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.
posted Feb 20th 2008 6:31AM
Because they're all thinking of the grey goo scenario
I'd like to think that, however just looking at society bursts that bubble.
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.
maybe it's because said americans don't know that no nanos are actually hurt in the making of nanotechnology.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
@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?)
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
It's because 99% of Americans don't know what the %$*@ nanotechnology is. And that's being optimistic. We are a country of morons who form opinions about things we don't know anything about and them yell them from the pulpit. And, generally, scientific thought is the victim.
I'm getting laid off tomarrow but up untill today I've been working at brookhaven national labs center for functional nano materials some pretty wild stuff they are doing in there self assembling and stuff but anyway funny story about one of the scientists he is from somewhere near india or something and my partner was playing tony bennet on the radio and says to the guy he will give him 20$ if he can tell him who it is the guy says with all the confidence in the world 'of course elvis presley'
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.
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?
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.
I just saw Mike Huckabee on CNBC vowing to put an end to all nanotechnology once elected.
Evolution? only a monkey would believe that!
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. :(
@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."
New poll results just in! 2/3 of Engadget posters think they are smarter than the ignorant masses that surround them.
@ 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.
@ 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.
... Like iPod Nanos?
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.
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?!
No, like Tata's new $2500 car, the Nano, which will allow Indian families to catch up with the US as major air polluters.
@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.
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.
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.
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
But that would require Americans to believe in evolution.
Perhaps they are afraid that through nanotechnology one can build shape shifting exoskeletons & look like anyone on earth!
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?
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.
They pulled them from the mainstream probably
"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.
"thus ignorantly thinking it's immorally wrong."
Wouldn't that make it morally right?
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.
@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-
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.
@ 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.
well everything that they don't understand is morally unacceptable, same goes for blank tits and asses ^^
isn't that a footloose poster?
Oh, yeah. That's Footloose. I can tell you're an 80s guy, too.
actually i was born in '91
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.
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
"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."
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
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.
That's not really a problem with nanotechnology per se, as very small particles are bad for your lungs whether they're man made or not. As a well-known example, asbestos is a natural material which exists in very small fibres and is extremely bad for your lungs. That nanotechnology was involved in this particular example is essentially irrelevant - the problem was poor design, using small particles in a product which would allow them to be inhaled - which would have occurred whether the particles were a man-made "nanotechnology" product or otherwise.
That still doesn't have anything to do with being morally unacceptable. Dangerous? Maybe, but what isn't potentially dangerous?
Wowzors. Small particles getting into the lungs!
I knew there was something wrong with this whole breathing gubbins...
"Hey, that guy's got a machine to breathe for him! And here I am using my lungs like a sucker!"
Homer Simpson.
Maybe I should have formulated it differently - it's not Nanotech as such that is morally unacceptable, but rather the idea to simply go and use it, without bothering to think what might happen.
Nanoparticles don't occur in nature all that much, so it's quite possible there will be a lot of stuff that can happen that will surprise us. Getting nanoparticles into the lung that (unlike dust) don't get out again is only the start... Asbestos doesn't get sucked into the cells themself, but maybe nanoparticles are? Are nanoparticles small enough to get through the walls of blood vessels, what will they do within the body once they get in the bloodstream... the grey goo isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it's morally unacceptable to introduce such a revolutionary technology without doing a LOT of research on possible harmfull side effects first.
This would be a good post with some sort of reference. Without it's just an urban myth. I'm sure there's an element of truth - do you remember anything specific about it?
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.
Know what the worst part of this is? It's that the French population is generally less ignorant than the rest of us! :p . It's a little bit unsettling to think that potentially 46% of the population in the UK could oppose what is essentially just harmless scientific development.
What? That reply was meant for Juergen.
@Treetrunk:
Same here. WTF, Engadget?
Worst thing is that "Science Daily" doesn't even try to comment on the fact that Nanotechnology shouldn't raise ethical questions.
Anyway I believe they are just making a case out of nothing and our good Engadget guy dumbly followed them, because "Any news is better than nothing..."
Actually if you read ttp://www.news.wisc.edu/11468
you get a clearer view:
" For instance, 59 percent of those who indicated they were aware of nanotechnology expressed overall support of the emerging technology, compared to 28 percent support among those who were not aware.
The survey also revealed that those who were aware of the technology had a much more optimistic view of the potential positive effects of nanotechnology."
Getting in late, but it SHOULD raise ethical questions. Any discipline that involves widespread use (eventual) and complex engineering absolutely deserves to have those ethics that us engineers are trained for put to use.
This is completely irrelevant to any moral questions.
E.G. Say that new nano-windshield has a higher failure rate or causes more accidents. At what point does it become ethically irresponsible to manufacture. There is no inherent moral question I can fathom for developing technology, maybe in potential implications. To me it seems like saying scalpals are bad because some doctors can use them to perform abortions.
Sounds like a research poll that was done incorrectly with lots of sampling errors. Plus, I don't see how nanotechnology is even morally wrong at all. It makes no sense. Did these people think nanotechnology was cloning? This doesn't seem correct at all.
In response to this survey one NanoTech Scientist was heard saying, "Your FACE is morally unacceptable!"
"The catch for Americans with strong religious convictions, Scheufele believes, is that nanotechnology, biotechnology and stem cell research are lumped together as means to enhance human qualities. In short, researchers are viewed as "playing God" when they create materials that do not occur in nature, especially where nanotechnology and biotechnology intertwine, says Scheufele."
It's good to see that a mixture of fear, misunderstanding, and plain old religion can still stifle the massive potential these technologies offer. GM foods could prevent millions from starving, stem cell research could provide new treatments for debilitating disease, while nanotechnology could revolutionise anything from manufacturing to medicine.
The thing that really irritates me about the concept of "Playing God" is that anyone who even things that is possible must have a pretty low opinion of God. Either he exists well beyond what we are capable of, or he isn't all that great to begin with...
treetrunk, you just supported the reason why 2/3 of the American population considers nanotech to be morally unacceptable. Drawing any sort of connection between stem cell research, genetically modified food, and nanotech is what causes these sorts of problems. Also, you're crossing several different lines here. Stem cell research is more in the thoughts of the religious front in the US, where as GM foods are concerns of environmentalists and people who would rather eat natural foods, a COMPLETELY different set of people. Most people in the US don't even realize that they're eating genetically modified food every day.
I support nanotech and stem cell research, but not GM foods. I'm not sure if enzymatic processing counts as genetic modification, but if it does, then our high fructose corn syrup addiction and obesity rates are largely due to genetic modification. Also, it's not the concept of "playing god" that bothers me, it's the fact that you're messing with normal crops and turning them into food production machines. We don't need that. The price of food should be higher, not lower, and people should learn to appreciate quality rather than quantity. I understand that GM foods can benefit world hunger efforts, but I don't see it being used in that way. It's more to drive down domestic food costs at the expense of the quality of food.
"Also, it's not the concept of "playing god" that bothers me, it's the fact that you're messing with normal crops and turning them into food production machines. We don't need that. The price of food should be higher, not lower, and people should learn to appreciate quality rather than quantity. I understand that GM foods can benefit world hunger efforts, but I don't see it being used in that way. It's more to drive down domestic food costs at the expense of the quality of food."
Saying that people should learn to appreciate quality instead of quantity is basically saying people should learn to appreciate not being able to afford food. And, of course, learn to appreciate starving.
@John:
If you read the quote I was referring to you will see that it is it which links these issues, not me. I actually provided a distinct and different advantage for each technology - if anything pointing out how different they are!
On your second point I completely disagree. To suggest that food should be more expensive to prevent over consumption by those who choose to, but at the expense of those who can not afford to, is clearly absurd. Greater use of GM would reduce food costs, which would only be a good thing, especially in the developing world.
Ignorance is bliss...
Maybe they accidentally polled a bunch of Trekkers who think nanotechnology = Borg.
Seriously, this is depressing. I live in a technologically and scientifically illiterate nation and it just keeps getting worse with each passing decade. At some point in time, people from other countries are going to say (if they don't already), "This nation landed men on the moon nearly 40 years ago? No way!" I honestly believe the average American has no idea what nanotechnology even means, and if you were to explain, they would think it equated with playing God, and to them that's the morally unacceptable part. Also, when presented with an unknown, the average nonthinker would just place something in the morally unacceptable column because it can't possibly be good if you're asking them if it's morally acceptable or not.
At what point do I cut my losses and find someplace secular that is warm and inviting to people who can mentally parse technology and ethics? I want to hear some preacher quote me some Bible verses that say nanotechnology is the devil's work. The sad thing is, I know Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell could do it, given enough time to research and twist up the words to suit their purpose.
how many Paris Hilton wannabies do you think there are that know what nano even means?
Stupidest survey ever.
Hey, it worked for me! I clicked on the headline! Gotta luv that clicky stuff!
Personally I believe tying your shoes is morally wrong. But that's just me. (Sigh)
http://www.iec.ch/online_news/etech/arch_2008/etech_0208/technology_1.htm
Some more rational thoughts on where nanotech is going....
Joe Six Pack has never even heard the phrase nanotechnology, which is probably why they fear it.
I misread the news title as "Two thirds of Americans think"...
No, ok ;-) seriously, either the survey misleaded respondents depending on what they understand by "nanotech", either the American group spoke pennsylvania dutch and refuses modernity.
After seeing the Replicators on Stargate, I morally object!
LOL
One step closer to ascension XD
I think religion fanatics/bible bashers are morally unacceptable.. what are you going to do about it ? =P
I know it's been said several times by now... it has it's risks, but morally unacceptable ?? Come on !!!
It's like cavemen thinking is knife a morally correct thing to use. You know.. you could seriously hurt somebody with it... Only thinking about the cons.. never about the pros.
I have a suggestion: Use nanotech to grow artificially brains to those bible bashers.. coz they sure don't have one.
I hate people who hinder the progress of science. Politicians, those fanatics crusaders or just dumbasses who can't make a difference between black and white.
Of course they think, if they don't know what Nanotech is. I mean it does sound morally unacceptable after all. Or something. lol
I don't trust anything that can read my thoughts and pummel me to death while taking the form of my dead brother: http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/media/L/lost/blog/eko_smoke.jpg
I'm just sayin'...
Well, I did read an article (BBC, I think) saying that over half of americans polled said they objected to nanotechnology, and 90% said that they didn't know what it was. I think 2/3rds of Americans object to science, probably the same people who would campaign for the banning of di-hydrogen monoxide (H20 to the rest of us).
Do you watch Penn & Teller Bullshit?
Either;
a: They have no idea what it is.
b: They have no idea what it is and think it is GM or sticking robots in you.
c: They are Bible bashers, so think everything is immoral.
...and who says popular sci-fi can't change the world! These people have blatantly been watching too much of the Borg and the Replicaters in action (Star Trek and Stargate respectively)...
This would have been so much fun to unpack, had I been writing my dissertation now, rather than 9 years ago.
Yeah, I think this Footloose poster is morally unacceptable.
"Do you think that it is morally acceptable for heathen scientists to create a device that you can't see and put it in your body in order for the government to track you?"
"Do you think that it is morally acceptable to place devices inside the human body, which if it had been researched by now, would have cured your uncle's cancer and would have him still living today?"
^^^ Question-wording bias.
I wonder if the survey said: "Do you morally object to cloning, nanotechnology and embryonic stem cell research?" Wouldn't surprise me.
Now Nanotechnology is just a step ahead of Kevin Beacon.
Something tells me these are the same people who wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide years ago.
"wanted to ban dihydrogen monoxide"
DARWIN, WHY HAS NATURAL SELECTION FAILED?
i'd like to see this survey to get an idea of these questions, i'd also like to see where their sample came from... trailer parks and church parking lots?
Prey (Michael Crichton) anyone?
Seeing as they don't find little machines that help you morally acceptable, do they find huge squid like (Think Matrix) machines which have no qualm about killing you acceptable?
There's nothing wrong with the technology per se, but its applications can raise serious ethical and moral concerns.
For instance, it may be possible one day to enhance specific functions of the human body through nanotechnology. Who gets access to these enhancements? Only the military? Only the rich? Only those with health insurance? How much do they cost? What are the social costs and consequences of the enhanced living among the natural?
New technology has historically been a double-edged sword when wielded by man. There's great potential for world-changing improvement, but there's also great potential for world-changing disaster.
Typically, our technology has been for improving the quality of life - things external to us which help us carry out tasks. With biotech and nanotech, we're trying to improve upon life itself, from the inside out. I think it's important to keep an open mind on what is possible, but we should also be aware of the can of worms we're opening. There are many avenues of research that could bite us in the ass if they are followed. Can you imagine nanotech biowarfare? I'm sure DARPA has. Messing with things on such a small scale requires constant debate, constant vigilance, and constant oversight to make sure our creations actually benefit humans and the planet.
Its all very well for technically-literate people on here being smug about ignorant 'murricans, but nanotech does create ethical questions; or at least the uses it can be put to. Most people who have any awareness of nano have picked it up from Discovery channel programmes highlighting little robots cleaning your arteries and helping you live forever; but nano-weapons (other little robots killing you from within) are a terrifying prospect as they could be far more selective (and effective) than biological or chemical weapons. So even ignoring "grey-goo", maybe people in these surveys are thinking things through a bit more than you give them credit for (probably not, but I'm an optimist).
So ... 2/3rds of Americans are idiots.
Nothing surprising there!
...and 3/3rds of you are judgmental douchebags who can't take a critical look at the findings of a bogus study.
No, but close... 2/3 of all people are idiots.