Two-thirds of Americans think nanotechnology is morally unacceptable -- wait, what?

Given the fact that most of the nanotech developments we've seen have to do with making smaller transistors or generating electricity, we're not exactly sure why a recent study conducted by the researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found that two-thirds of American think nanotechnology is "morally unacceptable" -- perhaps they didn't hear about that team that used nanotech to inscribe the Bible on the head of a pin? Overall, Americans were far less accepting of pint-size technology than other countries -- 72 percent of French respondents thought nanotech was morally okay, as did 54 percent of the UK residents polled and 62 percent of the Germans. Still, we're left wondering why anyone would find a reason to object to nanotechnology -- unlike biotech, we just don't see a lot of moral dilemmas posed by the research. Well, apart from that whole gray goo thing -- but if that's the risk we have to take to finally score a pair of electric pants, you can sign us right up.

[Superprime @ Feb 20th 2008 6:36AM]

Because they're all thinking of the grey goo scenario

[threefingeredlord @ Feb 20th 2008 9:43AM]

I'd like to think that, however just looking at society bursts that bubble.

[Rich @ Feb 20th 2008 7:48AM]

You're right. I'm sure two thirds of Americans know all about "gray goo". Just like two thirds of Americans can point to Iraq on a map.

[Patrick @ Feb 20th 2008 8:04AM]

maybe it's because said americans don't know that no nanos are actually hurt in the making of nanotechnology.

[Dan @ Feb 20th 2008 8:19AM]

Actually, it's probably the way the question was worded. "Do you think nanotechnology is morally wrong?"

If an American doesn't know what it is, it must be morally wrong!

[James Bowe @ Feb 20th 2008 8:40AM]

2/3rds of americans don't believe in evolution. That being said...

nanotech holds a lot of risks that aren't fully understood. And currently there is little to no oversight on the industry, which allows for possibly toxic substances whose effects are completely unknown to be created and dispersed. Hit up a few google searches to see that it's not all good. The industry needs oversight.

[James Yopp @ Feb 20th 2008 8:50AM]

They're probably a lot better-informed than you think. Nanomaterials use in making textiles products, for example, IS highly controversial and essentially unethical. Nanosilver that's used as an antibacterial agent in socks and underwear, for example, may cross the blood-brain barrier and deposit in your brain over time. Small particles used to make your Dockers stain-resistant might be breathed in and cause lung cancer.

We're not talking about Nanocomputing. We're talking about nanotech in general. And the way that it's been put into products that we are in intimate contact with, without prior testing, is probably not morally acceptable.

[MonteVale @ Feb 20th 2008 9:02AM]

This study is based on: "In a sample of 1,015 adult Americans, only 29.5 percent of respondents agreed that nanotechnology was morally acceptable."
Read the link to the article...
...what an idiotic study - a nation's opinin based on 1,015 adult Americans!

HOGWASH AND POPPYCOCK!!! this is bloody FARCE!

[ron @ Feb 20th 2008 9:24AM]

monteVale

Couldn't tell if that was sarcasm, but 1015 people is plenty large enough of a sample size for a national poll. It is simple statistics and a little bit of economics. Actually, most national polls are conducted with this sample size.

[Mobius_1 @ Feb 20th 2008 10:03AM]

@James, wow that was quite and interesting and intriguing insight

But I still think the title should read "two-thirds of Americans do not know about nanotechnology"

Such is the way I'm inclined to believe after seeing some of the videos on Youtube (Miss Teen USA, anyone?)

[ben @ Feb 20th 2008 3:29PM]

This just in: majority of Engadget users are misinformed and bigoted against people with different believes, are more likely to blame "southerners" than actually do a little bit of research into nanotechnology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotoxicology

[Marron @ Feb 20th 2008 6:14PM]

It's because 99% of Americans don't know what the %$*@ nanotechnology is. And that's being optimistic. We are a country of morons who form opinions about things we don't know anything about and them yell them from the pulpit. And, generally, scientific thought is the victim.

[Sean @ Feb 21st 2008 8:39PM]

I'm getting laid off tomarrow but up untill today I've been working at brookhaven national labs center for functional nano materials some pretty wild stuff they are doing in there self assembling and stuff but anyway funny story about one of the scientists he is from somewhere near india or something and my partner was playing tony bennet on the radio and says to the guy he will give him 20$ if he can tell him who it is the guy says with all the confidence in the world 'of course elvis presley'

[Midnight @ Feb 20th 2008 6:40AM]

Perhaps, the thought Nano tech has to do with bio tech.. i would like to know the scientific resume of the people whom this question was asked to before launching an investigation.

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 20th 2008 6:48AM]

Let's hold a study. Whoever reads Engadget, vote me up. If you don't read Engadget, vote me down.

I mean seriously. Who did they poll for this study? Bible belt evangelists?

[packetsniffer @ Feb 20th 2008 8:32AM]

They polled people who didn't know what nanotechnology is (evidently 2/3 of Americans) and who probably thought it had something to do with embryonic stem cell research.

On that note, there are many, many people who have a problem with destroying one life to save another, not just those pesky, ignorant Bible belt evangelists.

[jimmy @ Feb 20th 2008 8:34AM]

I just saw Mike Huckabee on CNBC vowing to put an end to all nanotechnology once elected.

Evolution? only a monkey would believe that!

[Derek @ Feb 20th 2008 8:39AM]

Most Americans (and I am one, and around these people, so I know) don't even know what Blu Ray is. Yes... it is incredibly sad. Most people don't keep up with the world around them, especially not the tech world. :(

[Johnathan @ Feb 20th 2008 9:40AM]

@jimmy.. I want to see proof of that claim, it wouldn't surprize me I would just like to see some sort of reasoning behind "an end to nanotech."

[Master Bruce @ Feb 20th 2008 12:00PM]

New poll results just in! 2/3 of Engadget posters think they are smarter than the ignorant masses that surround them.

[Alex R @ Feb 21st 2008 3:34AM]

@ Midnight
I can understand the objections to Biotech, even if they don't know waht it is. Hell, the next step could be a 'Bioshock' kind of scenario...which, let's face it, may not be as fun as it was in the game.

[Yossarian @ Feb 25th 2008 1:18AM]

@ Master Bruce
That's probably true, but in this case 2/3 of Engadget posters couldn't be much more correct.
Petroleum, food, textile, paper, medicine, microchips.... by the kind of technologies that any of these industries (and pretty much any other industry out there) use, our entire lives should be "morally unacceptable". Nanotech might have its dangers, but this sounds a lot like biased surveying.

[Jonathan @ Feb 20th 2008 6:40AM]

... Like iPod Nanos?

[Ryan @ Feb 20th 2008 7:29AM]

See this is exactly what I was thinking might be the reason behind it. If people don't know what nanotech is they could relate it to the closest thing they can think of which would often be "ipod nano". And there are people who don't like ipods/mp3 players in general.

[Jake @ Feb 20th 2008 2:26PM]

I think iPod Nanos are morally unacceptable. I mean really, Nanos, in iPods? Sheesh! When will we stop the madness and start caring? Who's looking out for the Nanos?!

[Steve Goldstein @ Feb 21st 2008 2:38PM]

No, like Tata's new $2500 car, the Nano, which will allow Indian families to catch up with the US as major air polluters.

[skulldriveshaft @ Feb 24th 2008 2:33AM]

@Steve Goldstein you mean to move those families from scooters into 4 wheel vehicles.

It's more of a catching up to the gridlock traffic, except it may become exponentially gridlocked.

Can't be down on other countries that are going through their own industrial and technological revolutions, no matter how incredibly fast it's happening.

[Totalfixation @ Feb 20th 2008 6:46AM]

I think because Americans are less informed about these things, thus ignorantly thinking it's immorally wrong. And ill be honest, imo, I think majority of the American population do not think outside the box. as oppose to the rest of the world. right or wrong?

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 20th 2008 6:50AM]

Let's not go crazy. I'd like to think there are still sane people in America. I'd like to think that I'm still sane along with all my friends and family. I'm curious what subculture they pulled the recipients from.

[Superprime @ Feb 20th 2008 7:14AM]

They pulled them from the mainstream probably

[Killer @ Feb 20th 2008 7:21AM]

"I think majority of the American population do not think outside the box. as oppose to the rest of the world. right or wrong?"

Well from my stand point of living in America. I would say you're right, but after visiting other countries like Canada, Mexico, England, etc. Every country has those type of people. It's just that living in America and American NEWS being transported through the entire world, just magnifies that part of the population. We're all human after all, ignorance and self-bliss is what we do best, because its the easiest thing to do.

[LC @ Feb 20th 2008 7:23AM]

"thus ignorantly thinking it's immorally wrong."

Wouldn't that make it morally right?

[M3 Bimmer @ Feb 20th 2008 7:43AM]

Most americans cant name a presidential candidate let alone determine what nanotechnology is. We care more about Britanny Spears and American Idol than we do about anything else.

[daemonios @ Feb 20th 2008 9:32AM]

@M3 Bimmer: And even then you can't spell Britney correctly ;)

Just kidding. It's obvious for me (I hope I'm not wrong) that the people who answered the survey didn't have a clue as to what nanotech is. Either that or people are insanely afraid of nano-bots taking over.

«By the time Skynet became self-aware it had spread into millions of computer servers across. the planet.»

-daemonios-

[Penguin Warlord @ Feb 20th 2008 3:54PM]

No you're completely right. Ask any American who has gone to live in another country for several years what they think when they go back.
Americans in general are insanely obsessed with America. Guess what, it's not the greatest country ever, and me saying that is not blasphemy.

And sure nanotech is relatively toxic but I seriously doubt that 2/3 of the population knows that.

[Alex R @ Feb 21st 2008 3:38AM]

@ Totalfixation

Wrong. Here in the UK people don't care about anything but what they are told first. The PS3/360 thing is worse now than ever becasue people are just sheep and won't listen to facts once they think they are right.

[Timm @ Feb 20th 2008 6:46AM]

This America country is crazy, if not stupid. It saddens me that I live here sometimes.

Must be afraid that bionanotech will lead to human-induced macroëvolution or something.

[Lucius @ Feb 20th 2008 9:23AM]

Do you mean like, humans taking control over their own evolution and controlling the destiny of the species? I could see how some fundamentalists would be against that... I support it whole heartedly (assuming it's done in a safe and reasonable manner.) I honestly wonder how much further humanity can evolve. It seems to me that we don't change to fit our environment like other creatures... we change our environment to fit us.

We need to force ourselves to evolve... because i want robot arms... and a visual hud.

[Timm @ Feb 20th 2008 9:54AM]

I guess... I didn't really think it through and simply wrote something that sounded ludicrous, as are many of the claims of those who are "moral" in this country.

Nonetheless, now that you've brought it up, I think our future evolution is mostly up to us... We are too conscious to just "let things go", and'll do what we want with the best ability we have. And it does seem we change our environment to fit us – any changing for us to fit the environment we'll have to do ourselves, because we won't wait a thousand years (or probably more) for nature, or if we do wait, we'll've screwed it up and have to reverse some of it and advance some of it ourselves.
While I personally don't know nor care if this millenium's global warming is completely human-induced or natural but human-sped-up, global warming's a good example: it seems we can't change the environment (unless it is all of that exhaust we put in the atmosphere), so we're going to have to do something to ourselves when the average obequatorial temperature is 150 'if we can'. . .or we'll build domed and controlled-atmosphered cities, and isolate ourselves from Earth's nature.

Maybe we could put nanoparticals in the air to rid of fumes and the like if they're the main cause. Oh, wait, the majority of the country wouldn't like their health and atmosphered bettered, dumb me.

I want a HUD more than anything. =D

[HopefulNebula @ Feb 20th 2008 11:11AM]

But that would require Americans to believe in evolution.

[Blackster @ Feb 20th 2008 6:48AM]

well everything that they don't understand is morally unacceptable, same goes for blank tits and asses ^^

[Carl Vitullo @ Feb 20th 2008 6:52AM]

isn't that a footloose poster?

[AJ in the East Bay @ Feb 20th 2008 9:17AM]

Oh, yeah. That's Footloose. I can tell you're an 80s guy, too.

[Carl Vitullo @ Feb 20th 2008 2:52PM]

actually i was born in '91

[ZeroCorpse @ Feb 20th 2008 6:32PM]

It's OK. I was born in the very early 70s. I remember "Footloose."

I never saw it, though. I never had the urge.

I prefer "Flashdance" or "Breakin'" myself.

[steve @ Feb 20th 2008 6:59AM]

I think the problem is that if you ask someone whether something is morally unaccepatble, alot of people (particully those who consider themselves to have high moral standards) are going to say yes

[bondsbw @ Feb 20th 2008 8:34AM]

"Hello, we're conducting a survey, would you mind answering two quick questions?"

"Ok, sure."

"What is your position with all this business about NANOTECHNOLOGY? Do you think we, as Americans, should allow this to continue, or is it immoral and unacceptable? Remember, terrorists use NANOTECHNOLOGY."

"Well, Of course it's bad! I don't want any of that in MY town or in these borders!"

"Ok, thank you sir. Question number two. America has made many advancements in the past decade. What do you think about the advancements in the transistor technology that powers our computers, and carbon nanotubes that may bring us new space-age materials, both of which of course will help the war on terror?"

"Absolutely. I believe we would be in the dark ages were it not for those things."

"I see."

[steve @ Feb 20th 2008 10:21AM]

It doesn't even have to be that slanted

Interviewer: Do you trust {Multisyllable word}?

Middle American Interviewee: It don't sound too good, what is it?

Interviewer: It's science, it's used to develop...

Middle American Interviewee: I hate what all these scientists are doing these days, it is morally unacceptable, they think they can play...

Interviewer: I think you've missunderstood...

Middle American Interviewee: You're one of them arn't you I never trust you lot you come from your big cities and tell us what to think, coming over here and forcing us to inject your {Multisyllable word pronounced incorrectly} so that you can control us...

Interviewer: OK, thanks for your time, I think thats another check in the no column

[Geir E @ Feb 20th 2008 7:05AM]

Why is this news? Everybody should know, from seeing how the Americans like supersized meals and drinks, huge suv's, huge engines, enourmous machinery and making everything big from pumpkins to christmas lighting shows. Not to mention general obesity.

So the thought of creating something so small that actually do something must be preposterous.

[Juergen @ Feb 20th 2008 7:10AM]

Actually, there HAVE been problems reported with nanotechnology - some time ago a company had to withdraw a bathroom cleaning fluid that contained nanoparticles and was supposed to be sprayed on shower walls. Customers developed lung problems, and it was feared that nanoparticles from the spray would make it into the lungs (as they're small enough to do that...). The company withdrew the product from the market.