Promising
the World, or Costing the Earth?
Nanotechnology has the power to affect every aspect of life on
the planet. Here, the Ecologist presents the many claims of its promoters
and outlines some of the major developments taking place now or in the
near future. In response, some of it’s leading critics analyse the risks
that nanotechnology poses in their various fields of expertise.
Date:01/05/2003 Author:The Ecologist
PROMISE
‘The importance of nanotechnology to the future of mankind cannot be
overstated. Nanotech’s promise is clean industries, cures for disease,
nearly unlimited energy supplies, a continuance of Moore’s Law and perhaps
the end of hunger.’ -Mark Modzelewski, Executive Director of Nanobusiness
Alliance.
RISK
‘Nanotech accelerates a technofix trend that looks to technology as
the solution to the world’s most pressing problems, overriding issues
of safety, security and equity. Potential productivity gains through
genetic engineering are touted as the answer to hunger, though distribution
and access rather than production is the problem. ICTs (Information
and Communication Technologies) are being promoted as the means to bridge
the information divide, when resources and opportunities to use that
information are absent. Now, nanotechnologies will similarly offer governments
even broader opportunities to avoid enacting necessary social, political
and economic change. Nanotech threatens even further to divert funds,
knowledge and political will away from the research necessary to address
society’s problems in a systemic manner and from policies and practices
that will tackle the root causes of hunger, the misery of most human
livelihoods and the degradation of the environment.’
-Patrick
Mulvany, Senior Policy Adviser, Intermediate Technology Development
Group.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
FOOD & AGRICULTURE
NANO-FOOD
DEVELOPMENTS
In 2000,
Kraft Foods, the $34 billion food and beverage giant launched the NanoteK
consortium, focussing on:
• novel
products tailored to each consumer’s taste buds. For example, latent
nanoparticles inside a clear, tasteless drink could be activated with
a domestic microwave to produce whatever taste the consumer desires;
• personal
food products that recognise an individual’s nutritional or health profile
(allergies or nutritional deficiencies);
• packaging
to detect and alter a consumer’s vitamin deficiencies.
Meanwhile
Rutgers University is developing:
• ‘nutraceutical’
foods that use proteins to deliver drugs to targeted areas of the body;
• food
packaging that changes colour and alerts the consumer when the food
inside starts to spoil.
NANO-AGRICULTURE
DEVELOPMENTS
• Nano-sensors
will be sprinkled on crops or soil to monitor temperature, water, salinity,
nitrogen and disease;
• Nanoparticles
will be used as chemical delivery systems for pesticides and as alternatives
to existing agricultural chemicals. Clemson University in South Carolina
is developing bioactive nanoparticles that bind with bacteria in industrially
farmed poultry meat, aiming to reduce their ability to infect humans.
WHAT
ARE THE RISKS?
All of these developments ignore the systemic problems with the way
we treat food and farming. No attempt is made to address consumption
patterns or animal welfare issues – improved efficiency and profitability
are the only aims. The parallels with GM foods should also trigger alarms.
What, for example, will happen when materials never before found in
nature enter the food supply and the environment?
‘The US
already has fewer farmers than prisoners. With their farming knowledge
replaced by sensors what farmers are left will be little more than prisoners,
farming according to the dictats of computer models and agribusinness
corporations.’
Jim Thomas,
European Programme Co-ordinator, ETC Group
Nanotechnology
will increase the corporate control over agriculture with molecular
breeding combined with nanosensors to control inputs like irrigation,
fertilisers and pesticides making the farmer irrelevant to farming.
Synthesising molecular alternatives to natural products will displace
millions from primary production and rob the Third World of economic
options. It will accelerate the existing trends of patent monopolies
over life -- making a handful of corporations ‘life-lords’. Most importantly,
nanotechnlogies and the molecular vision of life will undermine more
holistic systems for food and health.’
Vandana
Shiva, Director, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology,
India.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
& MEDICINE
DEVELOPMENTS
Faster
drug delivery
Researchers at MIT have affixed gold nanoparticles to strands of DNA.
When the gold-plated DNA is exposed to a magnetic field, the strands
break apart. When the magnetic field is removed, the strands re-form.
The researchers have effectively developed a switch that will allow
them to turn genes on and off. The goal is to speed up drug development,
allowing pharmaceutical researchers to simulate the effects of a certain
drug that also turns genes on or off. The lab has recently licensed
the technology to a biotech startup, engeneOS, which intends to ‘evolve
detection and measurement in vitro into monitoring and manipulation
at the molecular scale in cells and in vivo.’ In other words, to stop
testing in test tubes and start working in living bodies.
Artificial
Cell Creation
Robert
Freitas is developing an artificial red blood cell able to deliver 236
times more oxygen to tissues than natural red blood cells. The artificial
cell, called a ‘respirocyte’, measures one micron across and has a nanocomputer
on board, which can be reprogrammed remotely. Freitas predicts his device
will be used to treat anaemia and lung disorders, but also will enhance
human performance in sport and warfare. Among the risks, Freitas lists
overheating, explosion and ‘loss of physical integrity’.
Faster,
more accurate diagnosis
A Stanford
University chemist is developing a glucose sensor using a single carbon
nanotube, to be implanted into diabetic patients.
More efficient
drug delivery methods
• Researchers
at Florida University have created a nanocapsule gel to deliver drugs
into the eyes through soft contact lenses.
• Powderject
has developed systems that deliver nanoparticle drugs through the skin
at high velocity while SkyePharma is already bringing inhalable nanopharmaceuticals
to the market.
• L’Oreal
has pioneered similar techniques in cosmetics. Since 1995 its products
have incorporated nanocapsules containing vitamin E which is delivered
deep into the wearer’s skin
Improved
imaging
Cambridge
University researchers are designing nanoparticles that bind to cancer
cells. When a laser shines through the affected organ it picks up the
nanoparticles creating a clear image of the cancer.
RISKS
The vast
cost of undertaking nanotech research will necessitate most of the effort
going into profitable medicines – ie medicines for the lifestyle conditions
of the rich over the life threatening illnesses afflicting much of the
world’s poor. As with food, nanotechnology seeks the answers to life’s
problems in technofixes rather than addressing the root causes in society
itself.
‘Ultrafine
particles (UFPs) are particles less than 1/10,000th mm in size. During
our evolution, there were few UFPs of any relevance to health in our
environment, mainly harmless soluble salts windblown from the sea. Now
we are subjected to large quantities of UFPs from various combustion
sources, and in addition, the nanotechnology industry is starting bulk
production of UFPs for a wide range of applications, from drug delivery
to sunscreen creams.
When materials
that are normally harmless are converted into ultrafine particles, they
tend to become toxic. The smaller the particles, the more reactive and
toxic they generally become. This is unsurprising, because that is exactly
how catalysts are made, to enhance industrial chemical reactions.
UFPs can
get past the lung’s defences into the spaces where gas exchange between
the air and the blood takes place. The scavenger cells that mop up particles
have difficulty in recognising UFPs as being ‘foreign’ and anyway they
can be overwhelmed by too many particles.
There is
evidence that UFPs can also gain entry to the body by ingestion and
through the skin. In addition, there appears to be a natural ‘passageway’
for nanoparticles to get into and then subsequently around the body,
through the ‘caveolar’ openings in the natural membranes which separate
body compartments. These minute openings are thought to be involved
in the transport of ‘macromolecules’ such as proteins, including, on
occasion, viruses.
They also
happen to be about the right size for transporting UFPs. The pharmaceutical
industry is exploiting this effect, to improve drug delivery to target
organs, particularly the brain, which is protected by the very restrictive
‘blood brain barrier’.
Chemists
can apparently design UFPs that can hoodwink certain body membranes
into allowing ‘piggybacking’ of novel chemicals on UFPs across these
membranes. However, this means that when environmental UFPs (such as
from traffic pollution) gain unintentional entry to the body, this same
mechanism can deliver them to vital organs. The body is then ‘wide open’
to any toxic effects that they can exert.’
Professor
Vyvyan Howard, department of human and cell biology, University of Liverpool
NANOTECHNOLOGY
and the environment
NANO-VISION
‘Nanotechnologies
have the potential to produce plentiful consumer goods with much lower
throughput of materials and much less production of waste, thus reducing
carbon dioxide build up and reducing global warming. They also have
the potential to reduce waste, converting it to natural materials which
do not threaten life.’
Lester
Milbrath, Research Programme in Science and society, State University
of New York.
Developments
NanoSensors
– Nanomix Inc is engineering nanotube-based sensors to detect gas leakages
in chemical plants and refineries. They claim each sensor will cost
10 times less than conventional gas detectors and operate for a year
on watch batteries.
Renewable
Energy – In Japan photo-reactive nanocrystals are being developed for
more efficient solar cell production. Researchers from the US Department
of Energy have succeeded in embedding photovoltaic nanorods in plastic,
creating moldable solar plastic cells. In time, developers hope to produce
thin film ‘solar wallpaper’ or nanosolar paint that can be invisibly
sprayed or applied to any surface transforming roads or building exteriors
into vast energy generators. Researchers at Clemson University are embeding
carbon nanotubes in plastics to produce 'Piezzoelectric' materials that
generate electricity when flexed – such materials could be woven into
sails to produce electricity as they flap in the wind. NEC is developing
fuel cells based on carbon 'nanohorns' (like nanotubes) for incorporation
into laptops and fuel cells from the start of 2004.
Rice University
is developing methods that use the reactivity of nanoparticles to clean
contaminants, especially biological contaminants from water. A number
of small companies including Nanoscale already have products that promise
to filter or destroy anthrax. Envirosystems sells a nanoemulsion called
Ecotru – marketed as an environmentally friendly disinfectant.
Molecular
recycling and biomimicry – By mimicking natural processes developers
hope to produce synthetic materials that break down more easily in nature.
Nano-visionaries such as Eric Drexler foresee a day when molecular nanobots
will disassemble toxic waste and dispose of it safely or use its components
to build new products.
Averting
catastrophe – Technologist Douglas Mulhall argues that the real environmental
threat in a nano-world will no longer come from human activity but from
natural disasters such as earthquakes, asteroids and tsunamis. He argues
that environmentalists should campaign now for new nanotechnologies
to eradicate these natural events – for example nanobots to detect and
dissolve asteroids or artificial ocean reefs to prevent tidal waves
hitting America.
RISKS
Given the
similar claims made for technologies such as nuclear power, synthetic
plastics and GMOs, environmentalists are understandably wary when promised
'nano-electricity too cheap to meter' or 'better living through nano-chemistry'.
There are three main areas of concern.
Toxicity
‘At the
nanoscale the properties of matter become different because of quantum
effects, so they display new effects, perhaps becoming more chemically
reactive. In part, these new properties are why companies are so interested
and have or will soon use nanoparticles in sunscreens, cosmetics, coatings,
explosives, batteries, antimicrobial bandages etc. But if they're different,
why would we expect their environmental and toxic impacts to be the
same as the 'safe' bulk product? Well you wouldn't. Is there any environmental
and toxicological data on effects? Basically no. And there's no regulation
that says you need to look. Just like with BSE, "no evidence of
risk" is being taken to mean "evidence of no risk". We
don't know for sure whether nanoparticles are dangerous or not. But
we should find out before huge amounts of them are out in the environment.'
Doug Parr,
Chief Scientific Advisor, Greenpeace UK
Nanobiosafety
Nanobiotech
researchers are redesigning DNA, viruses, bacteria and even prions to
grow nanowires, construct molecular mechanisms or develop medical implants
and sensors but, as we know from escaped genes and superviruses, life,
especially at the molecular level, has the ability to evolve in unpredictable
ways affecting human and natural populations. Supposedly precise genetic
engineering is usually accompanied by unpredictable secondary effects
and short strands of synthetic DNA intended merely as scaffolding in
nanomachinery could theoretically become incorporated into viruses and
living organisms.
Grey
Goo and Green Goo
The most
persistent environmental fear expressed concerning nanotechnology was
popularised by Bill Joy, founder of Sun Microsystems. Technically it
is known as 'Global ecophagy by omnivorous replicators' but is usually
characterized as ‘the grey goo problem’. In this scenario out of control
self-replicating nanobots could spread like blowing pollen, replicate
swiftly, and reduce global ecosystems to dust or 'goo' in a matter of
days. Like viruses, dangerous nanobots could easily be too tough, small,
and rapidly spreading to stop. While many in the nanotech establishment
dismiss molecular nanobots as science fiction many of the recent breakthroughs
in nanobiotech point to the emergence of hybrid biomechanical nanomachines
that will use biology rather than mechanics to self reproduce. In fact
the larger problem may turn out to be 'green goo' rather than 'grey
goo' as these half natural nanobiomachines slip out of human control.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
and the military
DEVELOPMENTS
In March
2002, the US Army created the five year $50 million Institute for Soldier
Nanotechnologies (ISN) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The ISN is a huge undertaking, staffed by 150 researchers, including
35 MIT faculty members from eight different departments and several
industrial partners to bring the nanotech research closer to a reality.
Chemical giant DuPont brings years of experience in fibres and polymer
materials. Arms manufacturer Raytheon will handle systems integration.
• One of
the primary goals is to enhance the performance of the individual soldier.
Developments include Nano-equipped warriors of the future with the ability
to leap over 20 foot walls, fight with superhuman artificial limbs,
and wear uniforms that make them invisible, invincible and provide automated
first-aid on demand. Already they have developed ‘exomuscles’ as strong
as human muscles capable of being flexed and stiffened on demand.
• Another
immediate goal is reducing soldiers’ weight load from 145 to 45 pounds.
The Institute is currently developing a molecular ‘chain mail’ no heavier
than paper.
RISKS
Every new
war brings the same claims of more focussed weaponry, bringing less
unintended death to civilians. But still the friendly fire and the collateral
damge take their toll on the victims and the Earth. Nanotech will only
serve to make the mighty mightier and ensure that it becomes ever harder
for the rest of the world to challenge that power.
Furthermore,
many of the technologies developed for use by the military will fast
find their way into peace time uses, for example:
‘By facilitating
the minaturisation of remote camera design, nanotechnology will make
it possible to place undetectable video cameras, microphones and transmitters
almost anywhere. The development of portable, microfluidic platforms
allows for small samples (eg tissue) to be analysed quickly and inexpensively.
Use of this technology by employers and insurance companies to discriminate
represents a significant threat to personal freedom.’
Michael
D Mehta, PhD, director of the Sociology of Biotechnology Program through
the College of Biotechnology.
NANOTECHNOLOGY
and humanity
Developments
The US
National Nanotechnology Initiative recently held seminars on ‘Converging
Technologies for Improving Human Performance’. A host of leading politicians,
academics and military, industrial and technological leaders predicted
that nanoscale technologies would one day usher in an era of ‘sightless
who will see... lame who will walk... infertile couples who will be
able to conceive children’.
• Dr Carlo
Montemagno, a leading nanotechnology resesearcher at the University
of California Los Angeles is designing molecular connections that will
allow neurons in the brain to communicate with silicon wires.
• At the
University of Lund in Sweden, nanotechnology researchers are designing
bionic hands that can be directly activated by the brain.
• US Navy
researchers at the University of Wisconsin have designed night vision
devices that interface with nerve cells in the tongue, allowing Navy
Seals to ‘see’ through the tongue in watery environments. Unlike every
other part of the body, the tongue has no dead layers of skin, the saliva
conducts electricity well, and only requires 3 per cent of the voltage
of normal skin. The device transmits information to the tongue via 100
different microscopic metal points.
• Those
on the wilder edges of the nanotech community, including ‘transhumanists’
such as Eric Drexler of The Foresight Institute, Ray Kurzweil of MIT
or Ralph Merkle of Zyvex, argue that nanotechnology will usher in ‘radical
life extension’, bringing the dead out of cryogenic stupor or improving
what they see as our woefully inadequate bodies.
RISKS
‘The National
Nanotechnology Initiative approach seems to treat ‘disabilities’ as
a medical/technological problem – a subnormal deviation to be eradicated
and improved upon. It does not see disabled people's 'set of abilities'
as a legitimate variation intrinsic to humankind. Nor does it value
disabled people as valid human beings in their own right to be recognised
and supported by society.
This approach
narrows human diversity in general. As we create a technological rat
race of escalating abilities what is 'normal' will shift towards a 'bionic
norm' that all people will be expected to adhere to. Three recent USA
incidents seem to support this conclusion. In 1998 the US Supreme Court
set a dangerous precedent by ruling in two separate instances that a
disabled person can't be seen as a disabled person with human rights
protection under laws such as the American with Disability Act if a
techno/medical fix is available. Furthermore, in 2002, a deaf mother
who did not want to give her deaf child irreversible cochlear implants
because she saw deafness as a culture and not as a defect had her child
removed from her by child welfare.’
Gregor
Wohlbring, Executive Director, International Centre for Bioethics, Culture
& Disability
‘Even a
safe and benignly governed nanotechnology, if developed in the ways
its proponents hope for, would overwhelm the scale of human life. If
growing and making really are replaced by pushing the buttons on the
side of a universal assembler, then there will be no need for us (a
fact acknowledged by those techno-utopians who predict a “fast-forwarding
of evolution” to a “post-human” world.) On such a planet, the spiritual
and ethical and moral ideas that have grown up in the course of human
development would be drained of meaning too.’
Bill McKibben,
author Enough – genetic engineering and the end of human nature
Sir David King
Sir David King has been Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Government
since 2000. In 2002 he changed the world when he declared ‘climate change
is a greater threat to civilisation than terrorism’. At a stroke, the
threat of climate change started to be taken seriously by all but President
George Bush. Latterly he played a substantive role in the writing of
the Stern Review on The Economic Impact of Climate Change, which has
debunked the economic argument against taking action, to avert what
Sir David now describes as potential climate catastrophe. So Sir David
is a man who undoubtedly takes climate change seriously and is keeping
it high on the political agenda, at home and abroad. But on the face
of it there are inherent contradictions in Sir David’s role. How does
fact-based science and politics mix, and how does wealth creation and
science mix? These potential conflicts were highlighted late last year
when the government gave the go-ahead for trials of genetically modified
potato crops in the UK. Had the science, wealth creation possibilities
or politics – or a combination of the three – led to the decision that
flies in the face of public opposition? Similarly, aiming for a 60 per
cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions when a great many climate scientists
are saying an 85 per cent cut is required to avoid genocide in Africa
smacks of political pragmatism, too, rather than science. We had 30
minutes to discuss these issues when we met at Sir David’s office within
the Department of Trade and Industry in December, 2006.
Date:01/02/2007 Author:Jon Hughes
http://www.theecologist.org/archive_detail.asp?content_id=761
JON HUGHES Among the public, your name is synonymous with climate
change. But your role as the government’s Chief Scientific Adviser is
wider than that. Can you explain what your main areas of responsibility
are?
SIR
DAVID KING Yes, in brief, I cover everything where the knowledge
base comes into government-made decisions. So I advise the PM [Tony
Blair] on everything from pandemic flu to foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks,
to advice on what can be drawn from the science base. I suppose the
most important activities I have introduced are foresight activities:
where we are looking out to the end of the century for what are the
risks on the horizon, what are the opportunities on the horizon and
then advising the government on that; on what new processes to pursue
and topics to explore, which we run for two/three years, drawing on
the full science base. In the UK, an excellent example of that is flood
and coastal defence management where the programme took two-and-a-half
years to complete. Before our programme, the Government was spending
£200 million per year, now it’s spending £500 million a
year. What that demonstrates is that as we move through this century,
we will have to spend more to defend our environment against the effects
of climate change. In the best-case scenario, we have agreed to keep
emissions low, in the worst-case scenario, it is let rip… business as
usual.
JH The thing that interests me about your role is that when you
appeared before the select committee in May 2006, you said that wealth
creation was one of your chief roles. How does that work? How, as the
government Chief Scientific Adviser, do you marry the two? Do you look
at the science and then go that science is valid in terms of science
but it is not valid in terms of wealth creation or…?
DK
Not at all. I think you’re looking for a dichotomy which doesn’t exist
at all. I have to say that is completely misleading. What I will do
is, on the one hand, look at the opportunities for wealth creation arising
from our very strong science base. Let me just give you one example…
This looks like a mobile phone, right? Look at the potential of a device
like this to be used in the context of disease. If you place a DNA chip
on the end of this phone (the rest of the technology stays the same),
it becomes a mobile disease monitor. I’ve then got this out in the field;
whether it’s a foot-and-mouth epidemic or whether it’s a flu pandemic,
I can go around and put this in people’s mouths and within two minutes
I’ve identified whether or not they have a disease.
I can pre-programme
it to 16 diseases. I can then ping it through a satellite system to
the WHO (World Health Organization). On maps there, they begin to see
a new epidemic horizon somewhere in the world.
So you
get movement to that point, to quench the outburst. That’s a device
of the kind I’m talking about, where it’s wealth creation…you could
sell millions of these around the world. When we ran a computer program
to assist me with running the foot-and-mouth epidemic, that was on my
wish list – there was no such device. You put this into the computer
program and instead of costing the country £7 billion, with this
device, it will cost £50 million. So when I say wealth creation
– wealth creation from creating a new technological device and managing
risks at the same time, there is no conflict. However, if you look at
other wealth-creating opportunities, not all of them have the potential
of managing risks as this does.
So when
we talk about wealth creation opportunities, we would not always be
sure that they are opportunities for managing risk but we would always
make sure that these wealth-creating opportunities were opportunities
in the real sense of the word, where the welfare of the human population
is at stake.
We also
must deal with what I think underlies your slightly hostile question,
which is, if we are going to manage the impacts of climate change over
the next 30 to 40 years – which are in the pipeline whatever we do on
carbon dioxide emissions – we are going to need the wealth that we generate
to manage that process.
The Thames
Barrier doesn’t come free of charge. If we are going to work in the
African continent, as we are – because we are now spending roughly £1.2
billion per year in the African continent; that’s a massive increase
– we can only do that because we have generated the wealth. We are using
our science and technology to ensure that we can continue to do that.
JH
The reason behind that question is that if you’re in control of around
£3 billion a year to invest on certain research and development…
DK
May I just rephrase that. £3.4 billion per year comes into this
office. And the only control this office has is in the proportion that
goes into the arts and humanities, engineering and so forth. But there
is certainly no engagement with the process by which those monies are
then submitted out to awardees. There is another budget, which is around
£2.5 billion per year, which I certainly oversee, which goes into
government to manage the knowledge-based system – research and development
across government departments. That has to be fit for purpose; that
is, where a government department is preparing itself for all sorts
of eventualities. So, for example, if we have a foot-and-mouth outbreak,
we have to have the laboratories to run the tests.
JH
I understand. If we can move on. The latest science-based decision involved
GM potatoes, allowing trials to go ahead, and you are on the record
as being in support of GM technology, seeing it as a potential wealth
creator…
DK
Just so that I can put that into my own words. What I did was create
a GM science group, which I chaired. We met for a year. All of our meetings
were in the open; a number of people attended those meetings; I think
we met for about 100 hours; we had a full range of scientists drawn
from the community of science on there. In addition we had scientists
from NGOs [non-governmental organisations]. The production of that report
determined government policy towards GM and I’m saying all of this because
we had full buy-in from all the members of that committee.
If you
read that report, I think you will see that what we are saying is, GM
is a new technology, along with a whole range of technologies that have
been devised by mankind to develop new kinds of products.
Those technologies
are responsible for the green revolution that has occurred in developing
countries and that has brought down mortality rates by a massive amount.
In India, for example, the Green Revolution improved with the use of
GM technology – you will see that. The point we make is that because
this is a new technology, because this is a new process, we have to
see that the regulatory process is up to the new technology. So any
product stemming from that new technology has to be very carefully tested.
So we don’t just reject technology: as always, we examine the product.
So I don’t accept or reject a green light for all GM – absolutely not.
What I am saying is we need proper regulatory process to then look at
the process of regulation. So, if we find, as with the case of GM potatoes,
that all of the tests are satisfied, then we continue.
That’s
a bit difficult for someone to take, who’s got a black-and-white attitude
towards a particular technology. But then, I am always answering the
questions! What’s your opinion on radiation technology in the development
of new crops?
JH
You’re asking me? I haven’t got long enough with you to go down that
road.
DK
The point I’m making is, why did you pick on GM?
JH
This is a contemporaneous issue…
DK
So is radiation technology…
JH I think
the public at this time are more aware of GM technology than radiation
technologies… We will include that in the piece, that more people need
to be more aware of radiation technology. But we need to move on.
Referring
to GM, I’d like to briefly look at the precautionary principle. We can
agree on the definition, that ‘when there is reasonable suspicion of
harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to
postpone preventative action.’ Now you don’t like the word ‘principle’:
you told the select committee it will cause inertia in scientific research
and development. My understanding of science is that the ultimate aim
for a scientist is to prove the unknown part of a problem. There are
so many unknowns with GM, that if, say, you’ve got terminator technology,
it could escape, it will have impacts on biodiversity…
DK
Read our review. Certainly all of the NGO representatives on my panel
were satisfied.
JH
In terms of the precautionary principle, you don’t like the word ‘principle’,
preferring ‘approach’. Can you explain more about why?
DK
A precautionary approach is an approach where if you’re going to cross
the road, you look both ways and then look again in the first direction
and then cross the road, looking all the time. That’s what we teach
children in the message to cross the road. Now, what is the principle
that underlies that? I’m a scientist, I can keep the word ‘principle’
for scientific facts that I know hold a scientific equation. f="ma"
[a formula combining Newton’s second and third laws of motion: Force
equals mass x acceleration] operates for all particles. Now what is
different about the precautionary ‘approach’ to crossing the road and
the precautionary ‘principle’ that you should use when crossing the
road? I don’t understand it.
The precautionary
approach simply means, of course, my function in advising government
is to manage risk; you can never manage risk to zero on everything –
absolutely not.
JH
Just one last question on GM. If you have assessed the risk 10 to 15
to 20 years down the line, have you assessed the opportunity cost of
not doing it? It might be more beneficial not to introduce such crops
into the UK.
DK
Of course, that is part of the risk analysis.
JH
Within the risk analysis, do you consider keeping the UK GM-free and
look at whether the opportunity cost along the line will be far more
beneficial to do so? Would that be part of the equation?
DK
What do you mean by GM-free?
JH
Free from genetically modified crops.
DK
But every crop has been genetically modified since 5,000 years ago.
We genetically modify crops by breeding.
JH
That is a far different thing.
DK
It’s not far different from a lot of techniques that have been used
over the past 200 years. You’re focusing on one technique; I’m saying,
look at the products – and that’s what we’re doing; we’re looking at
the products and we’re saying, ‘actually, there is nothing in this product
that is…’ You’re asking about the unknown. So, for example, the worry
would be that you’ve got a product that is going to generate a protein
that is going to poison some proportion of the population; so what we
do is scan for all of the proteins that are produced. And that’s part
of the regulatory system.
JH
The point I’m making is…
DK What
we need to be careful of is that we don’t just use a blanket curve that
becomes meaningless. And frankly, when you just say ‘release of GM commercial
crops’, it is so meaningless – we have been modifying crops for such
a long time. What I’m saying is, the technological method for releasing
the product is important in the sense that I have to make sure that
regulation keeps up with it.
JH In terms of GM and nanotechnology, how can you regulate nanotechnology?
DK
How have we ever regulated technology? Since the Egyptians started making
face powder, that’s nanotechnology. There is nothing new about nanoparticles
except that scientists have learnt how to quantify them. We’re now in
a good position with nanoparticles because we can examine them in fine
detail. When the Egyptians ground powder to put on their faces, that
was nano-technology. Every time you breathe in, how many nanoparticles
do you breathe in? They’re in the air. So again, what are we creating
this fear about when you say nanoparticles? They’re nothing new.
JH
I’m not talking about everything. Pollution in the atmosphere…
DK In London,
we used to have smog generated by the nanoparticles of carbon, produced
by coal fires, that caused precipitation of water, and that creates
smog. So we stopped the burning of coal and, bingo, that stopped smog.
So we have in the past learnt how to regulate nanoparticles. Those nanoparticles
were also very bad for human beings.
Silicosis
in mines is an impact of nanoparticles: they cause massive problems
for people, inhaling small particles is a massive problem. We know that.
Cigarettes – for God’s sake, don’t smoke cigarettes – because you’re
inhaling nanoparticles.
JH
But in terms of nanotechnology, the talk is of using ‘living organisms’
in electrical circuits in the home. Now we can’t possibly know the outcome
and impact of that.
DK
Why not?
JH
If we look back to 40 years ago, if industry had chosen bromide compounds
rather than CFCs, we would have been in real trouble…
DK
But what if we go back to the point where vaccines were developed and
we had listened to the people who say or were saying ‘don’t try those
things, they might kill the population’. We have managed to eliminate
a whole range of diseases using vaccines. But if you look back at that
period, you see that every NGO objected.
JH
But some people would say that while vaccines have eliminated some diseases,
as a result you have created others…
DK
Get real. Come on. Are you actually going to argue that people today
are suffering from diseases in the way that they were before vaccines
were developed? Because that is a nonsense, an absolute nonsense. We
are still vaccinating our entire population. We have managed in Africa
to roll out vaccinations against polio and we have virtually eliminated
polio around the world. Don’t tell me that that is …
JH
I can’t go there; we only have a few minutes left. Now, the Stern Review…
we can agree on Sir Nicholas’s figures?
DK
Yes, I supplied the science.
JH
I’m presuming that climate change is such an important issue, that I
would be right in saying that every piece of work governed by your department
is now measured against what is required by climate change?
DK
I think that it is the biggest problem facing us in the 21st century.
It is the biggest challenge our civilisation has ever had to face up
to.
JH
In 2002, you said climate change posed a bigger threat than terrorism
and it would require something in the region of a 60 per cent cut in
emissions…
DK In 2003,
the British government published a white paper that said we would reduce
our C02 emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. What is important about that
is that we were the first government to make a unilateral declaration.
We have got bogged down in negotiations with countries around the world,
including the US. In order to break that deadlock, we decided as a government
to simply unilaterally do what we thought was necessary to be done.
The government will demonstrate in the White Paper next year how we
are going to achieve a 60 per cent reduction by 2050. However, if by,
say, 2020, we have international agreement on action and the action
requires a further cut in carbon dioxide emissions and all countries
are agreed on that, we will be in a position to do that.
JH
Based on all the science which was included in the Stern report, the
science in the IPPR report (Meeting The Climate Challenge; recommendations
of the International Climate ChangeTaskforce)…
DK
Based on the science that I promulgated and pressed for. For example,
the science of the Exeter meeting which was driven by myself. More familiar
with it than I suspect you are. So what is the question?
JH
The critical question seems to me that a lot of scientists think that
it requires an 80 to 85 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions and
you need to start working on it now; and as a scientist studying the
same data…
DK
Please don’t come to me and tell me I am a scientist. I am the scientist
who will give you, if you like, a lecture on climate change and I will
tell you what the outcomes will be, and I will tell George Monbiot as
well, who doesn’t understand half of it. But let me just say this… Supposing
I said to you, as I have said in an article in The Guardian, it would
be much fairer if we had stopped at 300 ppm. 383ppm – which is where
we are today – is going to give rise to, and will continue to give rise
to, dangerous climate change impacts around the world. That’s where
we are today. So when someone says to me today, ‘Shouldn’t we be reducing
by 80 per cent?’, I have many, many questions to ask about that. Who
do you mean by ‘we’? Do you mean the entire world, including Africa;
or do you just mean the developed world; or do you just mean Britain?
Britain produces two per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide. What do
you mean by that? Why are you pointing the finger at me?
I consider
it to be an unnecessary question because Britain is leading the way
internationally as a result of the moves I pressed for back in 2002.
We are leading the way. If we can get the international agreement of
all the leading countries to reduce emissions by 60 per cent by 2050,
we will have made a substantial step forward. If we then find, as we
did with CFCs, that we have to ratchet the process up and head towards
an 80 per cent reduction, then, believe me, the British government is
going to be in the vanguard. There is little point in discussing 60
per cent versus 80 per cent until we have at least international agreement
on the first step.
JH
What I’m…
DK
You and Monbiot…
JH
…trying to figure is, if the scientific community is saying…
DK
What you and Monbiot are asking…
JH
Really, I’m not playing Monbiot’s tune…
DK
Let me just tell you this. You are chasing a question that is non-scientific.
What I’m saying is, I’d rather we weren’t here today. I’d rather we
hadn’t used so much fossil fuels that we had already created dangerous
climate change. I’d rather we weren’t.
Now, in
the practical world, we are advising governments on action, we are reducing
our emissions by more than any country in the world. Now we need to
take our partners and the rest of the world with us. That’s where the
priority is. And I wish I could get the support of The Ecologist on
that.
JH You
will get the support of The Ecologist and we are aware that you are
the man who changed the world. The confusion arises when the government
and you say climate change requires we cut GHG emissions by 60 to 65
per cent, but a substantial body of scientists is saying it has got
to be 80 to 85 per cent, or it is genocide in Africa and we’re risking
very realproblems. The question is, which is it?
What does
the science say the cut should be?
DK
I’m sorry, the climate change scientists are not saying it’s got to
be 85 per cent or there’s going to be this. Can I just explain the misunderstanding
around the figures?
[Sir David
is passed a note]
DK
I’m sorry, I have to go. But first, this is a critically important point.
The community that says we have to reduce by 85 per cent – and you’re
saying that isn’t Monbiot, funny that – the scientific community are
saying what should we avoid happening that is going to be catastrophic;
I’m not going to say dangerous. Sea levels are rising, climates are
getting warmer. What is going to be catastrophic that we should use
as a symbol of what shouldn’t happen and they’re all zeroing in on Greenland.
If we lose all the ice in Greenland, sea level goes up 6.5 metres, 80
per cent of our natural habitat will go underwater, there is something
to avoid. What is the point, in terms of carbon dioxide, at which we
irreversibly start losing Greenland ice? If you can tell me that, that’s
more than any other scientist in the world can. There’s no scientist
who is saying they know what the level is. We’re all trying to look
at it in terms of probability distribution. So that we know, at 450ppm
in the atmosphere of total greenhouse gas, it’s quite possible that
we will be past the point of melting Greenland ice. But it’s quite possible
that we will have saved Greenland this year…
JH
Are we not past it now? Figures have been passed to me that say the
rate of melt this year is going to be revealed to be a tenfold increase
on what was expected.
DK Well,
I can tell you what the rate of Greenland melt is, from the latest 10-year
satellite data. The melt rate is between 100 and 240 cubic kilometres
of ice.
JH Which
is far greater than it has been.
DK The
previous expectation was 80. So not 10 times, let us be precise! It
is melting faster than we anticipated.
JH Is it
tipping?
DK We don’t know. That’s the problem. The scientists are working
hard. There are at least 3,000 scientists working on the problem of
climate change and to suggest there is a consensus opinion of 80 per
cent reduction is simply untrue.
JH
One last question. El Niño is here, yes? We see El Niño
brewing here in 2052, don’t we (see box), and the heating up of the
ocean by 6-7° C. But this is what I unerstand the Americans have
measured now. Basically, what I am asking is, are we further down this
road than we previously thought?
DK
Once again, you have to look at the probability curve distribution and
unfortunately they are quite broad. In other words, the best state of
the science, which is what I fed into the Stern report, is to produce
a probability distribution curve. We can’t say anything more than this
is the most probable with all of the information that we have. But the
breadth of that information, the uncertainty is quite wide.
[At which
point, Sir David put on his jacket, shook hands and left for his next
appointment.]
