David Stonehouse Technology

The Ethicists vs. The Little Robots

Nanotechnology, the world's most powerful emerging science is developing in a regulatory vacuum, according to a group of technology watchdogs. Now, they're calling for a moratorium -- and a group of Canadians is trying to take over the debate.

By David Stonehouse

From the mind of author Michael Crichton comes a terrifying vision of the future where a "mechanical plague" roams the earth. It starts with the best of intentions: a mass of tiny computers, smaller than pecks of dust, programmed to travel in a cloud over an enemy country and send home intelligence photos.

However ...

"This camera can't be shot down; bullets will pass right through it ... they are made to be self-reproducing, to replenish themselves. Imagine that the computers begin to evolve, and the aggregate cloud becomes a death-dealing swarm that threatens man-kind ... in effect, a mechanical plague."

Mr. Crichton wrote about a "new era of technological power," known as Nanotechnology, in a recent piece in Parade, entitled "Could tiny Machines Rule the World? "

On the one hand, a new breed of scientists, known as nanotechnologists, dismissed some of Mr. Crichton's science as naive and impossible and claimed his article was merely an attempt to publicize his just-published thriller Prey, in which self-replicating nanobeings take over and target their human creators. However, ethicists and technology watchdogs worry that some of what Mr. Crichton envisions may one day be possible and the dangers of nanotechnology are too immense to ignore.

Last month, the technology watchdog known as ETC Group, published a landmark paper calling for a moratorium on nanotechnology production.

"The world's most powerful emerging technology is developing in an almost-total political and regulatory vacuum," said Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Canada Group, from offices in Winnipeg. Mr. Mooney said the group is not out to derail nanotechnology, but to put commercial development on hold until research standards can be put in place and the safety of nanotechnology products can be proven.

The ETC Group is a powerful group, and has succeeded in building public pressure against genetically-modified crops: it added the term" terminator seed" to the public discourse.

But instead of letting ETC and other self-appointed technology watchdogs take over the debate, a group of Canadian ethicists have called on scientists to frame the ethical debate for their research.

In a paper published this month in the British journal Nanotechnology, bioethicists from the University of Toronto urge scientists to examine the implications of their work and educate the public on its risks and benefits. If scientists don't do this, opponents of the new technology will gain ground in any publication relations war that is fought over nanotechnology.

Peter Singer, director of the University of Toronto's Joint Centre for Bioethics, says nanotechnology is "barreling ahead like a freight train" with $2 billion in research and development investment worldwide last year while introspection over its impact on society flounders.

"As the science leaps ahead, the ethics lags behind," Mr. Singer and his colleagues write.

"We believe that there is a danger of derailing nanotechnology if serious study of its ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social implications does not reach the speed of progress in the science."

Nanotechnology is the drive to build manmade machines of an extremely small size. Measurements would be made in nanometres, which are billionths of a metre in size, and a thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair.

Nanotechnologists work with individual atoms and molecules to build the nanomaterials, which have already been used to strengthen car bodies and make sunscreens transparent. Molecule-sized transistors have been created, opening possibilities for incredibly tiny electronics. Nano-particle probes can already detect anthrax and other biological agents.

There are also those that believe it will even make it possible to create nano-robots, machines capable of self-assembly. These nano-robots could be used as tiny pollution scrubbers or even particles that can rejuvenate the body. Last year, one company manufactured self-cleaning window glass. Another produced nano-crystal wound dressing that has both antibiotic and anti-inflammatory properties.

Dr. Richard Smalley, the Nobel-prize winning chemist, has predicted that nanotechnology will have enormous impacts on health, wealth and standard of living on a scale that overshadows other breakthroughs such as manmade polymers and medical imaging.

Mr. Singer agrees that nanotechnology could change the world.

"If just a small part of what its supporters predict comes to pass, nanotechnology is going to cause a major revolution that will have a profound impact on society. It is to be expected that technology promising such massive change in our lives would be viewed with suspicion and, perhaps, outright fear. Open public discussion of the benefits and risks of this new technology is urgently needed."

Paper co-author Abdallah Daar, another director at the University of Toronto bioethics centre, dismisses the idea of a moratorium, arguing that simply puts off discussing the implications of the science. But he agrees scientists need to start dealing with the ramifications as well as the concerns of opponents.

"Researchers in nano-tech have not yet become aware the field they are working in could become controversial," Mr. Daar says. "And so the first thing is for them to begin to think along those lines -- to look to see what those controversies might be and then to address them."

Mr. Mooney said he realized the idea of a moratorium creates something of an alarm for scientists. But this technology hasn't been studied and saying that there is a reason to be concerned "is not a controversial statement," he said.

"At this point, there are no commonly agreed upon protocols -- even for work in the lab. And until scientists can at least sit down and say, 'OK, here is what we know, here is how we should feel our way forward in the lab with this work, here's how we will monitor that process.' Until they can at least do that, they really shouldn't proceed," Mr. Mooney said.

While the premise of Mr. Crichton's book Prey has been called far-fetched, it has made the debate over nanotechnology topical.

In an online interview, Mr. Crichton discussed the ethics of scientific advancements: "The problem is not to come down on one side of the debate or the other. The problem is to be able to deal with both sides at once. We are, as a society, tremendously dependent on science and technology. I would long ago be dead if I had lived in an earlier time. So there is no going back. At the same time, the creators of technology often do not seem to be as concerned about the effects of their work as outsiders think they ought to be."

Nanotechnologists say that while Mr. Crichton's vision of nanotechnology doesn't seem possible, it's probably true it's role in society should be debated.

"It really does speak to the need to have the public discussion now if something like that is possible," says Danial Wayner, acting director-general of the National Institute for Nanotechnology in Edmonton. "I personally don't think so, but as scientists, you can never say never. But I would say this is a future that, if it is possible, is 50 or 100 years away."

He agrees it is important to start discussing the science with the public, perhaps even introducing it to students in high school. But he refutes suggestions that scientists have not been thinking of the controversies and implications of the work. He says most have been attentive, particularly after the outcry over biotechnology and genetic modification, advancements in science that were met with large and vocal protest, especially in Europe.

"We can see if we do not engage the public and if we don't develop public policy in unison with the research as it progresses and evolves, it can lead to a public backlash."