Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference
March 28-29, 2009
Western Michigan University, Fetzer Center, Room 2020
Kalamazoo, MI USA
The Human Enhancement & Nanotechnology Conference focuses on the ethical, social, and related issues that arise in the application of nanotechnology to human enhancement. While nanotechnology is not the only technology that can be applied to human enhancement, it is and will be a core one; without it many current and future enhancements would not be possible. These technological possibilities will derive from manysources, especially nanoelectronics and nanomaterials.
As an example of an ethical issue, bionic limbs (e.g., for greater strength or vision) and neural chips implanted into one's head (e.g., for on-demand access to the Internet and software applications) may give the individual significant advantages in many areas, from sports to jobs to academia. But these technologies may hold health risks-similar to steroid or Ritalin use for enhancement purposes, as distinct from
therapy-as well as raise ethical concerns related to fairness, access, and general societal disruption. Therefore, it is no surprise that, on both sides of the debate, the ethics of human enhancement is believed to be the single most important issue in science & society in this century.
Who?
The conference will offer presentations by leading researchers and
rising stars in the field:
The conference is organized by faculty at California Polytechnic State Univ., Dartmouth College, Univ. of Delaware, and Western Michigan University. It is supported by funding from Western Michigan Univ. as well as the US National Science Foundation, under NSF awards # 0620694 and 0621021, as well as Delaware NSF-EPSCoR grant # EPS-0447610.
Registration
The conference is free to attend and includes continental breakfasts, lunches, and a good supply of coffee and snacks (to enhance our minds and bodies), but seats are limited; so please register early by clicking on the link and filling out the form.
Showing posts with label nanotechnology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nanotechnology. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS: Building a Resilient Civilization and Convergence 08
Date: November 14, 2008Place: Computer History Museum, Mountain View, CA
Organized by: Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies and the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
A day-long seminar on threats to the future of humanity, natural and man-made, and the pro-active steps we can take to reduce these risks and build a more resilient civilization. Seminar participants are strongly encouraged to pre-order and read the Global Catastrophic Risks volume edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic, and contributed to by some of the faculty for this seminar.
This seminar will precede the futurist mega-gathering Convergence 08, November 15-16 at the same venue, which is co-sponsored by the IEET, Humanity Plus (World Transhumanist Association), the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence, the Immortality Institute, the Foresight Institute, the Long Now Foundation, the Methuselah Foundation, the Millenium Project, Reason Foundation and the Accelerating Studies Foundation.
SEMINAR FACULTY
- Nick Bostrom Ph.D., Director, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University
- Jamais Cascio, research affiliate, Institute for the Future
- James J. Hughes Ph.D., Exec. Director, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies
- Mike Treder, Executive Director, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology
- Eliezer Yudkowsky, Research Associate. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
- William Potter Ph.D., Director, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies
For more info and to register, click here for Catastrophic Risks and click here for Convergence 08.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
News of Note
A couple of stories that have captured our interest:
From the Wisconsin Technology news:
"In the first of several decisions expected in a patent dispute involving human embryonic stem cells, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation said today it has been notified that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has upheld the claims of one of the foundation's key stem cell patents.
The patent challengers, however, said they will continue their challenge of what they termed "three overreaching patents on human stem cells."
According to WARF, the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the decision pertains to the patent for primate and human embryonic stem cells known as '913.'
Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF, called the decision of patent examiner Gary Kunz an affirmation. 'We're extremely pleased with this decision,' he said in a statement released by WARF. 'It affirms what WARF has believed all along, that Dr. Thomson's breakthrough discoveries are patentable inventions.' " Full story here.
From Science Daily:
New survey results show that only 29.5 percent in a sample of 1,015 adult Americans consider nanotech morally acceptable. In Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology:
"In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.
From the NY Times: Six Killers: America’s Leading Causes of Death: "They are the leading causes of illness and death in the United States today: heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, in that order. And they have a lot in common." Full article here. [Query: Would more Americans find nanotechnology more acceptable if they knew that it could cure these leading killers?]
From the Washington Post, a study suggesting that man's 'best friend' could be a robot? - a study by Saint Louis University that found the lovable pooch and the interactive dog robot called AIBO were about equally effective at relieving the loneliness of nursing home residents, and fostering attachments. Full story here. I agree with Sara Kiesler, professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University, who said "the results of the study are encouraging but not completely convincing."
From the Wisconsin Technology news:
"In the first of several decisions expected in a patent dispute involving human embryonic stem cells, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation said today it has been notified that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has upheld the claims of one of the foundation's key stem cell patents.
The patent challengers, however, said they will continue their challenge of what they termed "three overreaching patents on human stem cells."
According to WARF, the licensing arm of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the decision pertains to the patent for primate and human embryonic stem cells known as '913.'
Carl Gulbrandsen, managing director of WARF, called the decision of patent examiner Gary Kunz an affirmation. 'We're extremely pleased with this decision,' he said in a statement released by WARF. 'It affirms what WARF has believed all along, that Dr. Thomson's breakthrough discoveries are patentable inventions.' " Full story here.
From Science Daily:
New survey results show that only 29.5 percent in a sample of 1,015 adult Americans consider nanotech morally acceptable. In Europe, significantly higher percentages of people accepted the moral validity of the technology:
"In the United Kingdom, 54.1 percent found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. In Germany, 62.7 percent had no moral qualms about nanotechnology, and in France 72.1 percent of survey respondents saw no problems with the technology.
'There seem to be distinct differences between the United States and countries that are key players in nanotech in Europe, in terms of attitudes toward nanotechnology,' says Scheufele.
Why the big difference?
The answer, Scheufele believes, is religion..." Read on here.From the NY Times: Six Killers: America’s Leading Causes of Death: "They are the leading causes of illness and death in the United States today: heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease, in that order. And they have a lot in common." Full article here. [Query: Would more Americans find nanotechnology more acceptable if they knew that it could cure these leading killers?]
From the Washington Post, a study suggesting that man's 'best friend' could be a robot? - a study by Saint Louis University that found the lovable pooch and the interactive dog robot called AIBO were about equally effective at relieving the loneliness of nursing home residents, and fostering attachments. Full story here. I agree with Sara Kiesler, professor of computer science and human-computer interaction at Carnegie Mellon University, who said "the results of the study are encouraging but not completely convincing."
Thursday, February 28, 2008
NanoCosmetics? Really?
As I'm sure every student remembers, when you're in the middle of studying for a test, you often end up doing the most counter-intuitive thing to studying: you surf the net in search of procrastination. This, I admit, seemed like a much better idea than trying to decide whether or not Emily had a justified true belief that there was a cat in her house, and I somehow ended up on the most fascinating of NPR stories, about nano-cosmetics.
It would seem that the newest thing in anti-aging is nanosomes. Nanospheres. Buckyballs. Some of the ingredients are just smaller versions of chemicals that have been used for years, like nano-particles of zinc oxide, but others are genuinely new, like buckyball enhanced day cream; apparently the buckyballs are an anti-oxidant that prevent skin aging?
The concern, however, isn't minor. No one knows for sure what nano-particles will do; in many cases chemical compounds that are familiar at a larger level take on new properties when they become so small (this is, after all, part of the appeal of nanotechnology). Another concern is one that admittedly sort of freaks me out with it's unknown-ness: can nano-particles penetrate your skin? Is that day cream really seeping into your tissues, oozing into your blood and muscle and ick? (It's like the beginnings of a Robin Cook horror novel...) And this isn't just some random, too much horror-scifi reading as a kid concern; Sally Tinkle, a researcher at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, has shown in her lab that at least some nano-particles can seep through the skin, which means they could potentially get into our blood stream or interfere with our immune system. (I have the sudden urge to check all my cosmetic products for nanoanything...)
Of course, cosmetic companies point out that if what they were using in their products wasn't safe, the FDA wouldn't let it go on the market. But the FDA typically only investigates cosmetics if safety issues come up after the product is on the market; unlike drugs, there is no safety level testing, studies, or trials that have to be done on cosmetics, and no final approval or rejection process prior to marketing.
But at least some people are making an effort to track the claims of nanotech on the market. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has a Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies where they track all of the supposed nanotech out and about in our products, in everything from iPhones to face cream. They make this information available to the public, via their website, and it's incredibly easy to lose a few hours of time there browsing and marveling at all of the nanotech that has quietly become part of the marketplace.
In the meantime, I think I have something else to add to my labels watch list aside from high fructose corn syrup - it might be a slightly luddite reaction, I'll grant you that, but the idea of unknown nano-particles being a part of my beauty routine just makes me hesitant in a way that only being raised on a lot of science fiction can probably explain.
-Kelly
It would seem that the newest thing in anti-aging is nanosomes. Nanospheres. Buckyballs. Some of the ingredients are just smaller versions of chemicals that have been used for years, like nano-particles of zinc oxide, but others are genuinely new, like buckyball enhanced day cream; apparently the buckyballs are an anti-oxidant that prevent skin aging?The concern, however, isn't minor. No one knows for sure what nano-particles will do; in many cases chemical compounds that are familiar at a larger level take on new properties when they become so small (this is, after all, part of the appeal of nanotechnology). Another concern is one that admittedly sort of freaks me out with it's unknown-ness: can nano-particles penetrate your skin? Is that day cream really seeping into your tissues, oozing into your blood and muscle and ick? (It's like the beginnings of a Robin Cook horror novel...) And this isn't just some random, too much horror-scifi reading as a kid concern; Sally Tinkle, a researcher at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina, has shown in her lab that at least some nano-particles can seep through the skin, which means they could potentially get into our blood stream or interfere with our immune system. (I have the sudden urge to check all my cosmetic products for nanoanything...)
Of course, cosmetic companies point out that if what they were using in their products wasn't safe, the FDA wouldn't let it go on the market. But the FDA typically only investigates cosmetics if safety issues come up after the product is on the market; unlike drugs, there is no safety level testing, studies, or trials that have to be done on cosmetics, and no final approval or rejection process prior to marketing.
But at least some people are making an effort to track the claims of nanotech on the market. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has a Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies where they track all of the supposed nanotech out and about in our products, in everything from iPhones to face cream. They make this information available to the public, via their website, and it's incredibly easy to lose a few hours of time there browsing and marveling at all of the nanotech that has quietly become part of the marketplace.
In the meantime, I think I have something else to add to my labels watch list aside from high fructose corn syrup - it might be a slightly luddite reaction, I'll grant you that, but the idea of unknown nano-particles being a part of my beauty routine just makes me hesitant in a way that only being raised on a lot of science fiction can probably explain.
-Kelly
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Saving the World, One Technology At A Time
In a similar vein to the previous post, I was encouraged to see7 Technologies that will Save the Earth in 2008:
- Cellulosic Ethanol.
- LEDs
- Electric Cars come back to life.
- MP3s
- The Kindle
- Solar (more specifically Nanosolar)
Cars Running on Water (a misnomer)
For the details and full article, click here.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Questions for Our Leaders
Yesterday, we wrote about our call for a presidential debate on science policy. When pulling together potential questions for the debate, I came across a compelling series titled “American Values and the Next President” in the Los Angeles Times (December 12, 2007, Part A; Pg. 30.) It touches on a few of the incredibly important issues our political leaders need to be prepared to address:An excerpt from the "Life" essay:I would expand the life debate beyond reproductive technologies. Advances in nanotechnology, neuroscience, and robotics, to name a few, will also play an important part in defining "what is life."
…Last month's news that scientists in Japan and Wisconsin had modified adult skin cells to behave as embryonic stem cells seemed at first to have resolved this issue, but that's only true if you believe that the debate over stem cells, cloning and genetic modification is a subset of the debate over abortion.
It is not. It is, or could become, the central life debate of our time, and depending on your perspective, the questions it raises are either exhilarating or horrifying. If you could ensure that your children would never get melanoma, should you do that? How about nearsightedness? Should we be modifying humans in hopes of making them more fit for survival in a warming climate? How about for handling complicated technology, or space exploration?
If these ideas seem excessively science-fictional, consider that when Leon Kass, the conservative University of Chicago professor who would later serve as head of President Bush's Council on Bioethics, wrote a 1972 screed against the then-novel science of in vitro fertilization, he warned that it could someday make mothers of "single women, widows or lesbians." Yesterday's absurdity is today the mainstay of many lives.
Given the expected level of discourse in a presidential campaign, we may be lucky that the candidates are not keen to explore the frontiers of life. Still, it's a missed opportunity...
My wish for the New Year is that we get beyond paralyzing partisanship, over the top religious rhetoric and the trivializing sideshow antics of the last year and focus the debate on how we can work together to achieve social justice, equity, human dignity and cultivate a critical optimism towards science in order to shape a better future for all.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
International Human Rights Day and the Terasem Colloquium
International Human Rights Day
Recognized by Terasem Movement, Inc.’s Third Annual Colloquium on the Law of Transbeman Persons
Monday, December 3, 2007,
The colloquia are open to the public via real-time conference call and blogging and will be archived online for free public access. The public is invited to call a toll-free conference-call dial-in line from 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST. Callers within the continental US and Canada may dial 1-877-879-6207; other countries: (00+1) 1-719-325-4775 or access the blog at: http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/.
Colloquium presentations are designed for a 15-20 minute delivery, followed by a 20-minute discussion period amongst attendees. Additional questions from the worldwide audience will also be invited. Presentations will also be available on the Colloquium’s website at http://www.terasemcentral.org/TL/2007ColloquiumProgram.html.
Some of this year’s speakers include Dr. Marvin Minsky, MIT, Author: The Emotion Machine; David R. Koepsell, J.D., Ph.D., Yale Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics; and William Sims Bainbridge, Ph.D., National Science Foundation and others.
For additional information, please contact: Loraine J. Rhodes at 321-676-3690, ext 100, or lori@terasemcentral.org.
About the Terasem Movement
The Terasem Movement, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit charity endowed for the purpose of educating the public on the practicality and necessity of greatly extending human life, consistent with diversity and unity, via geoethical nanotechnology and personal cyberconsciousness. The Terasem Movement accomplishes its objectives by convening publicly accessible symposia, publishing explanatory analyses, conducting demonstration projects, issuing grants and encouraging public belief in a positive, technologically-based future.
For more information, please visit www.terasemcentral.org or http://terasemfoundation.org.
* * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
