Nanotechnology is actually a fairly new idea. This may not seem like any big deal in terms of ethics, but just like any type of scientific advancement there are positives and negatives. Of course the ethical issues don’t stem out of just the fact that this is a new kind of science. It branches off of “what will this new scientific technology be used for?” For example, Embryonic Stem Cell research. It’s not the research that’s bad it’s how they get the cells. There are half a dozen, maybe more, different places to get the same type of cells without taking the life of that unborn child.
The term, Nanotechnology, was first introduced back in the mid 1970’s by a Japanese researcher named Norio Taniguchi to mean “…precision machinery with tolerance of a micrometer or less” (Kilner 55-56).
In the 1986 book by Eric Drexler, Engines of Creation, he brought the word and it’s concept in to the public’s thought. In Layman’s terms the basic idea of Nanotechnology is to make little tiny atomic size robots that can be called upon to do whatever we want them to do. Similar to having a little computer and telling it carry out an assigned task like empty the recycle bin, or something of that sort. Or in this case telling the little robot to float around in a persons body and switch out a section of DNA so that the person’s eyes are green instead of brown. Just so we know how small this a strand of DNA is 2.3 nanometers wide or if you divided a meter stick into 1 billion sections it would be 2.3 sections wide.
The Term Paper on Stem Cell Therapy
Stem Cell Therapy Recent progress in stem cell research heated the debates on the issue of the status and dignity of the human embryo. The advances of stem cell therapy prompted a decision by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to fund stem cell research which, according to the statement of Harold Varmus, depends on the destruction of human ...
In many of the sciences with Nanotechnology being no exception to the rules the ethical issues are much further behind the actual research that is taking place. For some reason the research of hazards with this technology are also far behind. But isn’t that just typical of scientists? I mean here’s a group of scientists, some of the smartest men in their field of study and they automatically take the positives without any consideration for negatives. That just seems typical of the human race in general. If it helps someone then it must be good, who cares how many people we kill. At the Rice University Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology (CBEN) they were stunned to discover that there had been no research in developing a risk assessment or toxicology model for synthetic nanomaterials. Like-wise and Just as important there have been no tests to see how these nanomaterials react or are affected by living systems, such as humans. Of the $700 million in funding that the National Nanotechnology Institute (NNI) received in 2003, less than $500,000 was spent on the study of how Nanotechnology could affect the environment.
But typical to today’s culture the immediate payback doesn’t come from risk studies, as it does from how we can potentially cure diseases. When in the long run a little robot just might be able to cause a disease. Just as much as the public wants to know the risks the scientists working on the project have even more to lose from a fear of the unknown (Colvin).
Along with these risks will come an entire set of ethical dilemmas. So how can we set rules so that free lance researchers or government scientists don’t do something that the whole world might regret? One of the first guidelines which was set by the Foresight Institute, founded by Drexler, and supported by the non-profit organization Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN) is “Nanotechnology’s highest and best use should be to create a world of abundance where no one is lacking for their basic needs. Those needs include adequate food, safe water, a clean environment, housing, medical care, education, public safety, fair labor, unrestricted travel, artistic expression and freedom from fear and oppression” (Ethics of Nanotechnology).
The Term Paper on Human Disease Research Diseases People Medical
Human Disease I INTRODUCTION Human Disease, in medicine, any harmful change that interferes with the normal appearance, structure, or function of the body or any of its parts. Since time immemorial, disease has played a role in the history of societies. It has affected-and been affected by-economic conditions, wars, and natural disasters. Indeed, the impact of disease can be far greater than ...
If we know just a little about the life of Christ he once said that there would always be problems like this in the world, hunger, poor, oppressed , etc. I don’t have a problem with using nanomaterials to help heal people from diseases that affect person’s body all the way down to the cells such as Cancer or Alzheimer’s or any other disease. It’s when scientists start playing around with people’s genes that bothers me. Just like with cloning, we come very close to playing God and “making” people or animals that look a certain way or even act a certain way. No if we could make people so that they were all Christians no that would be something. All joking aside, when these scientists start changing DNA patterns in whatever they are trying to create the seem to be less than what they ought to be. Take for instance a human, with enough messing around they could make a human being that in a sense a clone with out actually using any DNA from an individual. They would send in these little robots to move things around and boom you’ve got another George Bush or Michael Jordan.
Granted if the child didn’t grow up in exactly the same environment or live the same exact life George Bush #2 might be a computer programmer for Microsoft when he grows up, and Michael Jordan #2 could be a Death Metal Drummer for all we know. Some scientists even believe that by using these little robots to move cells and DNA around they could at some point be able to attain immortality. But as we see in Romans 5:12 death came into the world because of the sin of Adam. So as long as there is sin in the world there will be death, whether it’s caused by illness, car accidents, murders or whatever else humans can think up to kill each other. According to John S. Feignberg “If we agree with Scripture that people will ultimately die because they have sinned, then one thing they can die of is disease (even a genetically based disease)” (Kilner 186).
Unfortunately like a number of other issues the Bible cannot tell us what is acceptable and what is not in this case. We must rely on what the holy Spirit has laid on our hearts.
The Essay on Cell Cloning Human Scientists People
What first comes to mind when the word cloning is used Weird sci-fi movies, mad scientists, and futuristic themes Well, the idea of cloning has been experimented on since the 1970 s with frogs and toads, and the cloning of plants hasnt been any big thing. The controversy over this issue was sparked by a miraculous event on July 5, 1996. This is the day Dolly was successfully cloned, using a method ...
This gives us the question of how far scientists will be willing to go. In the long run they are in it for the money and how much they can milk the system for. I highly doubt that they really care about what will happen after they pass away and leave the rest of us behind to figure it out. If we can create little robots what is to stop us from making microscopic cameras, microphones, and tracking devices? What will happen to our privacy especially if cameras go on the black market some day. Perverts will be having a hay day around the world as they spy on people and could potentially never get caught because the equipment is so incredibly small. In the same way this new technology will inevitably lead to weapons beyond bio- and techno-terrorism, Nanoterrorism if you will (Mnyusiwalla R11).
After discussing all the things that could be wrong with Nanotechnology we may as well go over what Nanotechnology could potentially help us with. As far as medicine goes we could create better pharmaceutical drugs, disease treatments and Nanomachine-assited surgery. In the environment they could be used for toxin clean up like oil spills, recycling, garbage consumption. They can also be helpful in manufacturing by reusing garbage that cannot be recycled by taking it apart molecule by molecule and reassembling it to create something else that can be put to use. Nanotechnology could also be used to build a car molecule by molecule for precise manufacturing (Chen).
I do agree that Nanotechnology could be and probably will be put to good use.
But without specific limits and guidelines who is to stops rogue scientists and terrorists from getting their hands on this information. I also feel that a governmental body should not be allowed to oversee the research. It will take an outside group of scientists to make and formulate the ethical procedures. I also believe that Nanomachines should be created for general purposes with artificial intelligence (A.I.).
In any case I find it very difficult to excuse the potential of these tiny little machines and their unforeseeable value. But like any other science it must be treated with care to help maintain and limit the potential harm that this microscopic technology could inflict upon us. Works Cited 1.
Chen, Andrew. “The Ethics of Nanotechnology.” online posting. March 2002. Actionbioscience. 10 Feb. 2005. .
The Essay on Nanotechnology 2
Let me say it right now. Everything you thought was the limit of human kind is wrong. The strongest weapon is not the nuclear bomb. The strongest material is not steel. Your brain is not the fastest computer on the earth. The sky is not the limit. Humanity has not reached it full potential. How can I make these statements? I am informed. There is a revolution coming, it may be bloody, but more ...
2. Colvin Vicki. “Responsible Nanotechnology: Looking Beyond the Good News.” online posting. 2002. 10 Feb. 2005 . 3. Kilner, John F., C.
Christopher Cook, Diann B. Uustal, eds. Cutting Edge Bioethics: A Christian Exploration of Technologies and Trends. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdman Publishing Company. 2002. 4.
Kilner, John F., Rebecca D. Pentz, Frank E. Young, eds. Genetic Ethics. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdman Publishing Company. 1997.
5. Mnyusiwalla, Anisa, Abdallah S Daar, Peter A Singer. “Nanotechnology” Mind the gap: science and ethics in Nanotechnology. 14.3 (March 2003): R9-R13. 6. The Ethics of Nanotechnology.
1999-2005. 7thWave, Inc.10 Feb. 2005 ..
