One RAC URL (as of Feb. 15, 2001) is:
http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/aboutrdagt. htm
another is
http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/guidelines .ht ml

If for any reason it "disappears" go to your favorite search engine and type "Recombinant DNA Advisory Committe" or "Recombinant DNA and Gene Transfer" (preferably in quotes to get the search engines to treat them as linked keywords).

What generalizations are those? I was speaking of a particular case: what I know. It may be that there are cases where preemptive force has saved lives, saved money, or otherwise improved a situation. My statement, however, was that I didn't know of any such cases.

Here's why I said it that way: whenever I've looked into the circumstances surrounding any particular act of intervention by government, in a case where such intervention could not have been duplicated voluntarily, and where it unarguably improved the situation, it has always turned out that the situation was, in part, caused by government interference in the market. There is never just one cause, so it is usually difficult to sort out the effects of particular causes. It may be that there are cases where government intervention (e.g., preemptive force) was the best way to handle the situation, but given that of all the examples I've researched, not one has turned out that way, my default assumption is now that government never helps any situation.

Sure I can. Go open up a history book and look at the time period post Civil War to the year 1900. Presidents (I don't remember which ones, right now) supported union actions against railroads and steel mills, for sure, and those same unions that they supported also worked on conditions in factories (there was some action against factories, too, but I don't remember, at the moment, by which presidents). I know I sound a bit vague, but I don't have a history book at the moment and the Internet is not the best source of accurate history. In a couple of weeks I could report back with more research and specific example down to the day that would offer proof of this.

I have a subtle blend of both sadism and masochism in my character, so I'll pick up the torch and keep running for a bit…

I agree with Patrick that the phrasing of your statements is indicative of someone in their late teens or early twenties, though with the infantilising effect that most popular culture has had on us for the last few decades, you could be older than me, which would be sad. You may possibly have a difficult relationship with your parents, as you certainly have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to authority figures.

Kadamose, I have no reason to believe that the following theory applies to you, but put it in your percolator and see if it comes out brown…

One of the reasons that adolescents are so angry about authority figures is that they realise that growing up means that Santa Claus doesn't come to visit any more, and that they must fend for themselves in a harsh and hostile world. This leads to feelings of betrayal and anger, as well as a deep-seated desire to find a way to circumvent responsibility. One easy step is to decry all of the effort that previous generations have made to produce a better world for their children by pointing to all the atrocities and mistakes that have been made. This serves as justification to "drop out" and take an ironic stance of noninvolvement, nihilism or just plain pouting.

Nanotechnology is a godsend to just such a viewpoint. It will be a totally transformative technology that will sweep away much that came before it, and its self replicating nature means that most of the entrenched economic structures of today will be rendered impotent. The risk is, some people may believe that it is enough to proclaim loudly that they embrace the coming change, without making an effort to do something constructive to bring it about. It's akin to saying "Ha ha, Mum and Dad can kiss my arse once I win the lottery/make my first big drug score/get pregnant, etc"

Instead of talking about who you can screw with your first universal assembler, which will of course be made freely available to angry antiauthoritarians like you (not!), how about gratefully accepting the good things that have been done on your behalf, learn from the mistakes that previous generations made so that we wouldn't have to, and try to take a more positive role in the wonderful journey that lies ahead.

I'll have to agree with Patrick. You're a fun guy to argue with, and I'll bet you are a hoot at parties, but, as my Grampa Johnson might have said "that boy (girl?) ain't right".

Now, who, do you recall, supported unions. Could it be, oh, the US government? Yes, it was.

Interesting assertion. Can you provide proof for your comments?

Hmmmm… it appears that further discussion is futile. Have a nice one!

Patrick

nanotechnology cannot be and should not be regulated by the government

That would make it a rather special case. Cars are regulated by the government. So are airplanes and boats. Also toys, drugs, foods, chemicals, clothing, houses, nearly all industrial processes and the number of handicapped parking spaces at your local shopping mall. All of this is very offensive to some people, but they haven't been notably effective in electing politicians who would abolish such regulations wholesale.

It cannot be regulated by the government because the benefits are simply too great.

Are none of the above-listed items beneficial?

any country that has any research budget at all will poor the money into nanotechnology

The article we are supposed to be discussing points out that the current US nanotech research budget is about equal to the cost of one failed star wars test.

nanotechnology is small and relatively inexpensive to develop

Nanotech may be about making things that are small, but the research effort needed to realize its potential is not small, neither is the price tag.

Germany were able to trump the nanochemistry done with STMs at Cornell within 12 months. So everyone will have these technologies.

Is Germany "everyone"? Besides, you are talking about one small experimental advance.

I agree that no one country will enjoy a monopoly on any important nanotech capability, at least not for very long. But most countries will not have an independent capability for many years, if ever. It is most reasonable to expect that the list of countries which will develop the technology first, and become potential competitors, will be limited to those which are either highly developed or are large and have a lot of resources, and which already posess a base of high techology on which to build.

RAC… publishes the guidelines that the biotechnology industry has safely operated under for ~25 years. That doesn't mean that there are not accidents from time to time, it does mean that they aren't usually severe and we can clean up and improve the guidelines afterwards. Organizations that receive government funds must follow the guidelines, industry organizations that don't are probably creating a large potential liability for themselves.

This has been accepted as adequate mainly due to the widely-held view that biotech R&D does not pose the risks that were once feared. We don't expect the sort of accidents that can't just be cleaned up. Perhaps that will turn out to be true of most nanoreplicator research as well. On the other hand, public attitudes toward biotech have been growing more negative, and it may be in the industry's interest for safety standards to be more directly regulated.

In the case of nanotech, the issues go beyond the out-of-control replicator cartoon. As the technology matures, it will become extremely dangerous because of the many things it can be used to do. Biotech can't be used to make homemade nuclear bombs (there are laws regarding the production of pathogenic agents) or tiny spy devices. Nanotech will have a much larger impact on our world than biotech has had to date. But it is possible also that biotech will become important enough to mandate stricter regulation than is currently in effect.

biotechnology is a limited subset of nanotechnology…

…very limited; in fact, current biotech is a limited subset of biotech, and it is already raising lots of contentious issues.

…so applying the principles that have worked in that industry seems reasonable.

That argument sounds reasonable, but it ignores an awful lot that is going on now and that is expected to emerge in the future.

problems people fear with nanotechnology can be engineered with biotechnology (e.g. bacteria that consume any and all living material)

That is an interesting conjecture, but it raises the question of why the ecosphere does not contain only a single species feeding on itself. I think the answer is because the conjecture is wrong. But that raises the question of why we would expect nanotech to pose such a danger. I think the answer is that we don't know if it will, but we can imagine that nanotech, because it could be organized in a completely different way using different molecular structures than life, might represent a stronger attractor, in some sense, that would be able to reorganize biomass in a way that living organisms would not be able to digest.

…will drive people who want to develop it underground and eventually off the planet

Some of these people already seem not quite to have their feet planted. As for "underground," I think you are talking here about criminal activity.

we will have to prevent people from traveling to countries that allow nanotechnology research

You mean unregulated research. Yes, that could happen, but I would expect the best labs to be located in the most developed countries, and if a problem developed with some rogue states serving as a haven for mad scientists, there are ways that the issue could be dealt with.

they could re-enter the country carrying blood-borne nano-bombs), … web access to laboratories in those countries (remote design of nanobombs delivered in the mail…)… using Titan to manufacture a nanoarmy

These sound like very cartoonish, unrealistic scenarios.

and finally imprison everyone here on Earth …. sealing the eventual fate of humanity

Is this the only alternative to laissez-faire? I don't think so. We will venture into space as a species, under the authority of governments and under the rule of law, and using a well-regulated technology. Why would you reject such a future?

I would hope that goverments develop prudent policies towards the development of nanotechnology based weapons by rogue states. That would imply that Defense Laboratories might want to work on defensive systems against nanoweapons (heat and radiation work pretty well).

Yes, but what will we do about the development of nanotechnology-based weapons by states such as the US, Russia, China, India, Europe, Japan, Israel…? If we adopt your wild-frontier vision of the future in space, how will we avoid a runaway arms race and the creation of an unstable confrontation between super-arsenals? What about nanotechnology-based weapons that generate heat and radiation? How will we defend against those?

nanotechnology allows (replicating everything in Isreal atom by atom, with both results containing half of the original atoms, enabling you to give it to both the Jews and the Palestinians)

We can do this today. Set up a reservation in Nevada, sculpt the land, build a few monuments. It would cost the US government a lot less than the current $5 billion/yr. price tag of Camp David – Oslo. Now, which group do you propose should move there? If you think about that for a while, you may begin to understand that technology is not the answer to all the problems that currently plague humanity.

Spoken like a true humanitarian. You must be as blind as the 'fools' to be sticking up for the masses, who, in ignorance, refuse to acknowledge that THEY are destroying our world.

To be honest, I used to be like you…always hoping that there was some sort of light and goodness in our society – but there isn't. People would rather be lead by morons like sheep, instead of taking control of their own lives and doing what is best for them. Is this a sign of intelligence? Is this a sign of free will? Is this freedom? No. Therefore, these people aren't really people at all – instead they are nothing more than walking 'rocks' that shit with no thought processes whatsoever.

Kadamose, you have a very naive and presumptive-elitist worldview that leads me to believe you are a very angry adolescent. I hope that when you grow up, you will learn that others besides yourself have inherent worth, dignity and choice. So far you have denied that most people in the US have either worth or dignity, and you favor taking away their choice as well.

You really have no idea what people "deserve" and luckily you have no power to enforce your beliefs or choices on anyone except yourself. You will suffer some serious disillusionment as you grow up. If you don't–if you continue to view the rest of humanity as merely a stinking mass to be disposed of if possible–then you will rightly be labeled a sociopath.

Patrick