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
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
Comments
Hide the following 15 comments
repost of original invite
15.12.2004 14:10
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
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
Angles
Angels, you are a disappointment
15.12.2004 17:01
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
> 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
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
Here are a few links to get you started.
Recent debate on Indymedia about an action at a nanotech conference:
Research paper on nanotech risks:
the "Centre for Responsible Nanotechnology", an industry-backed nonprofit group:
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
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
... 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
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
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
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
And that's the optimistic scenario...scary shit
.
I don't understand.
31.01.2005 04:00
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
e-mail:
Jollyplum@hotmail.com