change repeatedly as size enters into or varies within the nanoscale range”. But as Professor James Moor and Professor John Wecker point out in the Spring 2007 edition of Medical Ethics [PDF, 805 KB], nanotechnology not only raises safety and regulatory issues, but ethical questions as well (Moor and Wecker 2007).

At the heart of the buzz surrounding nanotechnology is its potential to extend what can be achieved with conventional technologies, and the tantalizing possibility of developing radical new technologies.  Nanotechnology is not so much a specific technology as a new way of doing things, or a new technological tool kit.  In the words of Moor and Wecker, “[n]anotechnology offers us the general capability of material malleability”.

The idea of engineering at the nanoscale conjures up images of everyday mechanical objects shrunk to the scale of molecules; nano-gears, nano-engines, even nano-machines—conventional engineering, but at a miniscule scale.  Such nano-engineering would enable us to build complex devices from handfuls of atoms, increasing the performance and utility of human-scale products.  It would also help use limited resources expediently—making products molecule by molecule, with minimal waste.  In other words, this is a vision of nanotechnology that would emulate the biological world and lead to a synthetic biology; augmenting existing natural nano-machines and “molecular assemblers” that have evolved over billions of years, with an inorganic counterpart over which we have full control.

Eric Drexler envisaged such a world in his book Engines of Creation: The Coming Era of Nanotechnology (Drexler 1986).  Yet, while some of these concepts may one day become a reality, the nanotechnology of today looks very different.  Returning to the idea of engineering at the nanoscale, the chemist and Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley is credited with describing nanotechnology as “the art and science of building stuff that does stuff at the nanometer scale”.  Scientists and technologists alike are drawn to nanotechnology because of the unconventional behavior exhibited by many nanoscale materials, and their ability to “do stuff” in ways conventional materials do not.  As atoms and molecules are formed into nanoscale structures, intrinsic material properties like conductivity, transparency and chemical reactivity diverge from those observed in the constituent molecules or the bulk material.

But engineered nanomaterials can also demonstrate unconventional behavior that is associated with extrinsic attributes like size and shape. For instance, engineering a material as discrete nanometer-diameter particles might make it easier to incorporate into products, deliver to specific areas of use, or substantially increase the surface area to mass ratio.  In these cases, the intrinsic physical and chemical properties of the engineered nanomaterial are not necessarily scale-specific, but the ways in which the material is used are.

The scale-specific behavior of engineered nanomaterials takes on a special significance in interactions with biological systems and processes. Biology is inherently nanoscale, and purposely-engineered nanoscale materials allow the possibility of modulating biological processes at a fundamental level. Nano-bio interactions may result from scale-specific physical and chemical properties intrinsic to some nanoscale materials.  But they may just as likely result from nanoscale materials having access to biological processes that are inaccessible to larger scale materials.

In this way, nanotechnology provides a high-precision tool kit for exploring and influencing living systems.  The biological utility of nanotechnology is demonstrated effectively through its use in potential cancer treatments. Researchers at Rice University for example are combining the scale-dependent photonic properties of nanometer-thick gold shells, with the size-dependent biological properties of nanoscale particles, to create composite particles capable of preferentially treating tumors.  Gold-coated nanometer-diameter silica particles are introduced into the bloodstream, from where they preferentially pass through the leaky vasculature around tumors.  Once sufficient material has accumulated around the diseased cells, irradiating the particles with a laser tuned to the gold nanoshells causes localized heating, destroying the growth while leaving healthy tissue unharmed (O’Neal, Hirsch et al. 2004).

Going a step further, researchers at the University of Michigan are developing multifunctional nanoparticles for treating specific cancers.  Starting with generic nanoparticles, various functional components are added: ligands that attach to specific biological targets; contrast agents to allow particles to be tracked round the body; and sensitizing agents, enabling particles to receive and respond to external signals.  With these components, nanoparticles are being developed that selectively target and destroy cancer cells, while minimally impacting the rest of the body (Koo, Fan et al. 2007).

From relatively simple nanotechnology applications to the possibilities of synthetic life, nanotechnology provides us with tools for developing radical new processes and products.  And with these tools come the social and ethical responsibilities to use them wisely.  Concerns have already been expressed over potential new risks to humans and the environment that nanoscale-specific material behavior present. Little is known about how nanomaterials released into the environment will be transported, transformed and accumulated, or their impact on sensitive ecosystems (Oberdörster, Oberdörster et al. 2005).  Animal studies have demonstrated that nanoscale particles can enter and be transported within bodies in ways that larger particles cannot, and research suggests some nanomaterials are more potent in organs such as the lungs than their larger scale counterparts (Oberdörster, Stone et al. 2007). There are also early indications that nanoscale materials might interfere with protein conformation, and even lead to enhanced fibrillation rates in proteins associated with amyloid diseases such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers (Linse, Cabaleiro-Lago et al. 2007).

Studies remain inconclusive as to what might make nanomaterials harmful and what can be done to avoid harm.  Recommendations have been made for better-focused and funded strategic research (e.g. Maynard, Aitken et al. 2006).  But the responsible use of nanotechnologies will depend on more than good risk management.  In their article, Moor and Wecker suggest that nanotechnology has the potential to raise one of the ultimate ethical and medical issues: therapy versus enhancement.  At what point do we cross the line between restorative biocompatible materials and implanted sensors (for instance), and the enhancements such technologies will offer to healthy individuals?

Already, there is serious discussion on how nanotechnologies might extend a person’s lifespan, or even be used to enhance an individual’s intelligence (Roco and Bainbridge 2003). But the ethical issues raised by nanotechnology go further:  Who will receive the benefits of these new technologies, and who will pay the price?  Will nanotechnologies widen social, economic and cultural divides, or close them?   What are the implications of research into emulating biological systems?  And what are the consequences of not grasping the opportunities being offered by nanotechnology?

Many of these issues are not unique to nanotechnology, but as Moor and Wecker intimate, the possibilities that nanotechnologies offer to do things differently throw them into sharp relief.  Nanotechnology has the potential to improve living standards around the world, and offers solutions to some of the most pressing challenges we face: renewable energy, plentiful supplies of clean water, effective treatments for cancer, to name just three.  If our aim is to improve quality of life and do good, it would be irresponsible and even unethical to deny the world what nanotechnology has to offer.  Yet this potential for good must be weighed against the very real possibilities of causing harm, widening equity imbalances and reducing autonomy.  A future without nanotechnology would be a poorer, harsher place.  But a world where nanotechnology is not developed within a clear ethical and social framework could be immeasurably worse.  Either way, we have a challenge on our hands to move forward responsibly.  When it comes to navigating through the implications of emerging technologies on our lives, size, it would seem, really does matter.

Drexler, E. (1986). Engines of creation: The coming era of nanotechnology. New York, Anchor Books.
FDA (2007). Nanotechnology.  A report of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Nanotechnology Task Force. Washington DC, Food and Drug Administration.
Koo, Y. E. L., W. Fan, et al. (2007). “Photonic explorers based on multifunctional nanoplatforms for biosensing and photodynamic therapy.” Applied Optics 46(10): 1924-1930.
Linse, S., C. Cabaleiro-Lago, et al. (2007). “Nucleation of protein fibrillation by nanoparticles.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. doi:10.1073/pnas.0701250104.
Maynard, A. D., R. J. Aitken, et al. (2006). “Safe handling of nanotechnology.” Nature 444(16): 267-269.
Moor, J. H. and J. Wecker (2007). “Nanotechnology and nanoethics.” Medical Ethics 14(2): 1-2.
O’Neal, D. P., L. R. Hirsch, et al. (2004). “Photo-thermal tumor ablation in mice using near infrared-absorbing nanoparticles.” Cancer Letters 209(2): 171-176.
Oberdörster, G., E. Oberdörster, et al. (2005). “Nanotoxicology: An emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles.” Environ. Health Perspect. 13 (117): 823-840.
Oberdörster, G., V. Stone, et al. (2007). “Toxicology of nanoparticles: A historical perspective.” Nanotoxicology 1(1): 2 – 25.
Roco, M. C. and W. S. Bainbridge, Eds. (2003). Converging technologies for improving human performance.  Nanotechnol;ogy, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Norwell MA, USA, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
___________________________________

First published in the Lahey Clinic Medical Ethics Journal, Fall 2007 [PDF, 215 KB]