Nano divide: some comments on Post MNT Economics

An interesting post on CRN's blog:

"...so imagine a third world country somewhere in the year 2035, most home industries wiped into oblivion by nanotech minifacs, traditional agriculture wiped into oblivion by cheap biogenetics and superefficient nanotech based agriculture - those people would be without any product in demand, locked away from resources and raw materials, largely incapable of coping because of traditionalist lifestyles..."

Makes me wonder. How long will it take since the first day nanofac is invented to ubiquitous mass production? Will it be enough to buy time. If a moratorium is allowed, international trade can continue for a while to fill the gap on the transitionary phase.

But even with the moratorium, I would expect a rush, capital and financial market fells followed by lay offs triggered by manufacturing companies spreading to other industries. This disruption may cause extreme economic crisis. But I am not an economist. Any ideas on how to prevent it?


ps: blog hiatus until August 11th. I am on vacation.

Wilson center issued a report on handling Nanowaste

The institutional capacity for handling nano waste is put under scrutiny. Wilson Center adresses the issue:

A new report from the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Where Does the Nano Go? End-of-Life Regulation of Nanotechnologies, addresses these issues. Authored by Linda K. Breggin and John Pendergrass, legal experts from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), the report presents the most comprehensive analysis to-date of two key Environmental Protection Agency laws that regulate the end-of-life management of nanotechnology. These are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the Superfund statute.

The report is timely. Today, there are over 500 company-identified nanotechnology consumer products on the market, all of which will sooner or later be disposed of. These products can be seen in an online inventory maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. This inventory does not include nanotech products being sold but not identified as such, or the hundreds of nano raw materials, intermediate components, and industrial equipment items used by manufacturers today.

The webcast and report is downloadable here.

Nanomaterials under REACH

The Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) issued a workshop report on the possibilities of handling nanomaterials under REACH:

In October 2006 the Environment Committee of the European Parliament proposed an amendment to subject ‘nanoparticles’ to authorisation irrespective of their properties. This proposal was voted down, so that the final version of the REACH regulation, adopted in December 2006 by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers does not contain the specific requirement. Nanomaterials are therefore subject to the same i.e. Registration, Evaluation, Restrictions and requirements as all other substances (Authorisation)

The report contained important procedural steps for nanomaterials registration, something that nanoindustrialists should know. See here.

Using nanotech to prevent pollution - EPA Conference

EPA will hold a conference in utilizing nanotechnology to prevent pollution. These are the three main questions to be addressed to the participants:

1. Which nanotechnologies show the greatest promise for preventing pollution?

Considerations:

• This question should be viewed through the lens of life-cycle thinking to minimize the possibility of unintended consequences.
• Which pollution prevention applications are the most likely to find real-world applications?
• What barriers exist to the adoption of nanotechnology-enabled pollution prevention applications?

2. What are the most promising areas of research on pollution prevention applications of nanotechnologies?

Considerations:

• Which research areas could improve our understanding of the full life-cycle of nanomaterials?
• How can the beneficial properties of engineered products of nanotechnology such as increased surface activity, greater conductivity, improved strength-weight ratio, altered optical properties (changes in color or opacity), and flame retardancy be used to improve materials and products and reduce the production of pollutants at their source?

3. What recommendations do conference participants have for promoting and encouraging pollution prevention in the development and application of nanotechnology?

Considerations:

• What actions could be taken, and by whom?
• What mechanisms, programs, or associations could promote the research, development, and adoption of such applications?
• What role can EPA programs play?

Check the conference's website here.

Microsatellites in the sky

Nanotechnology enabled the creation of cheaper and smaller satellites: microsatellites. These satellites weighed less than 100kg, GPS-nav, weather predictions, and Earth observation just like normal satellites, it cost as little as 10 million and so far around 400 have been launched for various purposes.

But because they are small, they can be use to spy on other spacecraft or other space structure:

"If someone interferes with another satellite, or even if the interference is caused accidentally by a piece of debris, this kind of event is likely to start a war, because this can be confused for a satellite attack."

"We really would like to see is a law against satellite destruction, any testing and usable weapon that does that. It is really time to regulate what is going on in space, the regulation that we have is pretty rusty."

The legal principles regulating peaceful uses of outer-space is actually already in place. Take for example, Article III of the Space Treaty:

States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

The treaty does not mention anything about satellites or space structures. Nuclear weaponry and other form of WMD is strictly prohibited in space. Howbout nano-weapon? Well, as long as they are not categorized as WMD, it can be OK. There could be a loophole here.

Nanoethics Journal

The nanoethics journal has been available since last june. VOA issued a report on the journal yesterday:

Most nanotechnologies are still at the early stages of development, and Nanoethics' editor John Weckert says now is the best time to be anticipating problems that might arise, "so it won't be necessarily a matter of just waiting to see what the problems are and then trying to solve them."

Leading science publisher Springer describes its new journal as "the watchdog of a new technology." Weckert hopes the publication can foster a better understanding of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology among scientists, policy makers and the general public.

Listen to the podcast here. Check the Journal in SpringerLink here.

Inadequate regulation of nanotech in food and farming?

ABC reported that nano-agrifood industry will be worth more than US$20 billion by 2010, with giant companies like Syngenta, Monsanto, Kraft Foods and Heinz probably investing.

There could be a significant market for "nanopesticide". The emulsion from Nano-sized versions of pesticide molecules are more stable, more toxic to pests and better absorbed into plants, however, at the same time could also pose new risks to humans or the environment.

The ability for nanoparticles to penetrate the surface of plants may mean they also penetrate into edible parts of the crop and their ability to dissolve may create new kinds of contamination in soils, waterways or the food chain.

Privacy is dead?

Have a look at Mike Treder's post titled "Is Privacy Overrated?" here:

We agreed with author, scholar, and transparency advocate David Brin, who asserts that we are not required to choose between freedom and security; that, in fact, history shows us that the most open or "transparent" societies -- those with the least emphasis on secrecy and control -- also are the safest.

I have the impression that law and economics scholars tends to restrict privacy uses for economical purposes, hence, privacy is protected insofar as the total outcome of its protection outweighed its costs of protections. Secondly, privacy shall not be protected if it hinders people to commence beneficial economic transactions. Posner said in his blog:

The particular concern I have with defenders of privacy arises when they argue for legal rights to blanket concealment not of communications, and not of embarrassing facts, but of facts that would be material to the willingness of other persons to transact with the concealer on terms favorable to him.

Posner seemed to defend organizational value of privacy (in terms of trade secret, for example) compared to its individual value. (I must put a note here, that I doubted that protecting privacy in organizations is all good, if they are too much protected, then it can also hamper developments.)

From the human rights approach, privacy is also troublesome. Is privacy a sub-right or a fundamental human rights? I think privacy could be an interrelation between the two. Not all concepts under privacy rights are negative rights.

See my previous discussion on this issue here.

Nanotechnology and Transnational Governance, the case of China and US

On my other post, we have discussed the idea of establishing an international nanotechnology arms treaty, aimed at reducing negative impacts of nano arms race. There is another article at GMU which also discusses the transnational governance of nanotech, this time by focusing on China and US. Here's a quote:

Though nanotechnology R&D is currently an effort based largely upon chemistry and materials science, the high priority placed on it in both the United States and China will quickly lead nanotechnology to interact with other fields of study—such as biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science—that could further quicken the pace of both basic research and product development. This convergence of technologies could cause an even greater set of governance challenges than nanotechnology alone, further impacting institutions tasked with the responsibility of managing new technological advances. Since developments in nanotechnology are at the forefront of these potentially radical innovations, the United States and China have the chance to think and operate proactively, and work collectively, toward getting the governance system “right” from the start.

The author signaled that Chinese Nanotechnology will be booming, saying that the Chinese government spent $250 million on nanotechnology in 2005 -- when adjusted for purchasing-power parity -- places China’s nanotechnology investment second only to the United States. He stated that the number of scientific papers on nanotech, pubslihed by China is catching up with the US, and that from 2000 to 2002, "China ranked third behind only the United States and Japan in terms of the number of nanotechnology patents held." Given those tendencies, a coordinated risk-research endeavours would be required.

Well... China, together jointly with US discussing the policies of a general purpose technology that could inverted the world's balance of power? Hmmm...what would you do if you were Chinese?

Oh, read the paper yourself here. And a link to my previous post on Chinese nanotech in comparison with India here.

Regulating Nanotechnology Wihtin Precautionary Principle

A Report from the Institut fuer oekologische Wirtschaftsforschung for the European Parliament benchmarked precutionary principle embodied in several environmental legislations, from the REACH in EU to TSCA in the US.

From the report, you can tell which side of the world advocates stronger precautionary principle and how it affects future nanotechnology regulation. Read the report here.

A Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty?

Mike Treder's idea for an International Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty (INTACT) is intriguing:

Existing arms treaties may not apply to nanotechnology-based weapons, and there are important intellectual property, commercial confidentiality, and national security issues involved in addressing this challenge. One option is to brief and consult with relevant organizations for the next draft of the White Paper, with the goal of encouraging the eventual creation of an International Nanotechnology Arms Control Treaty (INTACT).

History recorded that a revolution on general purpose manufacturing capabilities tends to end in arms race. That's what happened in WWI. Arms limitation would be one interesting alternative for preventing a future nano-war.

But there is a difference: nano is small, conventional weaponries are big. How are we supposed to watch non proliferation of small things such as that? Well, I suppose the future sensors would develop.

There is a second difference. If a weapon is big, it would take a group of people to operate. This is the function of army groups. But if the weapon is small, and its destruction capability is as big as conventional weapons, then it can be operated in small groups. This is likely to be the function of terrorist cells. What I am trying to say is this: smaller weapons makes wars easier. Large scale wars will be obsolete, small scale "terrorism" would be likely. Terrorism requires effective intelligence and policing. Policing is the keyword for future non proliferation treaty.

What is the implication? The INTACT, if it is later designed, should be formed both as an inter-state treaty and as a "policing treaty". The current Nuclear nPT is an inter state treaty, because state is an actor of every nuclear policy. But what about nanotech weaponries? The actors are not only states, but also corporations and individual people. That is why I said above that INTACT should be a "policing treaty". A treaty that lies its emphasis on individual people, as well as the state.

Click here on my previous posts on "Unrestricted Warfare" and "Lawfare".

EPA's Nano Program -- open for public comment

EPA has issued Federal Register (FR) notices seeking public comment on a concept paper and other materials related to its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program.

The debate still hovers around the issue if nanomaterials are to be considered as a 'new' material under the TSCA. J.C. Davies said:

“The agency’s current practice is inadequate to deal with nanotechnology. It is essential that EPA move quickly to recognize the novel biological and ecological characteristics of nanoscale materials. It can do this only by using the ‘new uses’ provisions of TSCA, a subject not mentioned in the EPA’s inventory document. With the approach outlined by EPA and because of the weaknesses in the law, the agency is not even able to identify which substances are nanomaterials, much less determine whether they pose a hazard.”

EPA also issued papers for public comment on Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP)—in order to encourage industry to provide a voluntary scientific information about the risk management practices currently applied.

The EPA's official website on the program is here. Project on Emerging Nanotech website containing a March 2007 Report (titled Nanotech: Oversight for 21st Century) plus a webscast is available here. To get a glimpse on the application of TSCA to nanomaterials, read a March 2007 paper from Lynn L Bergeson here. You might also want to read Scott Deatherage's discussion in his blog on this issue here.

H.T: Gregor Wolbring

Nanotechnology's Risk Governance

You might want to read Swiss Re's report on its latest Conference "The Risk Governance of Nanotechnology: Recommendations for Managing a Global Issue" held on the 6th and 7th of July 2006.

Some of the report highlighted the need of differentiating the risk posed by developed vs developing nations.

Download the report yourself here.

(hat tip: Mike Treder, CRN)

CRN to host a nano-bio-techno conference

The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology will host Molecular Manufacturing Conference, "Challenges & Opportunities: The Future of Nano & Bio Technologies" to be held September 9-13, 2007 at the Radisson Hotel and Suites in Tucson.

From its press release:

Day one of the conference will focus on biotechnology, including both the underlying science and key applications. Day two will focus on nanotechnology, with an emphasis on the path to molecular manufacturing. Day three will look at the societal and environmental implications of nano/bio manufacturing. On the fourth day there will be assisted tours of Tucson area biotech and nanotech facilities.

The program will feature speakers covering a number of topics including: Tuberculosis and Bird Flu - New Epidemics in 2007; How to Build a Nanofactory; Military, Security, and Surveillance Issues; and more.

Click here to apply

Law 2.0 business model: filtering and aggregation

I have discussed the application of the long tail quite lengthy in several post. Recently David Hornik said in his blog that those who will gain money from the long tail phenomenon are aggregators and filterers:

The aggregators are those web businesses that seek to collect up as much of the Long Tail content as is possible, so as to make their "stores" a one stop shop for content no matter how popular or obscure. The value to consumers from these content aggregators is that they need not shop in dozens of places on the web in order to acquire a diverse set of content. As a result, aggregators are able to extract a disproportionate amount of value for the sale of each individual piece of content.

The filterers are those businesses that make it easier to find the content in which we are interested, despite the increasing proliferation of content creators, hosts, aggregators, etc. Again, while these different filtering technologies may make it slightly more likely that an end user finds his or her way to a piece of obscure content, it will not likely be sufficient to catapult an artist into the mainstream. The beneficiary of the filtering is the end user and the filterer, not the content owner per se.

I have discussed the value of filtering in my previous post:

More choice = more freedom
More freedom = more welfare

# More choice = more welfare (False?)

Barry Schwartz, a psychologist at Swarthmore suggest that the syllogism above could be false. In his book, "The Paradox of Choice", he argued that more choices are essentially good as it reflects improvements, but, there are dark sides of having more choices:

1. Paralysis. We don't choose at all. Many people stays single, right? :)
2. Poor decisions and performance quality. We made bad choices.
3. Dissatisfaction, dissappointment. We are not happy despite our choices.
4. Opportunity costs. The cost in choosing stuff could even be greater than the stuff itself!
5. Time Pressure. Too many choice makes us feel like we are being rushed.
6. Escalation of expectation. When we spent lots of time in choosing, we expect that the stuff we finally choose is a good stuff. When we turned out wrong, we become dissapointed.
7. Self Blame. Good feelings gradually reduces. Bad feelings escalates and change forms.

More choices is better, only if it occurs in any of these two situations. First, Preference Articulation. If you really know hat you want, more choice is better. Most people never have this. Or, second, Alignable Option. If the options can be scaled down to the similar size. Most people never have this too.

How would this be applicable to the legal business? Well, I see several opportunities. First, there are many blogs out there preaching about the law. There are quite so many boilerplates provisions available for free and listing documents (containing contracts) available also for free. The point is how to aggregate them. Some have been doing this through blog aggregators.

Filtering is done by making the best recommendations for clients, which blawgs or which legal service, or which legal form is preferable.

Both arguments above however, comes up with several assumptions:

1. The legal society willingly shares its content (some fact: nobody shares boilerplates provisions freely, its not like uploading photos in flickr)
2. Big lawfirms disagregates and legal business is conducted as a small-business (some fact: web 2.0 does not seem to have the power to "disagregate" giant lawfirms, yet)
3. There is a web 2.0 social networking tool that would enable "small-business" lawyers to collaborate with people from other lawfirms. (some fact: it may not be in the nature of lawyers to collaborate with each other, except when they are defending the same client, of course)

Is there a right to click?

There is a right to development, to food, to adequate housing and living standard and to water. But, is there a right to broadband? The right to information? The right to click? Stephen's web put it nicely:

Other museums ban photography (like the museum in Taiwan, that wouldn't allow me to photograph 6,000 year old artifacts - I really really think the expiry date has passed, and I doubt that the creators will be motivated into creating any new 6,000 year old artifacts). Come on now - curators of the world, give us our heritage back.

I have discussed this problem in my previous post:

What about information?

Information is originally a non-excludable Good. If I write a song, I cannot prevent you from singing it or changing my melody. Information is also a non-rival good. I can sing as much as I want, but it doesn't consume it. Einstein had 'consumed' Newton's theory, but he does not dminish it instead but develop something else from it. So ideally, information is a public good.

But, since generating information takes cost, the Law changes the attributes of information into "non-rivalrous but excludable". So, it is the excludability that the Law changes. How? By installing the intellectual property regime. If I write a song, that song is mine, "excludable" from others. If you take my notations and sell it to a music recorder, I can sue you because it is my right (and will still be my right until 50 years of my death according to the Berne Convention and even 70 years according to EU Directive).

Since IP protection of the goods in museum had elapsed, I think as a rule, there shouldn't be any reason to prevent people from photographing it.

MMA

Democratizing Technologies

You might want to read a report from Nanotechnology Engangement Group. Here's a snippet:

The power of technology is clear, but its governance is not. Who or what makes these world-shaping decisions? And in whose interests are they made? These are the questions posed by a growing number of researchers, NGOs, citizens, politicians and scientists who seek to challenge the way that science and technology is governed and invent new ways to democratise the development of new technologies.

Read the rest yourself here.

Global Technology Regulation

From James Hughes (et.al) new book:

The regulation of the threats of potentially apocalyptic technologies thus requires not only that the safety of emerging technologies be addressed by transnational agreements, but that these agreements create and support agencies capable of engaging in surveillance and verification at both the national and transnational level, with triggers for compelling enforcement mechanisms, from economic sanctions to military force.

What we need then, is a political globalization, and this is not occurring yet. Economy and Technology is becoming global but politics remained local.

Rights based approach and human enhancement

Most NGO and human rights activists are familiar with rights-based approach:

In a human rights-based approach, human rights determine the relationship between individuals and groups with valid claims (rights-holders) and State and non-state actors with correlative obligations (duty-bearers). It identifies rights-holders and their entitlements and corresponding duty-bearers and their obligations, and works towards strengthening the capacities of rights-holders to make their claims, and of duty-bearers to meet their obligations

If you have no water the state shall provide, if you have no electricity the state shall provide (if you are poor, you shall be subsidized). Supposed that 60 percent of the world's citizen has internet connection, and those who are not is left out, should the state provide broadband to the other 40 percent?

Now, with regards to human enhancement. Supposed that IQ can be enhanced and that the minimum average IQ for working is 124, should the state also provide funds for the enhancement? I would answer in positive. There seems to be no end to rights based approach. Because, at the same time, there would be no end to inequality, no end to what is regarded as a "basic need".