Category: General

I’m en-route to the South of France, on my way to Avignon, where, under the auspices of a collaboration between the University of Paris and Stanford University, there’s a conference on the “Ethical and Societal Implications of the Nano-Bio-Info-Cogno Convergence”. The aim of the conference is to “explore issues emerging in the application of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science to the spheres of social, economic, and private life, as well as a contribution of ethical concerns to shaping the technological development.” One of the issues that has clearly captured the imagination of a number of the contributors from a more philosophical point of view is the idea of self-assembly, and particularly the implications this has for the degree of control, or otherwise, that we, as technologists, will have over our productions. The notion of a “soft machine” appeals to some observers’ sense of paradox, and opens up a discussion the connections between the Cartesian idea of a machine, our changing notions of how biological organisms work, and competing ideas of how best to do engineering on the nanoscale. There’s a session devoted to self-assembly, introduced by the philosopher Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent; among the people responding will be me and the Harvard chemist George Whitesides.

The commenters on the last item will be pleased to hear that, rather than flying to Avignon, I’m travelling in comfort on France’s splendidly fast (and, ultimately, nuclear powered) trains.

The UK’s science and engineering academies – the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering – were widely praised for their 2004 report on nanotechnology – Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties, which was commissioned by the UK government. So it’s interesting to see, two years on, how they think the government is doing implementing their suggestions. The answer is given in a surprisingly forthright document, published a couple of days ago, which is their formal submission to the review of UK nanotechnology policy by the Council of Science and Technology. The press release that accompanies the submission makes their position fairly clear. Ann Dowling, the chair of the 2004 working group, is quoted as saying “The UK Government was recognised internationally as having taken the lead in encouraging the responsible development of nanotechnologies when it commissioned our 2004 report. So it is disappointing that the lack of progress on our recommendations means that this early advantage has been lost.”

I’m normally pretty pleased when my book Soft Machines gets any kind of notice, but a recent rather favourable review of it leaves me rather troubled. The review is on the website of a new organisation called Truth in Science, whose aim is “to promote good science education in the UK”. This sounds very worthy, but of course the real aim is to introduce creationist thinking into school science lessons, under the guise of “teaching the controversy”. The controversy in question is, of course, the suggestion that “intelligent design” is a real scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution as an explanation of the origin and development of life.

The review approvingly quotes a passage from Soft Machines about the lack of evidence for how the molecular machine ATP synthase developed as evidence that Darwinian theory has difficulties. Luckily, my Darwinian credentials aren’t put in doubt – the review goes on to say “Despite the lack of hard evidence for how molecules are meant to have evolved via natural selection, Jones believes that evolution must have occurred because it is possible re-create a sort of molecular evolution ‘in silico’ – or via computer simulation. However, as more is discovered about the immense complexity of molecular systems, such simulations become increasing difficult to swallow.” This is wrong on a couple of counts. Firstly, as Soft Machines describes, we have real experiments – not in-silico ones – notably from Sol Spiegelman, that show that molecules really can evolve. The second point is more subtle and interesting. Actually, there’s a strong argument that it is in complex molecular systems that Darwinian evolution’s real power is seen. It’s in searching the huge, multidimensional conformational spaces that define the combinatorially vast number of possible protein conformations, for example, that evolution is so effective.

The review signs off with a reiteration of a very old argument about design: “In the final chapter, ‘Our nanotechnological future’, Jones acknowledges that our ‘…only true example of a nanotechnology…is cell biology…’. Could that lead to an inference of design? “ Maybe, like many scientists, I have brought this sort of comment on myself by talking extensively about “Nature’s design principles”. The point, though, is that evolution is a design method, and a very powerful one (so powerful that we’re seeing more use of it in entirely artificial contexts, such as in software engineering). However, design doesn’t necessarily need a designer.

“Truth in Science” may present itself as simply wishing to encourage a critical approach to evaluating competing scientific theories, but a little research reveals the true motives of its sponsors. The first name on the Board of Directors is Andy Mckintosh, Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Science at Leeds University. Far from being a disinterested student of purported controversies in evolutionary theory, this interview reveals him to be a young earth creationist:
“So you believe in a world created about 6,000 years ago, cursed on account of sin, then devastated by Noah’s Flood?
“Absolutely. There’s nothing in real science (if you take all the assumptions into account) to contradict that view.”

I don’t have a problem if people want to believe in the literal truth of either of the creation stories in Genesis. But I don’t think it is honest to pretend that a belief which, in reality, is based on faith, has any relationship to science, and I think it’s quite wrong to attempt to have these beliefs insinuated into science education in publicly funded schools.

The most vocal and unequivocal opponent of nanotechnology – the ETC group – has turned its attention to nanomedicine, with a new report Nanotech Rx taking a sceptical look at the recent shift of emphasis we’ve seen towards medical applications of nanotechnology. The report, though, makes more sense as a critique of modern medicine in general rather than making many specific points about nanotechnology. Particularly in the context of health in the third world, the main thrust of the case is that enthusiasts of technocentric medicine have systematically underplayed the importance of non-technological factors (hygiene, better food, etc) on improving general health. As they say, “the global health crisis doesn’t stem from a lack of science innovation or medical technologies; the root problem is poverty and inequality. New medical technologies are irrelevant for poor people if they aren’t accessible or affordable.” However, in an important advance from ETC’s previous blanket opposition to nanotechnology, they do concede that “nanotech R&D related to water is potentially significant for the developing world. Access to clean water could make a greater contribution to global health than any single medical intervention.”

The debate about human enhancement also gets substantial discussion, with a point of view strongly influenced by disability rights activist Gregor Wolbring. (Newcomers to this debate could do a lot worse than to start with the recent Demos pamphlet, Better Humans? which collects essays by those from a variety of points of view, including Wolbring himself.) ETC correctly identifies the crypto-transhumanist position taken in some recent government publications, and gets succinctly to the nub of the matter as follows: “Certain personality traits (e.g., shyness), physical traits (e.g., “average” strength or height), cognitive traits (e.g., “normal” intelligence) will be deemed undesirable and correctable (and gradually unacceptable, not to be tolerated). The line between enhancement and therapy – already blurry – will be completely obliterated. “ I agree that there’s a lot to be concerned about here, but the issue as it now stands doesn’t have a lot to do with nanotechnology – current points of controversy include the use of SSRIs to “treat” shyness, and modafinil to allow soldiers to go without sleep. However, in the future nanotechnology certainly will be increasingly important in permitting human enhancement, in areas such as the development of interfaces with the brain and in regenerative medicine, and so it’s not unreasonable to flag the area as one to watch.

Naturally, the evils of big pharma get a lot of play. There are the well publicised difficulties big pharma seems to have in maintaining their accustomed level of innovation, the large marketing budgets and the concentration on “me-too” drugs for the ailments of the rich west, and the increasing trend to outsource clinical trials to third world countries. Again, these are all very valid concerns, but they don’t seem to have a great deal of direct relevance to nanotechnology.

In the context of the third world, one of the most telling criticisms of the global pharmaceutical industry has been the lack of R&D spend on diseases that affect the poor. Things have recently changed greatly for the better, thanks to Bill and Melinda and their ilk. ETC recognise the importance of public private partnerships of the kind supported by organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, despite some evident distaste that this money has come from the disproportionately rich. “Ten years ago, there was not a single PPP devoted to the development of “orphan drugs” – medicines to treat diseases with little or no financial profit potential – and today there are more than 63 drug development projects aimed at diseases prevalent in the global South.” As an example of a Bill and Melinda supported project, ETC quote a project to develop a new synthetic route to the anti-malarial agent artemisinin. This is problematic for ETC, as the project uses synthetic biology, to which ETC is instinctively opposed; yet since artemisinin-based combination treatments seem to be the only effective way of overcoming the problem of drug resistant malaria, it seems difficult to argue that these treatments shouldn’t be universally available.

The sections of the report that are directly concerned with those areas of nanomedicine that are currently receiving the most emphasis seem rather weak. The section on the use of nanotechnology for drug delivery section discusses only one example, a long way from the clinic, and doesn’t really make any comments at all on the current big drive to develop new anti-cancer therapies based on nanotechnology. I’m also surprised that ETC don’t talk more about the current hopes for the widespread application of nanotechnology in diagnostics and sensor devices, not least because this raises some important issues about the degree to which diagnosis can be simply equated to the presence or absence of some biochemical marker.

At the end of all this, ETC are still maintaining their demand for a “moratorium on nanotechnology”, though this seems at odds with statements like this: “Nanotech R&D devoted to safe water and sustainable energy could be a more effective investment to address fundamental health issues.” I actually find more to agree with in this report than in previous ETC reports. And yet I’m left with the feeling that, even more than in previous reports, ETC has not managed to get to the essence of what makes nanotechnology special.

I’ve been to Australia for a brief trip, attending a closed public policy conference run by the Australian think-tank the Centre for Independent Studies. The terms of engagement of the conference prevent me from reporting on it in detail; it’s meant to be unreported and off-the-record. The attendance list was certainly a cut above the usual scientific conferences I go to; it included present and former cabinet ministers from the Australian and New Zealand governments, central bankers and senior judges, industry CEOs and prominent journalists.

A session of the conference was devoted to nanotechnology; I spoke, together with a couple of prominent Australian nanoscientists and the science correspondent of one of Australia’s major dailies. I was nervous about how I would be received, and I think many of the audience, more used to hearing about terrorism in Indonesia or commodity price fluctuations, were similarly nervous about whether they would find anything to interest them in such a specialised and futuristic sounding topic. In the event, I think, everyone was very pleasantly surprised at the success of the session and the lively debate it sparked.

I don’t want to divert this blog too much into discussing politics, but I can’t help observing that the tone of the meeting was a little bit more right wing than I am used to. The CIS clearly occupies rather a different part of think-tank space to my centrist friends in Demos, for example, and I regretted having left my Ayn Rand t-shirts at home. Nonetheless, I think it’s hugely important that science and technology do start to play a larger role in policy discussions.