| READING | NAME | AGENDA ITEM | |
|
http://www.meridian-nano.org/gdnp/NanoandPoor.pdf 3rd world poverty |
Joyce Chow |
“This dramatic increase in patenting and restrictive licensing by universities and companies locks up knowledge, tools, and products, thereby limiting access to developing country researchers or those who would like to conduct research to benefit the poor.”
This reminds me of Hans
Rosling’s “Debunking third-world the best stats you’ve ever seen“
where he answers why important data is not used. Data is hidden with
prizes on them such as “stupid passwords, and boring statistics.”
www.gapminder.org solves this problem by linking design to data
(animation) and liberating public funded data (UN statistics).
Can there be a system such as gapminder to make public nanotechnology research? Is it intentional that we don’t want this new knowledge to be accessible, or is it the setup of our capitalist society? |
|
|
|
James Johnston |
"In general, communications are good between first-world universities and their governments and between these universities and companies. However, 'signals from developing countries are about their technology needs are not getting through to developed world universities'." If a marginalized population, either a community or government leaders (from different localized areas) conviened once every four months and used the jury style or simply a communal meeting could they effectively communicate what they need? Or would the direction academia simply be unaffected by those who do not have significant economic influence over them? | |
|
|
Molly Danskin |
Pg 17/29 “Some groups, for example, have asked about
the ethical implications of expensive nanotechnologies that would
benefit disabled people in developed, but not developing countries.”
I understand the intent of the concern here, but there are already many expensive medical technologies and treatments, not involving nanotechnology, which benefit people in developed not developing countries. It seems that often (in this concern and those mentioned in many other articles) nanotechnology ethics debates are used as a cover for discussing long-established societal practices. Are these concerns being raised in nanotech discussions due to a belief that nano-hype will attract more attention than they would otherwise receive, and can then be transferred to other disciplines? Or a belief that it is possible to keep something something new, ie nanotechnology, ethical, where as society at large is a lost cause? |
|
|
|
Galen Frechette | There are plenty of things that could already be done for the developing countries that involve technologies or not. So even if nanotechnology can do all kinds of things how is it actually going to happen when history shows that even when there are possibilities available they are not made use of? The article touches on this and tries to highlight why things might not happen, but i think that in this case knowing where the disconnects are doesn't all of a sudden motivate people to make changes. | |
|
|
Rachel Ferebee |
The article investigates the role of NGOs with regard to
nanotechnology and the poor. Currently some NGOs are focused on
the dangers of nanotechnology rather than the possible benefits it
could have on poverty-stricken individuals. Meanwhile, other
NGOs are concerned with bringing technologies to those people in order
to improve their living standards; however, none of them are
emphasizing the possibilities associated with nanotechnology.
Shouldn't they be focusing on bringing user-friendly nanotechnology to
these people rather than pushing technologies that have been around
for ages? They should get their foot in the door now,
establishing their position in this newly emerging field before the
opportunity is lost. |
|
|
|
James McKenna |
The argument that nano technology is leaving behind developing
countries is an outdated argument. Developing countries have rarely
had any technoloical advances in past years and its unreasonable to
assume someone living on less than a dollar a day can afford modern
technology. Modern technology is always brought into question because
it usually isnt applicable to developing countries, this is an old
argument that should be forgotten about. Instead, society should think
about how to boost the economy of developing countries so they are
capable or affording better thechnology. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.merid.org/nano/waterpaper/NanoWaterPaperFinal.pdf 3rd world water |
Sarah Petzold |
On page 21 it was nice to see RPI listed as one of those developing water purfiers using nano-carbon tubes. This was an excellent article about the wide variety of nano technologies that could be used to create and help with the water purification and sanitation issues throughout much of the world. "The involvement of the community at all stages of the nanotechnology water treatment project produces transparency that dispels distrust between the parties, the consumers, and water services.
" As we discussed in class government trust is an integral part of society and the use of technologies in these 3rd world countries. Once the ability of nanotechnologies with the water purification is greatly reduced in price, it will be an issue of getting those in need to actually use the technology. |
|
|
|
Andrew Nelson |
"Consumers in rural communities have their own perceptions of water quality.These perceptions may not necessarily tally with the scientific definition of water quality, and people may not be aware of pollutants that cannot be seen, tasted, or smelled." (page 34 of article) This quote is about villagers in South Africa who use nano water filtration so they can get "quality" water. How will people in less fortunate economic situations be able to tell if they are taking in nanoparticles? Nano water filtration might be cost effective on a large scale but what about being able to test individual glasses of water for nanoparticles? |
|
|
|
Alex Lamparski | New technology to purify water in 3rd world countries seems to be in high demand. However, it's hard to believe that the only demand is in product revolution when there are many already lost cost products on the market. Low cost technology is not being used and is not available everywhere in 3rd world countries, what ensures that Nanotech products will be? As Sarah points out the larger problem is getting people to use the technology. | |
|
|
Ishan Gaur |
(pg 33) "Consumers in rural communities have their own perceptions of water quality.These perceptions may not necessarily tally with the scientific definition of water quality, and people may not be aware of pollutants that cannot be seen, tasted, or smelled." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roberts, J.A.: 2004, ‘Deciding the Future of Nanotechnologies: Legal Perspectives on Issues of Democracy and Technology’, in: D. Baird, A. Nordmann & J. Schummer (eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 247-255. http://www.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/phil/nano/roberts.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Heather Lautman |
When the author begins to talk about the environmental principles of
nanotechnology, one includes "the burden of proof," which places the
organizations involved with the development or production of
nanotechnology will be held responsible for any damage caused by the
technologies. Penalties for not doing so include fines. For
discussion: Would setting a punishment system into place in order to
promote safety before releasing products be respected? Could it just
lead to companies finding ways around it or blaming other
organizations? Or like our judicial system, it will just remain,
innocent until proven guilty? |
|
|
|
Christine O'Rourke |
"Some scientists even note that the adoption of relinquishment would
be unethical." I was shocked by this statement considering I would
think it would be unethical to not relinquish projects that could
endanger the environment or humans and wondered what everyone else
thought about it. |
|
|
Grant Boucher |
"New technologies should serve the needs of our entire society, not
specific interest groups" pg 8 What is "our entire society"? Everyone in the world has different needs that could be addressed using nanotechnology. I think the opposite of this statement - we should be addressing the needs of specific interest groups and have a direction and purpose for the use of nanotechnology. |
||
|
|
Mike Pennisi |
“…because of the tremendous opportunities available through this new technology, turning our backs on nanotechnology would be akin to ‘turning our backs on the poor and suffering’ (ibid., p. 126)" There is much that could be done to help the poor and suffering that doesn't involve nanotechnology, but those making this argument seem to be complacent in progress's promise that things will be better. Since this is just a small aside, I was wondering if anyone could further explain this rational. |
|
|
|
Andrew Starr |
Is it possible to prove something safe? How can we know how
long it will take for negative side effects to show? |
|
|
|
Tracy Breslin |
Clearly there are issues with classifying nanotechnology to our
current classification schemes, but if this new technology doesn't
quite fit into to the current categories (i.e. drug vs. device) why
can't we make nanotechnology is own category with a separate process
of regulation? This would be a better alternative than putting
it in a category it doesn't really fit and allow us to better
accommodate nanotech which will reduce the possibility of
mismanagement of new products in this field. |
|
|
|
Andrew Krushelnyski |
The page or two that talks about differentiating drug from device
really doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me. The article
claims that it is on a chemical vs. mechanical standard.
This really doesnt come as too large of a surprise since many medical
procedures/surgeries are based on a mechanical level today. For
example Tommy John surgery or ACL surgery. I feel as though the
article was attempting to incriminalize new technologies for medicinal
use as illegal or bad if it was on a mechanical level. I
personally just dont see the problem with letting research of new
technologies let it take its course and when the time comes it can be
dealt with. |
|
|
|
Daniel Schaffer |
"Additionally, those involved with the development or production of nanotechnologies – governments, businesses, or individuals – will be held responsible for any damage caused by these technologies" Although this is very difficult to enforce, I think it could be a great idea. It would be interesting if companies could buy "Responsible Damage Insurance." These "insurance" agencies would be responsible with overseeing that everything is done to ensure safety, because if it is not, they would be the ones paying the fees. If everything is done to code, and no issue arises in the future, the agency makes money from the company. If it's illegal to use nano technology without insurance, we could have a way of making safety economically advantageous. |
|
|
|
Jason Bernardo |
(p.254) "Controversies draw attention to violations of the rights and
health of those affected by the enterprise." How can discussion
of controversial topics be used to draw public involvement into the
nanotech debate? Which controversies should get the most
attention? Will this discussion of controversies be effective
enough in involving the public in policy making and directing the
future of nanotech? |
|
|
|
Adam Neisius |
The paper brought up the continuing issue of regulation and direction
of technology in a democratic society. Although the principle of
having the people (directly or through elected officials) determine
these science policies and regulations sounds good in principle the
issue of education of the decision makers, as brought up in this
article, leads to difficulties in making proper policy--how are you to
regulate something if you don't know anything about it. The
currently popular "science court" method of education is less about
the the truth and more about the ideology of one or both sides.
What is needed is a neutral third party whose job is to investigate
these issues and educate the decision makers.(having representatives
from both sides talk and go with the presentation that sounded better
vs. investigators looking into it, analyzing it, and putting their
findings into a final report) |
|
|
|
Andrew Cunningham | (p252-253) "Technology does not impact society. This is the impression that we are given when we look at discussions of how society must prepare for the coming of nanotechnologies. Very little, if any, attention is given to the role that society plays in shaping, choosing, designing, and reinventing technologies, both before they are ‘closed’ and after they have been in use for years." I find this statement very scary! How in the world can they get in their heads that technology doesn't impact society? It has been one of the most pivotal things in our generation. | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|