| ||
| ||
| ||
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In tech world, is small really beautiful?Scientist ponder risks, benefits of nanotech
LONDON (Reuters) -- Three decades after E. F. "Fritz" Schumacher sparked a revolution with his book "Small Is Beautiful," calling for smaller scale technology to end poverty, scientists are asking whether science has become too small for society's own good. The development of molecular level nanotechnology has replaced the giant development projects of the 1960s but poses the question of whether small is still beautiful, a conference in London grouping opponents and proponents of the new technology heard on Wednesday. Schumacher's seminal 1973 book pleading for technology with a human face caught the imagination of the post-World War Two generation faced with giant development projects like the Aswan High Dam in which people were mere pawns. Concerns over ownershipBut more than one billion people still live in abject poverty and big corporations have almost complete control of scientific research as international agencies and governments simply throw in the towel, the conference heard. "This is the biggest technology wave we have ever seen. There is no aspect that will not be touched by this," said author and activist Pat Mooney. "Every technology wave has a crest and a trough. The rich ride the crest. The poor stay in the trough. It will happen again with the new wave...which is being led by the world's largest corporations...and we are not aware of it," he added. Potential benefitsMooney said the revolutionary new technology would affect all aspects of world trade, perhaps even making traditional sources of raw materials from metals to foods and textiles largely redundant and widening the gulf between rich and poor. But University of Cambridge Professor of Nanotechnology Mark Welland said the possibilities of the ultra-small technology were boundless, with potential for huge benefits as well as serious risks. "We are dealing with a technology at the limits," he said. He compared the scale at which scientists were working now to the size of a fly's eye against the distance between London and Madrid. But Cowan Coventry, head of the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), which was set up to spread Schumacher's gospel, said the evidence to date was that the poor were still being largely ignored by a technology geared to profits. "Today small is more likely to be associated with micro- or nanotechnology than the intermediate technology Schumacher envisaged," he said. "To put it bluntly, we are more likely to find a cure for baldness than malaria." Sharing researchTewolde Egziabher of Ethiopia's Environment Protection Agency said the new technologies posed great risks for the rural poor unless they were managed for the common good, and lamented what he said was the rapid decline of the influence of the United Nations. "Science and technology should be communal, not owned," he said, calling for a decentralized model of development that gave local communities control over their own resources. Coventry said the development agencies were not against new technology in its own right, but were deeply worried at the disastrous effects its misapplication could have on the defenceless poor. "The jury is out on whether these new technologies can really work for the poor...or undermine them," he said. Copyright 2003 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
