blogs

I was recently invited and attended an expert meeting on nanotechnology and ethics hosted by the UNESCO, Division of Ethics and Science and Technology in Paris (Nov 16/17th 2006). I was the only NGO representative amongst twenty invited 'experts'. Other participants included representatives of the Japanese, US, French, Dutch and EU governments, OECD and ISO representatives, as well as a selection of academics from Hungary, Germany, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, Qatar and the UK. The purpose of the 2-day meeting was to comment on a draft of a policy advice on nanotechnology and ethics to UNESCO's World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific and Technical Knowledge (COMEST). You can read FoEA's comments on the draft paper here.

In early July 2006 I was invited and journeyed as the FOE Australia Nanotechnology Projects representative to Zurich to participate in the International Risk Governance Council Conference on Nanotechnology. The purpose of the conference was for the invited speakers and conference participants to comment on the IRCG whitepaper on ‘Nanotechnology Risk Governance’

 The IRGC is an interesting beast, its focus ‘is to help improve the anticipation and governance of global, systemic risks.’ Its main backers are the Swiss, US and Chinese (!) Government, Swiss Re, Allianz, E.ON Energie, ATEL and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

The scientific and business community are still struggling to understand the global public rejection of genetically engineered (GE) foods, and with the growing discourse around the risks and disruptive impacts of nanotechnology, many are becoming increasingly worried that history is about to repeat itself.

A new study by researchers at the US Environmental Protection Agency's research laboratories in North Carolina has found that nano particles used in some sun creams have the potential to cause neurological damage.

Go figure? It turns out that ‘Magic Nano,’ the protective glass and bathroom sealant that was recalled in late March in Germany after causing severe breathing problems for some consumers, did not contain any nanoparticles. That’s according to Rene Zimmer of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, quoted in an article in small times .

Canberra Times, 8th May 2006, by John Hepburn

The release last month of a Federal Government discussion paper on the development of a national nanotechnology strategy created ‘nano ripples’ throughout the community – so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye.

The Synthetic Biology Biology 2.0 conference on the 21st May in Berkeley, USA has released a public statement in support of self-governance of the emerging nanobiotechnology industry. In the lead up to the conference 35 civil society groups, including Friends of the Earth International, signed an open letter outlining urgent concerns surrounding synthetic biology. However the declaration by the synthetic biologists failed to address key concerns, including the ethical problems of nanobiotechnology, broader environmental risks and the socio-economic and human rights implications of its use.

Early this year saw the first ever reported case of a nano product recall as a result of health problems. In Germany, there were 97 reported cases of serious respiratory problems and six people were hospitalized in late March after using the nanotech bathroom cleaner "Magic Nano".

Have you ever watched a child carefully taking apart their favourite toy, only to find that they can’t for the life of them put it back together again? It’s a phenomenon that’s as old as humpty dumpty and as old as the enlightenment.