The support of the WCC for democratic governance of science does not mean some odd majority takes all vote and Christians would be excluded, but rather than the world council thinks that democratic reasoning together is a better way to regulate science than letting scientists with an economic interest in their work regulate themselves.

Finally, I don’t think the Council means to call for a moratorium on all nanotech research, but rather that research intended to commercialize nano products before safety is established.

One reason to post the more strongly-worded comments is that we all need to know that there are people who apparently feel very strongly on this issue. I had no idea that WCC was so controversial in some circles, and I bet many Nanodot readers also did not know this.

I would be interested in hearing your response to the original post. —Christine

I was at the World Council of Churches’ meeting in February 2007 that approved this document. I can not imagine that you would allow to be posted language about other groups that essentially amounts to hate speech. I find it cowardly that the respondents do not post their names. I have represented the United Methodist Church on several World Council of Churches taskforces. The level of ethical and religious reflection has been quite high. The council takes seriously the views of its many different faith groups ranging from Orthodox churches to Quaker groups. I don’t believe that Communist groups start and end every meeting with prayer and work hard to debate the theological and ethical implications of their policy. The council has sent representatives to the various meetings of the United Nations since the UN’s inception, so it is not surprising that the Council would support UN regulation of nanotechnologies.

Jaydee Hanson, Director for Human Genetics and Nanotechnology Policy, International Center for Technology Assessment

I’ve been reading this feed for a few months now. This article is the first I’ve seen to garner such heated responses from readers. I would almost venture to label a few of those responses as flame-bait.

Personally, I enjoy reading the opinions of others. I understand you have no control over the news that happens in the “nanosphere.” However, I’m curious if other similar articles have elicited had similar responses. If so, would you agree that we’re straying away from discussion of the ethical merits of nanotechnology? Certainly things can be said about the UN or WCC, but on the Foresight forums those comments hardly seem relevant.

If you refer back to the discussion about a Nano hazard label, that discussion was both relevant and informative. I think that’s where we should focus our energies, rather than turning this into a politically polarized you-tube blog (maybe that was flame-bait too?) I enjoy these discussions and would hate to see them lose direction because of a few politically driven comments.

What do you think?

Be very wary of groups trying to peddle the notion that there must be broadbased debate and democratic action before the development and deployment of this- that- or the other. TYpically, these groups want anything but, and directly and willfully bend the terms out of their historical and legal context. Democracy generally means majority rule, but if you scratch the surface on these groups, you’ll find that the details are usually calling for effective unanimity– the idea is that the debate has to end before we do things, and the debate is never ended as long as someone, somewhere, is vocally objecting. These objections can be maintained indefinitely.

This is becoming a standard tactic for many political groups on both the right (stem cells) and the left (genetic modifications to food.)

I see nothing wrong with citizens of a country wanting democratic input on TAXPAYER funded research in universaries which is what they are discussing.

But maybe we should wait until after gray goo self replicates the entire planet and then we can debate it from inside their nano “stomaches”?

Bleh… a pox on you!