« Anderson Cooper Needs A History Lesson | Main | More Critical Theory In Our Elementary Schools »
June 24, 2005
Buckyballs And The Precautionary Principle
There was an article yesterday on the front page of the Houston Chronicle entitled "Caution flag raised on buckyballs; harm to the environment possible". I immediately made a bet with myself on how far I would get into the piece before someone invoked the precautionary principle, which is a concept most of us are familiar with in practice, if not perhaps by name. One of the more quoted definitions of the principle states:
When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle
This sounds nice and logical, but there are profound hidden dangers in adopting this edict--chiefly, we are asked to curb actions on the basis of what we do not know. It essentially embodies a rationalist view over an empirical one, in that by invoking the precautionary principle we are striving for the establishment of absolute certainty that a new process or product will not (and will never) be harmful before it should be allowed into the marketplace.
This of course is nonsense--every waking minute of our lives is fraught with risk: we may die of an aneurysm, or be killed by a drunk red-light runner, or slice off a thumb on the table saw. We unconsciously accept a risk level driving on the freeway that would be unacceptable to a lieutenant planning a patrol in Iraq.
Back to buckyballs: To his credit, Chronicle author Eric Gerber wrote a quite well-balanced piece; on the whole it is more favorable the nanotech side.
No scientists or government regulators have called for stopping the research and commercialization of nanotechnology, a rapidly expanding field of specialized materials that encompasses everything from novel medical approaches to bulletproof vests. Nor are many likely to call for a ban now.
But sure enough, one of Gerber's sources spouts the inevitable:
In a nanotechnology report for the United Kingdom's government last year, The Royal Society concluded: "Until more is known about the environmental impacts of nanoparticles and nanotubes, we recommend that the release of manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes into the environment be avoided as far as possible."
Notice the European connection. And the usual environmental groups have started parroting the EU line. The Chronicle article goes on to note, however, that here in the US researchers have been reacting with an appropriate degree of caution:
Rice scientists have also developed a method for neutralizing the toxic effects of buckyballs, and they believe it will be possible to safely work with buckyballs and other nanomaterials in all manner of applications.
Certainly, caution should be employed...but it should be caution that informs our further research, not a "sky-is-falling" excuse to turn our backs on truly valuable innovation.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/211
Comments
I have a very intelligent and sophisticated question:
What the heck is a buckyball?
Posted by: Jim Voigt at June 24, 2005 09:24 AM
