Dan Wilensky, CEO of Applied Materials The danger is that if there are such barriers (against the development of the new technologies) and we stop this entire industry, people will find ourselves with unhealthy people due to a lack of jobs and not as a result of exposure to the new technologies
The Science and Technology Committee chaired by MK Dr. Leah Ness (Likud) held a meeting yesterday (Tuesday) on the subject of "the prospects and risks of breakthrough technologies - nano technologies and genetic engineering - and their impact on man and his environment. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Health, representatives of the Academy and the industry, Knesset members and other invitees.
MK Dr. Leah Ness, Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, opened the session by reviewing the risks and prospects of technology and genetic engineering. "Aside from the many advantages of technology, including information compression, improving the properties of materials, reducing the costs of existing applications, and more, concerns arise Regarding the damage that this technology may cause to man and nature, by virtue of being new and unfamiliar."
Professor Hagit Messer Yaron, Head of the Porter School of Environmental Studies: The discussion about all possible risks from "groundbreaking" technologies revolves around the question: How do nature's regulatory mechanisms deal with foreign components and what is their effect on man and his environment? The fear is that the process of evolution usually brings about a balance between the natural external changes and the mechanisms that guarantee the preservation of life, but it is not able to respond to the extreme and rapid technological changes that man causes. The goal is not to stop nanotechnology, the goal is to create responsible thinking while accompanying technological development.
Dan Vilensk, chairman of the "Applied Material" company: "I am sure that public health is important to all present, I believe that the industrialists should be prevented from earning their money without worrying about public health... The danger is that if there are such restrictions and we stop this entire industry, people will find the Ourselves with unhealthy people from a lack of jobs. I think that the balance needs to be found between the concern for public health and safety and the development of technology, risks must be taken, and at the same time the possibility of harming the environment must be taken care of.
Nira Lamy, Commission for Future Generations: The decision on the application of technological developments in the field of medical science is usually made in the bioethics arena, by people of science, medicine, law and philosophers from the field of bioethics. At the same time, decisions in this area may have far-reaching social consequences, in a way that makes the discussion of them socio-political and certainly cannot be carried out at the front door of the scientific and bioethical community, not even one that the government has authorized to discuss the issue.
MK Prof. Viktor Brailovsky (change): We heard here today in the discussion about risks and possibilities, we heard that studies should be done and complaints about risks. It is difficult to reach a clear result on these issues, this is not a single study and not in the short term, the research should be continued while thinking about the risks.
MK Prof. Michael Nodelman: The whole issue is under development and it is impossible to say now why there are risks.
The discussion was concluded by MK Dr. Leah Ness: "The committee calls on the National Academy of Sciences to establish a policy for activity, while forming an opinion, on the subject of choosing research directions that do not endanger the public. The committee calls on all technological entities to adopt the principle of preventive caution while placing emphasis on public health and the environment."
That's all the data we received courtesy of MK Leah Ness' spokeswoman.
Commentary: This borders on metaphobia
About a year ago, a coalition of science-phobes, backed by the Commission for Future Generations, came together and convinced the members of the Knesset's Science and Technology Committee, headed by MK Mali Polischuk Bloch at the time, to accept a particularly strict law against cloning. The one who managed to soften the law and at least limit it to five years was the Minister of Science at the time, Eliezer (Modi) Zedenberg. This time there is no minister of science, and it is very difficult to repel such proposals.
Now, as mentioned, the arrows of the Deafobs are directed against the continuation of research in nanotechnology and genetic engineering. Seemingly out of concern for the environment and health.
For fifty years now there have been those who warn against any new technology as if it will harm the environment and health, and look at the fallen children of today, and the life expectancy that is only increasing. Just think what would have happened if the scientists had listened to them.
Nevertheless, these voices continue and if they get stronger, there is a danger to Israel's position, which is extremely fragile, at the forefront of science.
The expected investment of the state of California, totaling 3 billion dollars in stem cell research, will cause it to overtake Israel in a field that is considered taboo in the rest of the US. Also the idea of increasing the environmental research accompanying the development of nanotechnology from 20% of the budgets to 80% of the budgets as those who proposed (at least according to people who were present at the committee), and in the absence of unlimited resources meant that the research was stifled.
And believe me I know what environmental quality is. When there are studies that unequivocally prove damage to the environment, I was at the head of the plaintiffs not to build a polluting coal-fired power plant in Haifa in the XNUMXs without receptors.
But now these are issues whose danger has not been proven despite quite a few studies. All the apparent counter-evidence is based only on the public hysteria that there is no one to restrain it (for example against the genetically modified plants in Europe, where despite all the studies that rule out negative effects, the majority of the public believes that they are harmful and this also borders on violence and burning fields). One of the reasons for this phenomenon is that it is still difficult for scientists to explain themselves in this post-modern era when the media often collaborate with the hysterical crowd.
Nanotechnology, as Hagit Messer Yaron herself said, has enormous economic potential, and genetic engineering can solve the world's hunger problems and beat Malthus's prediction for several more generations. Indeed, stopping the developments in the food sector will harm future generations, the same generations that the Commission is supposed to protect. Our grandchildren will have to eat too. And it's also a shame that we will miss the ability to make them healthier using nanobots that will travel in their bodies, just because of hysteria.
