# Nanotechnology/Nano and Society#Building Scenarios for the Plausible Implications of Nanotechnology


  Navigate
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   \<\< Prev: Environmental Impact
   \>\< Main: Nanotechnology
   \>\> Next: The Nanotechnology Talk Page

\_\_TOC\_\_

------------------------------------------------------------------------

## Principles for the Revision and Development of this Chapter of the Wikibook

*Unless they are held together by book covers or hypertext links, ideas
will tend to split up as they travel. We need to develop and spread an
understanding of the future as a whole, as a system of interlocking
dangers and opportunities. This calls for the effort of many minds. The
incentive to study and spread the needed information will be strong
enough: the issues are fascinating and important, and many people will
want their friends, families, and colleagues to join in considering what
lies ahead. If we push in the right directions - learning, teaching,
arguing, shifting directions, and pushing further - then we may yet
steer the technology race toward a future with room enough for our
dreams.* -Eric Drexler, Engines of Creation,
1986

Our method for growing and revising this chapter devoted to
Nanotechnology & Society will emphasize an open source approach to
\"nanoethics\" - we welcome collaboration from all over the planet as we
turn our collective attention to revising and transforming the current
handbook. Nature abhors a vacuum, so we are lucky to begin not with
nothing but with a significant beginning begun by a Danish scientist,
Kristian Molhave.
You can read the correspondence for the
project.

Our principles for the revision and development of this section of the
wikibook will continue to develop and will be based on those of
wikibooks manual of
style

## Introduction

Nanotechnology is already a major vector in the rapid technological
development of the 21st century. While the wide ranging effects of the
financial
crisis on
the venture capital and research markets have yet to be understood, it
is clear from the example of the integrated circuit
industry
that nanotechnology and nanoscience promise to (sooner or later)
transform our IT
infrastructure.
Both the World Wide Web and peer-to-peer
technologies (as well as
wikipedia) demonstrate the radical potential of even minor shifts in our
IT infrastructure, so any discussion of nanotechnology and society can,
at the very least, inquire into the plausible effects of radical
increases in information processing and production. The effects of, for
example, distributed knowledge production, are hardly well understood,
as the recent Wikileaks events have demonstrated. The very existence of
distributed knowledge production irrevocably alters the global stage.

Given the history of DDT
and other highly promising chemical innovations, it is now part of our
technological common sense to seek to \"debug\" emerging technologies.
This debugging includes, but is not limited to, the effects of nanoscale
materials on our health and environment, which are often not fully
understood. The very aspects of nanotechnology and nanoscience that
excite us - the unusual physical properties of the nanoscale (e.g.
increase in surface
area) -
also pose problems for our capacity to predict and control nanoscale
phenomena, particularly in their connections to the larger scales - such
as ourselves! This wikibook assumes (in a purely heuristic fashion) that
to think effectively about the implications of nanotechnology and
emerging nanoscience, we must (at the very least) think in evolutionary
terms. Nanotechnology may be a significant development in the evolution
of human capacities. As with any other technology (nuclear, bio-, info),
it has a range of socio-economic impacts that influences and transforms
our context. While \"evolution\" often conjures images of ruthless
competition towards a \"survival of the fittest,\" so too should it
involve visions of collective symbiosis: According to Margulis and
Sagan,[^1] \"Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by
networking\" (i.e., by cooperation)[^2].

Perhaps in this wikibook chapter we can begin to grow a community of
feedback capable of such cooperative debugging. Here we will create a
place for sharing plausible implications of nanoscale science and
technology based on emerging peer reviewed science and technology. Like
all chapters of all wikibooks, this is offered both as an educational
resource and collective invitation to participate. Investigating the
effects of nanotechnology on society requires that we first and foremost
become informed participants, and definitions are a useful place to
begin.

Strictly speaking, nanotechnology is a discourse. As a dynamic field in
rapid development across multiple disciplines and nations, the
definition of nanotechnology is not always clear cut. Yet, it is still
useful to begin with some definitions. \"Nanotechnology\" is often used
with little qualification or explanation, proving ambiguous and
confusing to those trying to grow an awareness of such tiny scales. This
can be quite confusing when the term \"nano\" is used both as a nickname
for nanotechnology and a buzzword for consumer products that have no
incorporated nanotechnology (eg. \"nano\"-
car and
ipod). It is thus useful for the
student of nanoscale science to make distinctions between what is
\"branded\" as nanotechnology and what this word represents in a broader
sense. Molecular biologists could argue that since DNA is \~2.5 nm wide,
life itself is nanotechnological in nature \-- making the antibacterial
silver nanoparticles
often used in current products appear nano-primitive in comparison. SI
units, the global
standard for units of measurement, assigns the \"nano\" prefix for 10
^-9^ meters, yet in usage \"nano\" often extends to 100 times that size.
International standards based on SI units offer definitions and
terminology for clarity, so we will follow that example while
incorporating the flexibility and open-ended nature of a wiki
definition. Our emerging glossary of nano-related
terms will prove useful as we
explore the various discourses of nanotechnology.

## Imagining Nanotechnology

As a research site and active ecology of design, the discussions in all
of the many discourses of nanotechnology and nanoscience must imagine
beyond the products currently marketed or envisioned. It thus often
traffics in science fiction style scenarios, what psychologist Roland
Fischer called the \"as-if
true\" register of representation. Indeed, given the challenges of
representing these minuscule scales smaller than a wavelength of
light, \"speculative
ideas\" may be the most accurate and honest way of describing our
plausible collective imaginings of the implications of nanotechnology.
Some have proposed great advantages derived from utility fogs of flying
nanomachinery or
self replicating
nanomachines, while others
expressed fears that such technology could lead to the end of life as we
know it when self replicating nanites take over in a *hungry grey
goo* scenario. Currently there
is no theorized mechanism for creating such a situation, though the
outbreak of a synthesized organism may be a realistic concern with some
analogies to some of the feared scenarios. More profoundly, thanks to
historical experience we know that technological change alters our
planet in radical and unpredictable ways. Though speculative, such fears
and hopes can nevertheless influence public opinion considerably and
challenge our thinking thoroughly. Imaginative and informed criticism
and enthusiasm are gifts to the development of nanotechnology and must
be integrated into our visions of the plausible impacts on society and
the attitudes toward nanotechnology.

While fear leads to overzealous avoidance of a technology, the hype
suffusing nanotechnology can be equally misleading, and makes many
people brand products as \"nano\" despite there being nothing
particularly special about it at the nanoscale. Examples have even
included illnesses caused by a \"nano\" product that turned out to have
nothing \"nano\" in it.

Between the fear and the hype, efforts are made to map the plausible
future impact of nanotechnology. Hopefully this will guide us to a
framework for the development of nanotechnology, and avoidance of
excessive fear and hype in the broadcast
media. So far,
nanotechnology has probably been more disposed to hype, with much of the
public relatively uninformed about either risks or promises.
Nanotechnology may follow the trend of biotechnology, which saw early
fear
(Asilomar)
superseded by enthusiasm (The Human Genome
Project)
accompanied by widespread but narrowly focused fear (genetically
modified
organisms).

What pushes nano research between the fear and hype of markets and
institutions? Nanotechnology is driven by a market pull for better
products (sometimes a military pull to computationally \"own\"
battlespace), but also by a push from public
funding
of research hoping to open a bigger market as well as explore the
fundamental properties of matter
on the nanoscale. The push and pull factors also change our education,
particularly at universities where cross-disciplinary nano-studies are
increasingly available.

Finally, nanotechnology is a part of the evolution of not only our
technological abilities, but also of our knowledge and understanding.
The future is unknown, but it is certain to have a range of
socio-economic impacts, sculpting the ecosystem and society around us.

This chapter looks at these societal and environment aspects of the
emerging technology.

## Building Scenarios for the Plausible Implications of Nanotechnology

Scenario
building
requires scenario
planning.

## Technophobia and Technophilia Associated with Nanotechnology

### Technophobia

Technophobia exists presently as a societal reaction to the darker
aspects of modern technology. As it concerns the progress of
nanotechnology, technophobia is and will play a large role in the
broader cultural reaction. Largely since the industrial
revolution, many
different individuals and collectives of society have feared the
unintended consequences of technological progress. Moral, ethical, and
aesthetic issues propagating from emergent technologies are often at the
forefront discourse of said technologies. When society deviates from the
natural state, human conciseness tends to question the implications of a
new rationale. Historically, several groups have emerged from the swells
of technophobia, such as the
Luddites and the
Amish.

### Technophilia

It is interesting to contemplate the role that technophilia has played
in the development of nanotechnology. Early investigators such as
Drexler drew on the utopian traditions of science fiction in imagining a
Post Scarcity and even immortal future, a strand of nanotechnology and
nanotechnology that continues with the work of Kurzweil and, after a
different fashion, Joy. In more contemporary terms, it is the
technophilia of the market that seems to drive nanotechnology research:
faster and cheaper chips.

## Anticipatory Symptoms: The Foresight of Literature

*\...reengineering the computer of life using nanotechnology could
eliminate any remaining obstacles and create a level of durability and
flexibility that goes beyond the inherent capabilities of biology.*
\--Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is
Near

*The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against
the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom. It would be, in
principle, possible\...for a physicist to synthesize any chemical
substance that the chemist writes down..How? Put the atoms down where
the chemist says, and so you make the substance. The problems of
chemistry and biology can be greatly helped if our ability to see what
we are doing, and to do things on an atomic level, is ultimately
developed\--a development which I think cannot be avoided.* \--Richard
Feynman, There\'s Plenty of Room at the
Bottom

There is much horror, revulsion, and delight regarding the promise and
peril of nanotechnology explored in science fiction and popular
literature. When machinery can allegedly outstrip the capabilities of
biological machinery (See Kurzweil\'s
notion of transcending biology),
much room is provided for speculative scenarios to grow in this realm of
the \"as-if true\". The \"good nano/bad nano\" rhetoric is consistent in
nearly all scenarios posited by both trade science and sci-fi writers.
The \"grey goo\" scenario plays the role of the \"bad nano\", while
\"good nano\" is traffics in immortality schemes and a post scarcity
economy. The good scenario usual features a \"nanoassembler\", an as yet
unrealized machine run by physics and information\--a machine that can
create anything imagined from blankets to steel beams with a schematic
and the push of a button. Here \"good nano\" follows in the footsteps of
\"good biotech\", where life extension and radically increased health
beckoned from somewhere over the DNA rainbow. Reality, of course, has
proved more complicated

Grey goo, the fear that a self-replicating nanobot set to re-create
itself using a highly common atom such as carbon, has been played out by
many sources and is the great cliche of nanoparanoia. There are two
notable science fiction books dealing with the grey goo scenario. The
first, Aristoi "wikilink") by Walter John
Williams, describes the scenario
with little embellishment. In the book, Earth is quickly destroyed by a
goo dubbed \"Mataglap nano\" and a second Earth is created, along with a
very rigid hierarchy with the *Aristoi*\--or controllers of
nanotechnology\--at the top of the spectrum. The other, Chasm
City by Alastair
Reynolds, describes the scenario as a
virus called the *melding plague.* It converts pre-existing
nanotechnology devices to meld and operate in dramatically different
ways on a cellular level. This causes the namesake city of the novel to
turn into a large, mangled mess wildly distorted by a mass-scale
malfunctioning of nanobots.

The much more delightful (and more probable) scenario of a machine that
can create anything imagined with a schematic and raw materials is dealt
with extensively in The Diamond Age or
A Young Lady\'s Illustrated
Primer by Neil
Stephenson and The Singularity is
Near by Ray
Kurzweil. Essentially, the machine works by
combining nanobots that follow specific schematics and produces items on
an atomic level\--fairly quickly. The speculated version has *The Feed*,
a grid similar to today\'s electrical grid that delivers molecules
required to build its many tools.

Is the future of civilization safe with the fusion of
malcontent and
nanotechnology?

## Early Contexts and Precursors: Disruptive Technologies and the Implementation of the Unforeseeable

In 2004, a
study in
Switzerland was conducted on the management of nanotechnology as a
disruptive
technology.

In many organization R&D models, two general categories of technology
development are examined. "Sustainable technologies" are those new
technologies that improve existing product and market performance. Known
market conditions of existing technologies provide valuable
opportunities for the short-term success of additions and improvements
to those technologies. For example, the
iphone's entrance into the
cellular market was largely successfully due to the existence of a
pre-existing consumer cell phone market. On the other hand, "disruptive
technologies" (e.g. peer-to-peer
networks,
Twitter) often enter the market with little or
nothing to stand on - they are unprecedented in scale, often impossible
to contain and highly unpredictable in their effects. These technologies
often have few short-term benefits and can result in the failure of the
organizations that invest in such radical market introductions.

At least some nanotechnologies are likely to fit into this precarious
category of disruptive technologies. Corporations typically have little
experience with disruptive technologies, and as a result it is crucial
to include outside expertise and processes of dissensus as early as
possible in the monitoring of newly synthesized technologies. The
formation of a community of diverse minds, both inside and outside
cooperate jurisdiction, is fundamental to the process of planning a
foreseeable environment for the emergence of possible disruptive
technologies. Here, non-corporate modalities of governance (e.g.
standards organizations, open source projects, universities) may thrive
on disruptive technologies where corporations falter. Ideally in project
planning, university researchers, contributors, post-docs, and venture
capitalists should consult top-level management on a regular basis
throughout the disruptive technology evaluation process. This ensures a
broad and clear base of technological prediction and market violability
that will pave a constructive pathway for the implementation of the
unforeseeable.

A cooperative paradigm shift is more often than not needed when
evaluating disruptive technologies. Instead of responding to current
market conditions, the future market itself must be formulated. Taking
the next giant leap in corporate planning is risky and requires absolute
precision through maximum redundancy \"with a thousand pairs of eyes,
all bugs are shallow.\" Alongside consumer needs, governmental,
political, cultural, and societal values must be added into the equation
when dealing such high-stakes disruptive technologies such as
nanotechnology. Therefore, the dominant function of nanotech
introduction is not derived from a particular organization's nanotech
competence base, but from a future created by an inter-organizational
ecosystem of multiple institutions.

## Early Symptoms

### Global Standards

Global standards organizations have already worked on metrological
standards for nanotechnology,
making uniformity of measurement and terminology more likely. Global
organizations such as ISO,
IEC,
OASIS, and
BIPM would seem likely venues for standards in
*Nanotechnology & Society*.
IEC
has included environmental health and
safety
in its purview.

### Examples of Hype

Predicted revolutions tend to be difficult to make, and the
nanorevolution might turn in other directions than initially
anticipated. A lot of the exotic nanomaterials that have been presented
in the media have faded away and only remain in science fiction, perhaps
to be revisited by later researchers. Some examples of such materials
are artificial atoms or quantum
corrals, the
space elevator, and
nanites. Nano-hype exists
in our collective consciousness due to the many products with which
carry the nano-banner. The BBC demonstrated in 2008 the joy of
nano that we
currently embrace globally.

The energy required to fabricate nanomaterials and the resulting
ecological footprint might not make the nanoversion of an already
existing product worth using -- except in the beginning when it is an
exotic novelty. Carbon nanotubes in sports
gear
could be an example of such overreach. Also, a fear of the toxicity,
both biologically and ecologically speaking, from newly synthesized
nanotechnologies should be examined before *full throttle* is set on
said technologies. Heir apparent to the thrones of the Commonwealth
realms, Charles, Prince of
Wales, has made
his concerns about nano-implications known in a
statement he gave in
2004. Questions have been raised about the safety of zinc oxide
nanoparticles
in sunscreen, but the FDA has already approved of
its sale and usage. In order to expose the realities and complexities of
newly introduced nanotechnologies, and avoid another anti-biotech
movement,
nano-education
is the key.

## Surveys of Nanotechnology

Since 2000, there has been increasing focus on the health and
environmental impact of nanotechnology. This has resulted in several
reports and ongoing surveillance of nanotechnology. Nanoscience and
nanotechnologies: Opportunities and
Uncertainties is a report by
the UK Royal Society and the Royal Academy
of Engineering.
Nanorisk is a bi-monthly newsletter
published by Nanowerk LLC. Also, the
Woodrow Wilson Center for International
Scholars is starting a new project on
emerging nanotechnologies (website is under
construction) that among other things will try to map the available
nano-products and work to ensure possible risks are minimized and
benefits are realized.

## Nanoethics

Nanoethics, or the study of nanotechnology\'s ethical and social
implications, is a rising yet contentious field. Nanoethics is a
controversial field for many reasons. Some argue that it should not be
recognized as a proper area of study, suggesting that nanotechnology
itself is not a true category but rather an incorporation of other
sciences, such as chemistry, physics, biology and engineering. Critics
also claim that nanoethics does not discover new issues, but only
revisits familiar ones. Yet the scalar shift associated with engineering
tolerances at 10-9th suggests that this new mode of technology is
analogous to the introduction of entirely new \"surfaces\" to be
machined. Writing technologies or *external symbolic
storage*
(Merlin Donald) and the
wheel both opened up entirely new dimensions to technology -
consciousness and smoothed spaced respectively.
(Deleuze and
Guattari)

Outside the realms of industry, academia, and geek culture, many people
learn about nanotechnology through fictional works that hypothesize
necessarily speculative scenarios which scientists both reject and, in
the tradition of
gedankenexperiment,
rely upon. Perhaps the most successful
meme associated with nanotechnology
has ironically been Michael
Chrichton\'s treatment of
self-replicating *nanobots* running amok like a pandemic virus in his
2002 book,
Prey.

In the mainstream
media, reports
proliferate about the risks that nanotechnology poses to the
environment, health, and safety, with conflicting reports within the
growing nanotechnology industry and its trade press, both silicon and
print. To orient the ethical and social questions that arise within this
rapidly changing evolutionary dynamic, some scholars have tried to
define nanoscience and nanoethics in disciplinary terms, yet the success
of Chrichton\'s treatment may suggest that nanoethics is more likely to
be successful if it makes use of narrative as well as definitions.
Wherever possible, this wikibook will seek to use both well defined
terms and offer the framework of narrative to organize any investigation
of *nanoethics*. Nanoscience and Nanoethics: Definning The
Disciplines[^3] is an excellent
starting guide to the this newly emerging field.

Concern: scientists/engineers as

-Dr. Strangeloves? (intentional SES impact)

-Mr. Chances? (ignorant of SES impact)

-   journal paper on
    nanoethics1

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Book on nanoethics 2

Take a look at their chapters for this section...

-   Grey goo and radical
    nanotechnology3

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chris Phoenix on nanoethics and a priests' article
    4
    and the original article
    5

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   A nanoethics university group 6

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cordis Nanoethics project
    7

Concern: Nanohazmat

-   New nanomaterials are being introduced to the environment simply
    through research. How many graduate students are currently washing
    nanoparticles, nanowires, carbon nanotubes, functionalized
    buckminsterfullerenes, and other novel synthetic nanostructures down
    the drain? Might these also be biohazards? (issue: Disposal)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Oversight of nanowaste may lead to concern about other adulterants
    in waste water: (issue: Contamination/propagation)
-   estrogens/phytoestrogens8
-   BPA9?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Might current systems (ala
    MSDS10)
    be modified to include this information?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What about a startup company to reprocess such materials, in the
    event that some sort of legislative oversight demands qualified
    disposal operations?

There may well be as many ethical issues connected with the uses of
nanotechnology as with biotechnology. [^4]

-   Joachim Schummer and Davis Baird, *Nanotechnology Challenges,
    Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society*

[^5]

### Prisoner\'s Dilemma and Ethics

The prisoner\'s
dilemma constitutes a
problem in game theory. It
was originally framed by Merrill
Flood and Melvin
Dresher working at
RAND in 1950. Albert W.
Tucker formalized the
game with prison sentence payoffs and gave it the *prisoner\'s dilemma*
name
(Poundstone,
1992). In its classical form, the prisoner\'s dilemma (\"PD\") is
presented as follows:

> Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient
> evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit
> each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects from
> the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains
> silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the
> silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain
> silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a
> minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year
> sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain
> silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the
> betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners
> act?

If we assume that each player cares only about minimizing his or her own
time in jail, then the prisoner\'s dilemma forms a non-zero-sum game in
which two players may each cooperate with or defect from (betray) the
other player. In this game, as in all game theory, the only concern of
each individual player (prisoner) is maximizing his or her own payoff,
without any concern for the other player\'s payoff. The unique
equilibrium for this game is a Pareto-suboptimal solution, that is,
rational choice leads the two players to both play defect, even though
each player\'s individual reward would be greater if they both played
cooperatively. In the classic form of this game, cooperating is strictly
dominated by defecting, so that the only possible equilibrium for the
game is for all players to defect. No matter what the other player does,
one player will always gain a greater payoff by playing defect. Since in
any situation playing defect is more beneficial than cooperating, all
rational players will play defect, all things being equal.

In the iterated prisoner\'s dilemma, the game is played repeatedly. Thus
each player has an opportunity to punish the other player for previous
non-cooperative play. If the number of steps is known by both players in
advance, economic theory says that the two players should defect again
and again, no matter how many times the game is played. Only when the
players play an indefinite or random number of times can cooperation be
an equilibrium. In this case, the incentive to defect can be overcome by
the threat of punishment. When the game is infinitely repeated,
cooperation may be a subgame perfect equilibrium, although both players
defecting always remains an equilibrium and there are many other
equilibrium outcomes. In casual usage, the label \"prisoner\'s dilemma\"
may be applied to situations not strictly matching the formal criteria
of the classic or iterative games, for instance, those in which two
entities could gain important benefits from cooperating or suffer from
the failure to do so, but find it merely difficult or expensive, not
necessarily impossible, to coordinate their activities to achieve
cooperation.

## The Nanotechnology Market and Research Environment

### Market

Value chain

-   Overview of nanotech
    products

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Articles on the Lux report on
    Nanotechnology

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lux 5'th report on
    Nanotechnology

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lux nanotec index and
    Article on Lux

See also notes on editing this book in  About this
book.

The National Science Foundation has made predictions of the of
nanotechnology by 2015

-   \$340 billion for nanostructured materials,
-   \$600 billion for electronics and information-related equipment,
-   \$180 billion in annual sales from nanopharmaceutircals

[^6] All in all about 1000 Billion USD.

"The National Science Foundation (a major source of funding for
nanotechnology in the United States) funded researcher David Berube to
study the field of nanotechnology. His findings are published in the
monograph "Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology Buzz\". This
published study (with a foreword by Mihail Roco, Senior Advisor for
Nanotechnology at the National Science Foundation) concludes that much
of what is sold as "nanotechnology" is in fact a recasting of
straightforward materials science, which is leading to a "nanotech
industry built solely on selling nanotubes, nanowires, and the like"
which will "end up with a few suppliers selling low margin products in
huge volumes.\"

Market analysis

-   <http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_07/b3920001_mz001.htm>

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The World Nanotechnology Market (2006)
    11

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   nanotube ecology
    <http://www.nanotechproject.org/file_download/files/Nanotube%20SFA%20Report_revised%20part2.pdf>

Some products have always been nanostructured:

-   Carbon blac used to color the rubber black in tires is a \$4 billion
    industry.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Silver used in traditional photographic films

According to Lux Research, \"only about \$13 billion worth of
manufactured goods will incorporate nanotechnology in 2005.\"

\"Toward the end of the decade, Lux predicts, nanotechnology will have
worked their way into a universe of products worth \$292 billion.\"

Three California companies are developing nanomaterial for improving
catalytic
converters:
Catalytic Solutions,
Nanostellar, and
QuantumSphere. QuantumSphere, Inc. is a
leading manufacturer of high-quality nano catalysts for applications in
portable power, renewable energy, electronics, and defense. These
nanopowders can
be used in batteries, fuel cells, air-breathing systems, and hydrogen
production cells. They are also a leading producer of *NanoNickel* and
*NanoSilve.*

Cyclics Corp adds nanoscale clays to it\'s
registered resin for higher termal stability, stiffiness, dimensional
stability, and barrier to solvent and gas penetration. *Cyclics resins
expand the use of
thermoplastics to make
plastics parts that cannot be made using thermoplastics today, and make
them better, less expensively and recyclable.*
Naturalnano is a nanomaterials company
developing applications that include industrial polymers, plastics, and
composites; and additives to cosmetics, agricultural, and household
products. Industrial Nanotech has
developed nansulate, a spray on coating
with remarkable insulating qualities claiming the highest quality
insulation on the planet with temperature ranges from -40 to 400 C. The
coating can be applied to:
Pipes-Tanks-Ducts-Boilers-Refineries-Ships-Trucks-Containers-Commercial-Industrial-Residential.

ApNano is a producer of
nanotubes and nanosphere
made from inorganic compounds. ApNano product,
Nanolub is a solid lubricant that
enhances the performance of moving parts, reduces fuel consumption, and
replaces other additives. Production will shift from the United States
and Japan to Korea and China by 2010, and the major supplier of the
nanotubes will be Korea. Nanosonic is
creating metal rubber that exhibits electrical conductivity. GE
Advanced Materials and
DOW Automotive have both
developed nanocomposite technologies for online painted vertical body
panels. Mercedes is
using a clear-cost finish that includes nanoparticle engineered to
cluster together where form a shell resistant to abrasion.
eMembrane is developing a nanoscale polymer
brush that *coats with molecules to capture and remove poisonous metal
proteins, and germs.*

A study by FTM Consulting reported
future chips that use nanotechnology are forecasted to grow in sales
from \$12.3 billion in 2009 to \$172 billion by 2014. According to one
Harvard researcher, *applied nanowires to glass substrates in solution
and then used standard photolithography techniques to create circuits*.
Nanomarkets predicts *the market for
nano-enabled electronics will reach \$10.8 billion in 2007 and \$82.5
billion in 2011.* IBM researchers created a
circuit capable of performing simple logic calculations via
self-assembled carbon nanotubes (Millipede) and Millipede will be able
to store forty times more information as current hard drives.
MRAM
will be inexpensive enough to replace
SRAM and
nanomarket predicts MRAM will rise to \$3.8 billion by 2008 and 12.9
billion by 2011. Cavendish
Kinetics store data using thousands
of electro-mechanical switches that are toggeled up or down to represent
either a one or a zero as a binary bit. Their devices use 100 times less
power and work up to a 1000 times faster. Currently, the most common
nanostorage devices are based on ferroelectric random access memory,
FRAM. Data are store
using electric fields inside a capacitor. Typically FRAM memory chips
are found in electronics devices for storing small amounts of
non-volatile data. A team from Case Western has
approached production issues by growing carbon nanotube bridges in its
lab that automatically attach themselves to other components with the
help of an applied electrical current. *You can grow building blocks of
ultra large scale integrated circuits by growing self-assembled and
self-welded carbon nanotubes.* Applied
Nanotech using an electron-beam
lithograph
carved switches from wafers made of single-crystal layers of silicon and
silicon oxide.

### Research Funding

//Michael can you tell me how much funding the EC goes to 'nano'?

How big a percentage of nano research funding is

-   Corporate research funding (eg. Intel)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Public funding (eg. National nano initiative)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Military funding (public and corporate)
    12

These may sum up to more than 100% since the groups overlap.

For the US 2007:

135 billion federal research
budget13

73 billion military Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation

The nanotechnology related part is a fraction of this budget amounting
to a couple of billions
14
15

(newer reference is needed)

## Open Source Nanotechnology

Common property
resource management
is critical to many areas of society. Public spaces such as forests and
rivers are natural commons that can generally be utilized by anyone.
With these natural spaces, resource management is in place to minimize
the impact of any single user. With the advent of intellectual
property, such as
publications, designs, artwork, and more recently, computer software,
the patent system seeks to
control the distribution of such information in order to secure the
livelihood of the developer. Open source is a development technique
whereby the design is decentralized and open to the community for
collaboration.

While patents reward knowledge generation by an individual or company,
the reward of open source is usually the rapid development of a quality
product. It is characterized by reliability and adaptability through
continual revisions. The most notable usage for open source is in the
software development community. The Linux operating
system is continually improved by a large
volunteer community, who desire to make robust software that can compete
with the profit-based software companies while making it freely
downloadable for users. The incentive for programmers is a highly
regarded reputation in the community and individual pride in their work.

Author Bryan Bruns believes that this open
source model can be applied to the development of nanotechnology.
Nanotechnology and the Commons - Implications of Open Source Abundance
in Millennial Quasi-Commons is
a thoroughly written paper concerning open source nanotechnology by
Bryan Bruns. The article describes roles
of the open source nanotechnology community based on the claim that the
technology for nanotechnology manufacturing will one day be ubiquitous.
Since his early work a more urgent call has been coming for
nanotechnology researchers to use open source methodologies to
development nanotechnology because a nanotechnology patent thicket is
slowing innovation.[^7] For example, a researcher argued in the journal
*Nature* the application of the open-source paradigm from software
development can both accelerate nanotechnology innovation and improve
the social return from public investment in nanotechnology research.[^8]

*Building equipment, food and other materials might become as easy, and
cheap, as printing on paper is now. Just as a laborious process of
handwriting texts was transformed first into an industrial technology
for mass production and then individualized in computer printers, so
also the manufacturing of equipment and other goods might also reach the
same level of customized production. If \"assemblers\" could fabricate
materials to order, then what would matter would not be the materials,
but the design, the knowledge lying behind manufacture. The most
important part of nanotechnology would be the software, the description
of how to assemble something. This design information would then be
quintessentially an information resource, software*. -Bryan
Bruns, Nanotechnology and the Commons -
Implications of Open Source Abundance in Millennial
Quasi-Commons

Several important elements of an open source nanotechnology community
will be:

-   Establishment of standards - early adopters will have the task of
    developing standards of nanotechnology design and production for
    which the rest of the community will improve gradually.
-   Development of containment strategies - built-in failsafes that will
    prevent the unchecked reproduction and operation of
    \"nanoassemblers\". One possible scheme is the design of specialized
    inputs for nanoassemblers that are required for operation\--the
    machine has to stop when the input runs out.
-   Innovative nanotechnology design and modelling tools - software that
    allows users to design and model technology produced in the
    nanoscale before using time and materials to fabricate the
    technology.
-   Transparency to external monitoring - the ability to observe the
    development of technology reduces the risk of \"unsafe\" or
    \"unstable\" designs from being released into the public.
-   Lowered cost - the price of managing an open source community is
    insignificant compared to the cost of management to secure
    intellectual property.

### Application of Open Source to Nanotechnology

There are many currently existing open source communities that can serve
as working models for an open source nanotechnology community. Internet
forums promote knowledge and community input. In addition, new forum
users are quickly exposed to a wealth of knowledge and experience. This
type of format is easily accessible and promotes widespread awareness of
the topic. One such community is:

\[H\]ard\|OCP (http://www.hardforum.com) \"\[H\]ard\|OCP (Hardware
Overclockers Comparison Page) is an online magazine that offers news,
reviews, and editorials that relate to computer hardware, software,
modding, overclockingcooling, owned and operated by Kyle Bennett, who
started the website in 1997\"\[1\]. Hardforum is a direct parallel to an
traditional open source software community. Members obtain recognition,
reputation, and respect by spending time and effort within the
community. Members can create and discuss diverse topics that are not
limited to just software. Projects focusing on case modding are of key
interest as a parallel example of what is possible for a nanotechnology
project. Within these case modding projects, specific steps,
documention, results, and pictures are all shared within the community
for both good and bad comments. The information is presented in a pure
and straight forward manor for the purpose of information sharing.

## Socioeconomic Impact of Nanotechnology

Predicting is difficult, especially about the future and nanotech is
likely not going to take us where we first anticipated.

### For a Perspective

-   Nuclear technology was hailed the new era of humanity in the 60's,
    but today is left with little future as a power source due to low
    availability for long term Uranium
    sources16
    and evidence that utilization of nuclear power systems still
    generates appreciable CO2
    emissions[](http://www.energybulletin.net/node/15345). The
    development of nuclear technology however has provided us with a
    wide range of therapeutic tools in hospitals and taught us a
    thorough lesson on assessing the potential environmental impact
    before taking a new technology to a large scale.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   DDT was once the cure-all for malaria and mosquito related diseases
    as well as a general pesticide for agriculture. It turned out that
    DDT accumulated in the food chain and was banned, leading to a rise
    in the plagues it had almost eradicated. Today DDT is still
    generally banned by slowly reintroduced to be used where it has a
    high efficiency and will not be spread into nature and in minute
    quantities compared to when it was lavishly sprayed onto buildings,
    fields and wetlands in the 1950's.
    17

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   I need references for this one:

Polymer technology was 'hot' in the early 90's but results were not
coming as fast as anticipated, leading to a rapid decline in funding.
But after the 'fall', the technology has matured and polymer composites
are now finding applications everywhere. One could say the technology
was actually very worthy of funding but expectations were too high
leading to disappointment. But time has been working for polymer
technology even without large scale funding and now it is reemerging
--often disguised as nanotechnology.

-   Biotechnology, especially genemodified crops, were promised to
    eradicate hunger and malnutritionreference
    needed. Fears of the environmental
    impact led to strict legislation limiting its use in practical
    applications, and many cases have since proven the restrictions
    sensible as new an unexpected paths for cross-breeding have been
    discovered\[\[reference needed\]. However, the market pull for
    cheaper products leads to increased GM production worldwide with a
    wide range of socio-economic impacts such as poor farmers dependence
    on expensive GM seeds, nutrition aspects and health
    influence\[\[reference needed\].

These examples do not even include the military aspects of the
technologies or the spin-off to civil life from military research --
which is luckily quite large considering that in the US the military
research budget is about 40% of the annual research funding
18 reference needed and check
up on the
number!.

### Socioeconomic Impact

The examples in the previous section demonstrate clearly how difficult
it is to predict the impact of new technology society because of
contingency - the inability to know which trajectories today determine
the future.

Contingency stem from two main causes:

1\) Trends versus events

Events -Taking a non-linear dynamics and somewhat mathematical point of
view, Events (in nonlinear dynamics) are deterministic and so can be
described with a model but they are also unpredictable (i.e. the model
does not give point predictions when exactly they will occur)

Trends -- The trends we observe depend largely on the framing we have in
our perception of problems and their solutions. The framing is the
analytical lens through which we perceive evolution and it changes over
time.

### Impact of Nanotechnologies on Developing Countries

Many in developing countries suffer from very basic needs, like
malnutrition and lack of safe drinking water. Many have poor
infrastructure in private and public R&D., including small public
research budgets and virtually no venture capital.Even if they are
developing such infrastructures, they still have little experience in
technology governance, including the launch and conduct of research
programs, safety and environmental regulations, marketing and patenting
strategies, and so on. These are a couple of points to point out on the
effect of Nanoenabled cheap produced solar-cells on these counties:

-   Whether a product is useful and its use is beneficial to a country
    are difficult to assess in advance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Problem with many technologies is that scientific context often
    ( by definition) ignores the prevailing socioeconomic and cultural
    factors of a technology, such as social acceptance, customs and
    specific needs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Expensive healthcare products only benefit the economic elite and
    risk increasing the health divide between the poor and rich.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   According to the NNI, nanotechnology will be the "next industrial
    revolution". This can be a unique opportunity for developing
    countries to quickly catch up with their economical development.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   About two billion people worldwide have no access to electricity
    (World Energy Council, 1999), especially in rural areas.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Nanotechnology seems to be a promising potential in increasing
    efficiency and reducing cost of solar cells.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Solar technologies seem to be particularly promising for developing
    countries in geographic areas with high solar radiation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Many international organizations have promoted solar rural
    electrification since the 1980's, such as UNESCO's summer schools on
    Solar Electricity for Rural Areas and the Solar Village program.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The real challenges of these technologies are largely of an
    educational and cultural nature.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Implementing open source into nanotechnology, cheap solar cells for
    rural communities might be a possibility.

\[1\] \"Impact of nanotechnologies in the developing world\"[^9]

## Contributors

This page is largely based on contributions by Kristian
Mølhave and Richard
Doyle.

## Case Studies of Ongoing Research and Likely Implications

E SC 497H (EDSGN 497H STS 497H) is a course offered at Penn State
University entitled *Nanotransformations: The
Social, Human, and Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology.* Three case
studies from the Spring 2009 class offer new insight into three
different areas of current *Nano and Society* study: Nanotechnology and
Night
Vision;
Nanotechnology and Solar
Cells;
Practical
Nanotechnology.
A sample syllabus for courses focused on
nanotechnology\'s impact on society can prove helpful for other
researchers and academics who want to synthesize new *Nano and Society*
courses.

# References

```{=html}
<references />
```

------------------------------------------------------------------------



[^1]:
    
[^2]: Witzany, G. (2006) The Serial Endosymbiotic Theory (SET): The
    Biosemiotic Update. Acta Biotheoretica 54: 103-117

[^3]: Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social
    Implications of Nanotechnology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &
    Sons, Inc., 2007.

[^4]: Joachim Schummer and Davis Baird, *Nanotechnology Challenges,
    Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society*, (New Jersey: World
    Scientific, 2006).

[^5]: Joachim Schummer and Davis Baird, *Nanotechnology Challenges,
    Implications for Philosophy, Ethics and Society*, (New Jersey: World
    Scientific, 2006).

[^6]: From a
    review
    of the book "Nano-Hype: The Truth Behind the Nanotechnology
    Buzz"

[^7]: Usman Mushtaq and Joshua M. Pearce "Open Source Appropriate
    Nanotechnology " Chapter 9 in editors Donald Maclurcan and Natalia
    Radywyl,
    \[<http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781439855768;jsessionid=JYgI1HHTCole4ja3j4h9zQ>\*\*
    Nanotechnology and Global Sustainability\], CRC Press, pp. 191-213,
    2012.

[^8]: Joshua M. Pearce \"Make nanotechnology research
    open-source\", *Nature* **491**,
    pp. 519--521(2012).

[^9]: Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, Nanoethics: The Ethical and Social
    Implications of Nanotechnology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &
    Sons, Inc., 2007.
