Nanotechnology has been a growing industry of late. No, it’s not quite the nanobots that you see in science-fiction movies and old Superman cartoons, but it is entirely possible that a few stupid people will be afraid that is exactly the case. More sensible people, however, are taking an earnest look at the potential of this new technology.
An article in the November 29, 2006 edition of Nature talks about how the development of nanotechnology is a testy subject with many people. The concern of many parties, though, is of a positive note. A number of fields, aside from the scientists that are interested in developing the technology, are becoming curious about the feasibility of such a market and whether or not it could become a profitable industry. This article displays a positive outlook for nanotechnology with regulations being passed regarding products containing it.
This may not seem like that positive of a start for this new technology, but in truth it is. Because the EPA (that’s Environmental Protection Agency in case you didn’t know) has decided on the need for these safety measures to be taken, it proves that they are willing to embrace this upcoming revolution in technology. It proves that they are going to allow it with supervision, which is better than putting their foot down altogether.
Earlier in April of 2003, however, House Committees were hearing the concerns for the development of nanotechnology. Many are worried about the potential unaccounted for side-effects that could result from the mass production of something that is on such a small scale. “’We have the opportunity to consider the possible social, legal, ethical, and philosophical issues that might arise…’” Not only are those in charge of developing the technology and those in charge of regulating it afraid of what it could potentially do, they are also afraid that the general public will share this fear (or harbor greater fear of it). If that were to happen then the entire developing industry would collapse. Quickly. Remember that this is new stuff and it will cost lots of money (up in the trillions perhaps).
While more recent actions are more optimistic and seem slightly less paranoid, the developers would do well to heed the caution of the dubious. It’s not like the technology to have nanobots spying on every household in
But seriously, these are all possibilities to think about, but keep in mind that it’s all a very long way off in the future (or is it?). The most advanced thing we have so far is nanotechnology in washing machines. These things should definitely proceed slowly, especially since something as small and advanced as nanotechnology has so much potential for both greatness and disaster at the same time. It’s funny how that seems to be the case with almost all technology.
1 comment:
Joaquin, this is a very good first post. I especially like your hook; I think you do a great job of getting and keeping your reader's attention. I think your summaries, however, are a little weak. I'm not clear on what, exactly, the thesis of the Nature article is. Is it simply that nanotechnology is a good thing? As you state in your conclusion, this debate isn't particularly interesting since you could have the same one about most new technologies. I think with a better summary of your articles you wouldn't have had to undermine the importance of your own post at the end. Still, this is a very good start and I hope you keep up the good work.
Post a Comment