Rules for Dwarfs Risk Regulation of Nanotechnology and its International Context

A conference on nanotechnology will be held in Germany 30 November-2 December. According to the website:

We convene actors from Germany, Europe, and the United States to link previously separated regulatory debates. Participants will develop regulatory recommendations for German and European politics in frank and open discussions. This includes the prioritization of regulatory approaches and principles to guide the development of compatible regulatory systems on both sides of the Atlantic.

The price is € 160 including accommodation and meals; a reduction to € 80 is available for students. More detail here.

Calls for premarket registration of nanotech product

EEB calls for premarket registration, stakeholders consultation and adequate legislative framework before a deeper entrance in nanotech market is made. In its brochure, it deems voluntary regulation as unsuccessful. I have yet to see where the failures are, but the EEB claims for lack of participation on the enactments of these codes.

It appears to me that the EEB stance are 'precautionary' in essence and relies more on command-and-control approach in nanotech regulation. The argument may have some merit provided that there are huge uncertainties surrounding nanotech products.

More regulatory framework of precautionary nature may reduce the risk of future market failure. But over-precautions will have implications on the growing market for nanotech.

Read more here.

'Disruptive' Technology in Water Supply

As I have written in the previous post, nanotech may be able to revolutionize drinking water provision. Recently at the 2009 TED, an engineer demonstrated a non chemical nano-filtration bottle that could change filthy water into drinking water in a matter of second. The cost of the bottle is still quite high, around 116-170 GBP depending on the volume (filtration of up to 4,000 to 6,000 litres).

However, with better manufacturing, the price of the filter may significantly decrease in the future. If employed in a larger scale, this technology may decentralize water treatment facility and open doors for competition in the water sector.

What will happen if the world's population go down?

Lower land prices, higher labor prices, said Pete Alcorn. Surely, it will bring tremendous changes to social system: land reform, democratization and the rise of middle class. Alcorn suggest us to move beyond malthusian economy and pay attention to the tendency of population decrease.

In previous posts we have discussed a little about post-scarcity economics, which is a by-product of Molecular Manufacturing (MM). It may turn out that even without MMworld's population growth may decrease to negative within one century.

The reason for decreasing population may vary. In the past, it can happen because of wars. Now it seems unlikely. So plague -- such as virulent influenza viruses -- could be a scenario. Another scenario would be a relatively successful health and social programs which increases longevity but turned population growth into negative.

See Alcorn's talk here:

[OOT] The end of microsoft

Some says that this will be the end of microsoft. Maybe not, but at least it will lower the price of computers.

Legal loopholes in Nano Liability

Chris Phoenix at CRN referred us to a new report from Investor Environmental Health Network. The Report highlighted 8 loopholes under current regulations which, if go unrepaired, will trigger litigation bomb in the future.

Virtual worlds and the science gateway to democracy

C Milburn argued that virtual worlds such as Secondlife opens the gateway for science towards democracy. As I have previously written, secondlife's copybot resembles a nanofactory. Future post molecular manufacturing society could be benefited by the simulation from these virtual societies. How secondlife handle copybot might be an inspiration on how we handle nanofac.

Download the paper "Atoms and Avatars: Virtual Worlds as Massively-Multiplayer Laboratories" here.

International Regulation

International Approaches to the Regulatory Governance of Nanotechnology" is available for download from the RGI website.

Nanotechnology seemed to be going towards the Private Ordering path

Convergent Regulatory Framework?

Does nanotech regulation needs to be standardized or can state develop their own laws about nanotech? I am more into a standardized framework, although of course, in reality there is always a gap. Read Lloyds report here.

The US Rules the Wave?

The US (and not the brits) will rule the wave. US will become the next Ottoman Empire. The next 100 years will be all about the United States. Europe will decline. Space-based solar power will be developed. Stratfor founder George Friedman said on the launching of his new book.



Hat tip to Chris Phoenix at CRN

Nanotech Law Webinar

KHK Law is holding webinars starting next month:

All webinars will be conducted from 1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EST

April 1, 2009 Legislation, Regulation and Small Business – 2009 Outlook

June 4, 2009 Nanotechnology in the Marketplace

Sept. 10, 2009 Nanotechnology, Food and Food Packaging

Nov. 19, 2009 Product Liability and Nanotechnology

The cost for Individual Webinar is $145 and $495 if you signed up all four. More detail here.

Nano Governance

I hate overstrecthing the word 'governance' into nanotech, but it seems this word is compatible with any new products subjected to regulation. I suggest you to have a look at this publication, titled FramingNano Project: A multistakeholder dialogue platform framing the responsible development of Nanosciences & Nanotechnologies, MAPPING STUDY ON REGULATION AND GOVERNANCE OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES. Download full report here.

Genes as essential facilities?

I've been quite busy recently doing my university papers. But when I browsed the net just now, I discovered an interesting article which argues that genes might be regarded as an 'essential facilities'. So, I thought you might be interested. Here's an abstract:

With the IMS Health case before the ECJ, the essential facilities doctrine has taken centre stage in Europe. A recent report by the JFTC seems to suggest that Japan is serious about invoking this doctrine. However the parameters of this doctrine are far from settled. Antitrust authorities do not enough guidance on issues such as determining appropriate license fees for access, optimal number of licensees etc. In keeping with my focus on blocking and disease gene patents, I have dealt mainly with one aspect of this doctrine-namely the question of “essentiality”. Essentiality would in most cases help in a determination of ‘blocking’ i.e. if the facility is a non-essential one, then there can possibly be no blocking. However the converse need not always be true-i.e. if the facility is an essential one, but is widely licensed, then it is quite possible that there would be no blocking.

Read more here.

Regulating Google

An article from the economist said that Google has made publishers, telecom companies, libertarian and privacy defenders worried (if not 'upset'). I would put news agencies on the list.

So far however, the article said, Google is clean. No violations of copyright laws nor competition laws. The alchilles heel might be on privacy law.

Supposed google failed (either deliberately or by omission) to show my blog in its search results, or it reduces my page rank unfairly, on what bases can I sue Google, other than through their Terms of Services?

BTW, here's an excerpt from the economist's article:

Ironically, there is something rather cloudlike about the multiple complaints surrounding Google. The issues are best parted into two cumuli: a set of “public” arguments about how to regulate Google; and a set of “private” ones for Google's managers, to do with the strategy the firm needs to get through the coming storm. On both counts, Google—contrary to its own propaganda—is much better judged as being just like any other “evil” money-grabbing company.

Google is a capitalist tool, I agree. But it represents the new form of capitalism. The legal infrastructure we have today regulates the 'old' capitalism. It may not be adequate to 'catch' google.

Some predictions

Here's to start your monday, some predictions. Most of the information, we already know. But I like the graphic. Oh, and it predicts that supercomputer will exceed the capability of human brain by 2013, btw. (Created by Karl Fisch)

Stratfor on Nanotechnology

Startfor issued a short article on regulating nanotechnology. There's nothing in this article that we have not discuss, it seems, but one conclusion captures my attention:

Many see REACH as more protective of public health and the environment than TSCA. As such, there is a growing movement in the United States for the adoption of REACH-like chemical regulations. For those calling for a complete reassessment of TSCA, the revolution in nanotechnology has come at the right time. They argue that TSCA cannot cope with the challenges of nanotechnology, so therefore the law should be revamped to prepare for the next wave of technology. A number of states are currently considering their own REACH-like laws, and the "opening" of TSCA (Capitol Hill-speak for rewriting the law) seems increasingly likely in the coming years.

We have discussed this possibility on the EU-US "gap" post, but we see that if this conclusion is correct, then the US is moving towards filling the gap somewhere in the future.

The rest of the article is worth to read. It provides a good introduction in problems surrounding present-day nanotech regulation. Read more here.

Prioritizing EHS research needs

NSCT issued a document for the public to comment. The document listed several research priorities to address Environmental, Health and Security concerns. See more here.

Responsible NanoCode

Alliance of UK institutions (Royal Society is one of them) plan to publish a self-regulatory guideline for nano industry. The project is aimed to be launched in 2008. This is from their website:

The Code will be a voluntary code. Like other principles-based codes, it will illustrate expected behaviours and processes, not standards of performance. Indicators of compliance could be developed at a later stage. The Code is not intended, however, to be an auditable standard, it will not detail levels of performance expected of companies, nor will it give guidance on definitions, characterisation and measurement.

It is not intended that this Code supersedes or replaces the development of future legislation and regulation for nanotechnologies; however, given the absence of comprehensive appropriate legislation at present, it aims to provide clear guidance about the expected behaviour of companies in relation to their nanotechnology activities. It is hoped that the Code and the process of its development might assist with the evolution of such legislation by clarifying the principles which may underpin more detailed, verifiable, standards.

I have not find any further details on the expected code. It only says there "...expected behaviour of companies in relation to their nanotechnology activities" so my guess is that it would relate to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health) issues. I don't know if this "code" would extends itself into environmental issue such as labeling and waste management. Nor did I find any information to the extent of "nano"-ness there, does it refer only to "material" science or future nanotechnologies will also be addressed?

Various organizations has issued "best practice" recommendations (click the tags below).

Find out more on Responsible Nanocode here.

Will nanotechnology reduces the 'natural monopoly' character in water industry?

The answer is likely to be yes, but if the question is how, maybe the its the engineers that should answer. What is relevant to be discussed is, "what is the legal implication"?

Most water industries are heavily regulated, because it is a natural monopoly (i.e. more seller means higher price, one seller is optimum price). I have red a research indicating that the scale of natural monopolies in the water industry varies. In the developed economy and high-tech countries, the scale of the natural monopoly reduces.

Thus, a reduction in the character of natural monopoly will allow more competitor to enter the market. For example, in water industry, more water supplier might be able to enter the common carriage through an economically feasible schemes. Regulators and network owners should not prevent them from entering these 'essential facilities' because it could amount to a violation of competition law.

This also implies that governments may need to adjust its regulatory mechanism.

But before we discuss this further, I'd like to hear from the engineers. In what way would nanotech makes water purification/treatment cheaper?

The future of work: no cubicle culture, smaller companies, working from home

I am still on the Lawfirm 2.0 topic. This week's edition of business week issued an interesting report about the future of work. The articles are a good news for all (structured) procastinators, freelancers, solo lawyers, outsourcee and those who hates cubicle culture.

Take a look at one of the companies covered by the magazine:

It sounds like the corporate paradise of the future. Workers organize themselves, coalescing around natural leaders and gravitating to the most exciting projects. There are no middle managers, no hierarchies, no fixed assignments.

And its article titled "the wiki workplace":

Nourished on instant messaging, blogs, wikis, chat groups, playlists, peer-to-peer file sharing, and online multiplayer video games, the Net Generation will increasingly bring a heightened comfort with technology, inclination toward social connectivity, more emphasis on creativity and fun, and greater diversity to the companies they work for and to the companies they found themselves.

Eighty million young people are entering the U.S. workforce. Are today's senior managers ready?

The future is a designed chaos, and we love it ;)

Read more.

Solo Practicioner Lawyer, a Trend?

Wired.com released an article about career 2.0. One of them is lawyering:

The idea of working hard to pay your dues as a lawyer is outdated. The Wall Street Journal says the latest law firm trend is "de-equitization," which is a fancy word for kicking a partner in the pants and throwing him or her out the door. Since there is no longer a safe ladder to climb in big law firms, people will stop climbing and set up shop on their own.

Warning: Lawyers are the most unhappy of all professionals, according to the Colorado Law Journal. But people who work for themselves are among the most satisfied workers, according to Dartmouth economist Daniel Blanchflower (.pdf). Add the two together for a more balanced work life.

Preparation: Success as a lawyer is increasingly about client relations rather than providing Alan Dershowitz-style genius legal representation. Take some marketing courses in college since that's what you'll be spending time on once you hang out your shingle.

If this prediction is correct, we shall see that either the period of partnership tenure or the total amount of partners appointment declining from time to time, and at the same time solo or boutique lawfirm mushroomed. Another possible thing: once these lawyers 'disaggregates' and work as a solo practicioners, they might need to collaborate. Do we have the collaboration engine in place?