Skip to content or view screen version

Nanotech industry front group use Indymedia to talk to angels

an angel | 15.12.2004 14:02 | Bio-technology | Indymedia | Technology | Oxford

Nanotech industry front, group Institute of Nanotechnology have taken to using the UK Indymedia Newswire in an attempt to make contact with "Angels Against Nanotechnology".

The Institute is offering the Angels the opportunity to make a presentation at the January meeting of their Advisory Group. The same invitation has been posted on the front page of the Institutes own website and has been sent to the angels email address.

What is the institute?
The role of the institute is to promote the interests of the Nanotech industry in the UK and beyond. They work closely with governments, universities, researchers and companies involved in nanotechnology and undertake work to assess, promote and expand the nanotech industry in the UK and Europe.

The institute pride themselves on their close links with industry and has worked with companies such as BP, ICI, Unilever, Syngenta, GSK, BNFL, Toshiba, Sharp and General Electric

Current corporate members of the institute include Unilever, Degussa, Lot Oriel, Sulzer, Veeco, QinetiQ, INSTM, Toshiba, Merck and ICI

Angels Against Nanotech  http://angelsagainstnanotech.blogspot.com

Indymedia postings about the recent Angels action:
press release  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302565.html
photos  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302576.html
video  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302637.html

The origianal invitation from the Institute of Nanotechnology can be seen as comment 11 at
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302576.html

an angel

Comments

Hide the following 15 comments

repost of original invite

15.12.2004 14:10

reposted from  http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302576.html

Invitation to Present

13.12.2004 13:53
The Institute of Nanotechnology has extended an invitation to the 'Angels Against Nanotech' to present their views at the next meeting of the Advisory Group of the Institute, on January 20th in London.

"Nanotechnology is about the design of many new products using our understanding of about how things work at the very small scale. We all benefit already from nanotechnology - it has led to the invention of DVD players, life-saving air bags in our cars and is now leading to successful treatments for hitherto fatal brain tumours".

"Those of us involved in nanotechnology are keen to explore any public concerns. I unreservedly recommend interested individuals read the recent independent study by the Royal Society / Royal Academy of Engineering on 'Nanosciences and nanotechnologies - opportunities and uncertainties' This report can be downloaded free at  http://www.nanotec.org.uk/finalReport.htm. This reflects very much the views and attitude of the Institute", stated Ottilia Saxl, CEO of the Institute.

Institute of Nanotechnology

an angel


Reply from the Angels

15.12.2004 14:13


Dear Institute of Nanotechnology,

We write to decline your invitation to make a presentation at your earthly gathering in January. Firstly, we are flattered by the lengths to which you have gone to make contact with us. However, having had several long meetings on the matter (yes even in heaven there are meetings), the angels have decided that we have little to gain by entering into dialogue with an organisation that can only ever represent the interests of industry and not the concerns of the public (and quite frankly we smell a PR scented rat). Given your role as arch promoters of the Nanotech industry (and indeed being in their pay) we suspect that your intentions are not pure. Perhaps your aim is to clip our wings by attempting to either co-opt or contain us? At the very least we fear that as we fail to find common ground over dinner conversation will become a little stilted.

The debate about nanotechnology needs to take in the public domain and not behind closed doors.

So the Angels will remain enigmatic, aloof and mysterious until our next earthly appearance.

The Angels will remain free!

Happy Solstice
Love from
The Angels

Angels Against Nanotechnology


Shame

15.12.2004 16:31

What a shame the offer was rejected. An opportunity missed. Why would the Angels not their message to reach the industry ?

Angles


Angels, you are a disappointment

15.12.2004 17:01

The offer carries no committments. You say it is 'behind closed doors'. Well, you are free to come from those doors and report all that happened.

You would appear to have a closed mind if you will not talk to a reputable organisation. Ah - it's industry funded. Must be tainted, then. More open mindedness.

If you don't talk to them, you reduce your chances of explaining what your fears are - in which case, you can't be surprised of they ignore them.

Or are you just out for the cheap thrill of a disruption?


sceptic


sceptic, you are a disappointment

15.12.2004 18:34

Sceptic, a rhetorical question:

> Or are you just out for the cheap thrill of a disruption?

don't do nuffink but stir on indymedia


Obvious

15.12.2004 18:56

"... a reputable organisation."
It what way reputable?

"Ah - it's industry funded. Must be tainted, then."
Well, yes. It is not in any way independent by definition.

not an Angel


exactly what are the arguments against nano

15.12.2004 19:02


so why is there a protest against nano tech
surly nano is about medical science and making things better for all curing deisese from the inside...no?
seriously can someone explain what all the fuss is about
and seems to me a bit ludite but maybe im wrong, is there a sinister background to this ?
i can see they work with shit companys but most of modern technology is made by shit companys in cluding the 'puter your reading this on !

confused


Nanotech

15.12.2004 19:42

A quick search Google for "nanotechnology" and "danger" will give you an idea:
 http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=nanotechnology+danger

Here are a few links to get you started.
Recent debate on Indymedia about an action at a nanotech conference:
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/12/302565.html

Research paper on nanotech risks:
 http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/

the "Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology", an industry-backed nonprofit group:
 http://www.crnano.org/

Campaigning against irresponsible use of nanotechnology isn't the same as being against technology in general, so I don't think it's Luddite to campaign about them right now.

John


for confused and others

15.12.2004 22:54

Yes, confused, nanotech is mighty sinister. For comprehensive info on the dangers, go to the www.etcgroup.org website and read The Big Down. If that's too long for you, there's a shorter version on the same website called The Little Big Down.

In any case, the term Luddite shouldn't be used as an insult - they were people who saw the threat to their communities and livelihoods of the industrial revolution, and fought against it. To me that is not something extremist or negative, but a worthy struggle to be part of.

nanu nano


Ironic

16.12.2004 01:44

"In any case, the term Luddite shouldn't be used as an insult - they were people who saw the threat to their communities and livelihoods of the industrial revolution, and fought against it. To me that is not something extremist or negative, but a worthy struggle to be part of."

... from one who uses the latest technology himself.

And the paper on the etcgroup website shows little comprehension of most of the scientific concepts, but goes for the 'gosh, wow' style of writing.

sceptic


Luddites were great, says internet poster...

16.12.2004 06:59

From my understanding, the Luddites weren't anti-technology per se, but opposed to forced capitalist 'developement' that forced millions off their land and into the most horrific sweatshops. Industrialisation has had advantages in the long term, but it was forced upon the population in the interests of capital.

I'm not anti-technology, but I do think any technology reflects the society that created it, so we should be wary of technology pushed purely for profit (gm, nanotech), even if there are potential benefits which would more likely be realised under democratic (not government) control.

Ned


Erm, no...

16.12.2004 12:57

Sceptic, the etcgroup's paper was incredibly well written, researched and displayed. Moreover, it was UNDERSTANDABLE for a non-scientist to read.

Being open-minded and attempting to get both sides of the story - try typing in 'benefits of nanotechnology' into google (or search engine of choice), near top of the page you'll find centre for responsible nanotechnology. Why not have a quick scan through and see that it again highlights dangers as discussed in the etcgroup paper. There are many other sites dedicated to nanotech as well, and oh, surprise surprise - any benefits seem to be advocated by, ooo let me see, corps already developing it. Hmm, spot any bias?!?

Incidentally, this was written using open source software, thank ye very much, so don't even think about chucking the word 'Luddite' about like a derogatory term, people died trying to protect their livelihoods.

B


nanotech cold war scenario

17.12.2004 19:46

The positive benefits that nanotech can bring to medicine and industry are great.

Any negative aspects, such as the creation of nanoweaponry would be countered by nanotech countermeasures. The very nature of the technology means that any nanoweaponry would easily be dealt with by nanotech countermeasures thus effectively creating a nanotech cold war scenario where no one would use it for that purpose.

Peter


arg

18.12.2004 21:37

Nano leading to a new cold war? Great!?!

And that's the optimistic scenario...scary shit

.


I don't understand.

31.01.2005 04:00

I simply don't understand what they hope to acheive.
The only conceivable danger is "uncontrollable" spread of something unknowably dangerous.
There is a possibility that there are hidden dangers but personally i feel its very slim given the amount of Gm technology already introduced into our society. It's hard for me not to get angry when someone else gets angry about something they simply do not understand. So i guess i am angry at myself then?

Matt B
mail e-mail: Jollyplum@hotmail.com