OPINION & EDITORIAL
Nanotechnology research needs public support
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Brenton Martell:
- Olympics awards gold in poverty (February 19, 2008)
- Don't let Nader cloud judgment (February 5, 2008)
- Google sets example for environmental philanthropy (December 7, 2007)
- Campaign coffers ring, distract race (November 9, 2007)
- Closet character opens new doors (October 29, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Readership dropping for newspapers (October 31, 2005)
- Taser experiments will help save lives (April 7, 2005)
- Medical marijuana hits legislature (December 6, 2005)
- Study day would improve student morale (March 28, 2007)
- Charity bracelets alone not enough (March 14, 2005)
by Brenton Martell
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Better cancer treatment. Smaller, faster computers. Self-cleaning windows, even. This is just a small glimpse into the potential of nanotechnology, a science concerning the manipulation of materials at the molecular level. Sounds like a worthwhile project, right?
Not according to 70 percent of Americans.
A study recently conducted by UW-Madison life sciences communication professor Dietram Scheufele showed that only 29.5 percent of Americans deem nanotechnology research — which aims to achieve a wide array of practical and medicinal uses — morally acceptable.
Now, at first thought, you might be convinced the majority of Americans are completely misguided, or at least that they’ve seen one too many movies involving global domination by out of control, self-replicating armies.
Delve a little deeper, though, and you’ll find that you’re only slightly off base. The majority of Americans are indeed misguided, but the result doesn’t appear to stem from sci-fi paranoia, but rather from religion.
Or so Mr. Scheufele has concluded from disparities between polls in the U.S. and industrialized, secularized European nations such as France, Germany and the United Kingdom, which have all shown moral approval of nanotechnology research at rates of 50 to 70 percent. Additionally, Mr. Scheufele has noted the survey gave a clear explanation of nanotechnology, eliminating any doubt the results were a product of misunderstanding.
Indeed, religion seems to be the clear factor, but what could the reasoning behind the religious opposition possibly be?
The most likely suggestion Mr. Scheufele gives is that the mechanics of nanotechnology are grouped with other sensitive areas of science, such as stem cell research, where scientists might be viewed as “playing God.” And even if nanotechnology and its little gold nanoparticles aren’t being subconsciously linked with stem cells, the idea by itself still causes some disturbance.
In fact, it makes sense that a significant amount of the skepticism toward nanotechnology occurs outside the train of thought involving stem cell concerns. With the use of stem cells having been in the public eye for a long time, we’ve been able to grow comfortable with the idea of growing new tissue from a lab-grown set of cells as long as it improves health.
Nanotechnology, though, comes the stigma of seemingly unnatural alterations involving the redesign of preexisting material, which raises the interesting question of the morality involved in redeveloping the human body. For example, the idea of hunting tumors with heated gold nanoparticles undoubtedly makes people wonder what other kinds of molecular manipulations in the body these studies could lead to.
The problem with such a viewpoint is its lack of consideration for nanotechnology’s wider, often yet-to-be-determined implications. Yes, it has the potential to yield harmful and horrifying results, the specifics of which are largely unknown. This is the nature of many developing technologies. And yes, its methods are intimidating in that they deal in a spectrum of science previously viewed as beyond human control. It also has the potential to produce an enormous catalog of benefits, though, and responsible, regulated research will enable us to maximize such benefits while containing the negatives as much as possible.
The bottom line is that the issue of morality lies not in the concept of an idea but within the idea’s practical application. Is it wrong to be concerned about potential dangers and implications of nanotechnology? Absolutely not. Serious concerns regarding nanotechnology’s implications on military weapons, surveillance and the possibility of human body enhancements are completely rational and necessary. Do the potential dangers warrant the label of the science as immoral, though? Again, absolutely not.
Those who are not convinced should consider that the advancement of technologies in many fields is virtually inevitable. With financial constraints typically being navigable, the law serves as the only real impediment to such advances. Thus, once an idea takes hold with legal standing and begins its forward march, it is in everyone’s best interest not to dwell on certain aspects that can’t be changed — in this case, the fact that nanotechnology is being used at all — but to contribute to the idea in as beneficial and responsible a way as possible.
For these reasons, it would almost even be reasonable to say that Americans declaring nanotechnology immoral are acting immorally. They are ignoring the only real moral obligation regarding the technology: furthering its exploration in an effort to limit the technology’s potential dangers before they are unintentionally and irreversibly implemented in our society.
Nanotechnology is going to press forward with or without our support. Rather than sit aside and watch other countries pass us by, we’d best keep on top of both the positive and negative aspects of the technology in order to ensure its responsible and positive use to the highest degree possible.
Brenton Martell (bmartell@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in English.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
