The science of small things (and minds)
This evening, I went down to a public debate at the ICA on Nanotechnology. The "science of small things" is getting to be the next big thing in the politics of science, and I felt it would be remiss of me to pass up a bit of education, so I packed up work at 6:30 and trotted down the Strand towards Trafalgar Square.
Walking down to the venue, I felt a shiver of guilt as we passed beneath Admiralty Arch. I still haven't told Zandria (boss) that I have been called back for another interview at the PM's Strategy Unit - she's been looking tired and frustrated recently, and I didn't want to add to her woes by raising the spectre of further staff attrition. I'm wondering what I'll do if there's the prospect of policy work there - I'm conscious that I'd be letting Zandria down, but aren't you supposed to be ruthless in politics? I can sense a moral test on the horizon. Then again, it's just an interview and nothing may even come of it...
As for the event itself, it placed into stark relief just how poor the level of debate is in this country. There were a couple of scientists who made conscise, impassioned pleas for a curb on sensationalism, the kind that prompts the media to print pictures of tiny robotic submarines hurtling through arteries and torpedoing viruses. Apparently, nanobots just wouldn't work this way as the physics of mechanical design don't scale down that far. The viscosity of water is such that, at the molecular level, flowing through it would be extremely difficult for any kind of nano-scale motorised robot. Despite these pleas, and instead of asking for clarification on how nanotechnology could be purposefully employed, the audience persisted with inane questions about apocalyptic visions of matter being obliterated like in some hollywood blockbuster.
More surprisingly for me, the debate was chaired by a researcher from Demos, which is supposed to be one of the leading UK think tanks. Disappointingly, he did nothing to steer the debate or reject repetitive questioning. To think, I was disappointed when these guys didn't offer me a fucking job!
So what of nanotechnology? People want to embark on the ethical debate over the rights and wrongs of it, but I feel we are not even at the stage where this is possible. We simply don't know what the technology can actually do for us, beyond the "InnerSpace" theorising, and without this understanding we're nowhere close to debating rights and wrongs!
Walking down to the venue, I felt a shiver of guilt as we passed beneath Admiralty Arch. I still haven't told Zandria (boss) that I have been called back for another interview at the PM's Strategy Unit - she's been looking tired and frustrated recently, and I didn't want to add to her woes by raising the spectre of further staff attrition. I'm wondering what I'll do if there's the prospect of policy work there - I'm conscious that I'd be letting Zandria down, but aren't you supposed to be ruthless in politics? I can sense a moral test on the horizon. Then again, it's just an interview and nothing may even come of it...
As for the event itself, it placed into stark relief just how poor the level of debate is in this country. There were a couple of scientists who made conscise, impassioned pleas for a curb on sensationalism, the kind that prompts the media to print pictures of tiny robotic submarines hurtling through arteries and torpedoing viruses. Apparently, nanobots just wouldn't work this way as the physics of mechanical design don't scale down that far. The viscosity of water is such that, at the molecular level, flowing through it would be extremely difficult for any kind of nano-scale motorised robot. Despite these pleas, and instead of asking for clarification on how nanotechnology could be purposefully employed, the audience persisted with inane questions about apocalyptic visions of matter being obliterated like in some hollywood blockbuster.
More surprisingly for me, the debate was chaired by a researcher from Demos, which is supposed to be one of the leading UK think tanks. Disappointingly, he did nothing to steer the debate or reject repetitive questioning. To think, I was disappointed when these guys didn't offer me a fucking job!
So what of nanotechnology? People want to embark on the ethical debate over the rights and wrongs of it, but I feel we are not even at the stage where this is possible. We simply don't know what the technology can actually do for us, beyond the "InnerSpace" theorising, and without this understanding we're nowhere close to debating rights and wrongs!
posted by nickwong8 at 1:01 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home